Datasets:

0x70DA

/

eli5-modified

like 0

[ "It simply means that there's no set that contains every possible element, and that we can't arbitrarily define any set we want.\n\nSet theory defines objects called \"sets\", which are simply collections of elements. For a given set, every possible element either is or isn't in this set. So given a set and an element, we can ask whether the element is contained in the set. \n\nHow do we define sets? Well, we can define X = \"The set of all positive integers\". So 1, 2 and 3 are members of that set, but -1, 1/2, \"cat\" and \"air\" aren't. We can take a set X and derive a new set from it. For example, we can say Y = \"every number in X that is divisible by 3\", and we get that set that contains 3, 6, 9 and so on. Sets can also be members of another set: for example, we can define X to be a set that contains the set {1,2} (that is, X contains one element, which is the set that contains 1 & 2).\n\nThe question is, can we arbitrarily define any set we want? The answer is no, because that causes a paradox.\n\n\"Nothing contains everything\" says that we can't define a set that contains everything. That is, a set X such that for every element E, E is a member of X. The proof is similar to Russell's Paradox: we define a new set Y to be \"every element in X that doesn't contain itself\". Is Y a member of X? If it is, then it means that Y doesn't contains itself. But according to the definition of Y, it means that Y does contain itself - we got ourselves a contradiction. So that means Y isn't a member of X - which contradicts the assumption that X is a set that contains everything." ]

[ "Most of what your asking is covering the difference between a physical change and a chemical change. :\n\n_URL_2_\n_URL_1_\n\nIn short a physical change would be melting ice or cutting up a stick of butter. It's different in form but essentially the same. \n\nChemical changes alter the chemical composition of something so it's no longer what it was. \n\nCooking often involves chemical changes . other times it's just physical. Pasta can be dried out again and re cooked but a steak cannot be made raw again due to the protien structure. This page shows you the changes that happen when you cook it \n\n_URL_0_" ]

[ "Psychological tribalism. You associate with a group, so attention paid to that group can be seen as attention paid to you. You may not have strong association with your city/state, but what about your local/favorite sports team? If a comedian did a set on the same day a local team was playing, wouldn't he immediately get a positive reaction by positively acknowledging that team? Doing so breaks the ice and makes the audience more receptive to his jokes", "I would also say that America, being a federal democracy with genuine cultural and lifestyle differences between states, is more disconnected than the citizens of other countries are. Therefore, people more readily identify with their home cities and states. For the majority of our history, the country was referred to as \"These\" United States instead of \"The\" United States to highlight the separation." ]

[ "Are you talking about the Curiosity rover that is said to have cost $2.5 billion?\n\nIf so, some clarification might be warranted.\n\nNASA spread the $2.5 billion figure over eight years. The money spent went into salaries of engineers, programmers, managers, and independent contractors in over twenty states across the country. And even some from out of country. \n\nThings like the cost of rocket to launch it to Mars are included in that total, too, which accounts for nearly a fifth of the amount alone.\n\nIf you you just divide the total cost by the number of years NASA has saved for it, you come out with about $312 million per year. This works about to approximately 1.8% of NASA’s yearly budget. That’s about $1 per year for every American.\n\nWhen put into context of the federal budget, it's actually quite cheap." ]

[ "You buy the tickets when they're available, and then you sell them to desperate people for a higher price than you bought them. It's a generally scummy thing to do because you're just jacking up the price for no reason.", "person A buys tickets. Person B goes to buy tickets but they are sold out. person A sells person B tickets for a profit." ]

[ "Just like matter is made of particles, antimatter is made of (surprise) antiparticles. Antiparticles have the same properties as their \"normal\" counterparts, but they have opposite charge. The antiparticle of the electron is the positron, the antiparticle of the proton is the antiproton, and the antiparticle of the neutron is the neutron itself, because its charge is 0.\n\nAntiprotons and positrons can combine to form atoms and molecules just like regular ones, but for example they react differently to electromagnetic fields and some scientists are pondering over the question of \"does antimatter fall up or down?\".\n\nWe can create antimatter, because when a high energy photon travels through space, for example, it has a chance of splitting up into a pair of particles: one particles and its antiparticle. We can even create a positronium atom, which is an electron orbiting a positron. The only problem is, all of these things annihilate when they come in contact with matter and since matter is very common, especially in a particle accelerator (in which is litterally everywhere), antimatter we can create only survives a tiny fraction of a second.\n\nEDIT: Thanks to everyone that kindly made me notice the neutron isn't its antiparticle. It was something I thought and was told but I did never do enough research to confirm it. I apologize.", "Ok, the questions been tackled, but just to blow your mind a little, [quantum fluctuations](_URL_0_). \n\nSo in the deep dark void of space has a complete vaccum. A stray atom of hydrogen might wander through, but other than that? Nothing. \n\nIt's just the fabric of reality, spacetime*, hanging out with nothing to do. APPARENTLY, spacetime **wobbles**. Completely spontaneously, it will split into a bit of matter and a bit of anti-matter. Now, they both have gravity, attract each other, collide, and anull each other. Reality re-asserts itself like we're used to and the whole thing is a non-event. \n\nThis also happens here on earth. I find this CRAZY. It means that virtually anything can act like a radiation single-event-upset on computer memory and just completely screw everything up. The universe is a lot less deterministic than I thought. And this is AFTER I learned about Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. \n\n*We used to just call it space before einstein showed that time is also part of the mix.", "follow up: why is the universe made mostly of matter and not antimatter? what's up with that asymmetry?" ]

[ "[Aderall](_URL_0_) is a mix of different types of amphetamine salts and methamphetamine is another type of amphetamine (not present in Aderall).\n\nThere is a difference in their chemical structure and how fast they work. What's in Aderall works a *lot* slower than methamphetamine which has a way of fastly working its way past the blood-brain barrier (the fluids in your brain isn't directly connected to your blood system so \"stuff\" that needs to get in has to past this \"barrier\").", "Amphetamine = methylated phenylethylamine. Methamphetamine = double methylated phenylethylamine. Essentially the methamphetamine molecule just has an extra methyl group attached to its nitrogen.\n\nThey are not appreciably different otherwise. Methamphetamine is broken down quickly into amphetamine in the body. Methamphetamine does come in an FDA approved form under the trade name Desoxyn." ]

[ "We don't understand the brain nearly as well as we understand the circulatory system, though for some mental illnesses we are starting to be able to detect them with brain imaging technology. For instance, Schizophrenia.\n\n_URL_0_", "> I mean we can detect diabetes by looking at blood sugar\n\nThat's fairly straightforward because the main problem with diabetes *is* blood sugar. You can take blood samples without hurting someone, and analyzing the composition of that blood can give some insight.\n\nBrain function is trickier. It's not understood as well, tends not to be as clear-cut, and taking samples is difficult. You can't really take an easy, objective sample of the brain or a person's thoughts, certainly not in the same direct and simple way that you can with blood samples. We do understand the brain well enough to diagnose and treat some physical ailments, but human thought is a very complex thing that isn't so easy to monitor.", "We don't know what causes many mental illnesses, and even if we did, a physical test would be very invasive. You can't very well open up the brain of every person with a problem, that would probably cause more damage than it would solve. Many of the problems, even the ones we know about, won't be detectable outside the brain such as in the blood stream. Even things like an MRI or a Cat Scan won't be able to show many of the problems. These problems are very well rooted in patterns of neurotramsitters which we either don't have *good* tests for determining (in living patients at least), or don't have a *good* way to determine which patterns are bad. There are some tests, but they in general they aren't conclusive.\n\nOn another note, some mental illnesses such as those caused by genetic defects CAN be tested for and caught early, but in this case you're looking at genes, not the illness itself.", "There's a lot we don't know about mental illness. How it's caused in and affects the brain is one of those things in many cases.", "Brain researcher here (PhD student, doing single-unit electrophysiological recording / optogenetics / temporal coding).\n\nThere's some bad information in this thread that kind of makes the answer LESS clear. \n\nThe answer comes down to complexity. The adult human brain may have as many as half a quadrillion synapses. Do you have any idea how many fucking zeros that is? That's 500,000,000,000,000 synapses. 14 zeros. \n\nAnd all that stuff about \"depression / Alzheimer's / schizophrenia is caused by over/underactivity of X brain area / neurotransmitter / whatever\" is stinking, cave-ripened, irredeemable bullshit. Utterly without merit.\n\nThe truth is that we can only gather very limited amounts of information about what is going on in the brain. We can just barely manage to record the activity of maybe a hundred neurons in the living human brain (and this is only ever done for pressing medical reasons, because it's *invasive in a way that is terrifying to think about*, and must only be done when the benefit to the patient is worth the risk), never mind figuring out what's going on at each of the seven thousand (on average) synapses each of those neurons has. And because we like simplicity, some people like to make the leap from \"I can measure serotonin metabolite levels in someone's cerebrospinal fluid\" to \"if people with X disorder have lower serotonin metabolite levels in their CSF, their disorder is caused by lack of serotonin\", or \"if they tend to have higher activity in this brain region, that must be causing it.\"\n\nWhich is very wrong. If you have the flu, your blood will contain a higher than usual number of certain kinds of white blood cells. But that didn't cause your flu. Your aching joints didn't cause your flu. Your fever didn't cause your flu. People with the flu tend to be dehydrated, but that doesn't cause the flu either. \n\nSaying that depression is caused by a serotonin imbalance is like saying that computers get slow because of an election imbalance in the CPU. \n\nConsider this: it's often hard enough for a computer expert to figure out right away exactly what causes a bug in a program... AND THEY CAN LOOK THROUGH THE PROGRAM. They can look through the files on the hard drive. And so on.\n\nNeurologists / psychiatrists can't do that. The very best they can get, in most cases, is an fMRI or EEG, which is about equivalent to putting your finger on different microchips to see which ones are working hardest, or looking at the status lights. An fMRI can, at best, maybe give you a semi-accurate measure of the overall activity of about one cubic millimeter of brain. \n\nWant to guess how many synapses?\n\nAbout six hundred million. And you have no damn clue which ones are more or less active, or which brain areas they connect to, or what neurotransmitters are used at those synapses, or which of a hundred subtypes of receptor are responding to those neurotransmitters at those synapses... Oh, and you can't really detect changes in activity that take less than a could hundred milliseconds, whereas an individual neuron takes about one millisecond to fire. \n\nIt's a miracle we've figured anything out at all.\n\nTl;dr neurotransmitter \"levels\" are not a thing, \"levels\" of brain activity in a particular area aren't either, cognitive processes happen at a tiny scale with ridiculous complexity and our best non-invasive methods do not deserve to be called \"scratching the surface.\"" ]

[ "High import taxes force them to produce their own version for domestic market only. Plus, despite their efforts, they're fairly English illiterate so internationalized marketing doesn't work quite well there and needs to be localized heavily. Being a cultural galapagos also means they have unique tastes and demands unlike the western world which is more or less homogenized either being America-centric or Euro-centric.", "A few things at play here, but it mostly comes down to Japanese fans having different priorities.\n\nJapanese fans have more of a collector mentality. They're also more likely to be fans of one specific franchise or property instead of an entire genre. That gives them a.much narrower focus. In Japan, if you're a true fan of a series, you try to obtain every single thing related to that series. Every toy, shirt, variant cover DVD, burger prize, dakimakura cover, everything. So no matter what they release, there will be an automatic market for it. That gatcha that was only available i Niigata between February and April will send fans stampeding to Niigata... or immediately to eBay. Obsessive collectors exist in America but the community is much smaller so companies can't sell a ton of merch profitably.\n\nAs for electronics, most Japanese don't have PCs or other big-ticket electronics in their homes. (This is only now changing with tablets.) So there is much more of a demand for portable devices with functions you could otherwise do on computers. This also frees up more income to spend on collectables.\n\nSource: roommate lived in Osaka and studied these things academically. Also have other friends involved in tokusatsu fandom.", "I know for music at least there is a law that says to be called an \"album\" it has to have a certain number of tracks on it so many bands put b-sides, re-mixes, live versions, ect. to fill the track list.", "For cultural and historical reasons, Japanese consumers are used to different kinds of products. For example, Americans prefer an album to have 10-13 tracks and a cost of $10-14. Often you see the band release a couple of additional tracks for the \"deluxe\" version released in Japan. Japanese consumers prefer albums to be longer, even if they are later and cost more.", "Oddly, everyone wanted to say something about media (music, movies, games, manga, anime), but there's barely a mention of the electronics/gadgets part of your question.\n\nHere's an enlightening example of a cultural difference concerning gadgets: At least as of some years ago, Americans bought a new phone every 3 years on average. Japanese bought a new phone every 1.5 years on average.\n\nAnother example: at least as of some years ago, there was no market in Japan for used appliances (washer/dryer etc.), because there's a cultural stigma -- people look down on you if you don't buy new.\n\nThese two things may not be complete accurate as of today, but still they show that Japanese society has a much stronger emphasis on buying new and buying often than the U.S. or most other countries.\n\nBecause of that, there's a stronger market in Japan for lots of new and different gadgets, and people there are willing to pay more and pay more often.\n\nSome things are exported, but not most things, because they don't expect to be able to sell most of them abroad, so they don't want to take the risk of the expense of trying very often -- with some notable exceptions.\n\nThe biggest Japanese companies obviously do sell certain things in high volume internationally, but I mean, if you go into a big gadget shop in Japan, there will be hundreds of different kinds of things -- some dumb, some super weird, some very interesting that *I* wish would be localized to English and sold in the U.S. -- but at any rate, far far far more than there's a market for outside of Japan." ]

[ "Often times the original company you owe the money to, sells the debt for less than the original and writes it off as a business loss. For some businesses this is a better choice then spending money trying to collect the debt from you. The company that buys it will try and get you to pay them more than what they paid for it, but that is often less than the original debt. \n\nOther times, if the company doesn't active try to collect the debt for a certain period of time, the debt is cancelled. You no longer owe the money to the company. However, be careful, because the federal government considers cancelled debt as income and will tax you on it." ]

[ "Basically money that someone invests for some specific purpose or persons. \n\nA rich dude will create a trust for his 3 kids, or a scholarship fund, or charity or something... the trust will then have rules on how it may be invested, and how much will be paid out, when and to who. \n\nMany trust funds are set up to avoid taxes, and put money in limbo basically. If you just gave your daughter $50 million, the taxes are higher than if you made a trust and it paid her an allowance. \n\nFor many trusts one of the ideas is to pay out the earnings, or a portion of them, without ever depleting the trust so that it continues on indefinitely benefiting people or some charity for a long time." ]

[ "Certain sounds at particular frequencies are very unpleasant to the human ear, the sound of that falls into that range. However it isn't something that effects all humans the same, some tolerate the sound more so than others or are not bothered by it at all. I fall into the category of not being bothered by it at all, the sound of folding paper however, that drives me mad." ]

[ "We would accrue new debt as we continue to borrow money to fund large scale efforts, unless the magical source of money that allowed us to pay off all our debt also funded that.\n\nNations aren't in debt because they can't pay their bills (at least, not always), they're in debt because it is useful to get a large sum of money now and be able to pay it off gradually, as opposed to taking a huge chunk of money out of the budget all at once. I need a car, but I also like to eat and have a place to live and drive my car to and from, so I take out a loan, rather than sinking all my money into the car, and then pay the loan back gradually while I eat and own a house.", "My non-economist understanding is would actually be bad. T bonds are a common stable investment, and are part of the debt, so those would all get paid off. Inflation would drop as would the prime lending interest rate, which is also seen as bad since that's an indicator of economic health (too low or too high show different issues).\n\nDon't confuse debt with deficit. No deficit is good. Deficit is what forces debt, but the gov can still be in debt without a deficit." ]

[ "Each file and folder in a UNIX system has a list of permissions, which are a list of rules describing \"who is allowed to do what to this file\". \n\nFor example, Bobby can read, modify, or delete a particular file but Charlie can only read it (won't be allowed to modify or delete it) and Danny can't even read the file.\n\nRepairing permissions on a Mac tells the computer to scan through every file and folder looking for any odd permission settings. For example, if no users are allowed to read a file then that's strange (you'd expect at LEAST one user to be able to or else the file is useless). Or, if a file says that Frankie is allowed to edit the file but there is no users named Frankie, and so on." ]

[ "It's a hygiene thing too, I think. It means you don't have to touch the handle on the towel dispenser, which might conceivably be contaminated with someone else's fecal matter.", "you can control the usage by setting delays on how fast the sensor one will spit out the next piece limiting usage, saving trees/costs." ]

