Datasets:

vblagoje

/

lfqa

like 16

{ "a_id": [ "cuv7h1c", "cuv7owo", "cuvafty" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Capitalism. \n\nPeople want to get the most for their money and when it comes to food that means large sizes and cheap prices. If food costs go too high then people simply stop buying that food item and that costs a restaurant or grocery store more money by the food rotting than it costs them keeping a small profit margin for the dish. \n\n", "Besides farmers producing a surplus, tipping is a big factor. If you tip 15% on a $75 meal (not including tax in the equation), that's the same as the food costing $86.25 in a non-tipping culture.", "When you go to a restaurant, you pay for the service first, then for the actual food. As a rule of thumb, the ingredients usually make up only 1/4 to 1/3 of the costs. Additionally, the work of preparing a dish twice as large usually isn't twice as much for the chef.\n\nSo it comes down to the customer's expectations. Americans expect large meals, so the restaurants deliver - without hurting their profits much.\n " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dcgqj6y", "dchln2u" ], "score": [ 17, 3 ], "text": [ "When discussing the Fermi paradox, people usually only talk about civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. The distance between galaxies is far to great to consider an inter-galactic civilization (though it may be possible).\n\nThe diameter of the stellar disk of the Milky Way is only about 100,000 light-years. So if a civilization existed on the other side of the Milky Way and had the technology to peer on to the Earth, they would see a planet teeming with life! 100,000 years ago, the Earth was already inhabited by humans!", "Fermi's paradox states that the time required to cross the galaxy is small compared to the age of the galaxy. This means that if there was an expansionist civilisation out there then they've had plenty of time to colonise the whole galaxy.\n\nThe question is not 'why don't they visit', its 'why aren't they here already'." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "diuqnm9" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Essentially yes. Except for the additional water in the 80 proof alcohol. But there is just as much alcohol in both shots so it will have the same effect on your blood alcohol content." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f28v39m", "f291zbv" ], "score": [ 105, 13 ], "text": [ "Basically (the way I was taught this at least) you have two major types of sweat glands, apocrine and eccrine. Sweat produced by eccrine glands is mostly water. Apocrine sweat is more oily and contains a whole bunch of other stuff (which I won't get into). So bacteria can metabolize the components of apocrine sweat far more readily. \n\n\n\nApocrine glands (which are heavily concentrated in your pits and groin) are stimulated by sex hormones, the levels of which rise sharply during puberty. So you get an assload of oily sweat, which is then colonized by bacteria, who generate foul odors.", "Fun fact: most east and southeast Asians and a significant percentage of native Americans have a gene that causes the apocrine glands to not secrete oils that bacteria like. So the bacteria don’t colonize their skin and they don’t get an unpleasant odor when they sweat. It’s called the ABCC11 gene." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc44ivl", "cc4atwp", "cc4b28x" ], "score": [ 71, 19, 3 ], "text": [ "There's no reason to believe that they would. Hearing loss is usually caused by damage to the inner ear, which is still getting as much sound exposure with bone conduction as it would through the normal path of sound.", "Short answer no.\nThe auditory system is made up of 3 parts, the outer ear (the ear canal down to the ear drum), the middle ear (the bones beyond your ear drum) and the inner ear (the cochlea - your hearing organ). Degeneration through things like noise exposure and age take place at the cochlea by damage to hair cells etc. Bone conduction headphones vibrate the scull rather than the air thus bypassing the outer and middle ear but the cochlea is still stimulated (otherwise you wouldn't hear anything) and so damage will still occur if loud enough.\n\nHope this helps.", "I would guess bone conduction earphones were provided due to being excellent at maintaining sound clarity in very noisy environments (as you said, it was windy). Most likely has nothing to do with protecting hearing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eclhhj7", "eclho5x" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ "It's all geometry. Assuming equal radii between all circles, if you place them in a way that they don't intersect but touch each other at exactly one point (tessellating) and you start with just 3 circles, those circles form a triangle shape. If you connect the centerpoints of those circles, it forms an equilateral triangle (equal length sides, each corner is 60°). So if you continue placing circles the same way around that center circle, you can do that a total of 6 times because 360°/60°=6. A hexagon has 6 sides. Hope this helps.", "To quote my mom, \"because of the way it is.\"\n\nWhen circles are layered, they seat with an offset of 50%. Each subsequent layer offsets the one beneath it by 50%. Once a bunch of layers have been added you can look at a single circle and see how many other circles touch it. In this case, a single circle will have 6 other circles touching it.\n\nNow you have a single circle with the 6 circles around it, and it is clear that this structure is hexagonal." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg1j9aj" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "They get all the minerals they need from the soil. Vitamins for plants aren't the same necessarily as our vitamins, because a vitamin is something the organism needs to survive but cannot produce on its own (vitamin D is not a true vitamin to us).\n\nSo, for example, plants can produce vitamin C (ascorbic acid) through a glucose metabolism pathway. We do not have this pathway and need to consume it. Additionally, plants can make alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) which is the first omega-3 fatty acid. We cannot make ALA because we lack desaturase enzymes beyond 9, whereas 12 and 15 are required to form ALA from stearic acid.\n\nBut essentially plants, being autotrophs, only get some things from soil and air; the rest they can synthesize." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbvauzl", "cbvidos" ], "score": [ 21, 14 ], "text": [ "It's most likely a backfire. When the car is accelerating its at full throttle/load, and the engine runs out of power, so it's time to change gears. imagine going from full throttle to no throttle (changing gears) then back to full throttle. \nThe bang u hear is unburnt fuel exploding in the exhaust after its left the combustion chamber, which is after engine has gone off full throttle to change gears. \nIt's excess fuel that was needed to sustain full power, but is no longer needed when off throttle.", "The reason you hear the bang is as stated most likely backfire from unburnt fuel being forced into the hot exhaust system. This is because formula one cars use sequential gearboxes and need to cut the ignition to prevent the engine from producing torque when the gears are changed. The sequencing is something like this:\n\n1. The engine reaches the revolutions where it needs to change gears\n2. The driver pulls the upshift pedal.\n3. The upshift signal causes the ignition to stop for a little while (in the order of maybe 100 ms)\n4. The gearbox changes gears, which works because the engine is now spooling down and not producing torque\n5. Fuel flows into the engine (which is not sparking) and is ejected through the exhaust valves into the hot exhaust system, causing it to be ignited producing a popping sound.\n6. The ignition is activated again and the car continues to accelerate.\n\nThis whole sequence may take as little as 200 ms." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddw2xjv" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Male programmer type guy here. It just depends on how the programmers who made the game decided to handle the case where the game isn't getting updates from the server. Some games leave the character in place, and then warp him when the updates resume. Others avoid the warp by having the character fly from their old position to the new one. I seem to remember that neverwinter nights had a thing where it would try to estimate where the character would be based on their last position and trajectory, which led to weird glitches. I could be making that up though." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clt2f5n", "cltghmk" ], "score": [ 8, 2 ], "text": [ "In addition to Calhoun, John Adams regularly presided over the Senate and partook in debates, and beats Calhoun by one vote for the most tie breaks. \n\nThat said, while they are the nominal head of the Senate, the Constitution also says that the House and Senate get to write their own procedural rules in Article I, Section V, Clause II: \n\n > Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.\n\nIn practical terms, the Vice President doesn't have much power if the Senate decides to write the rules to say that they can't do anything other than break ties and be physically present, the only things the constitution explicitly grants them authority to do so. Something like Frank Underwood barging into the Senate and immediately taking over wouldn't really happen since at present, party leaders run the floor and they have junior senators sit in the presiding chair. ", "Follow-up question:\n\nWhat were the differences in expectations of the Vice President's duties after the 12th amendment was passed? After presidential candidates began to choose their own potential Vice Presidents?\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cug0pcx" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Every amount of mass has some radius that, were it all to be compressed within the radius, it would form a black hole. This is called the Schwartzchild radius, and it's calculated by the formula r=2GM/c^2 . G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light. These are both constant, so the math works out the same for them every time and the quantity of mass is the only variable that can alter the radius.\n\nInterestingly, smaller black holes will spaghettify you much faster than larger black holes will. This is because of the tidal force. Anything that enters a black hole is stretched apart by its gravity. The gravitational force weakens with distance; the parts of you closer to the black hole (say, your feet, if you're falling straight in) end up attracted by its gravity more forcefully than the parts away from you (like your head, in this analogy). This effect magnifies as you are stretched more and more until... well, spaghettification is the scientific term for this for a reason.\n\nWith larger black holes, the difference in position of your head and your feet, relative to the size of the black hole, is smaller than it is with smaller black holes. Your feet will still be pulled more forcefully than your head, but the difference won't be as drastic. With a large enough black hole, you might be able to survive a decent part of your trip to the singularity.\n\nSo, the size of a black hole is dependent solely on its mass, but a more massive black hole will take longer to destroy you. Either way, you aren't getting out." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9epuxs" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It's because the game takes up the majority of your computer's resources and stays at the forefront. Your computer needs to load in all the other stuff that the OS and other programs need before you can use them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx3f49t", "cx3m9ca", "cx3qu6f", "cx3t20v" ], "score": [ 22, 5, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "You can indeed separate the two effects if the field is weak. I've done the explicit computation for the orbit of Mercury around the sun [here](_URL_0_). It turns out that in a circular orbit the time dilation due to the orbital speed is exactly half the gravitational time dilation. \n\nP.S.: GPS satellites are *not* in geosynchronous orbit.", "The relative velocity of a gps satellite slow time for the satellite by 7 microsec/day while the gravity we have on earth slows us by 45microsec/day so there is a 38 microsec/day difference that they account for. ", "A related or follow-up question, if I may:\n\n* time dialates as you approach massive objects;\n* time dialates as velocity increases;\n* relativistic mass increases as velocity increases\n\nAre these manifestations of the same phenomena? In other words, is time velocity-induced dialation caused by your increased mass or is there something else at work?", "If I recall GR give a correction 45.6us/day, SR gives 7.3us/day the other direction. So @ GPS orbit of 20,020km altitude time runs 38.4us/day ~~slower~~ faster than on Earth.\n\nEDIT: That's about 1 second every 70 years. Also, GPS *DOES NOT* take relativity into account for positioning, that is a myth, they only need it for absolute time.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://rantonels.github.io/capq/q/GR1.html" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fdwbv6u", "fdwepex" ], "score": [ 11, 2 ], "text": [ "Barely any wear and tear, better for the environment as all that time you spend not moving while the engine running is time that CO2 and pollutants are spewing out when they don't need to be. Multiply all that time by millions and millions of cars and you have a significant CO2 saving.\n\nSaves fuel and thus cash too.", "We will see in a few years how those motors hold up. One starter replacement or rebuild would buy you enough fuel for years of idling at lights. Then there is the problem of oil distribution, if you're starving the top end of your motor for oil thousands of times I can't see it being great in the long term." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "coswvtz", "coswvvv" ], "score": [ 4, 12 ], "text": [ "It really depends. Corpses are usually taken by troops of their own side, who wish to recover and bury the bodies: this is often the purpose of ceasefires. Military equipement is a bit different. During battles, it will be left, and probably for some time afterwards, but if the vehicle is valuable and salvageable, however, it will be recovered by the force in question: the RAF has a group dedicated to recovering lost aircraft.\n\nIn WWII, it is most likely that the equipment was left, and then either during or after the war, it was taken, probably for scrap value, by locals: if you were a farmer, you might see if you could recover some diesel from a damaged tank, or a scrap metal merchant might cut it up and sell it for the metal value.", "Usually they don't. Outside of Kursk you can take a spade out West of the city and dig down just a few inches to human remains, shell casings, etc. Vehicles were only removed if they were salvageable or were in the way. After the war civilians gleaned the site for years for scrap but anything else was just abandoned. Modern armies recover bodies for burial, but when the battlefields are too massive sometimes they dont. Remains are still found in Flanders when someone digs a well and new phone line is laid. \nIn Germany the Allies employed POW's for years in work gangs cleaning up battlefields. Once a tank burns it is useless. The heat from the fire ruins the temper of the armor, so they were just abandoned. Military trucks were used as work horses all over Europe for years so people stripped all the wrecks of parts pretty quickly. The hulks got towed to scrap yards. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e34gyam", "e34hcav", "e34hlj7" ], "score": [ 2, 10, 5 ], "text": [ "It’s UV over-exposure that increases the risk of cancer. Too much/little of anything becomes a hazard to the human body. Too much/little food, water, heat, cold, attitude, sunshine, pressure, speed, etc. The key is moderation!", "UV light is an energy source, since humans are automatically exposed in varying degrees to this energy source we have evolved to make use of the \"free\" energy to create vitamin D. We have also evolved to darken the skin to prevent over exposure to UV which would increase risks of skin cancer. Only animals like naked mole rats don't have to concern themselves about exposure to some degree or other to UV light _URL_0_", "We don't have an alternative path to synthesize vitamin D ourselves, because throughout our evolutionary history, there hasn't been a strong selective pressure to. After all, for most of human existence it's been pretty difficult to hide from the sun all day every day. \n\nThat's more or less unrelated to UV exposure increasing the risk of skin cancer. As noted, for most of human existence, *you were going to be in the sun,* full stop. \n\nThe body did evolve mechanisms to handle this better. As our precursors became open savannah dwellers, the ultraviolet radiation caused not just DNA damage, but also depleted folate, which breaks down from UV exposure. Among other things, folate is needed for fertility. As such, darker skin pigmentation, which absorbs some of the harmful radiation, was naturally selected for. \n\nThis would also provide some protection, albeit not absolute, from the DNA damage caused by ultraviolet radiation. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://youtu.be/64DP3CbpZUg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cz7yb41", "cz8j3ao", "cz8olxr" ], "score": [ 12, 3, 16 ], "text": [ "There's one question you left out: is this actually a trend, or do you just know an unusual amount of Cherokees?\n\nI'm seriously asking, because I know a lot of people and I've never met someone who claimed to be Cherokee.", "I've read somewhere that it was used to hide the fact that they had African American blood. Is there any truth to this claim?\nedit\n > These conclusions have been largely upheld in subsequent scholarly and genealogical studies. In 1894, the U.S. Department of the Interior, in its \"Report of Indians Taxed and Not Taxed,\" noted that the Melungeons in Hawkins County \"claim to be Cherokee of mixed blood\".[3] The term Melungeon has since sometimes been applied as a catch-all phrase for a number of groups of mixed-race ancestry. In 2012, the genealogist Roberta Estes and her fellow researchers reported that the Melungeon lines likely originated in the unions of black and white indentured servants living in Virginia in the mid-1600s before slavery became widespread.[5]\n\nRoberta J. Estes, Jack H. Goins, Penny Ferguson and Janet Lewis Crain, \"Melungeons, A Multi-Ethnic Population\", Journal of Genetic Genealogy, April 2012", "Hello. I'm a mod over on /r/IndianCountry, the second largest and most active Native American subreddit. We recently constructed an FAQ [with a section that answers this specific question](_URL_1_) and links to several sources to back it up.\n\nI would like to note, though, that this is more of a social question with a historical context.\n\nIn short, according to Gregory D. Smithers, associate professor of history at Virginia Commonwealth University and author of *The Cherokee Diaspora,* the Cherokee adopted a tradition of intermarriage after contact with the Europeans for several reasons, such as increasing diplomatic ties. Because this was actually encouraged by the Cherokee, it isn't *impossible* that those from the geographic location of traditional Cherokee territory have a Cherokee ancestor.\n\nHowever, another thing to note is that most people don't actually know and just say they have Cherokee in them because it is the family legend.\n\nThe same professor mentioned above, Gregory D. Smithers, also states (bold is mine):\n\n > [**\"But after their removal, the tribe came to be viewed more romantically,** especially in the antebellum South, where their determination to maintain their rights of self-government against the federal government took on new meaning. Throughout the South in the 1840s and 1850s, **large numbers of whites began claiming they were descended from a Cherokee great-grandmother.** That great-grandmother was often a “princess,” a not-inconsequential detail in a region obsessed with social status and suspicious of outsiders. By claiming a royal Cherokee ancestor, white Southerners were legitimating the antiquity of their native-born status as sons or daughters of the South, as well as establishing their determination to defend their rights against an aggressive federal government, as they imagined the Cherokees had done. These may have been self-serving historical delusions, but they have proven to be enduring.\"](_URL_0_)\n\nSo the reality of things is that people like to claim something even if they don't have exact proof. One reason is the exotic factor of having native blood. That FAQ I linked touches on several other reasons. Point being, while there is some validity to the possibility of one possessing Cherokee blood or an ancestor, most cases are usually false." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://tinyurl.com/qxqaomd", "https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianCountry/wiki/faq#wiki_why_do_many_people_claim_to_be_native_american.2C_particularly_.22part_cherokee.3F.22" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2u7k0m", "c2u7k0m" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I don't know the exact details, but I do know that any query made to the system goes to remote servers with the voice command. There, the technology across multiple servers parses your voice to determine exactly what you say (some say the original creators of the voice recognition technology, Nuance, [is still primarily responsible](_URL_1_)).\n\nAfter that, a completely separate process then parses the words you said to pull out key words and phrases to interpret what exactly you meant and how to resolve your request. Once that process knows what you want, then it's just a matter of calling the right sub-applications with the right arguments. Like setting a reminder at a certain time, calling a certain person, or looking up some query on [Wolfram Alpha](_URL_0_).\n\nThe accuracy of the transcription capabilities and Siri's interpretation power is what's cost Apple several million dollars in research and purchases to get Siri where it is now.", "I don't know the exact details, but I do know that any query made to the system goes to remote servers with the voice command. There, the technology across multiple servers parses your voice to determine exactly what you say (some say the original creators of the voice recognition technology, Nuance, [is still primarily responsible](_URL_1_)).\n\nAfter that, a completely separate process then parses the words you said to pull out key words and phrases to interpret what exactly you meant and how to resolve your request. Once that process knows what you want, then it's just a matter of calling the right sub-applications with the right arguments. Like setting a reminder at a certain time, calling a certain person, or looking up some query on [Wolfram Alpha](_URL_0_).\n\nThe accuracy of the transcription capabilities and Siri's interpretation power is what's cost Apple several million dollars in research and purchases to get Siri where it is now." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.wolframalpha.com/", "http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/05/apple-siri-nuance/" ], [ "http://www.wolframalpha.com/", "http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/05/apple-siri-nuance/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c1waiom" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "You might want to check out some discussion we've had here recently on the same topic. [Here](_URL_1_) and [here](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hkvzm/what_would_be_the_effects_of_long_term/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fax0g/what_happens_if_one_were_to_grow_up_in_a_higher/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dg6b4f0", "dg6c958" ], "score": [ 12, 3 ], "text": [ "Chemical weapons are worse because:\n\n1) They kill slowly. \n\n2) They are not as controllable as they drift in the air and on the water. This means they cause a lot of collateral damage. \n\n3) They often contaminate and kill those attempting to treat the injured, and they often have very few to no actual treatments that work. \n\n4) They contaminate the environment for a long time killing people years after the attack. There are still some battlefields from WWI that are toxic and make people sick or even kill them when they spend time in them. ", "Damn good question. I'm reminded of a line from Full Metal Jacket: \"The dead only know one thing: it is better to be alive.\"\n\nSetting aside the high number of very questionable assertions about the incident, two things: first, it wasn't sarin gas. How do we know? Because there were survivors.\n\nSecond, gas isn't an anti-personnel weapon. It's used to make an army move somewhere they don't want to go.\n\nExample: your defensive position is in a valley adjacent to some mountains. An offensive force is moving toward you across level ground, but you don't want to fight them there, for a number of reasons. You want to fight them in the mountains. So you lay down a chemical blanket on the entire valley where your opponent is approaching.\n\nYour enemy now has to make a difficult choice: button up and move VERY slowly through gas, diminishing their combat effectiveness by 80-90% - or avoid and approach from another direction, forced to fight you either not at all, or in the mountains, where you prefer to fight anyway.\n\nAt any rate, it's simply not logical for a military force to use chemical weapons in the way that is being asserted. A LOT of chemical weapons were used in the Iran/Iraq War during the 80's, but even then, they were used in the traditional manner.\n\nThe question itself has long been asked in regard to the atomic bombing of Japan, the firebombing at Dresden and Tokyo, and many others. Why is it okay to kill 60,000 enemy soldiers in a year, but not in a single night? I think that's one reason (among many) why war is so very self-destructive, even at its most necessary: it forces a society to make ethical judgments that don't make any sense in any context but war. Which is unfortunate." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxv44gn", "cxv59ok" ], "score": [ 15, 9 ], "text": [ "I can't do that. I just wanted you to know I both envy and respect your ability to whistle with your fingers", "When you whistle in the usual way (make an o with your lips, tongue down) you make your \"whistle\" with your lips. As these are \"soft\" tissue you can't blow with too much force as it would distort the shape therefor not function as a \"whistle\" anymore. Using your more rigid fingers you can blow with more force, increasing volume.\n\nI don't think this takes in account al factors though as acoustics are rather complex." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmzta4a", "cmztv1u", "cmzunlh", "cmzwyax", "cmzy27g", "cmzy4wy", "cmzyhbq", "cn02e13", "cn02m9m", "cn05kv3", "cn069zd", "cn06vac", "cn07ef3", "cn0b078", "cn0clp6", "cn0dnem", "cn0evvr", "cn0n0tl", "cn0newq", "cn0o57u" ], "score": [ 1366, 138, 33, 97, 2, 2, 6, 26, 2, 2, 14, 7, 2, 6, 4, 6, 2, 2, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "In terms of physics, yes. The technology for that doesn't exist right now though. We can send things at like 20 km/s, and we'd need to go like ten thousand times that fast to start seeing these effects.", "Because of special relativity, it is possible. The closer you get to light speed, the more time dilation occurs. However, with our current technology, it is very far off into the future. The speed would have to be a significant fraction of c for this to have any tangible impact.