[ "We bought the CPU to be used, not to sit idle. If one program wants all of the CPU and no other programs want any, why would the program that wants it not be given it?\n\nThe CPU doesn't have inertia. If someone else comes along and asks for CPU, it can be taken away from the first process in a tiny fraction of a second.", "On desktop, this is allowed because often hogging CPU is precisely what program is supposed to do, for example games, or video editing. You want these programs to use as much processor power as possible to get the best experience from them. \n\nOn servers, where multiple important programs share the same hardware, you can set up CPU, memory and i/o quotas, which are enforced these days through virtualization (there are other, older ways, for example user quotas etc). This, however, is no easy task to do correctly, and requires a rather specific expertise. Also server-grade hardware and software, which is expensive compared to regular desktop stuff.", "It does, don't think it doesn't. You are probably looking at statistics detailing overall CPU usage, which adds what other programs and the OS use. Though the OS doesn't need much CPU use generally.", "I'm currently loading an SSIS warehouse with 2.3 billion rows of data. If I wasn't allowed to max all 12 CPU's to 100% I'd kill myself.", "There is no alternate way software can use CPU. You set it to run as the only process, with complete access to all cpu memory(preloaded with the memory segments it needs, and its own program code). Then after a while, this program decides to make a system call to relinquish its control back to OS, which then uses CPU time it gets to figure out which program should run next.\n\nOperating system however usually sets timer which, after it expires, forces program to swap out of CPU. It's complicated job your operating system has, trying to figure out which processes should be given priority to run, but it usually does decent job, all the while guaranteeing that operating system itself remains responsive enough. But sometimes things might go wrong.", "In some systems (e.g. Linux) you can do this if you want.\n\nYou can use control groups to say that a particular application is only allowed a particular share of the CPU resources.\n\nOr you can use taskset to say that a particular process is only allowed to run on particular CPU cores. So if you have a 4-core machine, you can say the hungry process is only allowed to run on two of those cores. This leaves the other two cores totally free for other things.\n\nHowever, these are primarily useful in shared, large-scale computing systems (i.e. cluster or cloud computing) rather than desktop environments.", "Each CPU core can only perform one task at a time. Normally within a given period a bunch of tasks take turns using the CPU core. If only one task is being performed in that given period, than it is using 100% of the CPU. This may not be a bad thing, but other tasks have to wait their turn.\n\nThe more cores / CPUs that your computer has, the more tasks your computer can do at one time.", "Well, it's not actually \"hogging\" anything. Each process gets it's time slice based on the Operating systems scheduler. Sometimes some processes have little to do, so when a program has a lot to do then it will continue getting more and more time slices which can add up to 100% of the cpu time.", "The OS can prevent any application from hogging the CPU, easily. The OS completely controls what software gets to use the CPU and how much they get to use. The problem is that the OS doesn't know what you want and what you consider \"bad\" behavior." ]

[ "In an impact detonation (bomb that explodes when it hits something), that \"something\" absorbs most of the force of the impact. If it is the ground, a majority of that force is transferred into the ground and some of it is reflected back up into the air (think of a ball bouncing off the ground, it bounces back in the air at a very similar angle that it impacted the ground). For harder targets where you want to concentrate the force in a smaller area, this is the technique you want to use. \n\nIn an air burst bomb (using either a timed fuse or a radar proximity fuse) the shockwave travels toward the ground, is reflected by the ground, similarly to the ball theory and meets with more shockwave. The meeting of this ground reflected shockwave and the Air shockwave change the direction of travel of both and causes them to run parallel with the ground. This amplifies and shockwave and pushes it outward, away from the central point of detonation with more force. \n\nFragmentation damage is an effect in both cases. In impact detonation the frag is reflected upward and out from the ground (since it impacted the ground first) and is slowed somewhat by the contact with the ground. This is the desired effect for harder targets. In an air burst the frag pattern is directed toward the ground with more force (initially) and then pushed outward by the outward directed shockwave. This is more desired for softer targets (vehicles, radars, personnel). \n\nAlternatively in a delay burst, the weapon impacts first and then a set time delay is executed prior to fuse actuation. This allows the velocity of the weapon to penetrate harder targets so that it may detonate inside the target. This is useful for concrete, buildings (sometimes depending on construction), armored targets (depending on the weapon), tunnels or bunkers. \n\nThere are caveats to each of these situations.", "With a ground burst, a lot of the explosion energy is used up by the ground/material very close to the explosion center. An air burst can cause damage over a larger area, but causes less destruction at the explosion site than a ground burst.\n\nIt becomes a question of strategy. Does the attacker desire to damage an entire city or level a single block?", "In WWI the combatants lobbed enormous volumes of artillery shells at each other, to not much effect (on a per-shell basis, at least): it's estimated that over a hundred shells were fired for each combat fatality during the war. The ineffectiveness was because the shells were mostly impact-fused, meaning there's a little gadget in the nose of the shell that is deformed on impact, setting off the explosive charge in the shell. This detonation, while quite fast, still took a little bit of time, during which the shell would usually bury itself into the earth. When it finally exploded, the surrounding dirt absorbed most of the force and shrapnel.\n\nArtillerists experimented during the war with timed fuses instead of impact fuses, set before the shell was fired. The idea was to calculate how long the shell would take in its path through the air, and set the fuse to burst the shell while it was still a few meters in the air. When it worked, this was extremely effective and greatly multiplied the destructive power of the shell. The problem was that it was very difficult to get right and rarely worked, resulting in the shells usually exploding high or in the ground anyway.\n\nIn WWII, the British invented a device called the cavity magnetron, capable of generating high-energy radar waves. The secret of the technology was given to scientists in the United States, who embarked on a project of miniaturization and mass-production. The end result was a device that cost $18 and could be screwed into the nose of an artillery shell and used to trigger the detonation. This device (called the \"VT fuse\" misleadingly) could be set for a variety of ranges.\n\nThe original purpose of the VT fuse was for anti-aircraft work; hitting a moving target directly with a shell was essentially impossible, while detonating nearby required precise estimation of altitude and proper setting of a timed fuse. With a VT fuse, it was only necessary for the shell to come with 60 feet or so of the plane and it would detonate.\n\nBut it also occurred to the developers that it could be used to air-burst shells, with the radar reflection from the ground detonating the shells at extremely precise preset altitudes, causing massive destruction to whatever/whoever was underneath. While the VT-fused shells were used by naval vessels from 1943 onwards, they didn't appear on the battlefield until their first use in late 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge (and *very* handy they were then, an under-appreciated reason for eventual American success in the battle). The navy got them earlier because of security concerns - the US didn't want the Germans or Japanese to get their hands on a fuse that had failed to fire, but over water this would have been virtually impossible. By late 1944 it was clear that Germany was finished, so even if they had acquired one of these fuses it would have taken too long for them to reverse-engineer it and put it into production.\n\nBonus factito: the cheap miniaturized cavity magnetrons eventually made an appearance in consumer goods - inside the microwave ovens we all have now.", "USAF Ammo Troop here (we build all of the ordinance that's dropped by aircraft)\n\nDepending on the fuze, guidance unit, mission requirements, payload, purpose of the munition, etc. , you're able to set the fuse to when it should detonate, HOB (height of burst) for how far above the target it should detonate, or even set the fuze to wait after impact to detonate, and build the bomb accordingly to allow penetration before detonation. (Big ammo troop pun) search BLU-109 on YouTube. \n\nReason I mentioned guidance units, is depending on whether or not it can be controlled from the pilot or ALO on the ground, they're able to guide the munition and detonate it as they see fit. \n\nTo fully answer your question as to \"Why\", it totally depends on your target. If it's a soft target, say personnel or just normal trucks, it's easier to use an air burst with small metal projectiles (brass normally I think) that will essentially shower the target with shrapnel. This can even be applicable with heavier targets, such as tanks, because there's certain types of shrapnel that can pierce straight through armor or even engine blocks. \n\nA good example would be to search a flechette. They're like small little steel darts that are used as airburst shrapnel for personnel targets. We used this early on in the war, and back then the size wasn't regulated by NATO. Meaning each size of the flechette differed, some much larger than others. There were reports of targets being literally crucified to trees - so NATO demanded the regulated size of them to now be a 1/4\" long. \n\nI may be off very slightly on some things, but that should answer your question.", "Before fancy fuses, everything hit the ground and exploded. The problem with this is that when something hits the ground it takes a little tiny bit of time before the fuse can tell the explosive to go bang. By that time, especially in soft ground, the explosive is now slightly in the dirt. When it goes bang, the energy wants to go where it is easiest to go. So a lot of it goes up and out of the dirt. This makes a cone shape extending upwards from the explosive. The problem is that people and thing at ground level aren't in that cone. So most of your explosive is wasted unless you got really close. \n\n\nThen people figured out how to make fuses explode pretty much whenever they wanted them to. So now we can use that explosive as well as all the sharp bits of metal along for the ride (shrapnel) to be more useful. \n\n\nAnti-aircraft and missile defence applications explode in a cloud of shrapnel when their guidance tells them they are close enough to the target. This increases likelihood of hits to control surfaces, fuel, engines and electronics. \n\n\nA lot of anti-personel applications also allow for airburst usually on a timer or range. This allows the warhead to send shrapnel downwards and means people hiding behind walls or in trenches aren't really safe. \n\n\nMost anti-tank missiles use a shape charge warhead which requires a precise distance from the armour in order to be most effective. Most will have a long pointy bit on the end to trigger the warhead at this distance. It may therefore appear like it explodes before hitting the target. However some specialized munitions have various range finders that cause detonation if they are close enough.", "Exploding in the air means that the shrapnel hits a larger area and goes into trenches that a ground detonation would miss. The devices used to achieve this are called proximity fuzes.", "if a bomb explodes on the ground, it does a lot of damage in a small area. That might not be the best solution. If it's detonated a little above the ground, the force is less, but the area is larger. If you want to destroy buildings, you can turn more of them into rubble, rather than just turning one corner of one into dust. It all depends on the objective you're trying to accomplish.", "If a bomb or missile explodes in the air, it's using a proximity fuse. This is usually a tiny radar in the fuse that detects when it approaches the ground (or an aircraft for anti-aircraft missiles), and triggers the warhead to go off. The fuse would be set to go off at the distance that the warhead will be most effective.\n\nYou'd see proximity fuses on weapons designed to kill through the blast wave of the explosive going off or through shrapnel created by the metal casing around the warhead splitting up into pieces. The best targets for these types of weapons are troops in the open, or in uncovered trenches, unarmored vehicles, or aircraft. By exploding the weapon above the ground, all the blast and shrapnel spreads out as much as possible and isn't wasted moving dirt around. \n\nIt's an old concept that dates back to even before the invention of radar, but back then they used a fuse that was timed to explode after so many seconds and then fire it at targets that were just slightly more than that many seconds away. It's where the \"bombs bursting in air\" from the US National Anthem comes from. Timed fuse bombs. And as a side note, when the radar fusing technology was invented, it was called \"variable timed\" fuses to hide the fact it was actually being triggered by radar fuse.\n\nThere's also a proximity fused weapon used against tanks. This is a missile that is designed to fly over the top of the tank and explode when it gets directly above the tank. When it does, it creates a molten metal slug that is fired by the explosion directly down into the tank.", "It's called the \"mock stem effect\", first seen in the Halifax explosion in WWI. In an airburst, the downward-going shockwave will reflect off the ground and join up with the shockwave radiating out parallel to the ground, thus intensifying it. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were smoked in 1945 those bombs were both airbursts, the lesson being learned in Halifax.", "There are a lot of great comments in here. For some things - like surface to air and air to air missiles you have a much better chance of shooting down the aircraft if the missile explodes in the area of the aircraft rather than just hitting it. Because it's actually pretty hard to hit a plane in midflight as compared with getting near it and then blowing something up. Likewise other targets are more affectively damaged or destroyed by point or area detonation depending on what they are. Troops out in the open you probably want to use arborists – but those same soldiers in a bunker you want to hit directly.", "The reason for an airburst is for troops in the open or light skin vehicles. \nWhen bombs go off at point detonating there for armored targets and generally the most available fuzes carried by assets.\nThen there's delay, which is for hard targets such as bunkers, bridges, airstrips, buildings, and punching through a thick canopy forest. \nReason you would use delay on a building is because there is 2-3 feet of plywood roofing material rafters that would absorb most of the shrapnel if it was air burst or point detonating.\n\nThis is for 250, 500, 1000, and 2000lb bombs as well as small rockets and missles as well as artillery.", "There are any number of different decisions that are involved in the choice of detonation point. \n\nWhen an explosive is detonated, a large amount of energy is flung out. The farther from the actual point of explosion, the larger the area that is impacted by the energy of the explosion, but the energy per unit area decreases. Therefore, the farther away, the weaker the force feels.\n\nIf the explosion is more than powerful enough to do the damage you want to do the location you want to do damage, if you back away from that location by a bit, you will do the damage you want to a larger area. That allows you to be a little less accurate. If you go too far away, then you can't do enough damage anywhere. There is an ideal distance where you can be the least accurate, and still get a goodly amount of damage done. Conversely, if you are trying to direct as much energy as possible on to as small a space as possible (e.g. to penetrate armor), you want the explosion to occur as close as possible (ideally while moving at high velocity inside the outer-skin of the armor).\n\nAnother factor comes into play when explosives detonate on contact with something: the energy is partly absorbed, partly transmitted, and partly reflected. When energy is absorbed, it doesn't have much effect. Sand-bags and strange fluids like corn starch and water are really good at absorbing energy. \n\nWhen energy is transmitted, it has no impact along the way, but on the other side of whatever is transmitting it gets clobbered. This is like the kick of a rifle (the rifle doesn't get hurt, but the force of the recoil is slammed into your shoulder, having been transmitted by the stock). \n\nWhen energy is reflected, it goes back in the direction it came, or ricochets away, often carrying bits of things with it (e.g. flying glass).\n\nSo the choice of [e: where to detonate and how far away] depends on whether you are trying to deliver (absorb), transmit, or reflect the energy to create damage. \n\nThere is an incredible amount of science creating fuses that make things go boom at just the right distance from, at, or into targets.", "It's to ensure the effects of the rocket or missile destroy the target. I have seen rockets impact dirt 2m from an insurgent and have him crawl out of the explosion and dust fairly unscathed. Depending on the terrain (in the above example, soft mud and dirt of a field) a rocket's fragmentary effects can explode almost entirely into the ground. If it explodes just before the ground, hot metal flies everywhere, increasing the chances of destroying the target.\n\nSimilarly, a delayed fuse is intended to do the opposite. Say you have a bunker with overhead protection. You don't want the munition to destroy the overhead protection, you want it to destroy what is underneath it: the enemy. So the munition will delay its explosion for a short time after impact so that it punctures then explodes underneath. \n\nConsiderations such as terrain and civilian collateral damage plan into which munition to use. Results may vary.", "essentially to maximize the affected area. Shrapnel will rain down at a wider diameter the higher the explosion occurs. Of course, if its too high its also ineffective. \n\nThe military recently developed a weapon specifically for the purpose of hitting men in trenches. Its an airburst grenade rifle, you set the distance and grenade explodes at that distance. So you aim at a trench, laser calculates the distance and then to raise the sight above the target and fire, and now the trench interior is rained with shrapnel instead of the ground in front of it.", "To complete the already other good comments, there is a website that allows to simulate an atomic blast. In particular in the advanced options you can select the height at which the blast occur and compare the impacts of different height.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)" ]

[ "This is just conjecture, but as I understand, heat is a measure of the speed at which electrons are orbiting the nucleus of a given atom.\n\n0 kelvin and this orbit stops entirely.\n\nI hypothesize that, since as you dump more and more energy into these electrons they move faster, they'd eventually begin to approach the speed of light and it becomes more and more ineffective to apply more energy. When the speed of the electrons is *c*, it will take infinite energy to make them move any faster. And there's you hard limit on temperature.\n\nAs far a what temperature this would be in degrees, there's probably some conversion for an electrons feet per second to degrees fahrenheit." ]

[ "Almost all living multicellular organisms produce THC as a part of the regulation of the metabolism. THC receptors are also present in all of these organisms. Species as different as the simple nematode and the mighty redwood tree all have THC receptors, and produce THC as part of their normal metabolic cycle. This is why organisms can benefit from THC therapy. Because they already have THC receptors, and the THC provided in addition to their existing levels can have thereputic effects." ]

[ "It's a derivative of the flight-or-fight response. When you are exercising your sympathetic nervous system starts to take over the same if you were really scared. This makes sense from an evolutionary stand point, any time you would have been running you would have been in danger. The sympathetic system diverts energy away from your digestive system and towards your muscles and heart. You don't want a full belly with a stalled digestive system when you're fleeing from a jaguar so you toss your lunch and that allows you to run faster. Since it's the same system that is in control when you exercise, you get the same response." ]