\n\nEDIT: changed wording", "One of the biggest limitations of achieving this today (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) is energy requirements. The speeds you would need to reach are far higher than we can get to simply because our ship couldn't possible hold all the required fuel (energy) to do it.\n\nA solution to tons of energy in a tiny space problem would be a paradigm shift and change technology and transportation across pretty much all fields. I would love a hover board and flying cars!", "It's possible in theory, but not even remotely possible in practice.\n\nYou would need to reach a significant fraction of the speed of light for time dilation to be noticeable, meaning that the energy requirements are almost beyond imagination.\n\nThink about it: one of the most energy-dense fuels that we can use, Plutonium, only has enough energy to accelerate itself to 4% of the speed of light, even if all the energy in it is used for acceleration. And you would probably need to reach 90% of c for this method of \"time travel\" to be viable.\n\nAnd then, even if you could reach that speed, where would you travel? Even the extremely dilute gas (or plasma) of space would be highly destructive to a ship moving through it at nearly the speed of light. Each relativistic gas molecule would unleash a spray of ionizing radiation when it hits the ship, quickly killing the people inside. And these molecule impacts would deliver so much energy that the ship materials will erode or melt before you can get anywhere.\n\nIn short: this will never be done.", "To answer a couple of the questions that don't require math... \n \n > How close is it to possible with our current technologies? \n \nImpossible to say. to reach a fraction of *c* that would produce a \"real world\" effect of time travel we would have to develop technologies that are simply theoretical now. \n \n > Would it be at all cost effective? \n \nAgain, we would need some sort of \"magic\" technology (as in, so advanced as to be indistinguishable from) to even push to a reasonable fraction of luminal speeds. e=mc^^2 tells us that the faster we go, the more massive we become, thus we need more energy to accelerate. So you go a bit faster, become a bit more massive, require a bit more energy, become a bit more massive and so on. The energy requirements to push anything to fractional *c* would be staggering, so if it were to be \"cost effective\" we would have to find a novel and cheap way to generate enormous amounts of energy. ", "_URL_1_\n\n\nThis is one of the best designs we have for approaching the speed of light, and as you can see...it's not very feasible.\n\n\nAdditionally, to get back - you couldn't do the slingshot because the G's would turn you into paste, so you'd have to turn this thing around, and cancel out all the acceleration you gained while approaching c, and then start to re-accelerate to get back to Earth, hopefully approaching c if you hope to do it before you die. It's all pretty impossible at this time.\n\n\nHere are some other possible designs - equally unfeasible:\n\n\n_URL_2_\n\n\n_URL_0_", " > Would it be at all cost effective?\n\nNo. The amount of research alone to go into making this happen puts it well out of reach of even Bill Gates or Carlos Slim.\n\nWe simply don't know how to go that fast, yet. We don't have engines that can do it. We don't even have a sound theoretical framework on how to accelerate spacecraft to this level of speed.", "As a follow up question, could someone explain something I never quite grasped regarding the whole *relatively* part of this idea: if I fly away from the earth at relativistic speeds, then isn't the Earth flying away from me at relativistic speeds as well? If so, who ages faster and why?", "Aside from the issue of not actually being able to reach the speed of light. To do so you would need to accelerate at a rate of 1G. Then slow down if you want to come back.. Re accelerate and then slow down when you come back to earth.\nThis takes lots of time. I think just to reach the speed of light at 1G would take 12 years.\n\nIt may be easier to orbit a black hole but the time dilation is much less I believe. ", "Like everyone's been saying its very improbable that we could time travel by relativistic speeds but there is a way we could do it by basically travelling close to a very massive object like a black hole. Due to general relativity time would be slower here and hence more time would pass outisde the spacecraft than in so when you come back to earth more time will have passed than you think. This is basically what happens in interstellar - great film!", "Yes! In fact, we already have! Astronauts who have spent extended periods on the International Space Station come down aged less than their earthbound counterparts. *(Note that in the astronaut's frame of reference time still operates normally, so for every year that we say they haven't aged, they say that they've traveled one year into the future.)*\n\nNow here's the bad news: a [6 month stay on the ISS will only send you 0.007 seconds into the future.](_URL_1_) The man who has spent the most time in space is Sergei Krikalev, with [a cumulative total of 2.2 years.](_URL_0_) If we assume he was orbiting with the same properties as the ISS the entire time, then **he has traveled farther into the future than anyone else, just over three hundredths of a second.**\n\nTL;DR: It's possible. It's happening today. If you want to get way ahead of everyone else, you're going to be disappointed.", "If you wanted to go really REALLY far into the future, use the super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy.\n\nOne would have to travel very fast to get there; it is a 50,000 light-year round trip, so to make the round trip in (say) one shipboard year, you'd have to travel at something like 0.9999999993 times the speed of light.\n\nOnce you got there, though, you could do some amazing things. Achieve a circular orbit around the black hole just on the outside of its event horizon, still traveling at close to the speed of light; now you have not just special relativity on your side, but general relativity as well. Being in such a powerful gravity well would dramatically increase the time dilation you experience, and you could orbit indefinitely.\n\nWe're not even close to the technology to do it, but you could use this technique to travel arbitrarily far into the future in a single human lifetime.", "I thought time dilation only occurs for inertial frames, not accelerating ones. If you're sending someone in a rocket to space and that rocket is traveling close to the speed of light, time dilation will occur *only if* their velocity remains constant. Any sort of back tracking back to earth or slowing down or speeding up of the rocket implies an accelerated frame of reference and time dilation does not hold true for accelerating frames of reference.\n\nCan someone explain this, and maybe re-explain the Twin Paradox too if accelerated/inertial frames don't matter?", "Lots of people here are telling you that it is possible, but not with current technology. I'll try to give you a sense of how much it would take to go to 99% of the speed of light in order to travel through time this way.\n\nWe'll assume the space craft time machine is using the most efficient ion engine available. HiPEP is what we'll use. HiPEP has an Isp of 9620s. So the total fuel you will need to get to 99% of light speed would be...\n\n > x * e^31000 kg\n\nWhere x is the weight of your space craft time machine without any fuel.\n\ne^31000 is a very big number, so big that every calculator I tried either game me an error or just said [\"Infinity\"](_URL_0_)\n\nFor some reference e^10 is over 22,000\n\nand e^100 is over 26,880,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 26.8 tredecillion or 26 million million million million million million million) This is more than the mass of the Milky Way. _URL_2_\n\nThe mass of all the matter in the entire observable universe is far less than e^125 kg. _URL_1_\n\nNow that's just how much fuel you would need with the most fuel efficient engine ever created. This engine is also powered by electricity and has extremely low trust (only 0.67 newtons) so it would require a ridiculous amount of electrical energy and take so long to do that the universe would likely end before the machine ever hit 99% the speed of light.\n\nAlso, in order to travel into the future using relativity you need to get to near light speed, travel for a while and then turn around and travel at near light speed back. So your delta v needed triples and the amount of fuel and energy increases exponentially.", "This is unquestionably possible. It has been known that it is possible since the early 20th century. All we would have to do is travel fast enough. The closer to the speed of light (c) we get, the more pronounced the time dilation will be. So, for example, if I were to blast off at 99% the speed of light, I'd experience a major time difference with the people of Earth. However, if I were to blast off at 99.9999% the speed of light, I'd return to an Earth that could be eons ahead.\n\nTime dilation grows exponentially the closer to *c* one gets. It is not debatable, time travel to the future is definitely possible. It has nothing to do with distance travelled, strictly the velocity achieved.\n\nUnfortunately, we are no where near that level of propulsion technology. Nor do we even know if it will be possible to achieve such velocities with our current understanding of engineering and propulsion. \n\nBut there is no doubt. Time travel to the future is real.", "Every experiment on the speed of light ever done has shown that light always travels at c (light speed). Therefore no matter how fast you were travelling relative to something else, say the Earth, the moment you turned on a torch (flashlight) the beam of light would leave the torch at light speed, so after 1 second the light would be 1 light second away - that's 299,792,458 metres!\n\nWith that in mind, think about this, you leave Earth and travel in a straight line towards alpha Centauri which is about 4 light years away. Your ship is very advanced and it's able to accelerate to near light speed instantaneously without killing you. At the same moment it does this it switches on its headlights and a beam of light is emitted towards alpha Centauri ahead of your ship. \n\nHere's where it gets interesting. Imagine that you are travelling so fast in your ship that you arrive at alpha Centauri an inch behind the leading edge of the light beam of your headlights. Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away so it took that light 4 years to get there as measured by someone on Earth, so that person on Earth along with everyone else is 4 years older.\n\nBut what about you, inside the ship? You always measure light travelling at light speed remember, so how much time would be required for light to travel 1 inch away from you? It's about 0.08 nanoseconds. Therefore relativity moved you 4 years into the future relative to everyone on Earth in 0.08 nanoseconds your time. Turns out, under the right circumstances you can visit anywhere in the universe in any nonzero amount of time of your choosing. But read the small print, if you go to far, the earth might not be here when you get back.\n\nEdit. Changed some words for flow.", "This information about [relativistic rockets](_URL_1_) does go some way toward your question. Some further information, including [cursory economic estimates](_URL_2_), can also be found in the related [Project Orion](_URL_0_) article.", "An alternative solution to this problem was proposed by Stephen Hawking: that is, entering orbit in close proximity to a black hole. This would create enough acceleration for the orbiter to experience significant time dilation, something like a factor of 2 when compared to an observer on Earth. The practical issue with this is being able to safely enter and exit such an orbit.", "Instead of speed related dilation, what about mass dilation? Could we increase a single points mass to an immense degree and suspend a person close to it to warp them forward in time? Obviously this point couldn't be on our own planet or we might screw up the lunar orbit, or just kill ourselves haha. ", "One small note: in this sort of thread people keep saying, \"grows exponentially,\" which is not true. I suppose this is just because exponential functions are things we are used to thinking of as growing very quickly, which is fair. An exponential function grows much faster than many other simple functions that are well-behaved everywhere.\n\nHowever, we are not dealing with a function which is well-behaved everywhere. The limit of e^x is only infinite when x approaches positive infinity. The limit of 1/sqrt(1-x^2) is similar to the behavior of 1/(1-x), in that it is infinite at a *finite* value of x. That is lim(x- > 1^- )f(x)=+infinity. This grows much *faster* than an exponential function near the asymptote. In the physical example, this is as v/c approaches 1, or v approaches c.\n\nTL;DR: **Grows *asymptotically*, not *exponentially*.**" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Most_time_in_space", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Overview" ], [], [], [ "http://i.gyazo.com/5af4f8f9e2f880d16f2f0ae93a1154b3.png", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Mass_of_ordinary_matter", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way" ], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_\\(nuclear_propulsion\\)", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_rocket", "http://i.imgur.com/XBsKwMy.jpg" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ct8exy5" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ " > I've seen it described as a \"field produced by charged objects\", but in other places it sounds more like one continuous thing that extends through all space\n\nThe electromagnetic field extends through *all space.* It simply has essentially a zero value away from charges. (though self propagating disruptions can travel without charges—called light) It doesn't have to be zero, the Higgs field for instance has a non-zero expectation value throughout all space. \n\nWhen we say a charge or magnet generates and EM field, this is short hand for saying they give a nonzero value to regions in a shared universal EM field. It's just very small and close to zero in most places in the universe." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfr3041", "cfr5hbu" ], "score": [ 266, 3 ], "text": [ "Normally the embedded steel in concrete (be it re-bar or welded wire fabric) is protected from corrosion by an effect called passivization caused by the high PH (around 13) of concrete. When water containing dissolved chlorides makes it way to the steel, through the concrete pore structure or more typically cracks, the chlorides negate that passivization and allow the steel to corrode. \n\nWhen steel corrodes it expands in volume which causes internal tensile stresses in the concrete. Since concrete is very poor in tension it tends to fail which leads to de-lamination of concrete layers and eventually visible spalls (pot holes). \n\nSo its really not so much the salt damaging the concrete, but the salt causing corrosion of the embedded steel which causes the damage. Other things, like carbonation, can eliminate the passivization of the rebar, but those mechanisms tend to take much longer.\n\nMy instinct is that \"drive-way safe\" is a buzzword. There are non chloride based de-icing solutions out there, but they are much more expensive and generally not quite as effective.\n\nI am an engineer that is focused on the restoration of concrete parking structures, so this is an area of expertise.", "My understanding is that salt does not affect concrete chemically but causes an increase in the freeze/thaw cycles which mechanically damage it. This damage is known as scaling. I don't disagree with the effects it can have on steel reinforcement (rebar) that others have mentioned. But pavement, (sidewalks, driveways, ect..) are rarely reinforced. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpexv3v" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "It's called \"vertical integration\" and it's regarded as a smart move because the more a company diversifies its products, the less hurt they are if one product takes a hit (for instance, if they need to recall, or if a competitor comes up with something better, or if a change in the marketplace at large makes the product less desirable -- like if you were selling bread when the Atkins craze hit, it would be nice to also have a sub-brand selling bacon).\n\n[30 Rock had a pretty great moment] (_URL_0_) explaining why some people find this phenomenon a bit worrisome." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ7oht6TD9c" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czxka9v", "czxlem4", "czxr8em" ], "score": [ 2, 34, 28 ], "text": [ "Also, what are the benefits ? Fuel is about 30% of the cost of producing electricity via fission. Does that mean electricity from fusion reactors would be 30% cheaper than elec from fission reactors ? About the same cost to build each type of reactor ? I assume decommissioning a fusion reactor would be cheaper because of far less radioactivity.", "People discussing fusion reactors usually focus on the use of abundant Deuterium extracted from water as the fuel. While Deuterium would be part of the fuel mix, most of the fusion reactor designs are built around the use of a combined deuterium-tritium fuel source. The ITER reactor for example [will use a 1:1 mix of D-T fuel](_URL_0_). The D-T fusion reaction produces an excess neutron. These neutrons have applications such as producing more tritium for the reactor's fuel, but they will also induce radioactivity in the materials that make up the structure and lining of the reaction chamber. The end result will be the production of nuclear waste - radioactive metals and the like. It will be no where near the volume of radioactive waste produced by fission reactors; but it will be produced none the less. Some designs have also called for the fusion reactor to be used to breed plutonium from the neutrons and U238 lining the reaction chamber. The plutonium would be used to fuel fission based reactors but has the added issue of being a nuclear weapons material - something that could be considered a hazard of the fusion reactor. ", "Well, let's talk about the differences with fission reactors.\n\nFusion reactors don't have stability or \"criticality\" problems. Fusion conditions are dynamically unstable, so they need to be maintained actively, when that stops the fusion reactions stop. You don't get runaway processes like you can have with fission reactions, you can't get accidental \"bombs\", you can't get meltdowns, etc. Also, because of the absence of fission byproducts you don't get high-level, long-lived radioactive waste. And you especially don't get the sort of waste that generates so much heat it requires constant cooling to prevent it from melting down. Meaning you don't have problems like Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island.\n\nFusion is still a nuclear technology though, and it does generate radiation and involve the use and production of radioactive isotopes. A fusion reactor will be a prodigious source of neutrons while it's running, and those will penetrate through the reactor assembly. That means you have to keep humans away from the reactor and make use of shielding here and there, but overall this isn't a big deal. But it also results in \"neutron activation\" which involves the neutron flux transmuting the elements in the materials of the reactor and around it through neutron absorption. This can potentially create dangerous, high-level radioactive waste. One example being activation of Cobalt (which naturally occurs as Co-59) into Co-60, which is a very hazardous, though short-lived, radio-isotope.\n\nThe neutron flux also degrades materials subjected to it, so you'd have to replace components and structural elements on some schedule. The overall result is that you'll build up some radioactive materials (the reactor components and housing) over time, but this can be minimized through careful choice of materials (don't use things with Cobalt, for example). This is the major source of radioactive waste from fusion operations, but this waste is far less dangerous and in far lower quantity than the waste from fission reactors.\n\nNear-term fusion reactors are most likely to use Deuterium and Tritium as a component of fusion fuel (likely 50/50 Deuterium/Tritium). Deuterium handling isn't a big deal (and it's not radioactive) but Tritium is a concern. Reactors are likely to breed Tritium for later use from Lithium in blankets surrounding the reactor, but they will also create Tritium in water used by steam turbines to convert the heat of fusion reactions into electricity. Tritium is radioactive enough so that even a tiny amount in your body isn't very healthy, and because it's Hydrogen Tritium leaks often end up in the ground water. Tritium handling and leakage are likely to be far and away the most pressing safety issues related to the operation of a fusion power plant. Even so, the total quantity of Tritium in a reactor at any time won't be tremendous (likely not tonnes of the stuff) so the worst case of a massive leak is still vastly less than with a fission reactor, but it would be a constant concern.\n\nLong-term, if we somehow master fusion technology to a high degree there's the potential to use other fuels than Deuterium-Tritium. There would be a lot of benefits to using \"aneutronic\" fusion reactions, though that would require reactors capable of maintaining temperatures and densities much higher than we've achieved so far. Using proton-boron fusion the output would be all charged particles (He-4). This means you could extract power directly from the fusion plasma electrically, so you wouldn't need a steam system. It also means you wouldn't have a ton of neutron radiation, though there'd still be some, bathing your reactor housing. But that's a very far future idea." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.iter.org/sci/fusionfuels" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e32upix", "e32uu34", "e32v0n3" ], "score": [ 9, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "You need to look up what they call \"the rocket equation\". \n\nLets say you want to throw 10kg into orbit. Orbit speed means you have to accelerate it to something like 9.4 km/s (thats per _second_). Thats pretty fast. To accerlate your 10kg AND your rocket to that speed you need a certain amount of thrust. That means bigger engines, or engines that burn longer both of which requires more fuel. But that fuel has mass that you ALSO have to accelerate so now you have to bring MORE fuel to accelerate the other fuel, but wait the mass you have to accelerate drops as you burn fuel so now you need less fuel to accelerate it..... and now you have a 2nd or 3rd order differential equation. \n\nNow throw in multiple stages (why multiple stages I won't get into), the reserve you need to maybe land your rocket like SpaceX, and you have some hard math. If your payload changes weight at all, you have to recalculate the whole shebang.\n\nAs for the control - the aerodynamic forces acting on a rocket that is accelerating to that kind of speed - and before it leaves the atmosphere - are tremendous; and even relatively minute shifts in center of gravity of your rocket (as the fuel gets burned up) or a shift in payload (remember that resupply rocket in The Martian that blew up?) means you have to have control surfaces or nozzle gymbols to constantly adjust the thrust so its through the center of mass or things start tumbling and the forces rip it apart.", "If you launched the same rocket from the same spot in the same weather at the dame time of day on the same day of the year, the math *would* be the same. Since we're impatient and computers are good at math, it's easier to recalculate for a launch tomorrow than to wait for the variables to match.\n\nRocket science is complex, but ultimately predictable. That's precisely why we're able to launch so many rockets every year with minimal failures.\n\nThe failures that do occur are generally hardware failures, not failures due to miscalculation. Rockets are metal cans full of explosives after all, there's a lot that can go wrong. Most of the difficulties are not i the math but in the manufacturing.", "Each rocket launch is different\n\nPutting a 1000 kg payload into low orbit requires different thrust than putting 1500 kg into low orbit and requires significantly different thrust and trajectory than putting 1000 kg into polar orbit\n\nIf you wanted to launch the exact same payload into the exact same orbit from the exact same location in the exact same weather every time then you could set some constants. Unfortunately Iridium doesn't want to only be able to put their satellites in the exact same orbit as the Space Station and doesn't want to make them weigh the same so you end up needing to customize a bit for each launch\n\nBear in mine, these custom calculations aren't \"rederive the orbital mechanics equations!\", it's more like \"plug in new weight plus desired altitude, angle, and speed\" and out pops the answer" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cap01bd" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There were a number of methods used that resulted in widely varying estimates. Charles Mann provides a brief but thorough discussion of methods used to estimate pre-contact populations in the new world in \"1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus\" (Vintage, 2011). Some researchers used early records archived in church and governmental facilities then attempted to correct for population crashes caused by the plagues. Others based their estimates on number of households and estimated household size. Sherburne Cook was among the more prolific students of prehistoric populations publishing papers from the 1950s to the 1970s. In the mid 1970s there was an American Antiquity memoir published that employed assumed initial population estimates from skeletal populations (usually from excavated cemeteries) then applied estimated fertility and mortality estimates and extrapolated from there. Kroeber, in the \"Handbook of the Indians of California\" (1970, California Book Co) employed house and house pit numbers from early ethnographic surveys. Baumhoff (1958) in California Athabaskan Groups (University of California Anthropological Reports, Berkeley) developed population estimates for Northern California tribes based on the availability of fish resources. \n\nAll have their merits and their shortcomings. Mann notes that Henige in \"Numbers from Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate\" (1998: Univ.. of Oklahoma Press) is the pinnacle of vilification of indigenous population estimates and estimators.\n\nThis is a tiny sample of the reams of population studies that have been conducted. They all seem to have the same basic problems: the veracity of the basis for original estimates (censuses, house counts, fish populations and skeletal counts) and the estimated impacts of the plagues. The issue is further complicated by the bias of researchers and readers. Some tend to maximize the estimates others are much more conservative. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e1zeiz8", "e1zekcb" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "A [dual SIM](_URL_1_) phone can hold / use 2 [SIM cards](_URL_0_). \n\nThe SIM card holds an identifying (hardware) number that identifies the phone, so you can set up a subscription and associate the SIM number with a phone number.\n\nSo dual SIM phones can answer/handle two separate phone numbers. These can be on the same provider (Verizon for example) or on different providers (one Verizon one AT & T). Popular with business persons; they can have a single phone device, but a personal number and an official business number on it.", "They work the same as a single SIM phone, but instead have two sets of cellular radios to allow it to connect to two networks at the same time. My dual SIM phones have two dialer and messaging applications, and has a toggle to quickly switch which SIM it uses for data transmission (unfortunately dont have automatic failover for lack of signal).\n" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "crr76uc", "crrokzs" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Here's some answers I've given previously on the subject\n\n[The Balkan Wars] (_URL_1_)\n\n[Lead up to and outbreak of WWI] (_URL_2_)\n\n[Balkan Nationalism and the Outbreak of WWI] (_URL_0_)\n\nThe 1890s saw the formation of the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Italy), the formation of the Franco-Russian and Franco-British Ententes, and the Anglo-German Naval Arms Race began.\n\nThe early 1900s saw the First and Second Moroccan Crises, the Bosnia Crisis, the First and Second Balkan Wars and the Scutari Crisis. It saw the beginning of a Land Arms Race in 1912, starting with Russia, then Germany and France. \n\nThere was growing tension. Germany's pointlessly aggressive stance in Morocco, combined with the naval arms race, alienated the British, and drew them closer to France, while events in the Balkans lead to increasing Austro-Russian antagonism.\n\nHowever, considering the lengthy affairs these crises were, and the important issues at stake, few civilian and even political observers believed that an assassination in Sarajevo could possibly lead to war. The pace of events in the July Crisis was much greater than in previous crises, and so decision makers found themselves under greater pressure.", "I always liked this quote from Otto Von Bismarck in 1888 \"One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans\". 26 years later he's be proven exactly right. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/37n91p/to_what_extent_did_ethnic_and_nationalist/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/32gnjo/1912_war_in_the_balkans/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/35vtov/discuss_the_causes_of_world_war_i_what_were_the/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfcuu8a" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "To which country?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3uzeii" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "You need to be registered at an address so they know which constituency you are in so your vote can be cast in the right place. If they didn't voting would be chaotic and it would be difficult to detect fraud." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csz98g9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Money. The more people you can attract to your facebook page/website the more money you can get out of ads.\n\nPlus if you have some bad intentions you can try to infect the user when he visits your website, which is mostly equal to money." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8ynn1z", "c8ypfqp" ], "score": [ 4, 18 ], "text": [ "With a series of tubes.\n\nAnd switches/toggles/logic gates. Basically, it was made with physical hardware.", "Our modern notion of computer didn't arise suddenly well-formed from theoretical concepts. In fact, the entire idea of operating system isn't necessary for a computer to work at all (and most microcontrollers don't run one).\n\nTo start with, what exactly is an operating system? Well, it's hard to pinpoint one or two defining characteristics, but most operating systems exist to perform two distinct functions: abstracting the details of the underlying hardware resources so application programmers (the people who write stuff like office suites) don't have to worry about them; and managing those resources. So you can see a computer could just be programmed directly over the hardware without an operating system; you can program wherever you want, as long as you have a way of transferring your instructions to some storage medium the computer understands. Actually, most early computers had no storage at all, and had to be programmed directly by plugging up thousands cables and switches in huge control panels!\n\nThe situation improved a little with the introduction of punched cards (early 1950s) to replace these panels, but everything remained more or less the same until the introduction and commercial viability of the transistor (later 1950s). With the advent of reliable and mass-produced computers started a phenomenon of role separation, where the programmers were no longer operators who were no longer maintainers. To share these very expensive computers between users, people came up with ways to time-share their punched cards, which led to the creation of batch systems. These involved one machine to read the cards and write them onto magnetic tape, people to take the tape to the main computer, and another machine to print the results from the output tape onto human-readable paper.\n\nModern operating systems appeared with the increasing automation of this tedious and error-prone process, with more and more features becoming incorporated into the actual computer and programmers having to know less and less about the actual hardware they were using. IBM's OS/360 was the first operating system where you pretty much only had to know you were running an IBM 360 to work, and the trend continues into our days.\n\nSo you see there we didn't create an operating system in one fell swoop to run on the Analytical Engine or valve-based computers, but instead they evolved as a natural consequence of our eternal desire to do less and less work to get more and more results out of our tools. Some of our current terminology regarding operating systems still betrays their historical origins, in fact." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckqp05g", "ckqp3vz", "ckqp4kw", "ckqp9fl" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "They have. I recently heard in America they have officially removed the cell phone restriction.", "You *can* have them on. You can't use them as a phone.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nOne, cell towers aren't designed for phones 30,000 feet in the air that can hit multiple towers.\n\nTwo, on a long flight having people babbling on phones would cause some passengers to politely invite others to step outside.", "I think that follows the better safe than sorry principle. Aeroplanes communicate with ground control using radio waves, and so do mobile phones.\n\n*that's a nice aeroplane you've got there... Would be a shame if something... Happened to it* **ring ring**", "They have they just don't want you to. Do you really think they are going to let you bring a phone on the plane if there is any chance it will make it crash? They are giving passengers patdowns and confiscating liquids, but they aren't going to stop you from bringing a phone that will make it crash?\n\nThey just don't want you to." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft#In_flight_technology" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3adzn7" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I do not know much about the inner workings of the British military and government in April and May of 1945, and so I cannot say how seriously the British themselves took this plan, but I can say that Winston Churchill's goal of stunting Soviet influence in postwar Europe did not align with the aims of Harry Truman's government at the time. And since the plan obviously relied heavily on American power, we can say that the plan never came close to fruition. Note that \"Operation Unthinkable\" was not the only measure that Churchill thought about taking in order to counter the rise of the Soviet sphere in April of 1945. Churchill had contacted Truman directly with the hope of convincing the American president to renege on the agreement between FDR and Stalin regarding a \"Soviet sphere\" by ordering the American army to continue its march through Prague. \n\nIn brief, the American army had entered western Czechoslovakia in early May and plans put forth by Eisenhower had initially called for the liberation \"beyond the Karlsbad-Pilsen-Budweis Line [i.e., western Czechoslovakia] as far asa the upper Elbe [i.e., at least the west half of Prague].\" When the Soviets protested that this violated the agreement made at Yalta, however, Eisenhower instead ordered the army to halt. Churchill, however, argued that \"there can be little doubt that the liberation of Prague and as much as possible of the territory of western Czechoslovakia by your forces might make the whole difference in the post-war situation [in the region].\" Truman, however, showed no interest in pursing a blatant anti-Soviet policy at this time and instead allowed the Red Army to liberate Prague (Stalin remained unsure if Truman would honor the agreement reach with FDR at Yalta, however, and quickly diverted forces aimed at Berlin to instead liberate Prague). \n\nSo in early May, when the British finished outlining their \"Operation Unthinkable,\" Truman demonstrated clearly that he would not go so far as to challenge the Soviet Union by liberating Prague. The idea that he might then wage war on the Soviet Union in order to quell Soviet influence in Poland--influence that FDR and Stalin had already agreed at Yalta was a necessary component of Soviet postwar foreign policy--was an absurd assumption by whomever had put together Operation Unthinkable. There was no chance, at all, that it would be implemented as it was originally envisioned. \n\n**Sources**:\n\n\nAmbassador to France Jefferson Caffery to Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, May 6, 1945, *FRUS,* 1945, IV:\n447-448.\n\nWinston Churchill to Harry Truman, April 30, 1945, *FRUS,* 1945, IV: 446. The language of this telegram is nearly\nidentical to language used earlier by Eden.\n\nJohn Erickson, *Stalin's War with Germany: The Road to Berlin*, (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1999),\n625, 783-786.\n\nOperation Unthinkable, excerpt: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://web.archive.org/web/20101116155514/http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/pages/002.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2ta30c", "c2ta30c" ], "score": [ 14, 14 ], "text": [ "Well, we *don't*, is the short answer. But let's not stop there.\n\nSmall atoms work in a strange way. Normally if you think about two separate objects that you want to put together — think Legos or whatever here — you find that you have to *do work* in order to put them together. You have to pick up the Legos, line them up just right, then *squeeze* in order to get them to stick.\n\nSmall atoms are different. Small atoms, like hydrogen atoms, actually *want* to stick together. In other words, they *release* energy when they snap together, and it *takes energy* to pull them apart.\n\n*Big* atoms, like plutonium atoms, are just the opposite. They're so big and heavy and wobbly that it takes more energy to hold them together than it does to break them into pieces. That's how nuclear *fission* works. You take something that's just barely holding together, then you give it a little nudge and it comes apart into pieces, and you use the energy of those pieces flying apart to boil water to turn a steam turbine … or blow up a city, whatever. Same thing, different scales.\n\nBut small atoms actually release energy when they stick together to form bigger atoms. So you can, in principle, take two hydrogen atoms and stick them together and find that energy is released in the process — like putting two special Legos together and finding they get *hot* when they click into place.\n\nBut there's a challenge. Even though small atoms want to stick together, they naturally push each other part, like the north poles of two bar magnets. If you bring the two atoms *close* to each other, but not too close, they'll move apart, because they repel each other. So in order to get them *close enough* to stick together — and thus release energy — you have to work against that natural repulsion.\n\nThink of it like rolling a ball up the slope of a volcano. Up at the top of the volcano is a hole, a nice, deep one, and you want the ball to go into the hole — and the ball *wants* to go into the hole. If the ball rolled toward the hole, it would drop right in. But before you can get the ball to go into the hole, you have to get it up the slope. If you just nudged the ball up the slope, it would roll a little ways, but then stop and roll back down again. So in order to get the ball into the hole, you have to give it a real kick, really push it hard, so it climbs all the way up the slope and falls in.\n\nThe way we give atoms a real kick is to make them *hot.* Hot atoms are really moving fast, they're rocketing all over the place. So if you take a lot of hydrogen atoms — in a gas — and heat them up, you'll eventually get to the point where if two of the atoms happen to hit, they'll stick, and release energy.\n\nThe trick with that is, though, that hot gases create *pressure.* If you heat up a gas, it'll exert pressure on the walls of whatever container you're holding it in until the pressure ruptures the container and the gas comes rushing out (which, by the way, cools the gas back down to equilibrium temperature again).\n\nSo in order to get energy out of nuclear fusion, you have to first start with hydrogen gas, then you have to build a *really really strong* container to hold it, then you have to heat the gas up *a lot* to the point where fusion starts to happen. When that happens, you start to see pairs of hydrogen atoms hitting each other and sticking — which again, releases energy, thus heating up the gas *even more* … which ruptures your container and makes a pretty big explosion.\n\nThat's called a hydrogen bomb.\n\nBut in principle, if you built a *really really really super-incredibly strong* container, then did all those things, the container *wouldn't* rupture when the hydrogen atoms start to stick. In principle, if you could build a container like that — and also figure out how to let heat escape from the container in a controlled way, but while still keeping the hydrogen hot enough that it continues to fuse — you'd have a really good, really long-lasting source of heat that you could use to boil water and turn a steam turbine, thus doing mechanical work or generating electricity or both.\n\nBut nobody's figured out how to do that yet, which is why I said we *don't* directly harness the power of nuclear fusion. It's never been done … and in fact, it's not entirely clear that it's even possible at all.\n\nHowever, we do *indirectly* \"harness the power\" of nuclear fusion. We do it constantly, in fact. Because the sun is a big ball of mostly hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion. In the case of the sun, you don't need a container to hold the hydrogen gas in; it holds *itself* in, by the pressure of its own gravity. The weight of all that hydrogen pushes down on itself, squeezing the hydrogen in the very center to the point where it can fuse. The energy released by that fusion percolates outward through the dense layers of hydrogen gas, heating the gas up and making it glow, and that's what sunlight is.\n\nSunlight goes out in all directions, and a tiny part of it hits the Earth, and that light is used by plants to break the chemical bonds holding carbon dioxide molecules together, and the oxygen is thrown away and the carbon is used to make trees and stuff, and either right away — in the form of logs — or many years later — once the trees and stuff have been squeezed into petroleum — we combine those plants with oxygen again and release the heat they stored from the sunlight, thus boiling water and turning a steam turbine to do mechanical work or generate electricity.\n\nSometimes we can cut out the middle-man. Light from the sun can hit special metallic plates called photovoltaic cells and create a little trickle of electricity directly. That's useful when we only need a tiny bit of electricity. Or light from the sun can warm the air in some places while leaving it cool in others, making the warm and cool air circulate — wind, in other words — and we can stick a turbine at the top of a tall pole and suck mechanical energy out of the wind and use it to do mechanical work or generate electricity. Or sunlight can hit water and heat it up, causing it to evaporate into the air and then later fall out as rain, some of which lands at high altitudes and then, due to gravity, runs downhill toward the sea, and we can stick a turbine in the flow and suck mechanical energy out of that and use it to do mechanical work or generate electricity.\n\nOr we can simply eat food, which uses sunlight to grow, and thus power our muscles so we can do work ourselves, with our own bodies.\n\nBut mostly, with precious few exceptions, all the energy we encounter comes pretty close to directly from the sun, which shines because of nuclear fusion. So there's more to the nuclear fusion story than so-far-unsuccessful experiments aimed at creating it in a laboratory and using it directly.", "Well, we *don't*, is the short answer. But let's not stop there.\n\nSmall atoms work in a strange way. Normally if you think about two separate objects that you want to put together — think Legos or whatever here — you find that you have to *do work* in order to put them together. You have to pick up the Legos, line them up just right, then *squeeze* in order to get them to stick.\n\nSmall atoms are different. Small atoms, like hydrogen atoms, actually *want* to stick together. In other words, they *release* energy when they snap together, and it *takes energy* to pull them apart.\n\n*Big* atoms, like plutonium atoms, are just the opposite. They're so big and heavy and wobbly that it takes more energy to hold them together than it does to break them into pieces. That's how nuclear *fission* works. You take something that's just barely holding together, then you give it a little nudge and it comes apart into pieces, and you use the energy of those pieces flying apart to boil water to turn a steam turbine … or blow up a city, whatever. Same thing, different scales.\n\nBut small atoms actually release energy when they stick together to form bigger atoms. So you can, in principle, take two hydrogen atoms and stick them together and find that energy is released in the process — like putting two special Legos together and finding they get *hot* when they click into place.\n\nBut there's a challenge. Even though small atoms want to stick together, they naturally push each other part, like the north poles of two bar magnets. If you bring the two atoms *close* to each other, but not too close, they'll move apart, because they repel each other. So in order to get them *close enough* to stick together — and thus release energy — you have to work against that natural repulsion.\n\nThink of it like rolling a ball up the slope of a volcano. Up at the top of the volcano is a hole, a nice, deep one, and you want the ball to go into the hole — and the ball *wants* to go into the hole. If the ball rolled toward the hole, it would drop right in. But before you can get the ball to go into the hole, you have to get it up the slope. If you just nudged the ball up the slope, it would roll a little ways, but then stop and roll back down again. So in order to get the ball into the hole, you have to give it a real kick, really push it hard, so it climbs all the way up the slope and falls in.\n\nThe way we give atoms a real kick is to make them *hot.* Hot atoms are really moving fast, they're rocketing all over the place. So if you take a lot of hydrogen atoms — in a gas — and heat them up, you'll eventually get to the point where if two of the atoms happen to hit, they'll stick, and release energy.\n\nThe trick with that is, though, that hot gases create *pressure.* If you heat up a gas, it'll exert pressure on the walls of whatever container you're holding it in until the pressure ruptures the container and the gas comes rushing out (which, by the way, cools the gas back down to equilibrium temperature again).\n\nSo in order to get energy out of nuclear fusion, you have to first start with hydrogen gas, then you have to build a *really really strong* container to hold it, then you have to heat the gas up *a lot* to the point where fusion starts to happen. When that happens, you start to see pairs of hydrogen atoms hitting each other and sticking — which again, releases energy, thus heating up the gas *even more* … which ruptures your container and makes a pretty big explosion.\n\nThat's called a hydrogen bomb.\n\nBut in principle, if you built a *really really really super-incredibly strong* container, then did all those things, the container *wouldn't* rupture when the hydrogen atoms start to stick. In principle, if you could build a container like that — and also figure out how to let heat escape from the container in a controlled way, but while still keeping the hydrogen hot enough that it continues to fuse — you'd have a really good, really long-lasting source of heat that you could use to boil water and turn a steam turbine, thus doing mechanical work or generating electricity or both.\n\nBut nobody's figured out how to do that yet, which is why I said we *don't* directly harness the power of nuclear fusion. It's never been done … and in fact, it's not entirely clear that it's even possible at all.\n\nHowever, we do *indirectly* \"harness the power\" of nuclear fusion. We do it constantly, in fact. Because the sun is a big ball of mostly hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion. In the case of the sun, you don't need a container to hold the hydrogen gas in; it holds *itself* in, by the pressure of its own gravity. The weight of all that hydrogen pushes down on itself, squeezing the hydrogen in the very center to the point where it can fuse. The energy released by that fusion percolates outward through the dense layers of hydrogen gas, heating the gas up and making it glow, and that's what sunlight is.\n\nSunlight goes out in all directions, and a tiny part of it hits the Earth, and that light is used by plants to break the chemical bonds holding carbon dioxide molecules together, and the oxygen is thrown away and the carbon is used to make trees and stuff, and either right away — in the form of logs — or many years later — once the trees and stuff have been squeezed into petroleum — we combine those plants with oxygen again and release the heat they stored from the sunlight, thus boiling water and turning a steam turbine to do mechanical work or generate electricity.\n\nSometimes we can cut out the middle-man. Light from the sun can hit special metallic plates called photovoltaic cells and create a little trickle of electricity directly. That's useful when we only need a tiny bit of electricity. Or light from the sun can warm the air in some places while leaving it cool in others, making the warm and cool air circulate — wind, in other words — and we can stick a turbine at the top of a tall pole and suck mechanical energy out of the wind and use it to do mechanical work or generate electricity. Or sunlight can hit water and heat it up, causing it to evaporate into the air and then later fall out as rain, some of which lands at high altitudes and then, due to gravity, runs downhill toward the sea, and we can stick a turbine in the flow and suck mechanical energy out of that and use it to do mechanical work or generate electricity.\n\nOr we can simply eat food, which uses sunlight to grow, and thus power our muscles so we can do work ourselves, with our own bodies.\n\nBut mostly, with precious few exceptions, all the energy we encounter comes pretty close to directly from the sun, which shines because of nuclear fusion. So there's more to the nuclear fusion story than so-far-unsuccessful experiments aimed at creating it in a laboratory and using it directly." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx3exjb", "cx3f8yq" ], "score": [ 2, 5 ], "text": [ "Can you explain what influence the 1204 sack of Constantinople had on Islamic attitudes towards Christianity, in your view? That's not a connection I've heard before so I'm a little confused.", "Why the West attained a period of dominance is a separate question that I won't address here, although I will point out: Latin Christians conquered Constantinople from *Greek Christians* in 1204. That doesn't seem to be a breaking point in Muslim attitudes towards the \"Franks\" and \"Romans\" for, well, obvious reasons. And as we'll see, it's dangerous to draw conclusions about what the situation and attitudes today might be from a range of attitudes in the past, because even interpretations of a sacred text depend heavily on the historical context of the interpreter.\n\n~~\n\nIt is impossible to speak of \"*the* Muslim attitude\" towards other religions and their practitioners in the early Middle Ages, just like it's impossible to identity a universal view in the modern world. Instead, we can look at a range of laws and literary portrayals from specific historical contexts, and see how particular events affected them.\n\nThe Quran's specific views on non-Muslims are fairly well known. Jews and Christians share an Abrahamic foundation and are *dhimmis* or People of the Book. They can be permitted to exercise their faith freely in Islamic territories while subject to restrictions such as an increased tax. Practitioners of other religions (the web of Middle Eastern paganisms, Zoroastrianism, etc) are not afforded that leeway. A famous medieval, though not authentic to the named ruler, example of restrictions on *dhimmis* is the [Pact of Umar](_URL_0_). While we can't know whether restrictions like this were ever officially deployed, it shows us what the relationship between Muslims and protected non-Muslims was *idealized to be* by at least one group of Muslim legal scholars.\n\nIn practice, the application of the Quranic principles here varied. Sometimes Zoroastrians were extended *dhimmi* protection, and sometimes Jews and Christians weren't. The Almoravid and Almohad dynasties in North Africa and Iberia, for example, attempted to force Jews in particular to convert to Islam. Their Umayyad predecessors in the west, on the other hand, actually *discouraged* conversion among the lower aristocracy, for the tax benefit.\n\nThe question of what *jihad* meant in early Islam is as vexed as it is today. There's no question that the infant religion's adherents achieved explosive success by military conquest across the Near East and North Africa--the Umayyads are in Cordoba (Spain) less than a century after Muhammad. The early years of Islam are characterized by an apocalyptic, messianic sense in which jihad is indeed a spiritual *offensive*. As I noted earlier, that doesn't necessarily mean forced conversion--secular motives like money were attractive. (Richard Bullitt has postulated that conversion occurred over time on a logarithmic scale, with the bulk of conversion ramping up in the 9th and 10th centuries). It did mean Muslim *rule* and establishment of Islamic faith in new territories.