[ "In terms of what? They are (arguably) the second most powerful nation on earth. WAY behind the US of course but still significantly powerful. \n\nThe real trouble is that they are fully geared up to fight wars of 40 years ago.. They have lots of tanks, aircraft and ships but not much by way of stealth abilities (more than other nations, but nothing like the US).\n\nIf you want a more detailed list, check out this website _URL_0_\n\nBut none of that includes nuclear abilities. Russia has missiles that can hit any place on the globe. Russia has subs that carry nuclear ICBMs and can be launched from anywhere on the globe. Once a nation gets to that point, it really does not matter what their other military abilities are. They have the power to destroy the world if they want, so we don't engage in open warfare with them.", "The Russian military suffered immensely during the fallout of the dissolution of the USSR and was seen by many US Army officers as a paper tiger during the 1980's and especially after Desert Storm. \n\nThe lone Russian aircraft carrier 'Kuznetsov' was to be the flagship of a planned class of four carriers. Only one other had it's hull completed, and was bought by a Chinese multimillionaire who [donated it] (_URL_18_) to the PLAN. The largest warships currently on the open sea are the 'Kirov' class battlecruisers, of which out of 5 planned 4 were completed and 2 remain commissioned. [Dmitry Gorenburg] (_URL_18_) , a Soviet/Russian military expert at Harvard University, has a [detailed appraisal] (_URL_18_) of Russian naval force [projections] (_URL_18_) up until 2030, including his own estimation of which projects are likely to be fulfilled according to the Russian defense ministry's budget and history. He also has write ups of Russian [operations] (_URL_18_) and [acquisition] (_URL_18_) programs by the [Army] (_URL_18_) , [Air Forces] (_URL_18_) , and Missile Forces. The Russian Navy's submarine fleet is large and powerful and likely to remain that way as a priority force. Compared to the USN it possesses more SSN vessels and less SSBNs. \n\nThe Air Force used to be the largest and most powerful in the world (that was a long time ago) but today is over ten thousand less combat aircraft weaker than the US military. The USAF's F-16 fleet alone is larger than the Russian Air Force. However [IMO] (_URL_18_) it is adequately equipped to defend Russian airspace effectively and support offensive operations in any direction for a limited time for reasons of basing and command and control. \n\nThe Russian ground forces are probably the strongest ground arm of any military in the world in terms of combat power. They have more men under arms than the US with equipment superior to the PLA. \n\nThe T-14 Armata is the next generation of MBT, and the T-90 is already the world's best IMO. It has never seen combat with a Russian crew as far as I know, but recently has been shown to [defeat TOW munitions] (_URL_18_) , in spite of an inactivated/malfunctioning trophy system, with no damage. \n\nAll Russian APCs (BTR series) and IFVs (BMP/BMD series) are equipped to engage both soft and hard targets, the BMD also air transportable and paradroppable while carrying paratroopers, while being highly mobile (50kmph < )on rough terrain. \n\nThe next generation of Russian small arm, the AK-12, puts 9,000 rounds through without a malfunction according to a write up by the 2016 issue of the magazine AK-47 & Soviet weapons, the [American M4] (_URL_18_) and [German G36] (_URL_18_) amount to a fraction of that, so regardless of accuracy or range consideration it is a very promising weapon. \n\nIt had its baptism of fire in the 90s in [Chechnya] (_URL_18_) , which turned [disastrously (NSFW)] (_URL_18_) against Russia and they were defeated in 1996. A second Chechen war in 1999 saw Russian victory in 2000 with an ongoing insurgency. In 2014 Russian operators rapidly [assumed the apparatus] (_URL_18_) of state in the Crimea and took over bloodlessly, and even if the western defense community wasn't **still** *reeling* from [this] (_URL_18_) , the RAND corporation [recently predicted] (_URL_18_) a Russian invasion of Latvia and Estonia would see them victorious [in three days] (_URL_18_) and that local American troops would not be able to successfully retreat. \n\nEdit: Added links as I originally typed this up on mobile. Formatting and grammar. Apologies in advance if a five year old doesn't want to do quite this much reading. \n\nEdit 2: Kirov Battlecruisers are not bigger than Nimitz-class carriers.", "Keep in mind that the biggest difference isn't between the equipment, it's the numbers and how it's used. Look at their Air Force for instance. Do they have excellent 4th generation fighters? Absolutely. Do they have the tanker support to keep them airborne and increase their range? Do they have the strategic airlift capabilities to transport large numbers of troops and equipment over long distances quickly? Do they have the airborne command and control aircraft who can detect enemies far away and send fighters to intercept them? Do they have a robust intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance presence to give troops an eye in the sky and target strategic areas? There's so much more to war planning than \"Our fighters are good\".", "They have some of the best 4th generation fighters in use by any country, easily the equivalent of the F15, F16, or F/A 18 variants. They just don't have as many. They are working an equivalent 5th generation fighter to the F22 Raptor. \n\nTheir T14 MBT rolling off the assembly lines now will be the most advanced armor on the planet, a capable of fragging ANY OTHER nations MBT in one shot. The M1 Abrams can do the same back, but the era of U.S. armor superiority is over. \n\nTheir naval capabilities are limited. They have a respectable, though aging, submarine fleet. But they have a smaller surface fleet than you would expect for a nation that size, but they aren't interested that much in projecting force outside of their region like the U.S. \n\nTheir biggest deficit is their armed forces. They have a respectable number of Spetnaz special forces (around 10,000), but the entire rest of their troops are underpaid, low trained soldiers with average equipment. \n\nOf course, as the other person already commented, they have at their disposal a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons." ]

[ "The compress the body in an attempt to keep the blood from leaving your head, which is what causes blackouts at high Gs.", "As dancingwithcats said the suit helps constrict (by using air bleeding from the jet )certain parts of your body to hinder the blood flow so the pressure is higher in the upper body. Higher G forces will literally draw the blood away from your head or at least prevent it from flowing effectively throughout your brain hence you passing out (think of a computer not getting enough energy). \n\nAs such pilots are trained also to tighten the muscles around their thighs (?) to help increase their tolerance. The suit then helps enhance their level even higher. I cannot remember the exact number but the training can increase the body tolerance by 2g and the suit can increase it a couple more. However there is a threshold of which every human being will fail at no matter what", "G suits are actually by pilots when they do high G maneuvers, not from breaking the sound barrier. You can pull high G's at relatively slow speeds.\n\nWhen you are pulling high positive Gs, the forces are pulling blood down from the top of your body to your bottom extremities. This means your head gets less blood and thus less oxygen than it needs to keep you from passing out - you end up experiencing things like tunnel vision, muffled hearing, and then eventually greying out/blacking out and G-LOC (G-induced Loss of Consciousness).\n\nG-suits (actually Anti-G suit) are worn by pilots. These are essentially wrapped around your abdominals and legs and contain internal pouches. The G-suit has a hose which the pilot connects to a valve in the cockpit. When high Gs are pulled, pressurized bleed air from the engine goes through the hose into the pouches in the suit, inflating them.\n\nThink of it like blowing air into a balloon and having it inflate. When the pouches inflate, they push on your abdominals and legs thus creating pressure that helps fight blood flowing down to your legs, making you more resistant to G-forces." ]

[ "You sign up. Social services does some routine investigations to qualify or disqualify you. Then then place a child with you...and you get a monthly stipend of $600-800/mo plus some amount of foodstamps to feed the kid. \nTheres a caseworker assigned to you that has waaay too many foster kids to pay proper attention to each case. When theres a complaint or problem they respond and evaluate whether there is an actionable issue or not. \nAbuse happens sure. BUT most foster parents take good care of the kids they foster. Most kids in foster care are a lot better off than they would be in group homes. Like anything you hear more about the failures and flaws than the success stories.", "The money it pays is tax free, it works very well to supplement your income. Along with the monthly compensation the kids would get vouchers for a lot of expenditures (at least in Alberta Canada they did) new bikes, school supplies, clothing vouchers the only thing that would really come out of your cut was housing, food, and maybe their allowance. \n\nMy parents did it to supplement their income. They would take care of short term high needs kids, and every once in a while a couple of long term kids would settle in. Most went on to go home, get adopted, or settle with next of kin aunts/uncles/grandparents. Over the years probably close to 50 kids came through the house. I hate to admit it but it made me extremely territorial in my youth. We would get a lot of kleptomaniacs, I suppose that's not surprising, a lot of kids come from nothing and stealing just becomes second nature. We also had a lot of special needs kids with all variations of learning disabilities. One of the better kids we took care of had some serious handicaps which I couldn't pick up on at the time but flash forwards 10 years and the kid is still counting on his fingers at age 15. Two of the worst kids we ever took care of were manipulative enough to break at least one marriage. You name it I've probably seen it; babies with drug withdrawal, ADHD, hyperactivity, food hoarders, one kid had burn marks where someone had snubbed out a cigar on his back more than once, kids getting into shit fights (fights where they would throw their feces), you heard jokes of kids ripping up carpet turns out that's a thing, another kid stabbed a social worker with a knife, a pregnant teen stayed with us for a couple months she went on to kill her baby because she didn't want it to go through the social system like she did.", "Also, for clarification, if a person or family wants to foster a child, they apply to do it and the agency will do a home and background check prior to decide if they're fit to become parents. It's similar to adoption, just without the commitment. Hope this helps!", "I'm sure there's someone else that can explain this better. \nThere are two types of people that foster kids. The people that truly care about the children and the ones that are only doing for a paycheck. \nThe latter are the ones that foster for all the wrong reasons and may abuse the children. Some people believe that because they are providing homes to these children that can do with them whatever they please. \nFostering is voluntary and the foster parents receive money from the state for the child's needs. \nThere are also private foster care companies that receive money from the state or local governments based on the number of children they place in homes and the business (dealing with the lives of children and all) is just as worrisome as it sounds." ]

[ "In one part of how a car engine works, a piston squeezes a mixture of gasoline and air, then a spark plug sets it on fire at a precise time.\n\nBut squeezing that mixture makes it hot, and sometimes it can make it *so* hot that it catches fire before the right time. This can push the engine backward, hurts your gas mileage, and wears out the engine too soon. It's called knocking, or engine knock. It's most common in sports cars, where, to get a little bit more power when the engine is working right, it's designed to squeeze the gasoline-air mixture more tightly than other engines do.\n\nNow, gasoline is made up mainly of two kinds of stuff: hexane and octane. Fuels with more octane can get squeezed into less space, at higher temperatures, before they catch fire. So if you have a car with a **high compression ratio** (that means a car that squeezes the gasoline-air mixture more than usual), you need to use a high-octane gasoline, or else your engine might knock, which could hurt the engine.\n\nIf you don't have a car with a high compression ratio, you probably don't need to worry about engine knock: your engine doesn't squeeze hard enough for the difference to be important. So you can use lower-octane gasoline.", "The short version:\n\nUse whatever grade your called for in your car's owner's manual. Using a higher octane than required will typically result in no benefit or even a slight negative impact, but using a lower rating that specified can cause performance issues and engine damage.\n\nAll the rating actually indicates is how resistant the fuel is to self-ignition. High performance cars are designed around high-octane fuel because they can exploit its resistance to ignition to produce more power, but if the engine isn't specifically designed with that in mind, there's no benefit." ]

[ "It happens all the time during critical incidents. Usually the goal is to keep media aircraft back so they do not interfere with law enforcement operations." ]

[ "Plastic filaments and particles can interact with receptors on the outside of cells, and can freely enter cells by moving through the fatty cell membrane to disrupt processes inside the cell. The downstream effects are poorly understood, and could be anything from nothing, to interfering with hormone cycles and metabolism, to causing cell death, or to affecting DNA replication and repair, depending on the type and size of the plastic particle. Here's an NIH article on how they (and other substances like drugs) can affect your hormones (endocrine system): _URL_0_" ]

[ "In general, limited hours help the market remain stable.", "There's all sorts of ways to trade stuff 24/7, it's just that the major stock markets officially close down during the night/holidays/etc. But there's a bunch of stock markets across the globe, there's stock futures (where you're basically agreeing that you'll buy/sell at a particular price at some point in the future when the market is open), and all sorts of other markets where you can go toss money around any time any day if you're so inclined." ]

[ "Somewhat. They work by increasing levels of nitric oxide in the body, which regulates blood pressure by relaxing the blood vessels. You can't supplement nitric oxide directly, but two amino acids, L-arginine and L-citrulline, cause the body to produce it. While L-arginine is a popular product, it is poorly absorbed by the body, so L-citrulline is the better choice of the two.", "Creatine works. There's a lot of good, peer-reviewed research over then course of many decades on that one. Some amino acid supplements and protein supplements (like whey) and stuff help if you're really working out like crazy and the research generally supports that. The rest is probably all in your head and possibly dangerous. Best thing you can do is probably just eat well. Brown rice and chicken breast is a classic in the weight-lifting world for a reason.", "Most supplements claims are absolute bunk. Actual medical journal sites like _URL_0_ are good places to find actual independent clinical trial results on most sports supplements and their actual effects versus a placebo (double blind placebo controlled clinical trials). Pre-workouts are generally little more than a caffeine high and placebo effect.", "Some workout supplements may work and others may not. It's hard to tell which ones do for a couple of reasons: the first is that supplements are not regulated by the FDA, and as such are not inspected and may not even contain the ingredient(s) that they claim to. The second reason is that because they aren't regulated by the FDA, they can claim just about anything about the product without it having to be true (they can't outright lie, but may say things like 'may increase muscle drive and mass' or have testimonials ')\n\n\nSo, in short, it's hard to tell which ones actually work and some studies have shown that many do not.\n\nEDIT: formatting", "The only two \"true\" supplements that are proven to work are whey/casein protein and creatine. Even creatine is only shown to be effective in a dose of ~5g per day, the rest your urinate out. \n\nNow, does this mean that I don't take nitric oxide-driven pre-workout? No, I still do because even if there's a boatload of caffeine in it, I still feel amped up and have at the very least a placebo effect which causes my workouts to be better. \n\nAs for BCAAs (branch chain amino acids), insulin regulators, testosterone boosters, ZMA, fat burners, multivitamins, etc. I still take some of these items because I have the disposable income to afford them and I figure what could they hurt. Do they work? I'm not sure, as studies tend to contradict themselves. I think that you need to approach these supplements as an optimistic skeptic and come to your own conclusions.\n\nEdit: Whoops..fixed dosing error.", "Well, I just got the shit scared out of me by the creatine/whey thread being linked to testicular cancer, so there's that. \n\nIt's not that significant, and definitely not enough to imply causation... but I started using creatine at a young age and got good results. Also got testicular cancer.", "Not sure why everyone is referring to protein as a workout supplement; it's essentially food replacement for those unable to get the required protein/carbs in during a day.", "cordyceps works. It was used by the 1993 Chinese Olympic team. Since then it has shown to increase oxygen absorbtion in double blind placebo tests. One study reported a 50 percent increase compared to the control group.\n\nAlso is thought to decrease the risk of lung cancers. I have tried it and it does seem to help performance, especially endurance.\n\nVitamin B12 shots work too If it is methylcobalamin based.", "Creatine works. It allows your body to maintain higher levels of ATP (muscle fuel) for a short time.", "Can somebody explain why so many people keep GNC and places like it in business? Unless you're a bodybuilder, I don't understand the need for supplements and these elaborate workout rituals. What happened to just going on a run, riding a bike, playing sports, lifting weights etc. without the need for anything extra? It saves a ton of money too.", "There is little scientific evidence that these supplements can do what they claim (mostly bc real scientists dont waste time testing a bunch of supps and vitamins and human trials have a lot of paper work and ethics to deal with). Even raw nutrients are involved in many interesting pathways, and can be digested at different rates or end up in different tissues depending on their form or what state your metabolism is in. \nFurther many of these supplements are produced by companies that dodge FDA regulations, so you may be getting more than you bargain for in a bad way.", "Allan Thrall's supplement stack is probably the best advice you can get _URL_1_", "Check _URL_2_ for supplements that actually work. It has helped me a ton!", "While getting my bachelors degree in exercise science we talked about this. The only time your body releases N.O. is during your fight or flight response. You veins vasodilate to help you get more blood to your eyes, muscles, pretty much everything so that they can work better (things appearing to move slowly because your eyes are working at an elevated capacity which requires more blood). I don't want to confuse my body with flooding it wi TH chemicals that are only natural is emergency situations but that's just me. I've also been told by a medical doctor not to take N.O Shotgun because it destroys your liver. Also this article may help you. _URL_3_", "Yes and no. Supplements are NOT FDA regulated. In fact there was a study done where many products were tested and found to be less than like 5% of the advertised product and 95% filler such as rice flower. Another trick which is common is they will say \" so and so ingredient had been proven to have X effect\" which MAY be true, what they fail to mention is it may have that effect at 1000 times the dose you are getting and might be lethal too you. They can put almost whatever the fuck they want on there.", "But eating 30% of fast digestive carbs and 70% of slow digestive carbs will get yoi energetic before a workout too and it's all natural", "I'm not sure if they work or not, but if you mix that shit with alcohol you're guaranteed a black out.", "Nothing will ever beat carbing up, taking a 2 rem nap and waking up hitting the gym hard", "Honestly, beet juice is better for that than any supplement." ]

[ "Color compounds are usually fairly large molecules, and the fabrics in your clothes are made of even larger polymer chains. Big molecules like this can interact [non-covalently](_URL_0_) (so no chemical bonds, just atoms sticking to each other through Van der Waals forces, charge groups, and other weak forces). Non-covalent interactions can add up to be pretty strong, but also are reversible. Detergent in particular is very good and inserting itself between the molecules and removing their attraction for each other. But the longer you let the staining molecules sit around and the hotter you get them, the better the chances are that the colored compounds covalently bond them to the fabric. At that point, there isn't anything that can break the bond that wouldn't also break the bonds of the fabric in general.", "I don't know. But a LPT: try to wash it off with cold water as soon as you can, add detergent and wash again with cold water. Hot water does some magic and makes stains more permanent. My guess the hot water lets the stain/color chemicals bond/react with the clothing and thus becoming one with the cloth. But when you use cold water the chemicals do not reach a high enough energy to bond and so wash away." ]

[ "Wall vibrates too, but less than air, then transers the vibrations to air around you\n\nEdit: grammar" ]

[ "Most instruments, really anything that makes sound will be like that, even clapping your hands. It's all about acoustics, basically how the sound bounces off the walls and back to you. An orchestra sounds gorgeous in a large and well-designed room because the sound bounces off the walls again and again, surrounding you and lingering in an echo. In a smaller room with \"softer\" walls, the sound is cut off quicker because you're not hearing it from much other than the source. Try clapping and yelling in a car or a band practice room at a school vs a really big room, especially with stone walls, and listen for the same difference." ]

[ "The World Trade Center was a complex of seven buildings. The twin towers were 1 WTC and 2 WTC. Four other buildings were on the same block, and 7 WTC was across the street.\n\nWhile only the twin towers were struck by planes, their collapse caused substantial, irreperable damage to all the other buildings part of the WTC, and other neighboring buildings as well. 3 WTC immediately collapsed from the twin towers essentially falling on it. Same thing happened to a church across the street. Debris that struck 7 WTC didn't cause it to collapse immediately, but started fires that weakened the building, causing it to collapse later that day.\n\nConspiracy theorists think that, because the building was across the street from the WTC and its collapse wasn't *directly* caused by the collapse of the twin towers, that its collapse must have been a controlled demolition. They add to this that the building had offices of the SEC and Secret Service, theorizing that someone wanted to set back investigations into potential financial wrongdoing.", "\"Building 7\" refers to 7 World Trade Center, a 47 storey building which was damaged in the 9/11 attacks and collapsed at roughly 5:20pm that afternoon. Conspiracy theorists claim the building was purposely demolished.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nWhat happened was that falling debris from the collapse of the north tower (1 WTC) damaged 7 WTC and started fires. The building's sprinkler system had a number of issues (some fundamental design flaws, and some due to the circumstances on the day), in particular there was very low water pressure available to firefighters so the fire was able to burn out of control.\n\nAs the fire burned, the steel beams which ran along the floors of the building heated up and expanded. Ultimately this pushed a key beam off a column, shifting how loads were distributed through the building, causing a column to fail and the building collapsed from there.\n\nConspiracy theorists claim that fire shouldn't be hot enough to deform the beams like that, and that it was actually a controlled demolition. However official reports include analyses which rule out these claims." ]

[ "This is not typical. Is it possible you are allergic?" ]

[ "Are you talking the same [shimmering color sometimes seen on roast beef?](_URL_0_)" ]

[ "The same reason we in Britain pronounce \"Lieutenant\" as \"Leftenant\". That's the way the word was said when we stole it off the French." ]

[ "The communist manifesto was a short pamphlet authored by Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels. It briefly summarized key concepts of communism, outlined the differences between communism and socialism, and pointed out the flaws with contemporary capitalist societies.\n\nThe most important ideas put forth by the manifesto were the concepts of the proletariat (working class) struggling against the bourgeois (ruling class), and this struggle would most likely result in socialist revolution, and eventually communist revolution. The pamphlet also put forth a list of ideological \"demands\", in essence, suggestions for how societies could adapt more communist and socialist policy.\n\nWhile the communist manifesto has earned a reputation as Marx's most prolific document, it was by no means his most exhaustive and those seeking further education on the ideals of communism and socialism should read his other works.", "Karl Marx was a German who wrote a small book with a friend of his over a hundred years ago. Their book was called \"The Communist Manifesto\" and it was really important! In this book they talked about how a few rich people own TONS of stuff and most people have to work for the rich people. They said that for a long time the rich people have made poor people work really hard in the factories that rich people own and with the tools that rich people own. They said that one day the poor people would fight the rich people and after the poor people win then everyone would share everything and we would all be really happy.", "Basically, Marx said that it's always been the rich vs. the poor. There are the people who run everything (oppressors, the Bourgeois) and the people who do all the crap work (the oppressed, the Proletariat). He says that these classes, and the fighting between them, will always happen so long as people can own things. He doesn't have a problem with the idea that you make something, and it should be yours. He says that that doesn't really happen in capitalism anyway. What happens is you work for someone, and they pay you a wage, but own the products of your work. But the reality is that everything that gets made really depends on ALL the people. You can't have a factory without thousands of other people making machines, growing food for the workers to eat, making homes for the people, providing materials for the factory, etc. So really, the capital (the stuff like factories and trucks and products) belongs to the people anyway.\n\nGetting rid of private property is the main point of communism. Marx argues that there really isn't private property for the Proletariat/poor people anyway. They simply get just enough to keep working for the Bourgeois. Getting rid of it simply just gets rid of the upper class, because the upper class needs to own all the stuff to be in power. Without private property, the Proletariat will be in power. Class warfare will end, along with the exploitation of the Proletariat.\n__________________\nGranted, I'm not communist scholar, but the key point is getting rid of private property so that you get rid of the Bourgeois ruling class.\n\nThe main problem that the soviet union had, as well as China, is that they very clearly have/had a ruling class. People were being exploited just as they had before, if not more so.\n\nMarx and Engels were smart guys and gave people a new way of looking at social structures and stuggles. Their analysis was valuable, and most, if not all, of their criticism of capitalism was valid; there certainly is exploitation in capitalistic systems. The main problem I have with communism is that I don't see how it gets rid of the Bourgeois. A common criticism is that, \"it looks good on paper, but don't work out in reality.\" I think this speaks to the fundamental idea that human nature is that we tend to be competitive, and that ideas for a communist government can't really address this any better than capitalism can. But that's up to you to decide. There's lots of \"Marxist\" literature that seeks to analyze governments and economies in a similar style, and they're by and large really good. So get reading.", "Okay I'm sorry in advance. The Communist Manifesto is written to be read by everyone, so it's already explained like you're five. So just read it.", "Rich people suck and own everything let's kill them all with fire and share their stuff equally." ]

[ "Seriously? Nobody knows?\n\n**For historical reasons**. The same way British people still call themselves English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish despite living in a single country for ages.\n\nUnited States declared its independence in 1776 as 13 independent *American States* (the name used) and passed the constitution in 1787. At that time there was British land to the north instead of Canada and Spanish land to the south and west instead of Mexico. Mexico won its independence in [1821](_URL_2_) but they spoke Spanish and their \"native\" land was not \"America\" but \"Mexico\". Canada has been a whole bunch of British colonies and unorganized territories until 1870s when [Canadian Confederation was created](_URL_1_). And here are the historical roots for the name of [Canada](_URL_0_). You have to understand that the colonies worked as extension of the country. France in the colonial age for example consisted of the original country in Europe and Algeria and Morocco in North Africa. If you went to Canada you were still in Britain (British Empire) and the local name for the region was just like moving from Essex to Lancastershire. Similarly Spain - you can call the land what you want but the name of the *country* over there is still \"Spain\".\n\n At the same time the colonists in New England and other British colonies in America were thinking about the idea of being somewhat separate for a couple of decades. The American revolution really started somewhere around 1750s or 1760s and only culminated in 1776 and through that time one of the most important notions was that while they might refer to \"Rights of Englishmen\" (because of legal traditions) they did not consider themselves as \"British\" but \"American\".\n\nSo by the time people started really thinking that it is weird that citizens of a *country* in just one of the American continents are calling themselves \"American\" it became part of the habit and language. By the way it really happened with the turn of the XIX and XX century when there was no more free territory (the wild west) to go to and the distinction between the North and the South ( which was fairly obivious either before the war and for a couple of decades into the reconstruction) vanished.\n\nIt is only now that there are plenty of countries on both continents that it seems to be a weird thing.", "Because United Statesian sounds stupid. It's really the only logical and easy shortening.", "It has to do with numerous factors. \n\n1) In English the demonym of a country is determined using the most unique identifier in the name of the country. That would be America in \"The United States of America\". \n\n2) This is not a hard fast rule, but most often said unique identifier is commonly the last word in the name. As is the case with the USA. \n\n3) The continental demonyms in English are named using the full name of the continent involved. Since the English world breaks the Americas into two continents the English demonyms are \"North American\" and \"South American\". \n\n4) We are the only nation on the two continents to have \"America\" in our name. So there is no confusion. \n\n5) We are the first independent modern nation on the two continents and so we do have somewhat of a \"first come, first serve\" rights to the name. \n\n6) We have been using the demonym for well over 200 years.", "The name of the country is United States of America. The people are United States of American. American is the shortened name. \n\nIt may help to think of the European Union. It is a union of European countries however there are many countries in Europe which are not in the European union. \n\nSimilarly, at it's founding, the United States of America was a union of states in America. At the time there were no other nations or states in America that were recognized by the European powers, only colonies, and territories, even though now there are other nations because later on those colonies gained independence.", "Because \"staters\" sounds stupid, and they wouldn't be the only country that has \"state\" in their country title anyway.", "because the official name isn't \"The United States\"... it's the \"The United States of AMERICA\"" ]

[ "There are different perspectives and competing theories on this, and each has it's own level of detail. Here's what I think, but it's probably not the accepted version, and it's not really ELi5!\n\nThe brain is a **pattern matcher**. It goes through data and isolates *similarities* from differences to create saved patterns. These patterns are used to identify what things are and to create further patterns. Patterns start simple, but eventually become complex chains of \"commonalities\", and ideas, memories and the words of language.\n\nFirst, the baby has sensations of sound amongst silence. Initially, all the sensations of sound are meaningless, but the baby learns to distinguish when there is sound versus when there is not.\n\nThen the baby learns to differentiate different types, or characteristics of sounds - high, low, loud, soft, pure tones, harsh tones, staccato sounds, rising sounds, falling sounds - perhaps thousands or more characterisics.\n\nAnd then baby \"associates\" (creates larger *united* patterns) those characterisics of sounds with *previous or concurrent or resulting events*: Such as: with *feelings*, firstly just pain or pleasure and later feelings such as surprise, fear, happiness, comfort, joy, indifference, important, unimportant etc. Such as: with *visual* objects/events, you, people, a moving chair, a dog etc. Such as: *smell and taste* events etc. And alot more.\n\nAt some point, the gabble of speech has been differentiated from all non-speech sounds, as being human made, as being producable by the baby, as having an effect on people's actions. \n\nThis is further differentiated into smaller units of similarity - angry speech, comforting speech, loving speech, fearful speech. \n\nAt this stage, a mum can say \"I love you I love you I love you!\" or \"googoogaagaa buby wuby\" *in the same voice/tone* and the baby will understand the *meaning* and implication of the tones to be the same, even if the individual words are still meaningless. \n\nEventually, patterns are found in phrases and sound shapes and sllyables, in other people's voices and in the babies own produced sounds and results of those sounds. The baby isolates individual words and their meanings. \n\nI believe there is a stage now where the baby understands what words and sentences mean by listening only - but can't yet physically produce the right sounds to speak back. I've heard that some parents, at this stage, teach the baby hand-sign language (!) to communicate, until he/she can speak!\n\nWhen speech is being produced, you'll notice all the funny \"mistakes\" the kid makes in grammar and pronunciation as he/she tries to put new ideas together for the first time. Some of these \"mistakes\" may make a lot of logical sense according to the *underlying* patterns the kid has already aquired - and often it is the illogical customs and inconsistent exceptions of English that's the problem! \n\n**TLDR:** Spoken Words are but leaves on a Tree with twigs and branches, and trunks and roots, that go down deep." ]

[ "You (and your lawyer) are under no obligation to prove your innocence, nor your \"not-guilty mess.\" The onus (burden) is on the prosecution to prove that you are guilty, and your job is to refute their accusations and show, if possible, that they can't be true.\n\nThat's what presumption of innocence means. If nobody shows that you're guilty, then there's no reason to believe guilt; you're \"not guilty.\" The prosecution has to prove you are guilty well enough that you can't poke holes in their accusations, otherwise we default to our presumption.", "To add to what others have said already - if we find you \"not guilty\", we *treat* you as if you're innocent. That's what the phrase \"innocent until proven guilty\" means.\n\nThat doesn't mean you *are* innocent, and we'd never *say* you're innocent, because you haven't proven that, nor is there any requirement for you to prove it.", "You aren't taken to court because you are not innocent. You're in court because you are accused of being guilty. The court sees that you are being accused, and places the burden of proof on the accuser.\n\nThe accuser shows the court why he/she/it thinks you are guilty, and the court makes the decision whether or not you are guilty based on his proof.\n\nBeing told to show up in court is not being treated as guilty, it is simply where the accuser shows his proof, and you show why he is wrong.", "You aren't innocent, you are *presumed innocent\", mean the burden is to prove your guilt.\n\nIf the prosecution fails to do this, they didn't find you guilty. They didn't find you innocent, because you were already presumed innocent, and because the proceedings didn't prove your were innocent, just that there was insufficient evidence to prove your guilt." ]

[ "I can think of two important reasons. First reading and comprehension increases vocabulary and your understanding of language. Second is what you learn from the material. Even fiction can train your brain to make connections or think in ways that you hadn't before.", "My brother has his sword, King Robert has his warhammer and I have my mind...and a mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone if it is to keep its edge. That's why I read so much Jon Snow.", "You only have one life to live. Reading allows you to experience thousands of lifetimes. Empathy comes from experience, and reading is a bottomless well.", "Reading books makes your brain automatically start to dream. The best case is when you actually dream about what you are reading (not something else - happens a lot sometimes). For a very experienced reader a book turns into a movie so to speak played back by his own mind. This dreaming is an excellent workout for your brean which enhances your so called spatial imagination. \n\nYou learn to picture written text inside your brain which is VERY helpful in school for example - especially math and physics. Picturing something in your brain allows you to see the problem you are facing from multiple view points and makes you solve it faster. That's why those people reading a lot of books are usually also good in school. \n\nIt's not that they read textbooks so much but when they have to read one it is much less painful for them, because their brain is much better suited to deal with the text itself. So while some people still struggle with understanding the text, they allready think about the problem.\n\nSpatial imagination is the key to intelligence. The only reason apes became intelligent is because they had to develop a spatial imagination in order to be able to jump from tree to tree. If you fall you die. If you make it you pass on your genes. So spatial imagination was very beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. Once they were able to imagine doing something without actually doing it they started to come up with ideas. Ideas to use sticks as tools and what not. (speculative) The point is primates were among the first animals which did not only rely on evolution to get better. They were able to improve themselves by thought and by teaching others. Someone who developed a cool technique to get food told it the others and they all survived. **[Relevant .gif](_URL_0_)**\n\nThe key breakthrough of course came when early humans started to draw things on walls. They were able to save information to future generations and it didn't take long until pictures turned into a written language.", "I go through phases of reading a lot of books, then losing motivation and stopping reading. When I read feel a boost in my spatial intelligence abilities, something I don't get from other medias like watching TV. Probably comes from having to mentally visualise things when reading. I find reading a good form of escape from reality, so if in a stressful environment reading provides a good way of focusing the mind on something more positive.", "While we are on this topic, does anyone have any good books that they can recommend? Doesn't matter what type (as long as it isn't romance).", "Good for the brain vs. helps your intellect?\n\nAFAIK, there is no evidence that any sort of \"[brain training](_URL_1_)\" is actual effective at helping the physical state or preventing deterioration of the brain: it's all marketing. That includes things like reading, writing, etc. and not just puzzle games.\n\nHow it helps your intellect? Like others have said: vocabulary, reading comprehension, language comprehension, breaking you out of your mold by giving you another way to look at things, etc.", "Everything worth saying has already been said by the millions of humans that came before you and were smarter than you. If you read what they have to say, you won't have to make the stupid mistakes that they made to understand the valuable lesson that comes with making stupid mistakes.", "Reading provides for mental exercise for your brain. Just as working out keeps your muscles strong and healthy, using your brain for critical thinking keeps it strong. Reading makes you think about things and thus keeps your brain active." ]

[ "Revisionist history is when somebody has an idea he or she wants to support and then goes back and reinterprets historical events to create that support, sometimes interpreting events to mean the opposite of what an objective analysis would conclude.", "Something is 'revisionist history' if it's teaching something as though it were historical fact when it is not according to all the data, and it's bad because - outside of simply propagating information that's wrong - it's usually done to further the agenda of someone with a negative intent.\n\nHolocaust-denial is the most obvious example - teaching that there was no strong effort to kill off the Jewish, Romani, handicapped, etc. populations by the Nazi party.", "You already have good definitions from others, but I'd still like to comment regarding the \"bad\" part with my favorite example of revisionist work, the Deuteronimists, who successfully erased and marginalized all the other gods from the Old Testament, thus convincing people judaism has always been monotheistic, which it hasn't. _URL_0_" ]

[ "We started calling it the moon before we had discovered what a moon really was, or that other planets had their own moons.", "Some people brought up the point about languages, which could change the Moon’s “real name” in a culture. but there is a catch. The Moon is the name that’s been approved by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), which is the internationally recognized body for naming anything outside of Earth’s atmosphere. The Moon is called as such because it doesn't need any other name. It’s not just any moon, it’s *the* Moon. The Moon’s proper name is reinforced with the realization that in most scientific writings the name that scientists use to discuss our natural satellite is, you guessed in, the Moon.\n\nClick [here](_URL_0_) for more information.", "The Moon was named before we understood that there were other similar objects. Thus, its name was extended to the class of objects that it exemplifies once we discovered they existed.\n\nSince there was \"only one\" as far as we knew, there wasn't really a difference between 'Moon' being a category or a name up until that point." ]

[ "First, I believe you mistyped and meant 120/240v in the US.\n\nThere is a trade-off between voltage and power lost due to resistance. Very few things in your house use even 120v, so why so much voltage?\n\nFirst you need to know some simple concepts about electricity. For a certain amount of power running through a wire, you can increase the current by decreasing the voltage and vice vera, according to this formula:\n\nPower= Voltage * Current\n\nSo if I have a cable with 120v at 2 amps of current, and another line with 240v at 1 amp, those two cables are carrying the same amount of electricity. It's like two streams, one is twice as wide as the other, but the thinner one is twice as fast.\n\n\nSo why choose one over the other? This brings us to our last electrical concept: The power lost to heat from the resistance of the wire we use is based on the CURRENT only. The more current, the more energy lost to heat caused by the resistance of the conductor.\n\nNow the reason we use high-power lines is clear, transporting electricity at high voltages and stepping the voltage down close to where it is used is more efficient.\n\nIn the end the precise voltages you use are arbitrary, as Mr. JelloTree said, but once you commit, you can bet a power network isn't going to want to change, as there are massive economies of scale in keeping components standard.", "It is mainly due to the fact that individual countries and the electric companies present in the countries, had their own electric infrastructure plans, since electricity production is usually kept in country. i.e. the US doesn't create and send electricity to Brazil.", "It's arbitrary, a system was chosen in each country at one point and the cost of changing it is prohibitive." ]