\n\nBut--the expansion of Islam slowed. Christianity stubborned kept hold of northern Iberia; in the 9th century even Byzantium started making incursions into the Muslim Near East. That second example offers a prime chance to witness how historical events affect Muslims understanding and representation of non-Muslims. Our earliest Arabic sources portray Byzantium as a *rival*: some levels of hostility, but very respected. They are especially impressed with the political and economic importance of Constantinople, and of the splendor of the city's architecture. Once the Byzantines pick up some military action, Muslim writers ramp up their vitriol. They find new ways to label the Byzantines barbaric, amping up the rhetoric of horrid Byzantine morals.\n\nEven in the Latin Crusades, when the Islamic world is under *direct invasionary attack* by 'barbarians,' individual Muslim governors sometimes allied with the Franks against each other. (Although the chronicles are pretty uniform in calling the Franks atrociously bad fighters...it's just, they have really good armor and weapons, shucks.) In the Fifth Crusade, which dead-ended for the West in a *massively* humiliating capture of the entire crusader army in Egypt, the Muslim force treated them rather well and allowed their release as long as they returned to Europe.\n\nUnlike the later medieval Church, medieval Islam has no centralized body of law or dominant interpretation. It's characterized by a series of overlapping legal and theological schools of interpretation that jockey for ascendancy throughout the era. As the rate of expansion of Islam grinds down almost to a halt, scholars debate the meaning of *jihad* in a world that suddenly doesn't hold apocalyptic hope and expectation of triumph. \n\nOne line of interpretation emerges that divides the world into two: dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, the world of Islam/submission and the world of war. This spiritualizes the idea of jihad: it is defensive, a matter of protecting Islam and its people, rather than working to prepare the world for the messiah through conquest. Unfortunately, Mottahedeh and al-Sayyid, who've done a lot of the work on early notions of jihad, don't really talk about whether we can trace this spiritualization of jihad in specific contexts to changing treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule (i.e. did a focus on defensive jihad ever lead to increased conversions or increased signs of repression).\n\nMedieval Muslims who did find themselves in dar al-harb, on the whole, don't seem to have taken this idea of defensive jihad into their military hands. There are some cases of localized rebellion in Christian Spain and Sicily, but isn't that what you'd expect of any conquered people feeling ill-treated? Glick and Meyerson have both discussed the ways in which Muslim revolts in Christian Spain don't have hallmarks of proto-nationalism, they're in fact rather similar to or overlapping with Christian peasant protests of unjust conditions as well.\n\nThe Muslims of high medieval Sicily, conquered by the (Latin) Normans, found themselves deported en masse to the Italian mainland at Lucera. And yet they still *chose* to fight for their homes with the local Christian army against the papal invaders. The Muslim community of the Christian-conquered Ebro Valley in Spain stubbornly insisted, through letters sent abroad and sermons preached at home, that Iberia was their home and they *would* remain there against all the calls of the zealous Almohads in North Africa to leave *dar al-harb* for the comfort of the Islamic world. (And it sure wasn't because of amazing generosity on the part of their Christian overlords, to be sure.)\n\nAnd then you have to consider, of course, that most Muslims are just ordinary people trying to live their lives. Islam spreads in medieval West Africa *almost* by accident. Merchants from the Sudan and North Africa set up trade colonies of sorts in the Ghana Empire, common language (Arabic) facilitates trade, being Muslim allows you to tap into a global trade network...By the time Ibn Battuta makes it to Mali in the 14th century, he's treated to a full recitation of the Quran (in Arabic) while amusedly observing cultural differences in the practices of individual Muslims between Mali and elsewhere in the Islamic world.\n\nOverall, then--if we can even talk about an \"overall\"--it's a complex picture that depends heavily on specific historical contexts. The status of Islamic expansion, the school of law or theology, military developments on both sides, messianic expectation, the passage of time, geographic, economy, the goals of individuals: so many factors in the matrix, so many experiences we can identify in concrete times and places." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ckgvrqf" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "They aren't actually shivering. Their muscles are rapidly changing the fibers they use to balance and lift the load. One set of fibers is doing the majority of the lifting while the other set relax slightly then they switch positions creating the illusion of shivering. This switching can happen upwards of several thousand times per minute." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvv74r5", "cvv7vpa" ], "score": [ 8, 3 ], "text": [ "Probably all to do with our survival instincts. We can get attached to places as a way to demonstrate that it's \"our area\", and to produce offspring we adore the person that is deemed by our brain as the best mate, for healthier and stronger children. This is my biased idea, so take it for what it is.", "Like other great apes humans look for love and gain attachment to build community. This provides safety and security. A sense of belonging also helps give people an overall better mental state." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu7tvig", "cu7tyc1" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It *completely* depends on the company doing the \"remastering\". There is no fixed set of things except, perhaps, as requirements from the licensor. In addition, there are often limitations on what can be overhauled because original development materials may have been lost or are otherwise no longer available. \n \nA good example of this is Beamdog/Overhaul Games' remake of the Baldur's gate series: Because the level/area files for BG are rendered 3D scenes, and because the original 3D model files had been lost, Beamdog had to work with the level images as they were originally released- with some fancy math used to upscale the resolution of those images while still seemingly retaining detail. \n \nOn some other games most or all of the original development materials remain, including original artwork, and higher resolution versions of the masters, including audio, used. \n \nBut how much work and what work is done is very much handled on a game-by-game basis.", "Depends on the remake. Some games such as the Grim Fandango remake changed nothing about the graphics or sound, and rather reworked the engine to run on modern hardware as well as updated controls.\n\nMeanwhile you have something like the Halo remasters like the Anniversary Edition where it rehauled everything.\n\nAnd there are other \"remakes\" such as The Last of Us for PS4 where probably what happened was they could just use higher quality versions of the original textures as they would have been compressed to run on the weaker hardware." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fjx76ok", "fjx79xh", "fjx88p3", "fjxafs3" ], "score": [ 14, 3, 26, 12 ], "text": [ "There's actually a browser plugin (at least, there's one for Chrome) called [AskHistorians Comment Helper](_URL_0_) that puts a little green number next to the number of comments that shows how many comments are still up.", "Maybe \"approved answer(s)\" might sound less finite?", "This one gets asked a lot, because it's a seemingly intuitive solution to the common problem of clutter - threads with high comment counts that suggest the presence of an answer, but in reality are all just removed comments.\n\nHowever, the issues - both practical and conceptual - raised by actually implementing an answered flair are considerable, and our collective judgement has long been that the downsides by far outweigh the advantages. For a more full explanation you can check out [this post](_URL_2_). But the basic issues as I see them are:\n\n1. Except for the most basic of factual questions (which we tend to redirect to our Short Answers to Simple Questions thread anyway), history rarely admits 'one' answer to a given question. Differing perspectives, methods, sources and so on all mitigate against definitive answers to most questions. An Answered flair - whether watered down by different terminology or not - risks giving a different impression, as well as discouraging users from adding new perspectives once that it has been declared 'Answered' (this is feedback that we have received from our flair community).\n2. These suggestions are usually based on misconceptions of how we actually moderate the sub. We don't read every comment that gets made, relying instead on user-generated reports to spot problematic answers that we then might evaluate in more detail if it seems necessary. Changing this to reading and evaluating every substantive comment would represent an exponential increase in workload for what is - compared to the size of the sub - a fairly small team of active moderators (and that's not even getting into the fact that for this to work, each flair would need to be manually altered and updated - we can't train a bot to be able to tell the difference between 700 words of wisdom and a 700-word scrawl of conspiratorial madness). Keep in mind as well that the mods aren't omniscient - unless one of us happens to have expertise in a particular topic, checking the content of any substantive answer is a lot of work (and often involves collaboration and discussion on our end - an answer which we initially let stand might be taken down later once someone with enough knowledge to spot the flaws is awake). Asking us to put what amounts to seals of approval on all such content would stretch us well past breaking point, and would if anything result in a massive increase in removals of longer answers, on the basis that we don't want to be seen to endorse material that we aren't completely sure of. While the line between 'decent enough to let stand' and 'good enough to endorse' might seem very thin, from our perspective it's a much bigger deal.\n3. It likely still wouldn't solve the main problem, while simultaneously interfering with the various ways we currently use flairs. For the large numbers of users on mobile, flairs often won't be visible to users before accessing the thread anyway (thereby obviating the sole advantage of such a flair, which is saving users a click). For users less familiar with the sub, who provide most of the added clutter in highly visible threads, a flair system is unlikely to get noticed, judging purely by how few of these commenters appear to read the Automod message in every thread.\n\nIf you are a regular user who finds the wasted clicks on deceptively empty threads to be annoying, we would heartily recommend our custom-designed [browser extension](_URL_1_) made by [/u/Almost\\_useless](_URL_0_), which does a great job of making thread comment counts actually accurate.", "I have to respectfully disagree with your Post Scriptum. Any sort of official indication that \"this post has an approved top level comment\" will be viewed with the Reddit lens of \"first post gets the upvotes\". No matter how we couch it, the knowledge that someone has beaten them to the punch WILL discourage later posters from attempting to answer." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ask-historians-comment-he/jdkfbkogojpmdmpnkgjcgpngkkmhdfem" ], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/u/Almost_useless/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/c9gbcv/friday_freeforall_july_05_2019/esy2lm7/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eq0hsm/sub_question_why_cant_we_have_answered_flairs/femv0b6?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dhb2h91" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "As far as \"good luck\" goes, he may be thinking of a scene in the 1963 film *The Great Escape* where this happens in reverse- escaped British PoWs are captured when a Gestapo officer wishes them \"Good luck\" in English and one of them instinctively replies \"thank you\".\n\nI have seen claims (for instance in *This Great Escape: The Case of Michel Paryla* by Andrew Steinmetz, and *The RAF's French Foreign Legion* by G.H. Bennett) that this incident is based on the real-life case of the French escapee Sous-Lt. Bernard Steinhauer, who was fluent in English and German as well as his native French and who was captured at Saarbrücken station after replying in English to an English greeting by a Gestapo officer- although sources differ on the exact phrase used.\n\n(Like most of those who escaped in the breakout from Stalag Luft III, Sous-Lt. Steinhauer was shot a few days later)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e776wco", "e77710y" ], "score": [ 5, 10 ], "text": [ "Becsuse the dont treat the issue itself but rather act on the pain sensors in the brain. You just don't feel the pain. ", "Prostaglandins are natural chemicals that are released into your body when you are injured or sick. When they're released, they make nearby nerves hurt. This is when your body can tell that something is wrong, and you feel pain. Meds like ibuprofen target prostaglandins. It keeps more of them from being made, which reduces more nerve pain. So it's not so much that pills can hit a wide variety of targets, it's that the body's target is the same for most injuries. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj9fdy2", "cj9feaf", "cj9fvwh" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 14 ], "text": [ "Because they're very expensive, so the owner doesn't want to buy a new one every few years. Plus there isn't really a huge demand for in depth arcade games: arcades are kind of dying out because of console/PC games ", "Modern arcade machines are large complicated pieces of machinery. They have 1 or more large HD TV's built in, an internal PC of some kind to run the game, custom built controllers and cabinets, speakers, a coin or card reader, ticket dispenser, and lights or special effects. The software running the game is most likely made specifically for that machine, so it costs more that a 360 or PC game. All of those parts together are fairly expensive. A better comparison would be an arcade machine to the entertainment center in your living room.\n\nAs to why they don't compare to modern video games, there are two reasons. 1, there's little to no demand for it. Arcades aren't a booming business right now, and the people at arcades do not expect the machines to be ultra high quality. Second, the market for arcade cabinets is small, so there is less money invested in creating high quality games.", "It actually used to be the opposite way around. Back in '94, we were getting things like Cruisin' USA and Sega Rally that were a generation ahead of where consoles were at the time, and that were built on hardware that wasn't bettered until the PS2 generation. Unfortunately, that's pretty much what killed arcades. Used to be that consoles advertised themselves as offering an arcade-grade experience. When the PS2 surpassed them, it rendered them redundant, basically killing their market, and killing their progress. And that's why today, arcade has gone from being an aspirational term to almost a dirty word." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dxsdyuq", "dxse7kl" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Hyperinflation from printing money to cover government deficits happens because the supply of the currency is dramatically increased. Note that this happens relative to the currency of which the supply is increasing--for example, when there is hyperinflation occurring with the Zimbabwe dollar, prices when paying with U.S. dollars may actually be comparatively stable. This is why, when inflation becomes very bad, people try to abandon the local currency and use a more stable foreign currency, even if it is illegal to do so.\n\nDevelopment aid comes in the form of foreign currency or it's aid \"in kind,\" in the form of goods. So the supply of the local currency isn't changed at all. It can still have a strong effect on the local economy, but for different reasons.", "Because they get to keep that 5 mil euros/ dollars. They can pay with this money to import high tech or infrastructure from developing countries or medicine. It never gets converted to their own currency. A lot of developing countries import more than they export.\n\nEven if they did convert this money, they would have simply more to gain but this is more complicated to explain.\n\nImagine if you are a bakery. You have 10 breads and printing more money is like cutting those breads in half. You have 20 half breads but they are still worth 10 breads.\nBut let's say someone rich came to your business and gave you 10 more breads, you actually own 20 complete pieces of bread.\n\nMoney is just a piece of paper but it has value. That value is similar to bitcoin. 5 dollars of value does not equal to 5 pieces of a dollar paper. If you print 5 more pieces, that value will be divided by two and your money will be worth less. 5 dollars of value will equal to 10 pieces of paper\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c1iw9ri", "c1iwkfu", "c1iwm8l" ], "score": [ 2, 10, 3 ], "text": [ "It would be a sin for anyone except iorgfeflkd to answer this.", "The most basic scenario of cavitation is if you have an infinite fluid, and magically cause a sphere of it to disappear, and track what happens to the water trying to fill that vacuum. In this case, it's not a vacuum but a vapour bubble, but the water collapses just the same. When this happens, the water nearest the bubble moves in, then the water that was next to that moves towards the bubble, etc, creating a shockwave travelling through the water. I don't know the physiology of the stun effect, but it's probably similar to hydrostatic shock that injures gunshot and grenade victims: a pressure wave travelling through the body. The reason the bubble leads to such a powerful shock is that the water collapses really, really fast, like a good portion of the speed of sound in water. The same type of bubbles are a major cause of damage to ship propellers (but from the propellers themselves, not from shrimp), and that's what originally got people thinking about this.\n\nThe temperature is highest when the pressure is highest, which occurs when the bubble is smallest. You can see this through the ideal gas law assuming a polytropic process, but I don't think that explains the temperatures observed. I've heard other things, like the pressure causes gas inside the bubble to ionize, and the ions emit bremstrahlung radiation as they accelerate.\n\nHope that helped.", "I might be able to offer a tiny bit of insight with regard to this part:\n\n > most fundamentally, while I understand the principle of pressure dropping to below the vapor pressure of the air suspended in the water, I do not really understand the physical reason why a higher velocity results in a lower pressure a la Bernoulli.\n\nSo, the equation we'll be using is:\n\n (1/2)(rho)U^2 + P + (rho)gh = constant\n\n Where (rho) is the density of the fluid.\n\nThis is the Bernoulli equation in pressure terms, and states that the pressure energy contained within a volume of moving fluid is constant, which shouldn't surprise you (given the way energy works in general, I mean). The left side of this equation contains terms for: dynamic pressure, which is the pressure that a barometer would read if you were to stop the flow against it, and is velocity-dependent (this is important); static pressure, which is what one generally thinks of when thinking about pressure; and gravitational pressure, which is equal to mgh/V and reflects the pressurization of a given volume of fluid due to gravity.\n\nRemember, the sum of these terms has to remain constant. Increasing velocity adds to the dynamic pressure term, which necessarily subtracts from either the static or gravitational pressures. Unless the water changes height its gravitational pressure isn't going anywhere, so the excess energy *must* come from the static pressure. And there you have it, decreased pressure when increasing velocity.\n\nI hope this answers your question; sorry if I got anything terribly wrong, my training in this field is rather lacking." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.wikiupload.com/ZKUCEH3UXT4W5PH", "http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/abs/413477a0.html", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONQlTMUYCW4" ]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dqs6kiy", "dqscen8", "dqshi84", "dqsub61" ], "score": [ 11, 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "You don't sound dumb. It's a good question. The heart has its own electrical system that keeps it pumping independent of brain function. Sometimes it misfires, though, and that can lead to things like heart attacks. Basically, as long as there's blood flowing through the heart to keep it alive it doesn't even need to be in the body. That's what they do for heart transplants.", "The power source for the heart actually runs off of electricity. The heart is a muscle that receives an electrical signal as specialized cells rapidly change their electrical charge from positive to negative and back. If you have ever been shocked with electricity, when it occurs, your muscles contract rapidly. Every time this electrical signal travels through the heart tissue, the part of the heart that is “shocked” will contract. Your body has a cardiac conduction system which handles creating and regulating these signals. This heartpump runs automatically after your first heart beat when you are in the womb by receiving these electrical signals. Your body does it instinctually, so we never even have to think about it unless it beats out of rhythm, beats too rapidly, etc. \n\nAnother way of understanding how the heart runs is to look at how a pacemaker works. The pacemaker is connected to sections of the heart. The “brains” of the pacemaker send out electrical signals from a battery at a set speed (beats per minute) to cause the muscles of the heart to contract in a specific order at a specific speed. This pacemaker behaves the way the cardiac conduction system is supposed to behave.\n\nAlso, the heart and circulatory system is a closed system with a certain amount of blood in it. Think of it like squeezing a water balloon where the water is your blood, and your hand and the balloon are the heart. When your heart contracts, the blood has two directional choices to go, either away from the heart where it came from(backwards), or away from the heart moving forward in your circulatory system. Simultaneously, as your heart muscle contracts, a valve closes that keeps the blood from moving backwards in your circulatory system. At this point, the blood can only move forward in the system.", "The heart has pacemaker cells in it that send an electric signal throw the top through the bottom of the organ once those cells has reach a threshold of sadism influx, it’s cause a contraction which pumps the blood through the body and the cells reset by pumping out the sodium only for it to hit threshold again and contract.\n\nThis spot is called the SA Node.", "The heart is a pretty special engine because it's what it's pumping around is it's own fuel! The blood stream is how all muscles receive the oxygen and sugar they need to work, also the heart, as it is a muscle. So as long as it the blood it's pumping is good, it has plenty of fuel to keep on running, only a fraction of the blood it's pumping is used to fuel the heart itself though!\n\nTo keep it's pace and keep on beating the heart is controlled by electrical nerve signals, but unlike muscles we control, they are not sent from the brain, but they start from the top of the heart itself in the so called Sinoatrial node and propagate downwards, so first the two atria (upper chambers) are contracted, then travels downwards, causing the ventricles to contract, then they relax in the same order before a new signal starts, rinse and repeat." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c9qvfch" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "The same reason black men date white women, because black women are crazy. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dfy0np5", "dfy10b1", "dfybbpa" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Are you talking about octane rating? If so, it's not more powerful. Octane rating indicates how much compression the fuel can sustain before it ignites. A high octane rating can be compressed more, thus high-powered engines that compress the fuel more need it in order to avoid it igniting prematurely, causing knocking and engine wear. If your car doesn't have one of those engines, any octane gasoline will work just the same for you.", "a higher octane gasoline will resist spontaneous combustion when compressed.\n\nthe engine itself has to actually have the mechanicals for more compression though. an engine can't just adjust its compression ratio. that's determined by the physical lengths of the spinning metal rods and metal piston inside the engine. engines that use high octane gas are able to compress the fuel mixture without it going boom by itself. that means with the proper timing of the spark, it goes bang with more force than a lower compression of the same fuel amount. ", "The octane rating is a measure of stability.\n\nWhen you compress a gas (and I don't mean gasoline), like in a bicycle tire pump, it gets hot. Take a volatile compound like gasoline, that just dying to burst into flame at any moment, compress it enough in vapor form, and that compressed \"*charge*\" stands a good chance of spontaneously bursting into flame. You don't necessarily need a *spark* to ignite something, it just needs to get hot enough. Fry oil in a pan too hot can just flash ignite...\n\nSo Octane is a hydrocarbon that is the reference chemical by which gasoline, a cocktail of hundreds of hydrocarbons, but mostly octane, is measured. Anything less than 100 is less stable than pure octane, anything over 100 is more stable. They have two different methods of computing the octane rating, and in the US, we use both and take the average. Over in England, for example, they use only one of the methods, that gives them larger octane ratings for the same fuel, and they call ours *limp wristed*. Dumbasses.\n\nThe reason we need to take an average, the reason we use gasoline and not pure octane, is because oil isn't synthesized, it's refined through what is essentially distillation. Vapors collect where they condense in a column, and the runoff at a given tier is a particular product. Light molecules come off the top, like butane used in lighters, gasoline is somewhere in the middle, asphalt is near the bottom, and bunker fuel is actually the bottom - used in cargo ships.\n\nSo why do we need different levels of stability? The more you compress the charge, the more charge you can compress, the more energy you can extract from the fuel. High compression and turbocharged engines are more energy efficient. Unfortunately, these engines also produce more extreme environments for the charge, making them unstable, so you need a higher octane fuel to tolerate that extra density and compression, and the heat you get from it. But high octane fuels are hard to refine, you don't get that much, so it's more expensive. Low octane is cheap and easy to make, and so it's more plentiful. Engine manufactures build engines for use with this cheaper fuel, and it's plenty powerful and efficient for most consumer needs and market demands.