[ "There are a lot of different reasons and a lot of different factors for the state of basically anything. You can't really boil it down to one thing, but it's worth trying I guess. History and all its political, cultural, geographical, and economic factors play a role in the way things are today. \n\nI'm not a MENA history scholar or anything, but I'm fairly well-read because I like it and my BA involved a lot of classes on Islam and the Middle East. I'll just put down a couple bullets point with things I think you should look at:\n\n* The break-up of the Ottoman Empire demolished government systems that held much of the region together. For centuries, the Ottoman Empire was the main political body holding most Arab countries together. Life certainly wasn't perfect for religious and ethnic non-Turks during this time, but there was a unified governing system, some autonomy on the local level, and relative stability. After WWI, the Allies, particularly Britain and France divided the Empire's territories among themselves and did away with the previous governing structures. \n\n* Britain and France divided the Middle East into made-up states that paid no attention to ethnic or religious boundaries. Honestly, no one knows what would have happened otherwise, but a lot of countries (Iraq and Syria are perfect examples) don't have the ethnic/religious unity that they have in a lot of European nation-states.\n\n* Decolonization in the 2nd half of the 20th Century left weak, illiberal, and corrupt states with little legitimacy. \n\n* During the Cold War, the US and its allies and the USSR and its allies flooded the region with weapons and play allowed kinds of political games to exert influence. Popular movements and dictators tried all sorts of ideologies - secular-authoritarian-pan-Arab dictators came to power. \n\n* In the 1970s and 1980s, Islamism as a modern political ideology jumped onto the scene in Shia Iran and found its Sunni manifestations in different movements (like the Muslim brotherhood) in most Arab countries. So the scene's been set for brutal authoritarian, but secular dictators versus Islamist movements, both violent and not-so. \n\n* Israel... There's a lot to write about, lots of competing narratives, but you cannot displace hundreds of thousands of people, implement an entirely new form of government, and not destabilize the region. Add Arab-nationalism and Muslim identity politics, and it's a big issue everywhere. \n\n* The 2003 invasion of Iraq basically opened the can of worms we're seeing now in Iraq and Syria. \n\nSorry my explanations got shorter and shorter. I'm a bit tired of typing. *A Peace to End All Peace* is a great account of the break up of the Ottoman Empire and how much outside meddling contributed to the destabilization of the Middle East. William Easterly has a great chapter about it in his book called *White Man's Burden* as well. Vali Nasr writes a lot of cool things about the region. James L. Gelvin as well. I'm mentioning the authors because you can find accessible interviews and stuff on Youtube.", "Put simply, at some point the western powers carved out Middle East into several countries without asking the actual people living there. This created issue as suddenly tribe A and tribe B are national brothers even though they don't get along well in the first place, causing issues like egoistic corruption and lack of empathy" ]

[ "The eustachian tube is what is hurting; it was stretched by the air pressure used to inflate the balloon, and is sore.\n\n The reason it feels like it is coming from your jaw below the ear, is a phenomenon called *referred pain*. The same nerve branch that brings pain signals to your brain from your jaw, there, is the same branch that brings pain signals from your eustachian tube. The eustachian tube is so rarely in pain that the brain never learned to differentiate between the two sources, and so interprets pain from it, as being pain from your jaw instead.\n\nReferred pain happens often, usually in cases of sinus pain, toothaches, and abdominal pain. It can also happen in heart attacks, where the person experiencing the heart attack feels pain in their left arm instead of their chest.", "Although the Eustachian tube explanation is a possibility, I think it's more likely that the pain is secondary to air entering the ducts of the parotid gland (Stenson's ducts). Anatomically, this corresponds better to the location of your pain. Also, if the pressure was significant enough to over-distend your Eustachian tubes, you'd probably feel pain in your ears as your eardrums would be pushed outward (same pain you feel when descending in an airplane). Finally, you can blow up a balloon without \"popping your ears\", which demonstrates that t's possible for your Eustachian tubes to remain closed during the balloon-blowing process.\n\nWhen air is forced into the parotid ducts chronically (like in musicians including woodwind players) it can lead to more significant quantities of air, a condition called pneumoparotid. In these cases the air is often visible on CT imaging and can cause swelling of the gland. In your case of blowing up a balloon, it's probably a very small amount of air that causes only brief discomfort and doesn't lead to any significant gland swelling.\n\nSource: I'm a fourth-year medical student planning to specialize in Ears, Nose, and Throat", "I've literally been trying to explain this to people for years and they look at me like I'm crazy. I almost cheered when I saw someone ask this in a ELI5. I am not alone!", "Your TMJoint is being pulled out of position a little when you clench your jaw. A handful of orthodontists know how to align your teeth so your joints are in place. 99% have no idea it even makes any difference. If you also get frequent headaches then sleep with the front half of a moldable football guard in your mouth for a few nights. If your symptoms get better, your bite is off. Then just wander around wishing you knew an orthodontist that could help you. There are about 12 in the country. Most of them cost less also because their 2nd residency trained them to move your teeth in half the time. \n\n\nEdit:typo", "Contrary to the top comment it is NOT the eustachian tube that is hurting. The eustachian is what allows your ears to pop but the pain you feel in your jaw has nothing to do with your ears popping or not. \n\nWhen you play an instrument like a trombone, trumpet, or french horn, and when you blow up a balloon, you are having to stiffen the muscles in your cheeks and lips in order to make an airtight seal and pressurize your mouth to force air out. \n\nThe tensing of the muscles alone can cause discomfort and is called an embouchure in brass instrument playing. \n\nAdditionally, when you pressurize the air in your mouth it can cause the dissolved gasses trapped in small fluid filled cavities around the hinge of your jaw to come out of solution. The pain usually radiates from about an inch below your ear, right in the middle of your lower jaw bone. These bubbles form in the synovial fluid of the jaw and are also responsible for your jaw cracking if you open it very wide. This is called the temporomandibular joint. _URL_0_\n\nSimilar actions in the fluids of your knuckles are what make your knuckles pop. The change in pressure from blowing, and the resulting fluid filled pain are also operating on a similar principal as people with joint pain who are sensitive to inclement weather due to the change in atmospheric pressure. \n\nThe best way of releasing these air bubbles is by chewing. Some people are more sensitive to this due to physical differences in their jaw structure and muscles. It also changes with age.\n\nSource: I play trombone and trumpet and I suffer from this problem often." ]

[ "Everyone's teeth and jaws are different, like everyone has a different fingerprint. And dental work like fillings, caps, etc, and their placement make dental structures even more unique. \n\nI have taken college courses in basic forensic techniques, but I'm not a forensic scientist, so I can't tell you *exactly* how someone is identified using this method. I believe it involves matching their jaws and teeth to the most recent dental x-rays available. \n\nIn your story, I would imagine that they have records of who was on the train, and who survived. This narrows down the list of people that could possibly be left. Even if only a partial match was possible using dental records, they'd have a relatively small number of records to check against and no one else's teeth in that small group of possible people would match. It would take a ridiculous sample size for there to be the possibility of two close matches.", "Everyone's teeth are different in size and shape. Your dental records have xrays of your teeth which are like pictures that record the sizes and shapes of your teeth, as well as any dental work you've had done. This will likely be unique to you, or unique enough to eliminate people who are not you from the list of people they think they might have the remains of." ]

[ "Start with: Computers are (to oversimplify) really complicated calculators. This also goes for video game consoles (and their emulators)\n\nVideo games (like all programs) are ultimately really complicated calculations.\n\nIn order to reduce the load on a computer's ability to perform the \"calculations\" (aka reduce lag when playing the game and save space on whatever storage media the game is on), corners are cut in the amount of space for calculations. \n\n You can think of thi\n s as limiting each l\n ine of a paragraph t\n o 20 characters.\n\nAny overflow from one line juts down to the line that follows it.\n\nPlaying the video game by performing very specific and well-timed actions can cause a value (an object's identifier in the code, the time registered by the game at that specific point of time, the vertical and horizontal location of a very specific object on a screen, etc.) to be copied or forced into the next line. **This is code injection**. \n\nEvery program will have its own tolerance for code injection. Seth Bling (and those like him) enjoy finding and exploiting the possible outcomes of code injection.", "\"Arbitrary Code Execution\" is the same principle upon which most computer viruses actually work. A basic computer virus is simpler than what's going on in SMW. [**Here's a pastie with as close as I can get to one for 5 year olds**](_URL_3_).\n\nThe way we address this memory is convoluted, but essentially you can imagine memory as 'n' blocks of size 's'. For example, if we are addressing 64 bit (8 Byte) blocks, and we have 256000 bits of memory (32kB) then we have 4000 blocks of 8 bytes.^[1]\n\n*So your memory is a whole bunch of bits grouped like this:*\n\n Address Memory \n 0000 - > [ 8 bytes ]\n 0001 - > [ 8 bytes ]\n 0002 - > [ 8 bytes ]\n ...\n 3999 - > [ 8 bytes ]\n\n*(4000 total blocks of 8 bytes of memory, their address is their position within the 4000)*\n\nYou probably knew that we needed to store all the *data* like the number of hitpoints, position, velocity, names of characters, etc, in memory. But all programs are actually made up of **data** *and* **instructions**, and we also need to store the instructions in memory.^[2]\n\nInstructions are pretty simple, somewhere the person who makes your processor defines a table of things you can do, and a program is a set of these instructions *in order.* They are in order because the processor *loads one*, executes the instruction of whatever that memory told it to do, and then moves to the next address.\n\nNow, let's say the first 100 addresses are *data* (0000 - > 0100). Somewhere else, let's say starting at address 0200 we store our instructions.\n\nNow let's imagine the program puts a text box on your screen and asks for your name. Instead of typing your name, you type 1600 'a' characters, and then 8 characters who's binary representation exactly matches the 8 bytes of some processor instruction. If the programmer was careless and doesn't check the length of your input, your 1600 a characters will be put in memory (8 of them filling a block, so 200 blocks filled), and then your final character will be put in memory over the first program instruction. **Now if the program goes to read that first instruction, it won't have the original program, it will have a new entry which the user specified very intentionally with those 8 characters.**\n\n\n*The visualization of this would be:*\n\n Address: 0000 0001 0002 ... 0200\n Memory: [aaaaaaaa][aaaaaaaa][aaaaaaaa] ... [ the 8 characters we inserted ]\n\nThis is called a [buffer overflow attack](_URL_1_), and it's one example of how we can take control of a program while its running with special inputs.\n\n**What's going on in Super Mario World?**\n\nThe buffer overflow thing is just a good way to illustrate memory addresses. In the case of SMW they aren't writing massive strings into memory, they are able to jump to exactly the memory location they want and write code into it (*some addresses above 0200 in my example*). This is possible because some nintendo programmers had to manage extremely limited system resources, and probably wrote all that code themselves (leaving corner cases where bugs allow what should otherwise be illegal memory accesses).\n\nIf you want more information on how they control where/what to write [this is page explains it well](_URL_0_).\n\n**To answer your original question:**\n\nSeth Bling and anyone else who's written a SMW (Arbitrary Code Execution) TAS have to figure out where they need to put individual processor instructions (tedious) and then how they can generate those specific instructions by manipulating the game (even more tedious). It's an extremely lengthy process.\n\nSince these writes into instruction memory are done based on player actions, there's no real need for a TAS. The inputs can be done by a human if they are slow, methodical and careful. \n\n* There's no need for extra equipment, but it's simply more common for TASers to do these things because they require such precision (it took him almost an hour of very careful inputs), the AGDQ/SGDQ bot could do those thousands of inputs with 100% accuracy much faster.\n\n* I don't know about the potential taping down of buttons, it was probably a consideration to help him achieve consistency on his inputs so he didn't make a mistake accidentally.\n\n-----------\n\n^[1] : We usually call these 'words' not 'blocks' but I think that might be confusing for someone with zero programming knowledge.\n\n^[2] : Instructions are stored in different non-volatile memory in some architectures (see [harvard architecture](_URL_2_)) but usually only for embedded systems that may experience power failure, like a weather station.", "This is a really dumbed down explanation, compared to the other answers.\n\nThe live memory in older video games (like the NES) is very simple. Think of it like 10 boxes, the first one is your score, the second is your current level, third one is your lives, and so on.\n\nNow, let's say the maximum score was 999. Seth made a glitch that will make his score 1000. Now, the box to hold the score was only made to hold 3 numbers. It was done to save memory, so another number can be added in a different box. Where does the extra character go? It goes to the next box. Now the level is 0, which is impossible and the game glitches out.\n\nThink of the flappy bird code to look like \"[1][43][49][6][3][23][4]\" (very over simplified). At some point, he would do the score glitch so many times, it's going to have this code that he made in the memory, and he can execute it.\n\nThis isn't exactly how seth did it, but it's the same concept).", "Basic ELI5:\n\nTwo people are in a kitchen. One is baking a long and involved cake, with hundreds of steps and instructions. The other is just standing there.\n\nThe baker reads the recipe, steps 1-5 - and walks away to follow instructions. Person standing there takes an eraser, crosses out steps 25-30 and replaces them with something different, and walks away.\n\nThe baker comes back, continues reading instructions 6-10 - and walks away to follow them. Other person comes and changes instructions 31-35.\n\netc.\n\nLong story short, the baker doesn't realize the recipe has changed at all, and happily performs the modified steps 25-35 with no issue.\n\nNow, what happens when the person tries editing the recipe *while* the baker is reading it? Or, that the modified instruction makes absolutely no sense at all? The baker freaks the fuck out and burns the entire kitchen to the ground. (This is why computers and computer programs crash sometimes, by the way).\n\nThis example obviously included two actors (baker and the person modifying the recipe), so it doesn't apply perfectly to the hack in question. I state this out, because old-school video games are unique to how they stored and processed their \"recipes\", and to help illustrate how one person could pull it off.\n\nSo... how can this be applied to just *one* person? Imagine the baker is following the recipe, stirring his cake mix - and a glob flies out of the bowl, and lands on the recipe. The mix obscures a digit of the bake time - so instead of baking 35 minutes, it now reads 3 minutes.\n\nIt changes the recipe, and the baker bakes the cake for 3 minutes. Now, was the glob that landed on the recipe an accident *or intentional*? This Super Mario World hack involved very, very precise globs of cake mix to fly out of the bowl - at precise angles, velocity, and airtime to land at specific parts of the recipe, so that when the baker got down to step 80... he'd unwittingly start playing Flappy Bird, because that's what the damn recipe said to do :)", "There are certain glitches that can cause the CPU to start running instructions from a different part of memory. Then it's a matter of using other glitches to put values into that bit of memory so they match up to valid CPU instructions.\n\nThe details of exactly how he did that are more complicated, but that's the basic principle.\n\nNot sure exactly what they extra controllers are for. I assume they are just necessary for the glitch to occur." ]

[ "If one believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, then there's really no room for evolution.\n\nIt is certainly possible to believe in evolution and God, if you don't take a literal view of Genesis.\n\nThe theory of evolution involves random mutations that were beneficial and therefore bred true in offspring. Someone who believes in a higher power may see the hand of God where traditional science sees chance.", "While evolution and God may not be mutually exclusive, the main problem that creationists have is not specifically evolution. What they don't believe is that humans, specifically, are derived from another species (by evolution, or any other mechanism) because they believe: the Bible is inerrant, translators of the Bible have been inerrant in their translations, and that the account of the origin of man and plant and animal species in the book of Genesis was intended to be taken literally, and that the translation. The most important point is that God created man in the form of modern man with no earlier forms.\n\nThe notion that Genesis is to be taken literally has been discounted since before the time of Christ, but the idea pops up every couple of centuries (the modern US version is traceable to a movement stemming from Princeton seminary around the end of the 19th century that spawned the modern evangelical movement). St. Augustine wrote a whole treatise on how \"creationists\" (the term as such didn't exist back then) were deluded and harmful to the faith.\n\nWhat the majority of Christian denominations seem to have adopted as doctrine over the centuries is an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, though not many have made any doctrinal statements on the topic. The position of the Catholic Church in response to creationism might be enlightening:\n\n\"In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.\n\nA growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God's providential plan for creation.\"", "1) Historically, the book of genesis was an oral tradition started in the time of Moses (some say it was started by Moses). It was a revelation to Moses (similar to the book of Revelation was a vision to the apostle John). As it was a revelation, and Moses did not have a full understanding of what was being revealed to him, he could not have understood what he was \"seeing\". Therefore, the entire creation myth is allegorical. On a personal note, I don't understand christians who believe that Revelations was written about atom bombs and helicopters and similar (because John couldn't understand what he was seeing), but believe Genesis was perfectly literal (because Moses could understand what he was seeing).\n\n2) The idea that the Earth (and by extension, the universe) is around 6000 years old comes from several calculations of the age of humans mentioned in Genesis as living for however many years and their offspring. This comes from a semi-modern definition of words translated from the original, where the original had multiple meanings. For example, Bob, son of Bill means the Bill was Bob's immediate father in modern English. In the original untranslated text, the \"son of\" definition can mean the immediate father, or a patriarch many generations removed (in the way that Abraham is the father of the Hebrew nation).\n\nThere isn't really anything that exclusively disputes evolution, but neither is there anything that does not.", "I don't think you can give an explanation that doesn't excessively and unfairly simplify people and their motivation.\n\nIf I had to make a broad-brush guess, I'd say it's less about opposing the idea of evolution itself than it is about opposing the people who most vocally attack them for not subscribing to evolution. There's nothing like an outside attack to give people a mutual identity, which is something that we ALL crave and need like we need air.", "in the bible, man was created in the image of God and seperated from all other animals and had a status ABOVE animals. in evolution, man came from primate ancestor, same as all other primates and all animals. \n\nthat's probably the root of most of the friction", "yes, God used evolution to create life on earth. and God created science too which lead to vaccines and medical arts. were not in a closed, zero-sum existence." ]