\n\nSo use the fuel recommended by your car. If it says mid-grade, use mid-grade. If it says regular, don't bother with premium, you're just pissing away money for zero benefit. If you put a fuel too low in your engine, you're going to get that spontaneous detonation we talked about earlier, which physically damages your engine. Modern cars have \"knock\" sensors that will change the running parameters of your engine to protect it, and you'll run really rich, wasting fuel, and under powered." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d27jzhh", "d27k1iy" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "There has been much research done on corpses to analyze how strong bones and other tissues are and there are a great many analyses of injuries where we can estimate the forces involved using physics and then compare the forces with the degree of injury.", "Sadly there's little shortage of real-life data. Modern cars have accelerometers which record how forceful an impact was, and those data can be used to analyse injuries resulting.\n\nBefore that, reasonable estimates could be made of how fast a vehicle had decelerated from what speed and again related that to injuries.\n\nThen there's [this chap](_URL_0_) who used himself as a research tool. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cgeqzcm" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Several things regarding this.\n\nAs a reminder of the strengths of forces acting on the particles:\n\nStrength of gravity of a proton acting on an electron:\nF_g = G *m1*m2/r^2\n= 3.67*10^-47 Newtons\n\nStrength of electromagnetism acting on an electron:\nF_e = k * q1 * q2 / r^2\n= 8*10^-8 Newtons\n\nIn particle physics, the effect of gravity of the particles on each other is effectively ignored.\n\nThe effect of gravity is also considered from center of mass. Which in this case, protons/neutrons are composite particles of charged quarks, you have to consider the effects of masses acting in various directions when you get too close, similar to digging to the center of the Earth leaves you weightless because of even pulling all around you.\n\nElectrons/quarks also are effectively point particles, as they don't seem to have a physical size. The \"size\" of a particle is kinda vague, but they are usually defined as an interaction radius to various forces, so they are different sized depending on what you are comparing them to.\n\nMore importantly however, you are in the realm of quantum mechanics, so classical approximations don't hold effectively. The reason the electron does not fall into the nucleus despite the forces involved is that the wavefunction of the electron does not allow it to. Gravity also requires a quantum theory in order to properly integrate in for reasonable predictions (we do not have a quantum theory of gravity yet).\n\nTheoretically though, if something were to have zero distance, or at least very very very close, they are predicted to turn into a black hole because the mass density of that tiny volume reaches that level. Of course, we have no observed instance of this because of how highly improbable it is, but in theory, that's what will happen." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c76k0g1", "c76k16m", "c76k6kz", "c76mf6x", "c76mogw", "c76yplr" ], "score": [ 5, 9, 4, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The tires rubber is partially melted due to the speed they go. If you ever watched NASCAR after a crash when they follow the pace car they swerve back and forth to keep the tires warm so they get better grip, the tires also have to be changed often because of this. ", "F1 (and NASCAR, etc) have different sets of tires for dry and wet conditions; they go into the pits to change tires when the wet happens. The \"rain\" tires have grooves. \n\nYour parent's tires have to handle all weather conditions (unless they are rich with a Ferrari and a racing garage) so your government has laws in place for road safety that require tires to have a minimum amount of grooves in them. ", "As others have said, your tires have to be able to handle rain, hail, snow, and other road conditions, and you can't change them once (or more) per drive. \n\nMoreover, though, you're not driving on a carefully engineered and curated course. Your tires might have to deal with objects in the road, potholes, oil slicks, etc. etc. ", "The main reason, aside from what others have pointed out about your road car's tyres working in a variety of conditions, is because F1 cars are designed to go really really fast. So fast that the rubber on their tyres heats up, expanding and thus providing a lot more grip onto the road. The next time you watch F1, pay attention to the warm-up lap - notice how they're constantly swerving from side-to-side? That's to get the tyres hot. Hell, they even put covers on the tyres when they're sitting idle on the grid - it's not to keep them dry or anything, it's to keep them warm. Every degree helps. The hotter they get, the better grip they have. You can't do that on a car, even on a main road your car won't be going anywhere near the speeds of an F1 car.", "Formula 1 teams during races have two types of tires for their cars, dry tires and wet tires. Dry tires are totally smooth on the bottom, they allow for enhanced grip on the road but have one fatal flaw, they hydroplane easily. The Formula 1 car will have dry tires on during the race but as soon as it starts raining or the track becomes wet, the car makes a pit stop to swap the tires out for wet track tires. \n\nRoad cars cant stop and change tires every time it starts raining so therefore the tires have to be built for both types of road conditions, wet and dry.\n\n---------------------------\n\nThe other side of this answer is that that racetracks have completely different rules about what's legal and not legal than public roads do. The types of tires that can be used on the racetrack dont have to be legal to use on public roads because they will never be used on public roads. \n\nIts kind of like tackling someone is perfectly legal during a football game but will get you arrested if you do it in public. ", "also note: there are some tires that fall into kind of a loop hole, Drag Radials are the 1st to come to mind. i have a set on my car and theyre GREAT when its dry and TERRIBLE when it rains. they only have 2 grooves around the center of the tire and a handful on the outside edge. this tread is also very shallow and after about a month or two the tires are almost smooth, much like the racecar tires your talking about. these are still street legal, but very unsafe in wet conditions. the best way to describe it, even when those tires are brand new is like having your back wheels(in my case, because its a mustang and RWD) on ice the entire time. literally anything over about 25mph was like skating on ice. this also makes them very unpredictable and ive had the car spin around on more then one occasion very suddenly and with out warning" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c6bs84h" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Neutrinos only interact through the [weak interaction](_URL_2_) because they don’t posses an electric charge (needed for electromagnetic interaction) or a color charge (needed for [strong interaction](_URL_1_)). The weak interaction being a short range interaction, neutrinos interact very little with matter, meaning they can go through it almost perfectly.\n\nTo detect them we basically use [gigantic pools](_URL_0_) of [heavy water](_URL_3_), hoping a few neutrinos (I don’t know what the rate is exactly) will interact and we can detect them.\n\n*Note: gravitation can be neglected because neutrinos are so light.*\n\nPS: maybe to clarify the “why is it that neutrinos can pass through so much material” part:\nbecause matter is mostly void and it’s the electromagnetic force of the atoms that prevent matter from going through other matter (like 2 magnets will repel each other even if they’re not touching); and as said above, neutrinos don’t interact with the electromagnetic force (a block of wood isn’t stopped by a magnet).\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water#Neutrino_detector", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fnfs24v", "fnfzohg" ], "score": [ 4, 12 ], "text": [ "Fats tend to soak up smells and stuff around them. I’d recommend cleaning your fridge well every once in a while.", "All the food inside is drying out and all the moisture takes smells into the air with it. The fridge is closed and small, so all that smelly air is trapped in there. Over time, food left in there a long time will have a dry crust and the humid smelly air will start to go back into the dry crust. The yucky taste and texture is all those mixed smells and dried out crust combined." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e7dv0wg", "e7dv294", "e7dv47q" ], "score": [ 2, 6, 6 ], "text": [ "Yes it does, a refrigerator is basically a pump that effectively pumps heat out of the inside and on the back coil, if you open it, air gets in from the outside, making it need to pump more heat out, but the heat then goes back in,\n\nTo be fair leaving it a bit open probably won’t waste that much power, but it definitely does ", "It does cost more electric because your letting the cold out so it has to use more power to try and keep it cool BUT it is never going to be noticeable on the electricity bill unless you leave it fully open all day in temps with 20c and even then it's going to add maybe 25p per day,\n\nBUT here's my question who on earth goes to the fridge and leaves the door open regardless of whether it costs more electric it will make your food go off sooner and not be cold,\n\nI have never met anyone that opens the fridge and leaves it open it litterally makes no sense", "Yes (but not very much), and the reason is pretty simple.\n\nWith the fridge door closed, the thermodynamic system is mostly closed -- (almost) no energy in, (almost) no energy out -- and so the guts of the fridge don't have to do a ton of work.\n\nBut every time you open the door, some of the cold air inside escapes, replaced with relatively warmer air from its surroundings.\n\nThe condenser and compressor in the fridge then have to work to take the heat from that air and vent it out the back, increasing the energy consumed.\n\nThe amount of air that's exchanged this way isn't very much, because the air inside the fridge isn't moving around a whole lot.\n\nYou'll actually spend more energy putting a plate of hot food in the fridge than you will opening the door several extra times, because the food is directly increasing the humidity and temperature of the internals!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0pfil2", "d0pi0id" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "What you are referring to is called the [isotope effect](_URL_0_). It is real, but it isn't usually very pronounced.", "\"Interesting\" is a statement that means different things to different people.\n\nAnyway there are small measurable differences in pKa of the acids because of the difference in bond enthalpies of X-H and X-D bonds and the kinetics of reactions that occur in the presence of acid change according to the kinetic isotope effect, although this isn't always trivial to measure since in complex reactions the acid is rarely involved in the rate limiting step in standard conditions.\n\nIf you are interested I might be able to find some pKas, but I don't have them to hand right now." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c4ok42f" ], "score": [ 24 ], "text": [ "Oswald shot him. In the head.\n\nThat's pretty much the only opinion that will not get you rejected for tenure. Why? Because like all conspiracies, the JFK conspiracy relies upon such a perfect chain of events, placement of people, and reliance on their complicity, as well as not leaving a paper trail a mile long, that it borders on the absurd.\n\nWhat is really more plausible? That one crazy communist with a gun slipped through the security cracks and got off three honestly easy shots on a day that the President went against the better advice of his security team? OR, that the Cuban rebels/CIA/FBI/Mafia/Alien Greys/Freemasons/Rosicrucians/Girl Scouts conspired to off the most powerful man in the free world with out anyone having a guilty conscience, verifiable evidence, failures in security, lapses in timing, or just plain bad luck (if you have any experience with real government secret planning, you would know how many things get completely cocked up)?\n\n" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.businessinsider.com/a-closer-look-at-the-watergate-tapes-reveals-that-nixon-didnt-order-the-burglary-2012-5" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czpy1qy", "czpyhso" ], "score": [ 4, 2 ], "text": [ "That's a damn interesting question but impossible to answer because we do not know just how horribly inflated diamond prices are. ", "They are not really inflated, it's all based on supply and demand like any other commodity. Industrial diamonds are very useful and widely used, jewelry is not useful but high in demand for obvious reasons, marriage being a big one." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dnahrh0" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Spain's force in Cuba numbered 278,457 soldiers, distributed in 101 Infantry Battalions, 11 Cavalry Regiments, 2 Artillery Regiments, and 4 Marine Battalions. The force in Cuba made up the bulk of Spain's entire military force, being nearly 57 percent of the Army. This force was bolstered by another 82,000 volunteers. Another 10,005 were in Puerto Rico, and 51,331 in the Philippines, for another 12 percent of the Spanish Army. \n\nAlthough a large force, the Spanish Army of the time was somewhat decrepit, manned with poor quality conscripts (those who could afford to pay the tax to avoid universal conscription always did), and never with enough equipment, even though they did carry decent Mauser rifles. Although commanding a large part of the Spanish budget, the bloated officer corps (1:4 officer:enlisted ratio!) ate up much of that with their salaries. The aloof officer corps wasn't up to the task of leadership, and the men were not all that easy to lead in any case.\n\nAt sea, Cuba and Puerto Rico were defended by 8 cruisers, 6 destroyers, and 49 other small craft manned by 2,800 sailors and 600 marines. As with the Army though, the Navy was a paper tiger at best, as barely any of the Spanish fleet was up to modern standards and able to go toe-to-toe with the US Navy, which as it turned out, made mincemeat of 'em.\n\n\"Spain, Army\" and \"Spain, Navy\" from Encyclopedia of the Spanish-American and Philippine American Wars, ed. by Spencer C. Tucker" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dkqz82l", "dkr3hdx", "dkr6us3", "dkrhncg", "dkrjva7", "dkrlt5x", "dkrmf32", "dkrmtxd", "dkrqisx", "dkrrsuj", "dkrtror", "dkrul9u", "dkrvb1i", "dkrxg5c", "dkrxqes", "dkry2dc", "dkrzmzj", "dks2x6y", "dks39b1", "dks47mf", "dks4jqy", "dkxo5w4" ], "score": [ 75, 19089, 836, 34, 50, 1723, 17, 3, 3, 41, 2, 5, 2, 12, 2, 8, 2, 2, 4, 6, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Mostly by earthquakes. When there's a big shock from an earthquake the entire planet rings like a bell. This ringing can be detected by seismographs. On those readings we see reflections of the pressure wave. These reflections are caused by the wave reaching the boundary between different layers of the earth.", "The same way you are able to tell what's in the box your grandmother sent you at Christmas. When you shake it, a sweater sounds different from a PS4 controller. Obviously scientists can't shake the earth, but the earth shakes itself sometimes, and scientists in different places are always listening (or rather their seismographs are listening). By comparing what different locations record, they can make good guesses about what's inside, just like you may be able to do. \n\nEdit: Thanks for the gold!", "Adding more detail to previous answers...\n\n\nShockwaves travel at a speed that is dependant on the material it is traveling through. The more dense a material is, the faster the shockwave travels.\n\nAir: ~1131 feet/second\n\nWater: ~4900 feet/second\n\nIron: ~16800 feet/second\n\nIf the earth were made of just one substance with the same density throughout, it would be easy to calculate the exact time a shockwave would arrive at any point around the globe. If it doesn't arrive at that exact time it means the earth is made of different materials and/or materials with different densities.\n\nScientists have measured the exact speed of shockwave propagation in pure elements, minerals, conglomerate materials (solid mixtures) and everything else they could test. Using some pretty complex math and the actual arrival times of shockwaves from various places on the planet, a very good idea can be formed of what our planet is made of and what it looks like inside.", "Pretty interesting we've only been 12 or 13 km deep. Have you watched the video detailing Russia's attempt to get deeper and it being nigh impossible?", "In addition to the correct answers already mentioned above, there are also very clear boundary effects at play in between the layers of different density. For example, a shock wave will not only change speed, but will change direction or even bounce off the interface between two layers depending on the angle of incidence and the densities involved (see Snell's law). These scientists can then extrapolate where these layers are delineated based on the places where the shock waves emerge on the surface of the Earth.", "Earthquakes produce and travel via both **P**ressure waves (bits of earth pushing on each other) ans **S**hear waves (bits of earth sliding past each other and dragging other bits).\n\nIf you imagine a solid, you can push on one bit and have another bit move, or you can drag one bit and have another bit move. Solids allow both P- and S- waves to propagate.\n\nIf you imagine a liquid, if you push on it another bit will move, but if you slide your finger over the surface, other bits won't move. Liquids propagate P-waves, but not S-waves.\n\nEarthquakes are messy and produce both P and S waves. So when an Earthquake occurs on one side of the planet, you listen on the other side and you will detect P-waves quickly, and S waves much later (if at all). The reason for the difference is that pressure waves can travel through the middle of the earth, but shear waves can't - they either go the long way around the outside through the solid crust, or simply dissipate before making it, which suggests that the middle of the earth must be a liquid as something is blocking S-waves.\n\nHowever, if you're not on the exact other side of the planet and maybe only a quarter of the way around, and you listen very carefully, you will actually detect *two* sets of Pressure waves, not one. What gives? Well, the second set of pressure waves is coming after the first set, so it must have traveled further and gone via a different path. The different path means the P-wave must have reflected of something, and we have deduced that this something must be a large solid within the liquid.\n\nSo the fact that in some places you get P- but not S- waves means there must be a liquid under the solid crust, and the fact that if you listen at the right spot you get a second P- wave means there must be another solid under the liquid\n\nedit: (I didn't see you asked about the mantle) If you monitor the P-waves carefully, very near an Earthquake you will also get a second set, this time quite soon after the first. In fact, too soon for the second set to have reflected off the inner core. This is because the second set is both reflecting and refracting as it travels; the refraction means there must be a change in density and the reflection means it must be sudden (the mantle). There are a few refractions - one at the top of the mantle, another ~600km down - which means there are different density layers and that is why we divide into upper and lower mantle. It's thought that the difference in mantle is that at higher pressures, the rock crystals form into denser arrangements (hence lower mantle is denser). Beyond that, we don't know much about the lower mantle compared to the upper mantle (which is easy to measure refraction more accurately) and the core (easy to measure the sudden change in how P and S waves propagate)", "Something people haven't mentioned yet but are very important in our understanding of mantle composition are xenoliths (fragments of mantle rock that don't melt but get stuck in magma and float up with it to the surface) and other mantle rocks that get piped up to the surface (the Hawai'ian Islands are a partial melt of the mantle, we also have examples of komatiite lava which are very similar to the mantle compositions). ", "When they dug that hole they found many things that weren't expected or predicted. Don't believe the hype. Indirect measurements aren't the same as direct measurements.\n\nIf we really want to learn more about earth we need to dig more deep holes.", "OP if you're interested in this topic, take a geology class. I took a sequence and absolutely loved it. Would minor if I was relevant to my major (CS). \n\nBut to ELI5 basically an earthquake sends waves all throughout the earth and we noticed that some behave one way and others don't, and the others that don't clued us in that there are more layers that change that other waves movement. ", "Not a scientist or anything but I work in seismic and we put listening devices in the ground and vibrate at a really low frequency with these trucks and it lets us see anything from fault lines to oil pits about 1000ft deep using the lowest setting. We can turn it up 3000% higher than what we do allowing us to see 20000 ft deep. When earthquakes happen and the devices are planted we can see about 50000 ft deep and this is with equipment a small company has so Im sure the government and larger companies have much stronger and better technology that could let them see far deeper allowing them to see much farther into the earth. Now I don't know how if this is something they actually use determine anything related to the post but to me it seems like it would be. ", "Any correlating methods other than seismology?\n\nI'm just curious how well we've built up the case, and **all** of the other comments so far are about pressure and shear wave propagation being **the** evidence.\n\nI'm not doubting the effort, I'm just wanting to hear more.", "Even better question. Is it coincidence that the deepest drilled depth is almost exactly the deepest discovered part of the ocean?", "While observations of earthquakes is the direct answer to your question, as evidenced by the other responses, there are other theories that rely upon the existence of an inner and outer core. \n \nIn particular, the dynamo theory for earth's magnetism is based on convection currents of liquid metal being induced in the outer core by heat generated within the inner core. Furthermore, these currents have not stopped over X billion years due to the continual heat being provided to them from that inner core as it solidifies under gravitational pressure from the planet. An alternative model (one that lacked the inner core for example) would not fit the theory.", "So its the day before Christmas and there are 5 presents with your name on them. \n\nYou really wanted a Nintendo Wii for Christmas. \n\nYou pick up a box and shake it, it makes a dull soft sound, and you decide that it's boring socks. You pick up another box and shake it, and you hear a, \"Squeak.\" You know its the sound of Styrofoam scraping against cardboard. You know that the WII comes in Styrofoam, THIS IS THE WII!!!!!!!!!!\n\nIf you didn't see in the packages, how did you know what was in them? By shaking them, you send vibrations into the packages, then you listened to the sound things made when they moved. By listening carefully to the sounds, you were able to make a good guess.\n\nThis is how scientists tell what the earth is made of. When an earthquake happens, waves of vibrations go through the ENTIRE Earth. Scientists have lots of machines all over the earth that can, \"Listen\" to the vibrations earthquakes make. By analyzing the time and frequency of the vibrations, we can tell whats in the earth, just like it was a Christmas present. ", "They yell really loud and ask all their friends to listen for the differnet echos. Sometimes they use nuclear explosions to make the yelling even louder, or let earthquakes do it for them.", "Essentially science has no idea what is beyond 8 miles deep, layers are assumed (hypothesis), all we have right now is best guess based on the physics we know and extend our reasoning from there. As a side note drilling to 8 miles showed us that rock acts a bit like soft plastic because of the great pressures at work at that depth.", "A woman discovered that the earths core was solid her name was [Inge Lehmann] (_URL_0_)\n\nshe was somewhat doubted at the time but was proved right, if i recall correctly.", "When there is an earthquake it sends out 2 types of waves, S waves (like a sin wave, the up down kind) and p waves, or pressure waves (kinda like sound, something pushes whats in front of it which pushes in front of it etc.). If I remember correctly S waves can travel through liquid but not solid and p waves can do both. So when there is an earthquake and an s wave can only be picked up within a certain radius of the origin point and p waves on the opposite side of the earth they can determine the earth has a solid core, and some liquid in between, as well as their general size. And I'm sure knowledge of pressure, heat, and properties of metals suffice to create a model that is supported by the explained seismic testing.", "Think of screaming at the top of your lungs on land and when you're underwater in the swimming pool. The vibrations of your voice in the air is like seismic vibrations traveling through cooler, more brittle rock and the vibrations traveling through water are like seismic vibrations traveling through the more molten parts of the earth. If you notice, sound doesn't travel as well through a liquid. Same rule applies. The deeper you travel towards the center of the earth, the higher amounts of pressure and heat are apparent to melt rock to make it liquid. Measuring the different speeds of vibrations from tectonic activity (aka Earthquakes) can paint a picture of what state of matter the rock below the surface is. To get more in depth, look up P and S waves and how they travel through mediums ", "on a larger, philosophical level, it's important to remember that things like the inner structure of the planet are *best guesses* rather than hard fact. We have compiled a robust line of reasoning and the things we believe about the middle of the earth are based on good evidence, but nobody's seen it. There are probably some pretty big twists that nobody had imagined, but we literally cannot look to see for certain\n\nat least, not until we get star trek scanners. that's gonna be sweet", "Scientist used seismic waves. Some waves can pass through liquids and solids. Some can't pass through liquid. Waves go in, some bounce back, some don't.", "And I'm sure knowledge of pressure, heat, and properties of metals suffice to create that well because they had not enough or all information available?" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cc3x9q7", "cc3xdjf", "cc44dx3" ], "score": [ 11, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Don't forget that outside of the US it's spelt and pronounced 'arse,' whilst the type of donkey is still universally called an ass. A lot of Irish accents have a very 'ass'-like pronunciation of 'arse,' and of course Irish immigrants made up a huge number of Americans during the initial population boom.", "See [here](_URL_0_). It originally meant \"donkey\", then became an insult for people. The meaning of \"butt\" is first attested in 1860, but as slang it may be significantly older but not recorded in writings we have.\n\nIt actually seems to be from merger of \"arse\" and \"ass\" in some dialects of English--see [here](_URL_1_). Arse always meant \"butt\", it seems that the meaning of \"arse\" carried over to \"ass\" in dialect where they're different.", "In German it's Arsch." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=ass&allowed_in_frame=0", "http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=arse&allowed_in_frame=0" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dzp7trp" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Most often these are not mutations but conjoined twins. One case is when an egg doesn’t split properly during development; another theory, though heavily disputed, is the fusion of two separate fertilized eggs during development. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "feh8ln7", "feh9ro3", "feh9wcm", "feha849" ], "score": [ 7, 2, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "It's 100% Hollywood bullshit. It might have been true decades ago when phone calls were connected manually, but not since the electronic switches that we have since the 1970s.", "That’s not a real thing. The phone company would have the record of the call the instant the call was connected. Even if the police didn’t have anyone on the call itself they could call the phone company and get the record of the call. If they where looking for the location of the caller, they would call the phone company and have them give them the location the call was made from. They don’t have any need to keep someone on the line at all as far as locating the caller is concerned.", "This is a holdover from how telephones worked before the 1970s. Nowadays, it's all electronic, and assuming the [caller ID isn't being spoofed](_URL_0_), it's pretty easy to obtain this info.\n\nPrior to the late 1970s, telephone networks didn't use computers and electronic systems. They used [electrically powered mechanical switches](_URL_2_) that were stacked together in arrays that filled entire buildings, and would physically connect different cables together to make a call go through. Several of these switches were required (in larger cities) to complete a call. In fact, this old mechanical switching system is what dictated how phone numbers were formatted, and assigned. The numbers you dialed would literally tell a switch which central office you wanted to reach, and then tell it how many times to step through its gears, to pass your call to the next switch in a different part of the network, and eventually, to your called person's phone line.\n\nIn this era, tracing a call *literally* involved a person (or several people) in the telephone central office working through the series of switches to see where a call came from. They would have to **trace** the path the call took... from the called phone line, back down to each switch that contacted it from one part of the network to the next, and on to the originating phone line. This is what took so much time. And, if the caller hung up before the trace was completed, then the effort was wasted... the call would end and all the electromechanical switches would snap back to their standby positions, waiting to be used in the next call.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEdit: [Here's a video of these old phone switches in action.](_URL_1_)", "While all these technical explanations are great, have you noticed that your phone tells you what number it's receiving a call from before it rings. That's how long it takes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcvA5q8yOTo", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strowger_switch" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc0hnf1" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "While these sorts of posts are welcome in this subreddit, it's often not the best place to put them. You may find you have better luck in /r/whatisthisthing, as the sub specializes in identifying unknown objects." ] }

[]

[ "http://imgur.com/a/NH2Qh" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr0cyzm", "cr0czo5" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Everyone is making money but you. \n\nYou take out a loan from Bank A for $100,000. If they kept it, you'd probably end up paying them $150,000 back.\n\nThey sell it to Bank B for $120,000. Bank A makes $20,000 right away, and Bank B makes $30,000 in the long run because now you're paying THEM the interest for the loan.", "Some banks create loans without the intent of actually keeping them. They start loans with the intent of *selling* them to other banks that will get money from the interest payments. The original banks get money from origination fees and from the fee they charge the banks they sell the loans to\n\nJust wait until you have a mortgage. Those suckers bounce around all the time" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c30zzef", "c30zzef" ], "score": [ 13, 13 ], "text": [ "We *are* smaller than the wavelength of a lot of electromagnetic waves (e.g. radio waves) and our eyes simply don't detect them, that is, we see nothing. We can pick them up with other specialized instruments, for example by connecting a length of wire to a properly tuned receiver circuit, which is what an antenna and radio are doing. What we call 'light' is no different from these longer wavelength EM waves, just happens to be in the range of wavelengths to which our eyes are sensitive.\n\nNote that most radio receivers are smaller than the wavelength of the radio waves themselves, which can be many meters up to kilometers in length. So it is certainly possible for a detector to be smaller than the wavelength of radiation to which it is sensitive. Even in our eyes this is true, because the fundamental detector protein itself, [rhodopsin](_URL_0_), is smaller than the 400-700 nm wavelengths we can see. It's just the structure of the eye needed for gathering more light and forming an image that makes it big.", "We *are* smaller than the wavelength of a lot of electromagnetic waves (e.g. radio waves) and our eyes simply don't detect them, that is, we see nothing. We can pick them up with other specialized instruments, for example by connecting a length of wire to a properly tuned receiver circuit, which is what an antenna and radio are doing. What we call 'light' is no different from these longer wavelength EM waves, just happens to be in the range of wavelengths to which our eyes are sensitive.\n\nNote that most radio receivers are smaller than the wavelength of the radio waves themselves, which can be many meters up to kilometers in length. So it is certainly possible for a detector to be smaller than the wavelength of radiation to which it is sensitive. Even in our eyes this is true, because the fundamental detector protein itself, [rhodopsin](_URL_0_), is smaller than the 400-700 nm wavelengths we can see. It's just the structure of the eye needed for gathering more light and forming an image that makes it big." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c3vw9c0" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Sweet - Your basic energy unit is glucose, this taste makes you want to eat things high in sugar\n\nSalty - Sodium is a vital electrolyte is maintaining physiological balance (water, chemical, energy production, ect) so you need foods with it too.\n\nUmami - Tripped by the amino acid glutimate, and not present in all people. Belived to help attract you to protein based meals too, making for a balanced diet.\n\nBitter - Trips when you eat things with alkaloids and nicotines. These chemicals are present in a wide variety of poisonous plants. Good detection of these can help you stay alive.\n\nSour - Trips in acidic foods. Can both be a warning from poisonous food and needed food like lemons for vitamins " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ec3bysq", "ec3cmm0" ], "score": [ 12, 5 ], "text": [ "Why more sex?\n\nBirth control was more widely available.\n\nThe Vietnam war in the 60's/70's brought back boys that were now men who had horrible PTSD and drug exposures. \nWays of escaping could have been sex, \"Make love, not war\". They felt their lives were at their end, their number is called, might be up.\n\nWhy divorce rates? \n\nAbusive spouses could be left as women in the workplace was more mainstream. \n\nBirth control did not trap women in a marriage with 10 kids... \n\nChurch laws eased and remarrying after a divorce was possible, in church, about that time. \n\nA few points. Not comprehensive by any stretch!", "Two words: the pill.\n\nTo elaborate (and avoid the auto delete bot), it was the first time that women had easy reliable birth control, and for that matter the first time we all had access to good antibiotics. For the first time ever. Nobody had ever hear of HIV and other incurable STD’s." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6t52ti", "d6t5paz", "d6t6so2", "d6t75rv", "d6tarpd", "d6tgppu", "d6tgrqr", "d6tgs1a", "d6ti6jr", "d6tioyh", "d6tj5nn", "d6tj62o", "d6tjci9", "d6tjuos", "d6tjvpm", "d6tkhki", "d6tlb9w", "d6tlckz", "d6tlkix", "d6tm1io", "d6tmts8", "d6torer", "d6tp3fs", "d6tpczt", "d6tpekc", "d6tsy2f" ], "score": [ 1851, 20, 13, 179, 118, 3, 19, 807, 62, 6, 3, 8, 118, 11, 2, 14, 15, 3, 55, 2, 5, 9, 4, 2, 10, 2 ], "text": [ "I think you can eat it, it's just that salmon that have spawned have not eaten for months and are essentially on their last breath. Their meat becomes mush when cooked traditionally. It is not very appetizing. It also loses much of its oil. ", "It dies pretty much immediately after spawning, and by the time you collect it, it will already have been dead for who-knows-how-long. As a general rule, you don't want to eat an animal that died for any other reason than that a person killed it for its meat.", "I assume it's a lot of stress on the animal which makes the meat taste bad. If adrenaline is released in cows before they get slaughtered then the meat will be wasted as well.\n\n\nSo it's not a matter of whether it is edible (poisonous) but rather of quality and taste.", "You can, it would just not be very good. The salmon after they spawn have not eaten since they were at sea. So they are not at a good state because they have been starving for a while. \n\nAdditionally they die shortly after spawning so unless you made sure to get one alive it could have been dead for days or even weeks and that is dangerous. ", "Worked in a salmon hatchery, and wondered this exact thing. We killed the salmons ourselves, so it wasn't an issue with finding them already dead. The hatchery manager said basically once it enters fresh water again, it begins dying and decomposing while still alive, so by the time it spawns, the meat is already disgusting.", "Have you ever handled a spawned out fish? By that point they are already almost dead.", "If you took one look at the fish you wouldn't want to eat it. It's dying, covered in a white fungus similar to fin rot, skinny and gross looking. And it smells fishy, which is a sign fish has gone bad.\n\nI've never heard that it is poisonous, but I've also never heard of someone wanting to eat it. ", "Alaskan here, you can eat it. As one commenter stated already they stop eating once they leave the salt and begin burning all their fat reserves. The flesh becomes softer and less oily and can start to take on a muddier taste the longer they're in the fresh water. Also, they begin to develop bacteria growth on their exterior after being in the fresh water for some time, these fish are usually long past spawned and pretty much just running on auto-pilot and swimming around half dead. \n\nEDIT: Also caught and ate salmon my entire childhood hundreds of miles from the ocean and they're fine, good actually. There are genetic variances in a lot of salmon that dictate how big they get depending on how far they have to go to spawn. The Yukon River King Salmon for example have a comparatively much more fat than other King Salmon because they travel from the mouth of the Yukon in Western Alaska, all the way to Canada. Even when caught in Canada, they are still eaten, or were traditionally, not sure what the regs. are now. ", "Yeah, another Alaskan here who actually eats salmon regularly... You can eat it after it's spawned, but it's just not as fresh. When we fish we like to get them as they enter the rivers from the sea, but then again we live near the coast, so it's easier for us. But you can drive inland over 50 miles around here and still catch them as they don't usually spawn until they reach pretty far inland. It's all about timing. Pretty much once they start turning color they go downhill, but plenty of people around here will still catch and eat them until they start getting moldy and zombified.", "Fish is dying when they are going to spawn. They taste mushy. Some people will catch spawned out or close to spawning salmon and smoke them. Which is pretty good. ", "Do the bears still eat them?", "I think you're specifically asking about pacific salmon, which don't eat for long periods of time before they spawn, and die shortly after they spawn.\n\n\nAtlantic salmon do not die after they spawn, and they are caught and eaten at all ages, AFAIK.", "Looks like this has already been pretty well covered but to bring it home they go from looking like [this](_URL_1_) to looking like [this.](_URL_0_) Yum.\n\nEdit: Made my links suck less", "I want to piggyback on this question and ask, why do bears catch salmon that are still fighting upstream and not just go to where the salmons actually breed? The salmon are still alive for a bit after spawning, wouldn't a dying salmon make for an easier meal? ", "Was once a resident of a place named \"smells like fish\", from the aftermath of rotting salmon carcasses. One other small point, if everyone took the rotting salmon out of the streams, it would not be scavenged/decompose to the benefit of plants and other animals down stream. Also, going into spawning grounds to grab a juicy one would disturb the eggs. Just general reasons to keep kids out of the delicate streams.", "You can eat them, they just get further and further into zombie mode. I was a commercial salmon fisherman for 9 years and literally saw fish swimming around after their eyes had fallen out.", "ELI5: What does spawning mean in this context? I don't really know much about fish and what I do know I don't know the English words for", "When I lived on Adak Island, we just smacked the humpies with a rock and threw them to the eagles. They just start to taste pretty terrible, its been explained but theres a huge difference in taste, they stop eating in fresh water and pretty much.. start to fall apart, at least with pinks they do. Silvers and reds seemed a little more hearty than pinks. ", "Salmon don't eat or even heal wounds on their journey up. The salmon we get here lose 50% of their body weight to get here. We have several salmon at our facility with open wounds. By the time they start spawning their bodies are already falling apart. In fact females usually die within a day of spawning. The meat really isn't of quality. Additionally many hatcheries use chemicals like formalin to prevent infections and that makes the salmon unfit for consumption after we spawn them.\n\n-source, I work at a Chinook Salmon Harchery.", "Why can't they just swim downstream after spawning? It seems like swimming downstream would be ten times easier than swimming upstream.", "When the salmon spawn they are all but dead. They are basically rotting while alive. It's just not something you want to bite into. ", "The game devs put in a 5 second invulnerability timer on the salmon when they spawn to prevent spawn killing due to lag. ", "One other thing to consider is that the flesh is really bruised from the process of swimming upstream. They are often flinging themselves onto rocks to advance up the river.", "Salmon get an invincibility buff right after spawning, to prevent spawn killing for new Salmon ", "They are mostly dead after they reach the spawning grounds.\n\nThey've used up their energy reserves in the 3-5day marathon swim against current and uphill\n\nOrgan failure has set in\n\nBodies fill with toxins after kidneys and liver fail\n\n their flesh is macerated from the shock of leaving sea water and spending days in freshman water \n\nTL,:dr\n\nSalmon are swimming zombies by the end of the spawn.\n\nThey look terrible and taste terrible to humans.\n", "Well how do you eat it before it spawns? It's not on the map yet. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.naturebob.com/zenphoto/albums/fish/Coho-Salmon-female-spawned-out-guarding-nest.jpg", "http://www.wildsalmonkitchen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/silver-whole-e1304395488349.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4n2hkd" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It's not the right era (up til 1600), but I checked my copy of [*Sources of Japanese Tradition vol. 1*](_URL_1_) and it has some primary sources that mention the Ainu.\n\n1. \"New History of the Tang Dynasty\" mentions the ainu arriving at the Chinese court w/ a Japanese envoy in 663 (p.12)\n\n2. \"Reform Edicts\" from the Taika Reforms in 645 mentions keeping weapons handy in provinces bordering the Emishi (p.78)\n\n3. p. 266 has some information from campaigns against them.\n\n4. The index has a listing for Buddhism and the Ainu on p.212, but for the life of me I don't see them mentioned on that page. It's either an error, or I've gone blind.\n\nMy copy of [*Sources of Japanese Tradition vol. 2*](_URL_0_)(1600-2000) is in a box somewhere, so I can't check it for you, but that might be another place to look for translated primary sources from the era." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Japanese-Tradition-Introduction-Civilizations/dp/023112984X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1336791953&sr=8-2_", "http://www.amazon.com/Sources-Japanese-Tradition-Volume-One/dp/0231121393/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336791953&sr=8-1" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c782ybx", "c782yml", "c78713e", "c78b0iv" ], "score": [ 5, 13, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The tannin in tea forms a bond with non-heme iron, causing it to be indigestible.\n\n(Source: _URL_0_)", "Tannins are an organic compound found in both green and black varieties of tea. The tannins found in tea can interact with iron in the gastrointestinal tract, rendering iron less available for absorption. Drinking tea with a meal that contains iron-rich foods can decrease iron absorption by up to 88 percent, depending on the amount of tannins consumed.\n\n*A tannin is a compound that binds to and precipitates proteins and various other organic compounds including amino acids and alkaloids.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\n\nAlso, from the wikipedia page on tannins: Foods rich in tannins can be used in the treatment of HFE hereditary hemochromatosis, a hereditary disease characterized by excessive absorption of dietary iron, resulting in a pathological increase in total body iron stores.", "[Link to original research](_URL_0_)", "It’s not just tannins that interfere with iron absorption, it is all phenolic compounds (phenolic monomers, polyphenols, tannins). Phenolic compounds are found in teas and coffee, but also in things like wine. (I’m generalizing here, I know certain groups have been shown to not interfere in some studies) Phytates found in cereals and legumes can also interfere with absorption as can calcium. \n\nThe chemicals listed above bind with iron making the body unable to absorb it.\n\nIt wouldn’t be a cure for hemochromatosis, but it is certainly a treatment for it along with avoiding foods that increase absorption such as vitamin C and animal tissue. \n\nThere are two forms of dietary iron, heam and non-haem. Haem iron, which is found in animal tissue, is 2-6 times more bioavailable than non-haem iron which is found in eggs, nuts, cereals, vegetables, fish, and meat. However, I don't know the difference in rates of absorption between haem and non-haem iron in an individual with hemochromatosis. Would be interesting to know though." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.veetea.com/site/articles/Tea-and-Iron" ], [ "http://www.livestrong.com/article/533659-does-tea-affect-iron-absorption-in-the-body/" ], [ "http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=931228" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cy3fzc0", "cy3hz4n", "cy3knjv", "cy3nrmk", "cy3pzbo", "cy3w76i" ], "score": [ 3, 126, 3, 3, 14, 6 ], "text": [ "I am reminded that at least one \"scientist\" thought that a carriage traveling at over 28 mph (something like that) would cause all the air to rush out, asphyxiating the passengers. This was early 1800s when trains were starting to reach such speeds.\n\nEDIT: This is the guy and the quote seems to be doubtful but he made similar predictions about the impossibility of rapid travel due to water/air resistance so believe what you will; certainly equally crazily wrong predictions were made by even greater scientists:\n_URL_0_", "The 'sound barrier' was never considered a theoretical speed limit while the term was being used. The tips of airplane propellers had been brushing up against it for a long time. Bullets has been breaking it for a long time. The V2 bomb broke it during every flight.\n\nThe term referred to the many disparate problems that pop up when you pilot an aircraft designed for subsonic speeds (M < < 1) at transonic speeds (M~1). Drag increases, your controls could become ineffective or even reversed, shock waves could create aerodynamic loads that cause your plane to break up. It was a 'barrier' to pilots because trying to go past it often killed you. Understanding and solving all these issues and packaging the solutions together into a plane that could be piloted all the way from M=0 to M > 1 was a daunting challenge, but one that was met in 1947. \n\nIt was kind of like how nuclear fusion is today. The science all says it's possible, but engineering around the practical problems involved is proving extremely difficult. ", "There were times that scientists said that if you drove faster than 35 miles an hour you would not be able to breath so i believe the speed of sound when found would have been at some stage determined as a speed that no human could ever move at.", "Ancient greeks tried to see just how fast light is.Two scientists each in every corner of each mountain hill were caring lanterns and they would follow the same method used for finding the speed of sound.Each would create a pulse in a timely fashion (instead of sound,turn the lantern) and depending on how much delay there would be in each action they would determine the speed of sound(light).Of course the experiment with light was a failure as they could not determine the speed of light (it would require an insane distance not found on earth) and even then the experiment would be biased as they would use light to measure light.", "The first man-made object to break the sound barrier is the whip. I'm not sure when whips were invented, but it's probably far enough back that by the time we were thinking about theoretical speed limits, we had already broken the speed of sound.", "When the steam locomotives were invented, people were seriously concerned about the physiological effects of riding in them. Would you stop breathing because you couldn't collect air? Would the skin be flayed from your bones? Your eyes from their sockets?!\n\nAt speeds of approximately 25-30 mph, mind you (~40-50 kph)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dionysius_Lardner" ], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxm76pd", "cxm79p8", "cxm79x8", "cxm9ns1", "cxmhg36" ], "score": [ 19, 6, 7, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Traditional reproduction has a sperm and egg. Both have half of a full set of chromosomes. When the sperm enters the egg it deposits its half of the chromosomes, now with the two combined the newly formed zygote has a full set. It begins to develop as a new individual with neither the exact DNA of its mother or father, but a mixture. \n\nIn cloning you remove the chromosomes of the egg and insert a complete set. It can be from the mother, father or any other member of the species The resulting individual will be an exact duplicate of whatever was the source of its chromosomes. This is a clone. \n", "The simple version is that you take donor an egg cell, remove the DNA and add in the DNA from the organism that you want to clone. You then put the egg into some sort of incubation machine or (more commonly) into a female to develop. Normally, the DNA, egg, and female surrogate are all of the same species, but the can sometimes be of closely related species (which has the potential to help save endangered species since we can use more plentiful surrogate mothers and eggs with DNA from the endangered species). \n\nThere are plenty of potential pitfalls and complications involved in the process and many clones aren't as healthy or long-lived as their natural counterparts and too many clones means less genetic diversity.", "The simple version is that you take donor an egg cell, remove the DNA and add in the DNA from the organism that you want to clone. You then put the egg into some sort of incubation machine or (more commonly) into a female to develop. Normally, the DNA, egg, and female surrogate are all of the same species, but the can sometimes be of closely related species (which has the potential to help save endangered species since we can use more plentiful surrogate mothers and eggs with DNA from the endangered species). \n\nThere are plenty of potential pitfalls and complications involved in the process and many clones aren't as healthy or long-lived as their natural counterparts and too many clones means less genetic diversity.", "Adding to the other posts, I imagine they have some way of controlling gene expression so that instead of growing an entire animal, they can force just one or two types of cells to grow (fat and muscle for example). I couldn't tell you exactly how it works, but I do know that there has been limited laboratory success in [growing specific organs.](_URL_0_)\n\nIt would be cheaper and less controversial to produce everything from a handful of donor organisms. Whether that be in the form of creating it from scratch with traditional cloning techniques, or harvesting stem cells (there are different types, and adults have some that will produce other types of cells) from a donor animal.", "China is truly the last place anyone ( human ) needs to be cloned. However, for animals that is a different story. In fact, recently a \"fish\" farming colony company that uses genetically modified salmon was approved to sell by the FDA ( this is very recent news - and honestly extremely surprising ). The tried and true method of cloning as posted before is specifically called SCNT; Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. Strangely though, this SCNT process is as rudimentary as it is inefficient. China, somehow believes it has an upper hand in the field of cloning because of new techniques and better funding ( they claim to have human cloning capabilities ). \nStill, the reason cloning usually gets a bad rep is because of the many cells stimulated to \"clone\" only a handful actual make it to \"term\" ( begin the process of becoming an actual embryo ); one reason being that in vitro ( out of body ) some cellular proteins are not aggregated in copious enough amounts to sustain the cell's progression. [ this is a generalization, as the number of available molecules of any type might be less out of the body ]. You know a sort of cloning is always occurring in your own cells. Remember that cut you got a few weeks ago? Once the scab decided to fall off, the skin cells were made to mitotic-ally divide - which is essentially cloning - except a scientist didn't create the impetus for it. I hope I could add something to the table. I thoroughly enjoy discussing the biological world. * If I made some mistakes feel free to call me out XD " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.popsci.com/researchers-grow-first-ever-beating-hearts-stem-cells" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3pgrss" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\ntl;dr: \n\nCurrently, water hitting already extant natural barriers in the world causes a slowing of the rotation rate that lengthens the day by about 2.3 milliseconds per day per century. \n\nThat's because of friction of the ocean against natural barriers and the ocean floor... maybe some other stuff, its a complex topic -- this energy is roughly .1 TW per year.