[ "They're mostly called debates to lend some gravitas to the situation.\n\nWhat they are these days, however, is joint press conferences.\n\nIt would be nice to have actual debates, but that would require politicians who are willing and able to think on their feet, and argue in defense of a position, rather than requiring an army of writers to create pre-prepared statements for them to memorize.\n\nThere aren't many who are willing or able to do that.", "Once we get down to two candidates, the debates will become actual debates. You're right though, for now there's more masturbating than debating going on" ]

[ "Last names didn't always exist. So when they did start existing, sometimes unrelated people chose the same last name. (It's also been long enough since the development of last names that you might be related really far back.)", "one reason, in spanish countries at least, orphans used to get the last name \"iglesias\" (church). Since this was embarrasing for them later in life, churches decided to give them random spanish last names." ]

[ "Yes, you are combatting inflation, but the amount of new currency that is added to the economy everyday is so massive that unless you were to orchestrate a huge money burn, you couldn’t make any sort of difference" ]

[ "Quantum computers are good at following several \"paths\" to a solution at once, essentially doing calculations in parallel rather than sequentially. One of the applications for this quantum superposition simultaneous search power is finding prime numbers, which is normally super difficult: if you want to find out if 277 is a prime number, you need to divide by *every* other number less than it and see if any of them go through. If I picked a number with 30 digits, it would take your computer *years* to determine whether it's prime or not. \n\nAnd the difficulty of performing a prime factorization of a number is the fundamental key to the security of every modern cryptosystem. If quantum computers can efficiently factorize a prime number, then all of our most sophisticated coding mechanisms are out the window. \n\nFor an explanation of *why* prime numbers are important in cryptography, check out [my comment running through an example of RSA encryption and decryption](_URL_0_).", "All security protocols can be compromised given enough time and processing power, as to \"break\" an encrypted message or guess a password, all you need is the time and processing power to try out all possible permutations at the cipher or the text. For instance, if I knew that I had to guess your password which is 8 characters long and contains only lowercase letters of the alphabet, I will be bound to guess it correctly after a maximum of around 208,827 million tries, after I try all possible combinations of letters from \"aaaaaaaa\" to \"fgrkxisx\" \"zzzzzzzz\", etc.\n\nIn brief and ELI5 a manner, quantum computers are much faster as they can perform more of these computations in a shorter time. One way this is explained is that with our conventional binary-bit computers, we can only vary a value as either 0 or 1, and that out of this \"alphabet of two characters 0 and 1\" we need to \"spell out\" all the words/messages/things we want to say in the world in a computer - that's obviously very inefficient and takes up a lot of time. Quantum bits however can take on multiple values - not only 0 and 1, but it could be \"0 AND 1\", \"NOT 0 NOT 1\", \"0 NOT 1\", \"1 NOT 0\" for 4 \"letters\" in the alphabet, to some implementations which suggest that it could be anything *from* 0 to 1 e.g. 0.999, 0.475, 0.4, 0.333223223 are all valid \"letters\" in a quantum bit language. As such, you can then note that it would be much more efficient to \"spell\" things in quantum computers and thus \"speak\" or \"try\" many more words in the same span of time as you would in a conventional computer environment. Bring this idea to security hacking, and you have our modern-day encryptions bypassed easily.\n\nOf course, when quantum computers are here, we would likely be able to create new forms of encryption not possible today too, that would be tough to break by quantum computers themselves, and virtually *impossible* to break with today's computers. So it wouldn't be as if it's the end of computer security. It's all a matter of datedness and technological obsolescence.", "Quantum computers *can't* break all our current security protocols. \n\nWhen they are developed much much further than they are now then there's a fair chance that they will be able to, but nothing exists yet or is on the cards to do anything like that. \n\nOf course, in parallel with the development of quantum computers there are quantum encryption techniques being developed which will be secure against them. \n\nCurrent encryption techniques based on prime numbers use numbers with hundreds or thousands of digits. Current quantum computers can factorise numbers with 2 or 3 digits. There is a way to go yet, but as with all new technologies a sudden breakthrough could lead to several orders of magnitude improvement overnight. \n\nEncryption and decryption is always a race between how hard it is to encrypt against how much power and technique you can bring to bear to break it." ]

[ "Your mum wants to get you to eat some food you don't like, so instead of just calling it cabbage, she calls it delicious super tasty munchy fun time. But the cabbage is severe famine and human rights violations.", "it's like how the Patriot Act takes away all your rights.", "It's a form of propaganda called the [\"Big Lie\"](_URL_0_). It was originally coined by such nice men as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels and its implications were further explored in Orwell's book '1984'. Basically says that if you tell a big enough lie (such as: a repressive authoritarian communist state - is actually a \"democratic people's republic\"), and you tell it often enough with enough conviction - people will begin to believe it. If there are any conflicting sources, or anyone who contradicts the \"big lie\", it begins to fall apart, but if it is upheld unquestionably and relentlessly, people will believe it and eventually even *rationalize and defend it* themselves.", "For the same reason that the *War Department* changed its name to the *Department Of Defense*.\n\nSee [*Newspeak*](_URL_1_) from 1984.", "Because the world considers democracy to be a good thing, so most countries are going to put on a show to claim their leaders represent the will of the people.\n\nPlus, North Korea *does* have some vestigial democratic institutions. They have a parliament that consists of elected members. Now, it has very little independent power, and everyone runs unopposed, but there is at least the appearance of democracy at some level.", "[A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a \"public matter\" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of states are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.](_URL_2_)\n\nBy this definition, you can make a point that North Korea is indeed a republic.\n\nAs for \"Democratic,\" that's completely a question of personal point of view.\n\nIs the USA democratic? In my opinion the USA have a system that is optimized to only alternate between two parties with almost identical programs.\n\nIn theory a member of a third party could win an election, just as Kim Jong-un could lose an election in North Korea.\n\n**tl;dr:** If you don't have a reigning monarch you can call your country republic. Almost every country calls themselves democratic, even if most of the world disagrees. There are no absolute measurements for either word.", "Good question. I don't think anyone has actually tried to answer your question in a serious way. Here is my take on it. You will find the DPRK constitution [here](_URL_3_ 5:Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens). If you look through it, it sounds not too bad. Especially the parts guaranteeing rights of freedom and speech and freedom from oppression. You'll find similar text in the People's Republic of China's constitution and probably the same in the former USSR constitution. On paper, a lot of the oppressive regimes have very nice sounding laws that promises equal or superior rights to that of the USA. \n\nSo simply based on what's written governments like the DPRK and China can claim to be a republic or democratic. I mean, look, it's right there written on it's founding papers! However, in practice what ends up happening is state security, \"public safety\", and harmonious society ends up trumping human rights. Anytime the government needs to do something terrible, it makes up an excuse and points to one of those three reasons and says \"your rights don't count here.\"\n\nI currently live in China and see it just about everyday here. Why no public demonstrations? To protect the citizens from lies and to keep the hooligans from looting! Why don't human rights lawyers get a fair trail? They're a threat to national security and we have to keep him locked up! Why not report on all of the corruption? To promote a harmonious society free from western influences.\n\nAt the end of the day, all governments want to sound nice and democratic on paper. Which is why it's in the name of so many terrible regimes but in practice those rights are pushed aside the minute it becomes inconvenient.", "It is a republic because they don't have a king or queen.\n\nThey claim to be a democracy because democracy is the rule of the people (the demos) and most people are working class and they rule on behalf of the working classes and in their best interests.\n\nThey do not have elections because they know the upper and middle classes always trick the working classes into voting against their own interests. \n\nThe extent to which actual people believe these things is another matter.", "There is actually an election that goes on in DPRK, but there is only one person on the ballot (and no one else is allowed on). Even if there were other candidates, the people would still elect Kim Jong Un anyway", "We have those too: Right to work. Fair and balanced. And others." ]

[ "Well, to begin, there are what is known as \"interpreted\" languages and then there are \"Compiled\" languages. Most scripting engines, like PHP or CSS use what is known as an \"interpreted language.\" C, C#, C++ and other languages that the end user never really sees the source code for are called \"compiled\" languages. There are languages such as Python which could be either, depending on how you write and use Python. Basically, when a developer writes code they write it in a language they can understand. The programming language itself has definitions for what all of that code means, and when the computer Interprets code it basically just reads one line at a time and breaks the code into \"machine code\" that is, quite literally, the literal translation of what the developer wrote to something that activates the correct buses and instructions inside the CPU. Interpreting code means that the variables in the code are replaced with their corresponding values \"just-in-time\" before the interpreter reads them. That means that a simple script containing code is read and converted to machine code each time it is executed. By comparison, when we Compile software we are essentially taking all of those human-readable lines of code and reading them ahead of time with our compiler. Because we don't know specific variables for each time the scripts will be executed, the compiler uses placeholders and logic to create a single binary (or executable) that contains all of the machine code and libraries required to run ANY instance of that software. \n\nSo to answer your question, from my limited experience so far...\n\nC# - Desktop / productivity / enterprise applications\n\nC++ - Resource intensive desktop / enterprise applications.\n\nPython - Light scripting / desktop productivity / IoT projects.\n\nJava - Pissing off your colleagues.\n\nPHP - Server side scripting and dynamic HTML web-servers.\n\nHTML - Creating beautiful web pages.\n\nXML - Creating beautiful documents using HTML syntax.\n\nJscript - Light client side scripting to make responsive HTML.\n\nJQuery - Medium-duty client side scripting to make responsive HTML and complex web applications. \n\nAngular & node - Server side scripting based on the Javascript client-side language." ]

[ "Your monitor has a grid of tiny little boxes called pixels (short for picture element). Each one of these can be controlled independently to display a certain color and brightness. Your computer figures out how to draw your screen by filling in each pixel and sending that information to the monitor. It does this usually around 60 times each second, so for instance, if you move your mouse, each time the screen gets re-painted, the mouse pointer is just the tiniest bit further along its path, creating an illusion of movement.", "Sub-question that I think is relevant. \nIs everything on the screen, in machine code, simply the rgb value of every single pixel in one long string followed by the next screen's individual pixel values, ad infinitum, 60 times a second?", "this awesome video explains how lcd screens work: _URL_0_" ]

[ "It doesn't really matter if one number is bigger than the other number. What matters is how many Euros you get and how much stuff you can buy with a Euro. So if I have 3 Euros, but it costs me 3 Euros to buy some candy, then I have no more Euros left! But if I have $2 and it only costs $1 to buy some candy then I have a dollar left over! So even though the Euro is a bigger number, what really matters is how much stuff you can buy with that amount.\n\nSo we now know two things: How much can I buy with a euro vs how much can I buy with a USD. And we know how many dollars it costs to buy a euro.\n\nSo if I can buy a piece of candy for 3 euros or $1, and I can $2 for one Euro, then I'm much better off selling my Euros to buy dollars because that way I'll be able to get a LOT more candy.\n\nVery smart people who run banks and businesses are aware of this, and so they trade euros for dollars all the time to the extent that the amount of stuff you can buy with euros vs the amount of stuff you can buy with dollars is in proportion to how many euros you can buy per dollar. \n\nIn the perfect world, this means that you can't just trade dollars for euros and therefore buy more stuff. But sometimes people have other reasons for buying dollars instead of euros or vice versa (e.g. if they think that one country is going to be unable to do any work then that makes the banks nervous and so they don't want that countries money).\n\nIf people have a strong reason to prefer one currency over the other that is not related to how much candy that currency can buy, then that currency is considered to be overvalued.\n\nIf a currency is significantly overvalued, it means that people are knowingly giving themselves a bad deal because they are nervous about the future of the undervalued currency.\n\nNot quite ELI5 link here: _URL_0_" ]

[ "After the French Revolution western men (including American men) rapidly abandoned the frilly flamboyant fashion characteristic of the Rococo era and adapted a much more conservative fashion of England. The modern suit was developed in the 19th century by an Englishman named [Beau Brummell](_URL_0_). He wore well tailored jacket, white shirt with neckcloth that eventually became a standard tie or bowtie, and fitted pants. The Great Britain also became the most powerful nation in the 19th and early 20th century, thus influenced formal attires around the world.", "it is not formal around the world for example parts of Africa, in eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East and other parts of the world there are different more traditional kinds of clothing that are considered formal." ]

[ "What to expect:\n\n1. Your credit will drop like a rock. Don't expect to see it above 530 for at least 6 years, even with aggressive credit building.\n\n2. They will call you constantly. If they can't reach you, they will call your references, until they find a way to get in touch with you. Keep in mind that it is illegal for them to say anything about your loans except to say that they are looking for you, and then only if you listed them as a reference. If you find they are contacting people they were not given permission to contact or are giving them extra information, you or the inconvenienced party can sue for damages. If the debtor decides to give up on the debt and sell it to another collector, the new collector will also make aggressive attempts to collect. Expect 5-8 month cycles of this. You will probably want to google 'Fair Debt Collection Practices Act' for your own protection.\n\n3. You might find specific jobs might reneg on hiring you. Certain employers will look for credit scores and refuse to hire someone in default. This is because they do not like dealing with Wage Garnishings, which is a likely outcome of your situation. You will want to find out what the laws are in your state regarding Wage Garnishings as some states don't garnish for Student Loans.\n\n4. There are certain conditions under which student loans can get discharged. If you are disabled or become disabled, filing bankruptcy with an undue hardship exception, will declare to the judge that you want him to rule on whether the student loans create an undue financial hardship. If he agrees, the loans will be discharged. It is very difficult to get one of these. There are also exceptions that depend on other conditions such as whether or not you are going to teach or be part of a Civic Service (firefighters, police, peace corps).\n\n5. Assuming Obama gets re-elected and succeeds in student loan reform, the laws for your situation will change soon (6-18 months) in your favor.\n\nIf you should wish to fight, [this](_URL_0_) is a great resource. I wish you the best of luck.", "Look, man, pay your student loans. If you can only afford $5 a month, send them $5 each and every month to stay current. At some point, they will want income verification, but if you keep sending them whatever you can afford you won't go into default. \n\nEven though they are not calling you every day, they still want their money. Penalties, interest, and collection charges are being built up. At some point either you will have to die or begin repayment. Trust me, the student loan people won't let you die until you pay off your loans. The collection charges and penalties can be written off if you can make payments for about a year, but the interest is still building up." ]

[ "Because in much of modern history the people with tattoos have been people very often associated with unsavory organizations, crime, and violence. I think you can understand why companies wishing to present a professional and safe environment would shy away from hiring those with tattoos. That general attitude has been passed down, even though it may not be as applicable nowadays as it was in the past, since many people with tattoos are in no way associated with violence or crime.", "\"Nowadays\"?\n\nTattoos have been seen as unprofessional in Western society for ages. They've become vastly more acceptable in the last few decades.", "It's because of the customers, if the customers didn't care the businesses wouldn't either. I work in a service where I travel from house to house, when I first started I had earnings and tattoos. I went in to the office to quit at the end of my first week, it was rough and the Customers were horrible. My boss told me no, I wasn't quitting. What I was going to do was try the next week without my earnings and longer sleeves to cover my tattoos. Then after that I could do what I want. I'm glad I took his advice, it was a start to the vest job I ever had. Attitudes were drastically different, I was welcome and treated as a friend. \nPeople can be pretty petty, and a business has to make their customers happy.", "Tattoos being mainstream(ish) is a recent change. The older generations still see them as something indicative of the low-class/undesirable types. (don't read this wrong, I have a good bit of ink myself.)", "In general, any body modifications, bar regular ear piercings are seen as \"unprofessional\"." ]

[ "We just talked about this in my psychology class today. There's a case study about this guy who, as a high school student, wanted to break the record of longest number of days without sleep (which was 11 days at the time). He made it 12 days, probably with some \"micro sleeps\" here and there. He suffered all kinds of side effects, from headaches to irritability to hallucinations and more. When he finished, he slept about 12 hours a night for three or four nights and was right back to normal with no lasting effects and was able to go back to a regular sleep schedule. So really the idea of your body having to catch up isn't completely accurate. Your body just needs sleep in general to function properly and consolidate memories/repair itself. If you have one sleepless night you'll probably have a rough day, but if you get the recommended amount of sleep the following night you should be right back on track.", "_URL_1_\n_URL_0_\n\nWe sleep to remove the waste products our neurons create while they function. During sleep, the neurons narrow, and the glymphatic pathways expands, allowing significantly more passive flow of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that carries the waste products out of the brain. \n\nThe longer we go without sleep, the higher the concentration of the waste products in the fluid. This would also mean that proportionately more waste product is removed from the brain if you have gone longer without sleeping--in the same number of hours of sleep.\n\nFollowing this line of thought, when you are 'catching up on sleep' you do not need to make up hours additively. The first few hours of sleep are proportionately the best. This makes sense with the anecdotes you read in the other comments.\n\nSource: Interest with sleep stuff & medical background & did some neuro research in medical school-but I'm also not a neuroanatomist. The first 1.5 paragraphs is based on recent research, the last bit is biologically-plausible theorizing based on this brand-new research behind the glymphatic system, which provides a basis for why we need sleep at all.", "Long time ago (more than 5 years ago) I read in a science magazine about this subject. \n\nIf you go a night without sleep, you should continue your regular sleep pattern the following nights, it only takes a few nights of sleep to \"catch up\" no matter how much sleep you have missed on the first night. What is important is to keep the same sleep pattern all weekdays, because it is more healthy for the body. So young man, this is why you are not allowed to stay up late in the weekends. Now go back to bed.\n\nI read this long ago, so I cannot come with an actual source and cannot guarantee if the research is up to date.", "How do you know how many hours of sleep are good for you if everyones body is different?\n\nAlso how do you know if the amount of hours you slept is good for you or it was just luck that you woke up at the end of a sleep cycle?" ]