\n\nThe current tidal power generation planned projects equal about 115GW, roughly the same amount lost to 'natural causes'. This number is very low compared to the world's entire energy consumption-- that is because sites that have a high differential between high and low tides occur only in limited, specific configurations of underwater terrain around the globe, so 115GW is about all we can do and expect to make our money back at this point in time. \n\nIf we were to do all the currently planned easy/practical projects, we would double the rate of slow, a day would be about 4.3 milliseconds longer per century.\n\n\nNow let's get ridiculous and build a wall all the way around the earth. every day, the average height of the tide pours from one hemisphere to the other. Ignoring a lot of real things we'd have to worry about like efficiency of power generation and other losses, we might generate about 2TW.\n\nSo 2TW + natural barriers (although they may cause less friction if we've built a wall around the whole world), we're now slowing the earth down by about 45 milliseconds per century. Not something to be concerned about.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html", "http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/can-tides-turn-the-tide/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eojbloh" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Lots of paddling but no Sailing\n\nThere is significant physical evidence that Native Americans traveled to various islands in the Great Lakes. There are hunting artifacts on Pelee Island and pictographs on Kelley's Island in Lake Erie.\n\nThere were Ojibway (Chippewa) recorded as living on Michipicoten Island at the time of first contact by Etienne Brule around 1620, and there were prehistoric copper mines on Isle Royale. Both of these islands are in Superior and are near to the route of the Edmund Fitzgerald. They are both around a dozen miles off the the mainland, which is close enough to be visible, but far enough to make it more than just a lazy afternoon paddle. (And not in a storm, and not in November.)\n\nLater, when the fur trade picked up, the larger loads of furs were transported to Montreal in 30-40 foot canoes, except for the obvious portage at the Niagra River and the rapids near Sault Ste Marie.\n\nAlthough every paddler learns to adjust course for tailwinds, the first actual sailing ship on the Great Lakes was the Griffin built in Robert Sieur de La Salle in 1679." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvuwipq" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "They come from banks in the US. The US doesn't officially sanction other countries using her currency, but you can't keep those slips of paper from going on vacation." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck9my1g", "ck9o4u0", "ck9ojgx", "ck9oppj", "ck9ul0s" ], "score": [ 37, 7, 11, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "Nobody talks about the ones that become janitors.", "Science is still working on an answer to what exactly autism is, but one recently popular theory is the [Intense World Theory.](_URL_0_)\n\n...That paper doesn't really fit in ELI5. Basically, the autistic brain is constantly in overdrive, to the point where way too much input is generated, causing it to shut out external signals in attempt to keep the noise down. Although this impairs the brain in ways which require detailed sensory input, like interpersonal communication, other, more internal thought processes are still allowed to run at full speed.", "There's plenty of geniuses and prodigies who don't seem to have any mental disorders. Also, there's plenty of people with Asperger's who aren't geniuses or prodigies, we just don't notice them. For some reason, we noticed and got excited about the handful of people who were in both minorities, the minority of people who are prodigies and the minority of people who have Asperger's and we assumed there was a connection. But there probably isn't. Or it's a correlation but not causation type thing. ", "They're not always. Sometimes they are just people with mild autistic symptoms.\n\nBut there is no denying that chances for being a savant are noticeably higher in those with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD).\n\nThose with ASD, essentially have an overactive brain, the connections in their brain work with such speed and frequency that too much input is created causing external shut downs in order to try and maintain order. Like when a classroom is noisy so the teacher shuts the door and windows.\n\nSavant Syndrome has yet to be truly studied, but from what those that do study it can tell, it's parts of the brain overclocking (like a computer) so that it can do amazing things without much study or explanation, such as flying around New York City for 20 minutes and then being able to draw it perfectly. Or being able to teach yourself piano by age 6 and play symphonies, or being able to do math.\n\nScience doesn't exactly know why, but from what they can tell, Savant Syndrome and ASD seem to have similar, if not the same causes.", "They're not and it kind of grates that people think they all do. \n\nSource- Have aspergers and no discernable talents. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010743/" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb1ogsp" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Chargers must convert Alternating Current (which is easy to transmit efficiently from the generating station, across the electrical grid, then to your home) to Direct Current (which is easy for digital electronic devices to use to process information). Converting AC to DC is not 100% efficient; some energy is lost--as heat. Properly used and cared for, the chargers' heat output is not dangerous." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "drd3ynv", "drd4j3y", "drdbknz" ], "score": [ 4, 78, 13 ], "text": [ "A follow-up question: To what extent were the storylines of Shakespeare's plays already known to the average audiences of his shows? I recall learning about a Greco-Roman work with a similar storyline to *Romeo and Juliet*, but I am curious whether such works had entered the cultural lexicon of Shakespeare's time or if there was even a link between the two storylines beyond coincidence.", "The concept of a \"plot twist\" which can be \"spoiled\" is a fairly recent concept in the history of drama/literature. In Ancient Greece, for instance, everyone knew the all of the legends and their plots forwards and backwards - if you found someone who didn't know that Klytemnestra killed Agamemnon, you'd think them ignorant and remind them of the story.\n\nOr take Shakespeare's plays - Iago and Richard III explicitly detail their villainous plans to the audience, it's not concealed like the identity of the murderer in an Agatha Chrstie. In Elizabethan times, a \"comedy\" meant a play with a happy ending, just as a \"tragedy\" meant one with a sad one, so even before the audience sat down in the Globe they'd know that *Romeo and Juliet* wasn't going to end well for the lovers. Shakespeare even \"spoils\" the ending in the Prologue: \"A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life.\" \n\nOr take *Robinson Crusoe*, considered the first novel in English. Its full title is *The life and strange surprising adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, mariner : who lived eight and twenty years all alone in an uninhabited island on the coast of America, near the mouth of the great River of Oronooque, having been cast on shore by shipwreck, wherein all the men perished but himself, with an account how he was at last as strangely delivered by pirates, also the further adventures, written by himself*. So no one was worrying about giving away the ending, \"he gets rescued by pirates\" - it's right there in the title! \n\nLiterature developed, of course, and by the time of novels like *Emma* or *Tom Jones* we see dramatic plot twists, and in *Barchester Towers* (1857), we even have the concept of a \"spoiler\": \n > And then how grievous a thing it is to have the pleasure of your novel destroyed by the ill-considered triumph of a previous reader. \"Oh, you needn't be alarmed for Augusta; of course she accepts Gustavus in the end.\" \"How very ill-natured you are, Susan,\" says Kitty with tears in her eyes: \"I don't care a bit about it now.\" ", "You are asking about centuries ago, but the phenomena of spoilers is much more recent, brought about by the internet age more than anything, I think.\n\nTake this [Variety 1960 review of Psycho](_URL_0_). They were not exactly keen on keeping the biggest secrets.\n\nSome highlights:\n\n\"throughout the feature is a mother who is a homicidal maniac. This is unusual because she happens to be physically defunct, has been for some years. But she lives on in the person of her son.\"\n\n\"Among the victims are Janet Leigh\"\n\n\"Martin Balsam, as a private eye who winds up in the same swamp in which Leigh’s body also is deposited.\"\n\n\"the psychiatrist who recognizes that Perkins, while donning his mother’s clothes, is not really a transvestite; he’s just nuts.\"\n\nThis review (June 22) is 6 days after its limited release. Its wide release would not come until September 8th.\n\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://variety.com/1960/film/reviews/psycho-1200419814/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cyj0y5k", "cyj5cls" ], "score": [ 4, 2 ], "text": [ "I can give you some answers on this, at least according to Herodotus. The Greeks generally had some rules of war, but they were also great \"innovators\" when it came to waging war, so sometimes these rules went out the window. A big rule though was not destroying temples, anyone who destroyed the temple of a God would be cursed by the gods. The Athenians are a great example of this, at least according to Herodotus. When they attacked Sardis, they destroyed the temples of the Persians (and the city itself). This offended Zeus, apparently, he sent first Darius against them, and then Xerxes (who was occasional described as being Zeus at least by the Delphi Oracle) who burned Athens, and the acropolis. Gaining revenge for Sardis.\n\nThe Greeks were sometimes known to sacrifice humans, often slaves or criminals to certain gods - the Titan Chronus would have criminals sacrificed outside city gates, I've heard. But it wasn't a common or well looked up habit. But it did occaisionally happen.", "I would recommend reading the first book of Thucydides, which includes the (probably fictional but highly sophisticated) arguments raised by Spartans, their allies, and their enemies, for and against starting the Peloponnesian War. It will explain a lot about notions of what justified going to war, and what other considerations were involved (costs, risks, plausible outcomes). The work is available for free through the Perseus Digital Library.\n\nI'm not sure if your premise is meant to be an alternative history, but of course the Spartans were defeated quite frequently. After Thermopylae, the Spartans lost on Sphacteria (425 BC), at Megara (409 BC), Lechaeum (390 BC), Abydos (389 BC), Olynthus (381 BC), Tegyra (375 BC), Corcyra (373 BC), Leuctra (371 BC), Cromnus (365 BC) and Mantinea (362 BC). This is not counting severe naval defeats at Cynossema (410 BC), Cyzicus (409 BC), Arginusae (406 BC) and Cnidus (394 BC).\n\nGreek warfare throughout this period was notoriously brutal and unrestrained, and the Spartans routinely committed acts that would be considered war crimes now (i.e. targeting civilians, killing prisoners, butchering whole populations). Only a few rules were generally observed, such as the sanctity of temples and the protection offered by events in honour of the gods (such as the Olympic Games).\n\nAnd no, the Spartans did not have human sacrifice." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpxqkpc", "cpxqnm8" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Yes and yes.\n\nTechnically, a single cell of bacteria or a single virus can infect you.\n\nBut, they are far more likely to make you sick if your initial exposure is bigger.", "Probably require to come into contact with many bacterial cells. The thing is, assuming you're a healthy individual, you have bacterial cells lining your epithelial cells. These bacteria can be \"good\" bacteria, the kind which doesn't do much except grow on your body and in exchange for a place to grow, they provide protection for you. The good bacteria will keep the bad bacterial population in check. IF, however, you introduce enough bad bacteria, then the bad bacteria may be able to produce enough toxins to kill good bacteria and outcompete for resources. In some cases, one bacterial cell may be enough since they undergo rapid replication. If you're on antibiotics and you introduce an antibiotic resistant strain, that one cell will start to proliferate. This is why it's important to take probiotics after your treatment of antibiotics." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c34uijj", "c34uijj" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Use it as an accent to your conversation. If you never look at someone you're either ignoring them or submitting to them, so when you've finished your conversation you stop making eye contact and look away until they get the idea. If you look directly at someone constantly you're either creepy as hell or attempting to dominate them. Make initial eye contact when you first greet someone and hold it for a few seconds while discussing the point of the meeting, this shows interest, respect, and confidence. As you chat you can look away off and on, or just look at different parts of their body (or even face) so that you're not just staring them down. As you make specific points, i.e. saying something you think is important look sharply back into their eyes to drive the point home. I'm often doing more than one thing at a time, so when someone comes into my office I'll glance at my monitor or flip a page of specifications I'm reviewing and then look back at them. Practice it for a while and you'll realize it's really just another way of communicating what you're thinking anyway and it's not all that difficult. The reason you're having trouble is that you're not normally focused on the people speaking to you because of the eyesight issue, so you'll have to make some extra effort. That, or wear your friggin glasses.", "Use it as an accent to your conversation. If you never look at someone you're either ignoring them or submitting to them, so when you've finished your conversation you stop making eye contact and look away until they get the idea. If you look directly at someone constantly you're either creepy as hell or attempting to dominate them. Make initial eye contact when you first greet someone and hold it for a few seconds while discussing the point of the meeting, this shows interest, respect, and confidence. As you chat you can look away off and on, or just look at different parts of their body (or even face) so that you're not just staring them down. As you make specific points, i.e. saying something you think is important look sharply back into their eyes to drive the point home. I'm often doing more than one thing at a time, so when someone comes into my office I'll glance at my monitor or flip a page of specifications I'm reviewing and then look back at them. Practice it for a while and you'll realize it's really just another way of communicating what you're thinking anyway and it's not all that difficult. The reason you're having trouble is that you're not normally focused on the people speaking to you because of the eyesight issue, so you'll have to make some extra effort. That, or wear your friggin glasses." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fb2r8e3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Edgar's F. Raines's *Eyes of Artillery: The Origins of Modern U.S. Army Aviation in World War II* ([link](_URL_0_)) seems to mention this unit on page 257. According to Raines, during the Battle of Leyte in 1944:\n\n > Resupply became the main, but not the only, mission of the [11th Airborne] division's aircraft during the campaign. The division surgeon organized two portable surgical hospitals (parachute), the 5246th and 5247th, which the L-4s [i.e. Piper Cubs] dropped into Manarawat, a small village where [division commander] Swing located his headquarters, and another jungle clearing before airstrips were ready. There, doctors stabilized the division's wounded; then liaison pilots, many of them returning to the coast for more supplies, flew the patients to the rear for long-term care..." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://history.army.mil/catalog/pubs/70/70-31.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2bsm3i", "c2bsmiu", "c2bsm3i", "c2bsmiu" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 3, 5 ], "text": [ "You sound fairly intelligent, so here's a nice [article](_URL_0_) that explains the physics relatively simply (not like you're 5, but maybe like you're 17).", "When a guitar string vibrates without anyone pressing the frets, it makes a big wave in the air.\n\nHow fast the wave moves back and forth is what determines what note you hear. (frequency)\n\nWhen you play a 12th fret harmonic, you put a \"damper\" at the exact half-way point of the length of the string. This forces the string to vibrate as two smaller waves, each half the length of the string. These halves vibrate exactly twice as fast as the whole string (because math, that's why). When something vibrates twice as fast, the note you hear sounds twice as high.\n\nWhen you play a harmonic at the fifth fret, your \"damper\" forces the string to vibrate in quarters because the 5th fret is one quarter along the length of the string. There are four little waves along the length of the string, with your finger between the first and second one. This makes the notes you hear even higher, because the shorter string parts vibrate even faster. \n\nWhen you play normally at the 5th fret, the length of the vibrating part of the string is from your finger at the fifth fret all the way down to the end of the string by the fat end of the guitar, which is 3/4 of the total length of the string. When you make a harmonic at the fifth fret, the length of the vibrating string is 1/4 of the length of the guitar (the vibrating string is split into 4 little waves, remember), so you get a much higher note than if you play normally at the same fret.\n\nThe 7th fret is 1/3 of the fretboard, so the string is split into 3 equal parts, each vibrating equally fast. The vibration is slower than the 5th fret harmonic because the lengths of string are longer (1/3 vs 1/4). The note is lower than the 5th fret harmonic because the vibration is slower.\n\nThat's why only those frets work to give nice clear harmonics. Those are the ones that divide the string nicely into equal sections (thirds, quarters, halves).", "You sound fairly intelligent, so here's a nice [article](_URL_0_) that explains the physics relatively simply (not like you're 5, but maybe like you're 17).", "When a guitar string vibrates without anyone pressing the frets, it makes a big wave in the air.\n\nHow fast the wave moves back and forth is what determines what note you hear. (frequency)\n\nWhen you play a 12th fret harmonic, you put a \"damper\" at the exact half-way point of the length of the string. This forces the string to vibrate as two smaller waves, each half the length of the string. These halves vibrate exactly twice as fast as the whole string (because math, that's why). When something vibrates twice as fast, the note you hear sounds twice as high.\n\nWhen you play a harmonic at the fifth fret, your \"damper\" forces the string to vibrate in quarters because the 5th fret is one quarter along the length of the string. There are four little waves along the length of the string, with your finger between the first and second one. This makes the notes you hear even higher, because the shorter string parts vibrate even faster. \n\nWhen you play normally at the 5th fret, the length of the vibrating part of the string is from your finger at the fifth fret all the way down to the end of the string by the fat end of the guitar, which is 3/4 of the total length of the string. When you make a harmonic at the fifth fret, the length of the vibrating string is 1/4 of the length of the guitar (the vibrating string is split into 4 little waves, remember), so you get a much higher note than if you play normally at the same fret.\n\nThe 7th fret is 1/3 of the fretboard, so the string is split into 3 equal parts, each vibrating equally fast. The vibration is slower than the 5th fret harmonic because the lengths of string are longer (1/3 vs 1/4). The note is lower than the 5th fret harmonic because the vibration is slower.\n\nThat's why only those frets work to give nice clear harmonics. Those are the ones that divide the string nicely into equal sections (thirds, quarters, halves)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.guitarlessonworld.com/lessons/harmonics.htm" ], [], [ "http://www.guitarlessonworld.com/lessons/harmonics.htm" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dwt30iu" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The bones are rigid but the flesh can distort. Moving one direction it may be spread down, becoming narrower; moving in the other direction it may be bunched up, becoming wider." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbu1vuj", "cbu1vwk", "cbu2czs", "cbu3ajh", "cbu3bcd", "cbu3lzz", "cbu3mwj", "cbu4tas", "cbu6bhh" ], "score": [ 36, 11, 18, 3, 2, 11, 3, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "I don't know exactly what drugs were used, but just because a drug is banned from use in sports does not mean it is also illegal to use outside of sports.", "Having used illegal drugs is not the same thing as a possession or attempt to distribute charge.", "I train pro athletes for a living. (You can check my other posts if you don't believe me) I can explain the processes athletes go through to not get caught if you want me to. It's not the question being asked, but you may find it interesting. I'll wait and see how many of you actually want to know seeing that it wasn't the question asked. ", "It isn't illegal to use drugs. It's illegal to possess them. ", "It is because having used illegal drugs cannot get you arrested, athlete or otherwise. ", "Many performance enhancing drugs are banned by the sports but aren't illicit narcotics monitored by the police, nor do they carry the kind of criminal weight that say cocaine or crack. \n\nFor instance, Lance Armstrong admitted to blog doping. That means he was getting blood removed from his body, getting replenished with oxygen, and then put back into his body. This isnt an illegal process, it's cheating at sports though. ", "It's just like someone saying I used to smoke pot. There is no good reason for the police or Feds to prosecute a former user. The only way people ever get arrested is if they are a big player in a distribution ring or if they lie under oath. Police don't go after low level drug users unless they are caught red handed using or possessing the drug (or if they are trying to fill a quota or they don't like minorities)", "The same reason that you can say/rap you smoke weed or use other drugs, but unless you are actually caught with them in your possession, you're fine.", "In many instances in europe they are charged criminally as well as through their sporting body, however it depends entirely on what drug they are caught for. Many gym monkey \"supplements\", or over the counter medications for a wide range of health issues are completely legal for anyone to buy/possess/use but are banned in sport. therefore they get banned from sport but face no legal reprocussions (except maybe sponsors sueing as in the case of lance armstrong" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cbvqoid", "cbvrhqq", "cbvt7vn", "cbvtwkk" ], "score": [ 20, 15, 14, 8 ], "text": [ "Certain sounds within a language are [allophones](_URL_0_). This means that they can be interchanged while not altering the meaning of the word. \n\n\nOne example is /t/. If you take nearly any English word with that sound and replace it with an alveolar flap or a glottal stop it changes the accent, but not the meaning of the word. \n\n", "To expand on this question, how universal is this?\n\nFor example, in English there are many accents from different people who speak different First Languages. Is this a feature of large multi-cultural society, speaking an almost global language?\n\nWhereas, when I was in Korea, my American English attempt to speak Korean would lead some people to look at me as if they NO idea what I was saying. Almost as if there is zero tolerance for accents. Even though there are dialects/accents of Korean (Seoul, Busan, Jeju). And even though, in my ears, what I said is exactly the same as what they said. (Or maybe the taxi drivers just didn't want to drive from Suseo to Guri).", "First, it's not true that speakers of one variety of a language can always understand the sounds produced by speakers of another variety of that language. For example, speakers of Standard American English very often have difficulty understanding English speakers from parts of the UK, or India, or Singapore, etc., or even parts of the US, for that matter-- e.g., the Outer Banks.\nBut beyond that, you're basically referring to a concept called [*categorical perception*](_URL_0_).", "Linguist here (well, I got a bachelor's in it from UCLA, so I hope it's qualified enough).\n\nThe answer to your question has multiple parts. The first part is that language perception is not limited to just phonetic/phonemic perception. Phonetic perception is the ability to hear units of language whilst phonemic perception (simplified) is your ability to discriminate the actual contrasting sounds that comprise your language (i.e., the ability to know that a \"T\" is different than a \"D\" or that a high tone in Mandarin Chinese is different than a mid tone in Mandarin Chinese).