[ "Well, you could just consider it being made of lego blocks instead. Each block with length of 1 along x-axis, first one that covers the entire horn from x=1 to x=2 would have side length of 2 * 1. Basically, you're approximating upwards, so that lego is bigger than it needs to be near x=2 but that's fine. So lego block has length 1, and two other dimensions are 2 * 1, so it has volume of 4\n\nNext lego block from x = 2 to x = 3 would have to have side length of 2 * 1/2, so total volume 4 * 1/4 = 1.\n\nNext lego, side length 2 * 1/3, so 4 * 1/9. The next one, 4 * 1/16.\n\nSo basically, our lego blocks have volumes 4 * 1/x^2 \n\nSo volume of Gabriels horn has to be smaller than the lego blocks that contain it, which form neat series 4 * (1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + ...). Sum of inverses of squares is finite, so maybe that helps?(Sum of inverses of squares is pi^2 / 6)" ]

[ "Back before refrigeration, food either went bad or had to be preserved somehow. Meat and milk would quickly go bad. France is known for its sauces as a way to cover up the rancid meat. Cheese was a way to preserve milk so it wouldn't spoil as quickly.", "Good cheese is good stuff. It can be amazing if you get the right kind.", "Because the french have good taste, and cheese if fantastic.", "France actually have trademarks on some types of cheese. One of those types is Roquefort. European law states that only cheese that is matured in the Combalou caves of Roquefort-sur-Soulzon can be called Roquefort, therefore cornering the market. There are lots of Roquefort-esq cheeses on the market, but the only true stuff comes from those caves. Gruyere is another cheese protected by European law. [Here](_URL_0_) is a link of all the agricultural products protected by European law.\n\nFrance produces at least 56 types of cheese.", "Pasteurization has little to do with it, since cheese was already varried and widespread beforehand. It's the climate in France that lends more toward dairy cows , than say the England whose climate is ideal for producing beef steers with good muscle/fat development. Of course people eat both in both countries, but the local variation tends toward larger milk production... So with all that extra milk the French then go about coaxing in bacteria and yeast in order to turn it into cheese. These bacteria and yeasts are everywhere and themselves are prone to local variety as well. The way the milk, yeast, bacteria combo is fermented and cared for yields the variation... So just like the yeasts in the Champagne region give the characteristic effervescence to the wine made there. Cheese made there will carry cheesy distinctions of the area's taste. Just like Hops in German beer, or grapes in Spanish wine, or grain Italian bread. The French have an abundance of milk, and microbes that lend their culinary culture to distinctly flavored cheese reminiscent of the locality's taste. The French word for the specific taste of geographic area is \"terroir.\"", "You think Cheese is a big deal in France? Try wine!\n\nIt's a long tradition of food being at the core of family and social life, combined with an agricultural economy. Cheese is something that varies place by place, year on year, and by production method. Therefore, it's hard to standardise and a region or even village can be proud of their local type. THey'll have festivals and everything.\n\nIf you think \"cheese is cheese\" then you should really line up a Brie, a forme d'ambert, a bleu d'auvergne, a good goats cheese and a bunch of others and taste a smidgen back to back. They're as different as different can be." ]

[ "The current energy companies have every motivation to get in on \"green energy \". There are just a few problems: It is more expensive to produce than traditional fossil fuels, or only effective in a few areas or times, or doesn't have the necessary capacity.\n\nOften the only reason we see green energy is because of government subsidies. From the traditional energy companies' standpoint this is just passing a law to take money from people and give it to their competitors. As they see it they have a superior product; more powerful, more flexible, more reliable, and less expensive. If \"Big Oil\" could make or buy solar panels (for example) and provide electricity to their customers at a lower cost than digging up oil then they would; however greedy and sadistic you want to paint them, at least trust that they wouldn't throw money away.\n\nMany big energy companies are accused of buying up green energy concepts and squashing them, never to be seen again. The companies want in on the next big thing early, but what they find is an inferior product that doesn't stand on its own without government intervention. They retain the tech but keep selling what the market wants: The least expensive solution. That is oil, for now.", "Energy companies HAVE invested in 'green energy' and are doing so right now. However, the necessary capital to get green energy is too much and the profit margins from them are too slim.\n\nThe main reasons Green Energy is attempted at the moment is due to the government forcing it and also the publicity these companies receive. This is not to say there will be a point on time when green energy becomes a more lucrative investment (either when it becomes cheaper to do or alternatives become too expensive due to low supply). \n\nConcluding: You will always hear people calling the energy companies evil (and in many cases they are). However, when people complain companies should drop fossil fuels it is necessary in keep in mind the extra cost YOU will be paying extra for it due to the extra cost the energy companies must pay." ]

[ "Here's how it works. You wrap your food in plastic and put it in a water bath set to a precise temperature. It turns out that for protein foods, it's not how long they cook that determines how done they are, but the maximum temperature reached. So sous-vide lets you control precisely whether a steak is rare, medium, or wherever *exactly* you want it.\n\nIf you want a medium rare steak, put it in water at 130F. After an hour or so that temperature will be reached all through the steak, but you can leave it in for another hour if you want and it barely changes. This makes it very flexible for cooking when you aren't quite sure when you will be serving dinner.", "Sous vide works best for meat, it cooks differently at different temperatures. The three main parts of meat (protein, fat, collagen) break down differently at different temperatures. Really all you are doing is controlling how hot your food can get, if you throw a steak on a 600 degree grill and forget about it at some point the steak will reach 600 degrees. To get that hot all of the water will have to boil out of it and that's going to make it completely dry. If you put steak in boiling water it will dry out very similarly due to the protein contracting. If you put a steak in 100 degree F water all it can ever reach is 100 degrees. Same for any other temperature, 145 degree water and the steak gets up to 145, 185 water steak gets up to 185. \nIt has drawbacks like slowness and possible bacteria growth, people also think that putting things in vacuum bags is a big deal but it really isn't necessary but since the words \"sous-vide\" translate to \"Under-vacuum\" people tend to focus on that. I have a cvap oven that I will just throw things into and it heats up the air to a consistent temperature instead of water. \n \nTLDR? Look at how these eggs cooked differently even though they have been cooking for hours.\n\n_URL_0_", "Imagine you have a piece of meat which you would like to cook and eat, so in order for it to be safe to eat you need to ensure that all of the meat reaches the temperature at which the bacteria will be destroyed. Let's say that the temperature you are aiming for is 74c.\n\nIf you drop the meat into a pot of boiling water the outer layer will heat up first, then this heat will transfer through to the middle of the meat. However, because you are applying a temperature of 100c to the outside of the meat, by the time the centre reaches 74c the outside will be at 100c and if you were to slice the meat in half you'd be able to measure a gradient of temperature running from 74c in the centre through to 100c at the edge. If you're solely trying to make the meat safe this is fine, but as you're planning to eat the meat you also probably want it to taste nice too and by now the outside of the meat might be overcooked as it's been sat at 100c for some time. You'll essentially have a tiny portion of the meat in the centre which is \"perfectly\" cooked, then it will be less and less perfectly cooked as you move towards the outside.\n\nThe solution to this is to just put the meat into water which is being kept at a steady 74c so that as the heat travels through to the centre of the meat the outside doesn't get any hotter. However, this is tricky to do on a regular stove as you'd have to put a thermometer into the water and then be constantly turning the heat up and down on the stove to keep the water at a steady temperature. So, rather than using the stove you put the meat into a water bath with a device which can constantly measure the temperature of the water and turn the heat on and off automatically to keep it at a steady 74c. This prevents the outside of the meat from getting too hot but still allows the meat to evenly heat through until the centre reaches your target of 74c.\n\nNext, let's say that rather than just dropping the meat into a pot of water you would like the juices within the meat to stay there rather than being washed out into the cooking water, or that you would like to add some herbs along with the meat for flavour. To do this you drop the meat into a plastic bag to keep the juices and herb flavours in and the cooking water out. However, if you just stick the meat into a bag and drop it into the pan there will be air inside the bag, which won't conduct the heat as well as water would, so you remove the air from the bag to ensure that all of the meat is directly in contact with the plastic pouch which in turn is in direct contact with the water with no insulating air pockets. This is where the term sous-vide comes from, being French for \"under vacuum\". \n\nTLDR: Rather than applying a high temperature to the outside and overcooking the bulk of the meat as the middle gets to temperature, sous-vide lets you cook the whole thing at exactly the temperature you want.", "Sous-vide in French means under nothing, or under vacuum. When you vacuum pack something then the meat is completely sealed meaning none of the juices can escape resulting in being able to cook the meat for longer periods to soften and make the meat tender without losing any moisture. Resulting in tender, juicy, flavoursome meat that would have otherwise lost one of these qualities with one of the more commonly used cooking methods (roasting, frying etc.)", "boiling would imply that the water is at the boiling point. sous-vide often uses temperatures lower than that. sous-vide also usually has the substance being cooked sealed and not exposed to the water." ]

[ "Do you mean how do peoples who speak different languages learn each other's language?\n\nThis can be done in much in the same way as the fundamentals of language are taught: lots of ad hoc sign language. You could start with the basics such as \"My name is X. What is your name?\" and progress to pointing at objects and giving their names. The grammatical rules can be picked up by noticing how words are ordered and how they change in various contexts, such as when referring to one object or many (singular versus plural).\n\nEDIT: grammar" ]

[ "There's sufficient genetic difference between various human races to create different reactions to certain drugs, or increase the possibility of certain reactions in certain races. \n\nAn example of one such difference is a genetic switch in some Asians that floors them completely when they have one drink because their metabolism very rapidly turns the alcohol they ingest into acetaldehyde, which is poisonous when in larger doses and gives them wicked hangovers. \n\nSome drugs are metabolized or take effect in different ways as programmed by race-specific genetics, and that can lead to bad side-effects such as cancer or a drug that just doesn't work at all.", "Well, in addition to the genes that cause skin color, people of different races tend to share lots of other genes. For example, a particular form of heart failure is very prominent among blacks compared with whites (even when controlling for other factors). As such, a drug was approved to deal with this specific problem that tends to disproportionately effect black people.\n\nRace based medicine is a controversial subset of personalized medicine. The whole idea of personalized medicine is tailoring treatments to your own personal body, genes, and conditions. Since racial groups have very similar genetics compared with people outside that group, race-based medicine can be a stepping stone towards personalized medicine.", "I wouldn't call Medication \"Race Based\". Much of the efficacy of medicine has to do with the condition you are being treated for. Certain subsets of the population are more likely than others to have certain diseases and genetic abnormalities which can make medicine either more effective or less effective. This provides the appearence of a \"Race\" or \"Genetic\" Based\" distribution of medicine despite not being such." ]

[ "The store doesn't fund those sales - the manufacturer does. The manufacturer then uses this marketing expense as a tax write-off. \n\nSource: used to work in the industry.", "There's no single reason. Sometimes the profit margin really is so high, they can do that and still make a profit. This is particularly true of junk food. (I shudder to think about the profit margin on a can of Pringles.) In the case of fresh food, it might be an overstock - use it or lose it. It might even be a \"loss leader\": sell a few items at a loss (or near-loss) to get feet in the store.", "well, think of it like this. you need ice cream. you see a publix ad for bogo ice cream pints. so you go to publix to get ice cream. then you also get bread, milk and a candy bar while you're there. they just made some more $ because you saw the ad. maybe the ice cream is nearing the sell by date. if they don't unload them, they'll have to toss or return them. so easier to make some $ quickly by doing a bogo. and just because it's bogo doesn't mean they don't make profit. say the store buys the pint for $1 each. they still individually for $4. so if they say bogo free, they're still making profit. just maybe not as much as they would've." ]

[ "There are a couple of reasons I can think of.\n1. A lease is nearly a 100% write off as it is an expense. If a company gets a loan on the building only the interest would be a write off. \n2. Buying a building with cash locks in a lot of capital to a single asset. Capital that could be used for other ways of increasing productivity. \n3. Selling a building can be a long drawn out process depending on the market. So if a business decided to move they would have a difficult time scheduling that when compared to a lease where they know when the lease is up and can plan accordingly.", "It would be my guess that they want to limit their risk in the real estate market as well as leave themselves an opportunity to move elsewhere rather easily if the market or business needs change. For example, a building a company is renting could be in a high traffic area and attract a lot of customers/employees for the first several years of operation but what if competition opens up nearby and they see a BIG drop in their revenue; moving elsewhere could remedy the issue. Also, their businesses could expand and profits could increase so exponentially that they would need to move to a bigger building to accommodate more staff and updates." ]

[ "They would continue procreating when the weather warmed up for good. One frost doesn't wipe out every organism out there. If one event was capable of destroying everything none of us would be here.\n\nRelax! Spring is coming for good, hopefully soon, and all the new plants and animals will come along with it." ]