\n\nWhat you are referring to in your question is the ability to understand different dialects from the same language - that Californian English is distinctly different than Bostonian English, but that they are, at their core, both English (for example, California English does not differentiate the words \"cot\" and \"caught\". It's hard to describe the sound without assuming you know IPA.) It is important to note that these are \"dialects\" of language where a dialect is something that is mutually intelligible to either speaker of the dialect. Chinese dialects are a bad example of how the word \"dialect\" is used. A Cantonese speaker might understand a Mandarin speaker, but not the other way around. English is a prime example of dialect differentiation as whether you're British, Australian, Floridian, or wherever, you know it's English.\n\nThe second part to your answer is that, again, language is not only perceived by the sound but also by the grammatical structure of the language. It is theorized that the brain has multiple series of \"On/Off\" switches for different grammars. Here's an example. English REQUIRES a subject for every sentence produced as English has explicit S+V+O structure (about 99% of the time. Those 1% of English constructions that inverse sentence structure still have either an elided subject, or an obligatory subject that is understand. \"Go to the park\" is understood as \"You go to the park\".) Chinese (using it a lot but it's a good counter-example) has a \"NULL Subject\" rule; meaning, you don't need a subject if the subject is understood in the context.\n\nGiven the above parameter, when you listen to a language (both as an adult, fluent speaker and as a child acquiring) your brain analyzes the language and determines whether or not the language you are hearing is \"NULL SUBJECT ON\" (NSO) or \"NULL SUBJECT OFF\" (NSOFF). If you hear NSOFF then your brain assumes it's English and must produce sentences with subjects. If you hear NSO your brain assumes it's Chinese and can drop or include subjects at your discretion. Granted it's more complex than the above example as the rules aren't strict dichotomies and there are a huge number of combinations within any given language.\n\nThis is really the tip of the iceberg. Also, this is from an education that is three years old. It should be mostly accurate; however, linguistics is a very young field and is becoming increasingly complex.\n\n\n\nTL:DR; Language perception has multiple parts. Sound structure is one part. Grammar structure is another part. Your brain processes all the different parts and determines whether it is the same language, different dialect, or different language.\n\nEdit: switched NSO and NSOFF. English is NSOFF (Null subject off), Chinese is NSO (Null subject on)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allophone" ], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_perception#Categorical_perception" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "co2ruxk", "co2rvlu", "co2rxnd" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Directly... No. Any individual is virtually nothing on the scale that the ISPs operate.\n\nIndirectly... Yes. Its not as simple as providing one person faster internet, you would have to provide everyone who asked faster internet. Soon you have to upgrade the entire infrastructure and that costs a few hundred billion.", "Think of it like water delivery. \n\nMore water (your streaming data) requires larger pipe (your connection).\n\nMaking the water flow faster through the pipe requires more pressure. \n\nSo pushing more data through a larger pipe, faster -- means higher costs. \n\n", "Yes.\n\nThe ISPs pay money for their uplinks. They are for specified speeds. If they want a faster connection (which they would need for more customers or faster connections), then they would have to pay more money to get those connections." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckosqtk" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Don't post loaded questions. \n\nClimate change is not in denial, it's the cause of which that is in dispute." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg1qbvq", "cg1r5pc", "cg1wlx2" ], "score": [ 5, 11, 4 ], "text": [ "It's still in the process of being excavated, but some of the discoveries we've made are already very interesting. The terracotta warriors are one of them. However, when they first opened the room containing the warriors the fresh air caused the paint on the warriors to flake off in a matter of minutes. So now they're being very very careful with the excavation, to prevent such a thing happening again. ", "There are conservation reasons, which I don't have the scientific training to discuss, but I'd like to question your assumption that it is the \"world's most fascinating monument\". Yes, it is a large and spectacular tomb that probably has a lot of marquee artifacts inside, but those kinds of sites are not always the best to answer interesting research questions. Take for example the archaeological site of Gordion in Turkey, which has been under continuous excavation for 1950. Compared to the likely contents of the Mausoleum of the Qin Emperor it has for the most part been entirely unspectacular with the exception of the large golden burial in Tumulus MM and a few nice artworks. But as a research site it is one of the most important in the entire Middle East, on the level of Bogzakoy, Assur, Warka, Ur and other major sites. It represents one of the longest continuous human habitations known in Anatolia, was the capital city of the Phyrgian state(MM stands for \"Midas Mound\") and as such has some of the most important Iron Age monumental architecture of Anatolia, important evidence of the Hittite presence in central Anatolia, a notable Hellenistic town that can answer a lot of questions along with other Hellenistic sites about the Greek presence in Anatolia, a lot of plant remains that can tell us about the ecological history and food production of the region, and is generally nearly unparalleled as a laboratory for the archaeology of the ancient Near East. It may not be an enormous mound burying a famous Chinese emperor, but from certain perspectives a site like Gordion(and I pick that only because I know the archaeology of the Near East better than the archaeology of China) that preserves evidence about a wide range of human activities and habitations over a very long period of time is far more valuable as historical evidence.\n\nEDIT: And I have not even touched on the humbler settlement archaeology, which for the most part surveys and excavates sites that barely make the front pages but can tell us things about daily life and historical geography that even the most impressive urban monumental site simply cannot.", "According to the texts displayed on the site itself (not really rigorous historical material, of course, but presumably written in consultation with the archaeologists working on the site) the reason is archaeologists don't feel they're able to properly excavate it using what is currently available technologically.\n\nAccording to legend, Shi Huangdi was buried in an enormous replica of the lands he governed using mercury to model the rivers and lakes of his empire. Preliminary soil readings have shown that there indeed seems to be a staggeringly high amount of mercury in the soil surrounding the probable location of his tomb. The feeling is that with the current state of technology it's not feasible to dig up something that is surrounded by so much mercury, both because it's impossible to guarantee the safety of those doing the digging and because it's impossible to guarantee the tomb itself won't be damaged when all that mercury is disturbed.\n\nSince there still is a vast amount of work to be done on the terracotta army itself (which really is just the outpost of the tomb) and, but I'm conjecturing here, based on where the site is located and what surrounds it*, there is no real hurry in getting the thing excavated in its entirety, they've decided to leave it for now.\n\n* The terracotta army site is located about an hour and a half by bus from the nearest major city, Xi'an, in an area that is mostly agricultural. Because of this there's much less of a hurry to excavate it, as there is little reason to suspect the city will be encroaching upon it anytime soon. This makes it a rather different site than, say the Ming Tombs (to which the outskirts of Beijing are edging closer every year) or the Jinsha site (which these days is well within the Chengdu urban area)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9punaa", "d9puvs1", "d9pw8y8", "d9pxogu" ], "score": [ 8, 7, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "We do. I knew a guy that couldn't feel pain or temperature. He had to be careful not to burn himself and constantly had to check himself to make sure he didn't get injured that day. ", "They certainly exist.\n\nHowever, a problem the lead to a lack of touch-based-senses (which taste, smell, touch are - physical sensing on the surface of the skin) are much more likely to be the result of things that also happen to be fatal - e.g. general failure of nervous system development can lead to no touch, but also no ability to get your heart to pump or you muscles to move or your brain to function. \n\nThe eyes and ears each of physical apparatus and _unique_ nervous system components that are _more_ subject to localized failures whereas the other system share more with other critical systems. ", "Because they're not a losses of senses that causes major disability in everyday life, like hearing or vision loss do, and thus there aren't public accommodations made for them. I have a friend who has no sense of smell. ", "Simply put, it's because you just don't. These people exist. I know some of them and know of others. Other people in this thread know them. If you don't hear about them, it's simply because you don't encounter them or news about them in your life." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "de97g4e", "de9rk2r" ], "score": [ 271, 72 ], "text": [ "Pretty darn deep. If I recall correctly, organisms have been found in boreholes 4km deep, though I can't find a source for anything deeper than 2.7 km.\n\nHere is a brief discussion of it: _URL_1_\n\nThis is also full of interesting information: _URL_0_", "I would assume once the [temperature reached about 200-300C](_URL_0_). Those temperatures would pretty much cause the chemical reaction rates to go squirrelly. All the chemical basis for life as we know it would stop working at those temperatures.\n\n > Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is about 25 °C per km of depth (1 °F per 70 feet of depth) near the surface in most of the world.[1]\n\nSo for 200C it would be at about 7.2km and for 300C it would be about 11.2km." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Deep_subsurface_microbes", "http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/3/287.full" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dq8ykix" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "I'm adapting this from some older answers. \n\n\nHere's the tricky thing about your question--do you mean 'porn' in the sense of moving visual art of people doing erotic things? Then in 1894 Edison's studio recorded a vaguely erotic short, titled Carmencita, which featured a Spanish dancer who twirled and posed on film for the first time. The short was considered scandalous in some places because Carmencita's underwear and legs could be seen in the film. A couple of years later, in 1896, the same studio recorded The May Irwin Kiss, an 18 second film of a Victorian couple kissing (in an incredibly awkward and forced manner). According to Maximillien De Lafayette, this scene in particular caused uproar among newspaper editorials, cries for censorship from the Roman Catholic Church, and calls for prosecution—although these calls do not seem like they were followed up on.\n\nOr perhaps you mean film of people actually doing the deed? Then the oldest surviving work we have is *L'Ecu d'Or ou la Bonne Auberge*, which was first distributed in 1908--and features a man coming to an inn somewhere in france. The inn has no food, but the inkeeper is desperate for food and offers a very different type of food -- his daughter. And then, just because a third woman has to come and join in on the fun. However, this film only survives in a few places now, censors managed to destroy most copies of this film. \n\nThe earliest surviving American film, available on [Wikipedia of all places,](_URL_0_) **[THIS LINK IS LITERAL PORN, YOUVE BEEN WARNED]** is called *A Free Ride,* and dates from 1915. These types of works were typically shown in brothels, until film projection equipment became cheap in the 1930s. \n\nAs with photography before it, and books before that, film eventually became cheaper and more widespread, began appearing in the alleyways and under the counter at stores, and eventually lead to arrests, prosecution and jail time. The Czech movie Ecstasy (1933), for example, featured scenes of nudity, and perhaps the first female orgasm shown in a major theatrical release. The scandal of these scenes lead to cries for the seizing and banning of the offensive material, and lead to the Hayes Code in the United States, which successfully banned erotic material from Hollywood movies for the next 30 years. Full freedom of pornographic expression was not available until 1988's California v. Freeman, which effectively legalized hardcore pornography. \n\nOr do you perhaps mean \"porn\" as in the concept of pornography as a whole? 'Porn' as we know it is a relatively recent thing, dating from the early 1800's or so, 1857 is when it was really written into law in our modern understanding of it (in england and France, a few years earlier in America). So 'porn' as we know it is only about 150 years old! \n\nThis is really surprising to most people, as they tend to think, as you do, of the Karma Sutra and other things as pornography. But they're not, or at least in their original contexts they were not\n\n > “the explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, etc., in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings” (OED)\n\nAlthough pornography is a Greek word literally meaning “writers about prostitutes,” it is only found once in surviving Ancient Greek writing, where Arthenaeus comments on an artist that painted portraits of whores or courtesans. The word seemed to fall more or less out of use for fifteen hundred years until the first modern usage of the word (1857) to describe erotic wall paintings uncovered at Pompeii. \n\n\nSeveral ‘secret museums’ were founded to house the discoveries. However, these museums (the first of which was the Borbonico museum in Naples) were only accessible to highly educated upper-class men, who could understand Latin and Greek and pay the admission price. \n\n\nAs literacy rose and the book market developed in England and it began to seem possible that anything might be shown to anyone without control, then the ‘shadowy zone’ of pornography was ‘invented,’ regulating the “consumption of the obscene, so as to exclude the lower classes and women.” (Walter Kendrick, p. 57, *The Secret Museum*) Critics and moralists responded to the growing market, rising literacy, and the developing public sphere by expressing a deep anxiety over the impact and influences of erotic works. Erotic discourse began to be inextricably linked to a ’type’ of work that supposedly had undesirous effects upon the English public. In Lynn Hunt’s words then, “pornography as a regulatory category was invented in response to the perceived menace of the democraticization of culture.”\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Free_Ride_\\(1915\\).ogv" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7kzg9r" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Do you read German? If so, get the standard work on the Hanseatic League: *Bracker, Jörgen / Henn, Volker / Postel, Rainer (Eds.): Die Hanse. Lebenswirklichkeit und Mythos, 3rd edition, Lübeck 1999.*, a German language collection of various texts on a diverse range of topics. I don't believe it's been translated though." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgksess", "cgktvkt", "cglc4wx" ], "score": [ 39, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "We do not have long term human studies yet. However, we have done studies in rats (so take that as you will).\n\nFindings from one such study show that long term, heavy usage (twice the blood plasma level of nicotine found in heavy smokers) show **no increase \"in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in these rats compared with controls\"**.\n\nNicotine is still very addictive, and the electronic cigs so far haven't shown benefits in quiting, but if your friends choose e-cgis over regular, it is likely a healthier option.\n\nSource [pubmed](_URL_0_)", "While it is possible that the heart disease risk is not simply about nicotine, studies of snus in Sweden would suggest that nicotine is not healthy for you. We see no significant effect for cancer, but heart disease remains a concern.\nWhile all of the ingredients in e-cigarettes are well understood, them being inhaled after heating and atomization might produce some unanticipated effects. \nIt would be hard to imagine any outcome being worse than that of a traditional cigarette. So at the moment I am comfortable recommending that any current smoker should switch.", "well, nicotine is a compound. Tobacco is a mixture. The compound nicotine comes in exactly 1 form (well, maybe 3, but they're chemically identical and have minor strucural differences). Tobacco comes in any number of different forms related to growing conditions and genetic variation. Nicotine is one of the components of tobacco. \n\nWhen you burn tobacco, you take that mixture and make another change to it. What we know about that change is that it results in a variety of chemical changes that makes tobacco smoke dangerous to living tissue, and a particular kind of substance (caled an MAOI) that makes the nicotine contained in tobacco maybe 10 or 100 or 1000 times more addictive than it is by itself.\n\nThe effect of burning nicotine by itself will mainly be to create carbon dioxide, water and a bit of nitrous oxide. There will be some combustion byproducts, but 10 ior 100 or 1000 or more times fewer than in the organic soup that is smouldering tobacco.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "che1fmm", "cheair9" ], "score": [ 10, 2 ], "text": [ "They used the old Greek letter notation as well as Greek music theory. This was, as far as we can tell, a matter for the educated in theorising about music, rather than a tool for musicians to help remember and communicate musical ideas. One of the best preserved antique pieces of music is from the roman period, but it is culturally Greek rather than Roman. [Seikilos Epitaph](_URL_0_), which was inscribed on a tombstone found in what is now Turkey. As far as I am aware, we have no evidence in the form of written down music of how music may have sounded in the city of Rome, though it surely changed a lot over the centuries.", "hi! here are a bunch of links I rounded up a few days ago for a similar question (what did ancient Roman music sound like, and did they have notation?); check 'em out ~\n\n* [Do we have any idea what Ancient Roman music sounded like?](_URL_7_)\n\n* [Is there any surviving sheet music from the Roman Republic/Empire? Is there somewhere I could hear it?](_URL_1_)\n\n* [Was Roman music different from Greek music?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [What was music like in the Roman Republic/Empire? Was there anything close to an orchestra in scale?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [What musical instruments were there in 0CE?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [What did popular music sound like in the Roman Empire?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [What type of music was common in ancient Roman and Greek societies?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [Did urban Romans and Greeks have a concept of folk music, dress, and so on?](_URL_6_)\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikilos_epitaph" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wq9ht/what_musical_instruments_were_there_in_0ce/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13uo2p/is_there_any_surviving_sheet_music_from_the_roman/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hxrmb/what_did_popular_music_sound_like_in_the_roman/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21q87u/was_roman_music_different_from_greek_music/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14ks96/what_was_music_like_in_the_roman_republicempire/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xffmi/what_type_of_music_was_common_in_ancient_roman/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1py2ck/did_urban_romans_and_greeks_have_a_concept_of/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17jmva/do_we_have_any_idea_what_ancient_roman_music/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dqwh94e" ], "score": [ 45 ], "text": [ "So I'm not entirely sure that Snyder is being serious there? Right after he states it, he then goes on to say \"OK, you didn't think that was as funny as I did.\" If he *is* serious, well, it is an hilarious silly thing to state. At the outbreak of war, France was able to mobilize roughly 5 *million* soldiers, across the three main forces it controlled - Metropolitan Army, Army of Africa, and the Colonial Troops. By the invasion of France, 94 Divisions were operational in France.\n\nFrenchmen certainly fought in the German military, but not in number anywhere near that for the Allies. The 33rd Wafffen-SS Division Charlemagne, saw only in the ballpark of 10,000 men (in my brief look about, sources seem in marked disagreement on the exact number), and the 638th Infantry Regiment - \"Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism\" - adds a few thousand more to that number. Even if we are incredibly charitable and count the 100,000 men of the Vichy Army of the Armistice, and the Vichy-era's 225,000 men of the Army of Africa, we still are woefully short of reaching the number of french soldiers fighting for the Allies in early 1940.\n\nAnd if we don't want to count that, and *just* look at the Free French, even the initial Free French Forces numbered about 7,000 soldiers and 3,600 sailors, which is not exactly puny compared to the numbers above not counting Vichy, and by mid-1944, the Free French numbered 400,000 men. We can split hairs over whether they were \"Frenchmen\", since a large part of the force was drawn from French Colonial possessions, so included men we would perhaps instead refer to as Algerian or Senegalese, but the original Army in France in 1940 had a strong minority of Colonial troops anyways, and not counting them would seem to discount their contribution and sacrifices.\n\nSo in short, while I again seem to read him as making a joke, and his actual point seems to be about the sacrifices of Ukrainians versus those of the French, France had literally millions of men serving in the Allied forces in 1940, and the Free French were nearing half a million later in the war, which certainly dwarfs the French formations within the German military.\n\nNumbers mostly taken from Encyclopedia of World War II ed. Alan Axelrod, also \"La Grande Armeé in Field Gray’: The Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism, 1941\" by Oleg Beyda and \"Hitler's Gauls\" by Jonathan Trigg" ] }

[]

[ "https://youtu.be/wDjHw_uXeKU?t=1198" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clks1h2", "clktwyq", "cllfdxq" ], "score": [ 22, 6, 2 ], "text": [ "Larger stars can be resolved, for example [Betelgeuse](_URL_0_).\n\nSirius, a large and close star, when imaged with Hubble, basically looks like a point spread function. _URL_1_", "Typically individual telescopes cannot resolve an individual star. The diameter of the telescope is just too small and stars are so, so far away that they don't have a big enough angular diameter . (Though it seems like Betelgeuse may be an exception to this? I don't know enough about it to know if those images were from one telescope or an array.)\n\nHowever, [interferometry](_URL_2_) gives you a leg up. If you're *extremely* careful, you can combine data from multiple telescopes which essentially acts like one giant telescope with a diameter equal to the distance between them. Radio astronomers have been doing this to get effective telescope diameters almost equal to the radius of the Earth (like the [VLBI](_URL_0_)).\n\nInterferometry thus lets you image stars and measure their radii directly, which has proven exceptionally valuable to test stellar models. (See [this paper](_URL_1_) for just one example.)\n", "I believe most modern telescopes are mainly designed to gather lots of light rather than have an especially large magnification. Objects like the Andromeda galaxy aren't small in an angular sense, they're just so far away that not many photons reach us here on Earth. As such, powerful telescopes really aren't designed to capture sharp-focused images of distance stars.\n\nThat said, if you had an arbitrarily large telescope set outside the atmosphere, I don't see why you couldn't see the \"shape\" of nearby stars." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/ESO-Betelgeuse.jpg/640px-ESO-Betelgeuse.jpg", "http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0516a.jpg" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry", "http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1934", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_interferometer" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e0ftx9f", "e0fuuuu" ], "score": [ 3, 4 ], "text": [ "I studied brain science in university, but am not a lawyer.\n\n\nThat's not actually what they are trying to decide. They decide something more specific: if the person was *unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions* due to mental illness. \n\nNormally this is done by having a couple of different psychiatrists examine the person, and then they give testimony in the trial regarding whether they think the person has a mental illness, and if so, which one, and would it have prevented them understanding the significance of their actions at that time.\n\nFor example \"I'm schizophrenic so I hate short people\" won't do, but \"I'm schizophrenic so I did not understand what was going on, and thought this person was a Nazi soldier sent to kill me\" might change the situation from a criminal one to a dangerous insanity one.", "During a trial, the final decision lies with the jury (assuming you are talking about the US court system)\n\nSince Reagan signed Insanity Defense Reform Act in 1984, it is up to defense that to prove that the defendant was not sane. Both sides can call upon so called expert witnesses (someone who is specialised in a particular field and can therefore provide information) who give their opinion on the mental state of the defendant. This is generally done at the hand of interviews and possibly studying things like writings they left beforehand. \n\nThere are different standards and tests for criminal insanity, which vary from state to state. Mainly, it is all focused on whether or not someone was able to understand what they were doing at the time/was able to understand the consequences. This is a much more narrow definition than mental illness outside of the criminal justice system. Someone can be mentally ill (for example, due to depression or anxiety) but that doesn't necesarily also make them criminally insane. \n\nIn any case, the insanity defense is a very rare thing to pursue (used in less than 1% of all cases) and very often doesn't exactly lead to people going 'free'. Rather, they go to a mental health facility where they can actually get help for their problems. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]