[ "You have an important misconception in your question. Jesus IS seen as God in mainstream Christianity. All mainstream Christian groups are trinitarian and agree on this point. This is core Christian doctrine.\n\nThere are only a very small number of fringe churches that are nontrinitarian, (such as the Mormons) and these are generally not considered Christian by mainstream Christianity despite their self identifying as such. Denying the divinity of Jesus = not Christian, at least as far as mainstream Christianity is concerned. \n\nJesus is seen as a prophet in Islam (which, like Judaism, is nontrinitarian.)\n\nAs to the fervour, I don't think it is down to the religions per se but rather cultural and external factors: the level of modernity in a society, the Enlightenment in Europe, and the acceptance of secularism in most traditionally Christian countries.\n\nPeople used be executed for blasphemy in Christian countries all the time; you have no doubt heard of the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, while the last person to be executed in Britain for blasphemy was as recent as the end of the seventeenth century.\n\nIn fact, if you look at the entire history of the two religions, Christianity is almost certainly far less tolerant of people having different beliefs. Islam by contrast has historically tolerated Christians and Jews and afforded them the right to worship (although notably NOT the Baha'i, who are seen as an Islamic heresy.)\n\nTL;DR, it is because Islamic *countries* are more conservative rather than anything specifically to do with the religion.", "You see, this isn't about how \"holy\" someone is considered to someone else. \n\n\n\n\nFrom an islamic point of view (for the non five-year-olds: this is a sweeping simplification, no religion has a general POV true for every practitioner of the religion), Islam is the end point of a wave of religions starting with Judaism and continuing through Christianity. Basically, the only difference between Christianity and Islam is Muhammad and his teachings. For most muslims this view is confirmed by the fact that christians in islamic countries live a lot more like the local muslims than like christians in the West. So making fun of Muhammad is making fun of the only thing that differentiates Islam from Christianity, and therefore also all of Islam.\n\n\n\nAnother part of the problem is a cultural difference between islamic countries and the West. It's a bit hard to explain, and it's definitely outside of ELI5 territory, but you can imagine that an idea can't exist outside of the relationship between to people. In the West we relate to ideas as something individual and separate from the people who have it. You can ridicule and idea without ridiculing the people who have the idea. An ideology can be made fun of without making fun of the people who adhere to the ideology. In the islamic cultural sphere this is very different. If I offer you a smoke, it's not about offering you a way to sate your potential need for one, it's about showing you that I respect you, and by accepting it, you also respect me. In the religiously heterogenous Middle East, I don't necessarily expect you to convert, but I expect you to show your respect for me by not making fun of them. If you don't accept my beliefs as something to be revered, you're disrespecting me personally, and showing me that you consider my beliefs as inferior to your own.\n\n\n\nIf anyone actually from the Middle-East or a muslim wants to expand or correct anything on my statement, please do. I have only academic knowledge and \"outsider\"-experience as a Westerner, and I hope my explanations doesn't seem patronising in any way.", "Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be the final prophet in a long like of prophets beginning with the roots of Judaism, moving through Christianity and ending with the final updates from the Almighty coming through Muhammad. Muslims view Jesus much like how Christianity views Jewish prophets like Moses or Elijah, important but not most important.", "I'd like to offer a rather cynical side to this argument. The fact of the matter is power rests in the people, and it is far easier to get people agitated by appealing to their emotions than by appealing to their reason and logic. It is also easier to get people to unite behind you when you claim to be fighting against a common threat or enemy such as \"terrorism\", \"communism\" or \"the evil Jews\".\n\nIn the same way that politicians like to drag up polarizing issues around election time, religious leaders find opportunities to agitate people by making them feel threatened, as these people are more likely to flock to the banner of that leader and add to his power.\n\nIf nobody commented on it, it's almost certain that most of these protestors would never even have heard of this film, and would have gone on with their lives. However, certain power hungry leaders (who happen to be Muslim in this case, although other people have done similar acts in other times) exploited the event, and blew it out of proportion in order to capitalize on the emotions of Muslims in order to consolidate their power.\n\nYou see Christian and Hindu (to name but two) religious leaders using this to increase their power and influence as well. There are Indian political parties that openly (and violently) proclaim that India belongs to Hindus. There are certainly places in the US where Christianity has turned violent (particularly against gays).\n\nPower is more seductive, and addictive, than money will ever be.", "Fact: Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the koran and Jesus also has a tomb awaiting him next to the prophet Muhammad in Saudi Arabia.", "This is bit heavy but should give you a idea.\n\nAccording to islam, god has sent 124,000 prophets on earth. Below are the prophets which are considered most important (Uleel-amr). Lord has given them a special title (Laqb) which shows their level with god.\n\n* Nuh (Noah in Christianity) ?\n* Daud (David in Christianity) ?\n* Ibrahim (Abraham in Christianity) is Khalilullah (Friend of God)\n* Musa (Abraham in Christianity) is Kalimullah (One who speaks with God)\n* Isa (Jesus in Christianity) is Ruhullah (Spirit/soul of God). \n* Muhammad is having many title. Most prominent is Sayid-ul-Mursaleen (chief of Messengers) and Mehboobullah (Beloved of God). \n\nGod has tested every prophet (to show the world that they are worthy of it) during their times. So, the titles have been given to prophets based on what they have done.", "I believe that the lack of muslim drawings of mohammed stemmed from trying to stay away from idolotrey/ diefying mohammed. I don't actually know why all muslims take such great offense to these videos and cartoons.", "I don't think this is a religious issue at all, but a political one.\n\nThere's a worldwide clash of cultures between Islam and the west, and any attack on Muhammad could be very easily construed as an attack against Islam. What causes the quick escalations isn't Muhammad being \"more sacred\" to Muslims than Jesus is to Christians, but (imho) the current geopolitical state which enables more extreme manifestations of Islam, which are naturally more militant and less yielding to offenses.\n\nIt's not dissimilar to (but not at all entirely alike) how Christians would burn at the stake people who openly opposed the church during the inquisition, while Jews (which were, statistically speaking, much more prominent in these days than they are now) were relatively indifferent to such offenses.\n\n**TL;DR - It's not a matter of theology -- or some non existing hierarchy of sacredness -- but of geopolitical stress manifesting through piousness**", "Preparing for downvotes but from a political philosophy perspective many scholars consider this accurate:\nBack in the day the Christian world (Europe) was characterized by similar problems that we see today in the Muslim world, war, disregard for human rights, disregard for women's rights, etc.\nMany important political events happened between medieval Europe and post enlightenment Europe. These events were things that gave rise to Protestant Christians, stripped papal authority, and gave sovereignty to the states. [The Peace of Westphailia](_URL_0_) is an important event which gave the states the right to practice whatever religion they wanted and did not bond anyone to the pope. By the time of the American and French revolutions Europe and the to-be-United States was largely secularized. They still had religion but they put it on the back burner and took it out of the political system. \nSome will argue that the United States does still abide by a religious system of government but even the most religious state legislators in the US do not compare to the integration that we see in the Muslim countries.\nBy putting religion aside and not putting so much emphasis on Christ in international relations Western countries, have been able to remain non-belligerent. Even if you take into account WWI and WWII there has been way less fighting in the past century in Europe than in any previous century.\nThe muslim world has yet to do this. Their system of government and religious culture is still totally bonded together. We will see a lot of civil war before muslim countries realize that they want to set aside religion and keep worship on Sunday (or in their case Friday) and out of government.\n\nSo despite what people like to say about the US and religiosity, it has been like Europe in its ability to put less and less emphasis on Christ, keeping religion private. This hasn't happened in Islam yet.\n\n**TL;DR Christian Western Europe, US, Australia, New Zealand have been able to secularize their governments which creates less war. Muslims countries still have a very integrated religious and political system**", "I’m not sure how you go about explaining the triumvirate to a five year old so if you don’t mind I’m just going to set that aside…\n\nSome people think Jesus *is* God in a human body. Those people call themselves Christians. Other people think Jesus wasn’t God but only a messenger sent by God to tell everyone about God and what he wants us to do. If someone thinks someone else is a messenger from God they call that person a prophet. Muslims believe in a lot of the same prophets as Christians, but they fall under that second group of people who didn’t think Jesus *is* God. They also believe that after Jesus there was a man named Muhammad who claimed to be the FINAL prophet. \n\nA lot of Muslims think that in order to be a true Muslim you must believe certain things about Muhammad. A big rule a lot of people are mad about lately is that you shouldn’t create a picture of him. Now we come to the heart of your question: Why do Muslims treat Muhammad with so many special rules? When people first started listening to Muhammad’s teachings he worried that people would mistakenly worship him INSTEAD of God so he tried to make sure that didn’t happen. He told everyone that they shouldn’t pray to him, and that he wasn’t important so they shouldn’t draw him in art. Muhammad was seen as smart and wise by the people who followed him so they wanted to do what he asked. \n\nAs the religion grew the belief that Muhammad was the final prophet of God became just as important as believing in God and his message. Muhammad is important to Muslims just liked Jesus is to Christians because they both were believed to be speaking on behalf of God. In order to believe what prophets tell us, you must first have a lot faith and respect in the prophets themselves. \n\nTl;Dr : It’s not really about whether you’re a ‘prophet’ or ‘The Son of God’ the important thing is that each religion believes that their ‘message’ is a more authentic version of God’s will. When Muslims defend and show devotion to Muhammad they are defending their entire religion, just as a Christian might do if you were to scrutinize the testimony of one of the twelve apostles.", "This is something that I've been looking at for a while. One answer that I stumbled upon, which I find rather fascinating, is that Muhammad (P.B.U.H) didn't want his image drawn so that nobody worships the image. You see, he wanted people to worship God, the Creator, but during his period of time, people in the region would worship statues, painting, even fruit. He feared that his image (or portrait) would become a deity for people to worship, much like the image of Jesus Christ was at some point (still is I believe for some people). Another fascinating thing I found is that so many extremists are basing their attacks on the hadith. Now the hadith isn't like the Quran, the Quran is the word of God, while the hadith is someone jotting down what the prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) said, much after his death, and, I believe, some f the person's beliefs and ideologies were added to the manuscripts. For example, in the Quran, it doesn't say to kill the Jews or Christians, in fact the prophet would go to their funerals \"because they are human\". He would get attacked and harassed every where he went - people would throw animal feces and bowels at him (they were much darker times then) and yet he didn't do anything. What I'm trying to say is that some of the extremist Muslims are following insulting the prophet even more by shaming him with their behaviors. \n\nPS: I am in no way bashing Islam (I'm Muslim), nor any other religion. \n\nTL;DR: Some people are just stupid.", "There isn't just one good answer, so I'll give it a shot. It'll probably get buried though.\n\n1) Muslims love Prophet Muhammad far more than they love any other Prophet, since he is considered to be the \"seal\" of the Prophets, which means his goal was to peacefully unite all religions of all previous prophets into one religion, which is Islam.\n\n2) Muslims place Muhammad at an extremely high rank since the Qur'an has titled Muhammad as \"The Most Beloved One\". If Muslims consider the Qur'an to be the \"word of God\" and if God himself says that this one man is the Most Beloved One, then Muslims should believe it wholeheartedly, and with strong belief comes action. Not saying negative action is justified, in fact it is rejected by the Prophet himself. Evidence of the Prophet being neutral or defensive when he was discriminated/offended can be found throughout Islamic teachings.\n\n3) It is the love and respect that Muslims have for all Prophets that make Muslims sensitive to this matter. Majority of the Muslims would even condemn people from negatively portraying and disrespecting any other Prophet (including Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam .. etc). \n\n4) Muslims wholeheartedly believe that Prophet Muhammad should not be depicted with any type of imagery, which is why you will not find any particular image of him, rather you could find descriptions of his physical attributes. This is clear in the sayings of the prophet (Hadith), and it is due to the reason that he did not want to be idolized after his death.\n\nForgive me if I said anything which may seem offensive or inaccurate.", "The vast majority of Christians *do* recognize Jesus as God. In fact, depending on your definition of Christianity - to *not* recognize the divinity of Jesus is to not even be Christian. The doctrine of the trinity is definitely a majority belief held be nearly every sect of Christianity.", "Respect for religious figures is outwardly expressed to a greater degree in most predominantly Muslim cultures. You can't compare how Muslims regard Muhammad to how Christians regard Jesus. You have to compare how Muslims regard Muhammad to how Muslims regard Jesus.", "ELI5 version:\n\nSometimes people think their imaginary friends are real. And they believe that so strongly they want to kill people that suggest any different.", "I'll probably get in some jam for saying this, and I certainly don't condone any of this nonsense - but technically, (or ideologically) they just take what *they think* their book tells them to do more seriously than most Christians take what *their* book tells *them* - if they all took Leviticus seriously they would all be selling their virgin daughters and killing people for working on Sundays...fundamentalists justify the twisted, crazy things they do as \"acts of undying faith\"", "Well, you're assuming people haven't been killed for blasphemy by Christians before.\n\nMuhammad was a prophet, under God. He is not worshiped. Jesus IS worshiped in Christianity as God. Muhammad actually warned against elevating him to the position that Christians elevated Jesus.\n\nI understand that Muslims are a bit ferocious at defending the prophet. In the Sunnah and the Qu'ran, patience and controlling one's temper is prescribed in matters such as this.", "To be fair Christianity is significantly older than Islam. In addition Christians have performed their fair share of religiously fueled riots/actions for blasphemy. It's only until relatively recently has Christian fueled violence on the same scale as what is happening in the Islamic world been quelled. Anyway hope we can all just get a long.", "I don't, I'm Muslim. He's special in that he's the last prophet and he brought the Quran or something like that; but he was just a dude with faults and everything. Some people... take it a wee bit farther than this.", "What might help you understand things that for Muslims the \"just\" should be in front of Jesus Christs name. He was a propet, but not the last or best.\nedit bad typing", "A sub-question to this is, why do they get upset with using his image in any way? wouldn't they want to know what their prophet looked like?", "He made it against the rules to portray himself in case muslims worshipped him instead... but muslims kill people who dare to disagree with him. Riiiight..." ]

[ "The truth is ... we did not evolve from apes. We evolved from Sea Lions." ]

[ "There's a difference between regular depression and clinical depression. Everybody gets regular depression when something depressing happens. \n\nClinical depression is a completely different animal. It's not \"oh my dog died and I'm depressed.\" If you are clinically depressed, it last weeks, months, even years if not treated. It causes aches and pains. It affects your life in an adverse way. You gain weight, lose your job, etc. you contemplate suicide. And above all, it happens for *no reason whatsoever.* there is no single event you can tie your depression to. \n\nAs far as how an episode starts. There is usually a trigger. Something minor or innocuous that on another day wouldn't bother you at all. But once it happens, your mind goes into overdrive. You relentlessly over analyze and second guess everything you've ever done. Over and over. You relive your most embarrassing moments and find embarrassing things about other moments too. It's sort of like one of those \"oh god. Why?\" Rage comic moments except it lasts for weeks and *you can't turn it off.*\n\nThen there's the medication, which all sucks because it never makes you feel normal just \"not depressed.\" Lexapro made me stop giving a shit about everything, including cleaning my apartment, paying my bills on time, oh and also I couldn't have an orgasm. Paxil made me way too anxious and then I got really sick after going off of it. \n\nNow, it is possible that something could cause clinical depression. In my case it was because I was a Jehovah's Witness and it was extremely bad for my mental condition. But at the time I was a true believer and wouldn't even consider that was the cause. But I did meet the criteria medically for clinical depression. Ever since I left, I haven't needed a single pill. So I guess one cause of it could be an underlying issue the person is unwilling to address or admit it's effect.", "I'm afraid that there's no really satisfying answer to this. The brain is incredibly hard to study, for a variety of reasons -- you can't just go poking around in it at will, you can't raise human beings in ideal experimental conditions because it's cruel, studies on animals will never take into account the complexity of human emotion and thought, we haven't even been studying it for very long, etc etc. We're still totally in the dark about a *lot* of things regarding mental illness and behaviour. So there is no way anyone today can sit down and explain the simple direct causes of depression uncontroversially. \n\nWhat we do know is that yes, there are biological changes in the brains of people who suffer from it, and yes, there are a number of genetic and environmental factors that make a person more likely to suffer from it.", "Anything can bring it on. You can have a life people envy and be depressed because of your mind state. I dealt with depression about 8 years ago while getting my degree. In my mind, I had no reason to be depressed. I was a 4.0 student, school was already paid for, didn't need to work because my scholarships and grants covered everything, even my apartment. Wtf do I have to be depressed about.. Nothing in many peoples minds, but I was haunted by the ideas of missed opportunities and others perceptions of what I should be doing vs what I was doing. It formed a vicious mental feedback loop where everything began to suffer. \n\n\n I was lucky that the university had a mental health department. After talking with a councilor for a while, she determined that I had been in this feedback loop for so long that I had chemically depressed myself and put me on an antidepressant while we worked to the root of this depression. The mesds recentered my brain, the talking showed me the cause and by changing how I thought about others perceptions of me and what I should be doing broke that loop. Was able to get off the meds after about 3-4 months since I was centered once again and figured out how to break that feedback loop.\n\n\nAnd yes, things that make you miserable do affect your chemical balance. Some times you need meds to balance it, sometimes you don't, but if you don't find the root of your depression, you don't escape it.", "The causes of depression are many and complicated. As has been stated already, we really don't know a lot about the subject.\n\nThat being said we know some things about it. For instance there is the case of stressrelated depressions. In this case I can give a basic explanation.\n\nWhen a person experiences stress, certain hormones that enhance thought, strength and reaction time are released. If a person is stressed for a prolonged period, for instance at work every single day, these hormones will accumulate in the brain. When this happens, one of the hormones (cortisol) changes the blood-brain-barrier to inhibit the transport of sugar into the brain. This causes brain cells to be less active. To counter this, the brain cells produce more signal molecules. The increased amount of these signal molecules, in turn, causes calciumions and waste products to accumulate in the brain cells, which in turn die. The death of the brain cells can cause loss of brain mass in areas that regulate mood and reward the individual for doing positive things. In turn, it becomes harder to gain happiness and motivation. The person is now depressed.", "As someone who suffers from depression I think it is impossible to pinpoint exactly 'why' you feel depressed. Most likely a mix of being pre disposed to it and also repressed emotions. When I was very young I got extrememly tired of my family shouting and giving out all the time (My brother and sister being teenagers at the time) This caused me to block my own emotions in my everyday life when i needed to express myself and I think that is a big reason for it. Of course there are other reasons as well that I wont go in to. It also runs in my family on my mothers side. You don't ALWAYS feel sad when you suffer with depression. It's just more intense when you do and can come out of literally nowhere, even having a good time with friends. It is different in many cases. Really being depressed is just feeling very sad, a normal human emotion, but more intense. I don't think it is some big mystery. My personal belief is that it can be helped with counselling and self control.\n\nDepression is something which needs to be talked about more openly. I am sure there is someone you know who suffers with depression and you would never know it because they are afraid of being ridiculed by their peers.", "I spent many years depressed, and then many on medicines, and when they quit working, one by one, I was lucky to find a psychiatrist and therapist team who could actually help me. I have been free of both depression and meds for seven years now, despite some serious life stressors during that time. I can be \"just sad\" now -- which is an unhappy state, but it's an emotion which I know will go away in time. When I was depressed, I was miserable to the bone, and it felt like I would be that way forever.\n\nHere is what the doctor and therapist told me: Some people seem to be born more susceptible to depression, although we don't really know why, but no one is born with depression; there is some reason that you get it. They believed that the source of depression is a very deep anxiety, which results from conflicting emotions/desires. Something like loving and hating a person, needing to be close but needing to be separate at the same time. Deep anxieties produce fear -- if you need two things and don't think you can have both, then you've got to lose at least one thing you need, and that is frightening. And constant fear produces a sense of powerlessness that is characteristic of depression.\n\nThe goal, then, is to get the fear center to stand down. When we are afraid, the circuitry of the brain works differently, which is a good thing if our lives are actually in danger. But if we are afraid of something non-lethal, this is not healthy. \n\nCalming the fear center is difficult because it is not much affected by talk therapy. Because fear of things that can kill you is necessary to survival for any complex organism, fear resides in a very ancient, primitive part of the brain, which does not \"do\" language. That part of the brain only understands sensory information, so that is what you have to provide it. You literally have to let this part of the brain SEE that it is safe, in order to get it to stand down and let the rest of the brain work normally. \n\nSo my therapist used a treatment based on relaxation/visualization/meditation. My therapist said that different people took it in slightly different directions, whatever worked for them, so it's hard to use just one word for it. I did this twice a day, sometimes more when I was in the thick of recovery, and now I do it any time I feel anxious. First close your eyes and relax, either sitting or lying down, starting with your toes and working up. Relaxing your body relaxes your brain. Then picture your spirit. Yes, that's right. Don't get hung up on any religious meanings here, because that is not what this exercise is about. Even if you are atheist, you can imagine the essence of who you are, in picture form. And it doesn't matter what the picture is. But look at your spirit, and know these things about it: This is your truest self. It is perfect. It is good. It is indestructible, untouched by anything bad that has happened to you. It is immensely powerful, and it will give you all the power you need to change anything about yourself that you would like to change. Just sit with that knowledge, looking at your spirit, for at least 10 minutes. When you get good at this, it is enjoyable, and it is pleasant and helpful to visualize for longer periods of time.\n\nIf you keep doing the visualization, your concept of your spirit will most likely change over time, and it is informative to see how that happens. Facing your fear and anger is still necessary for recovery, and talk therapy can help you do this. But the visualization exercises give you the strength to handle this process.\n\nAgain, I am no expert. I am merely someone who was helped to recover from what I think would have been a fatal illness eventually. Naturally, I think the beliefs that were actually able to help me (I had tried other counselors before) are correct ones. So I am sharing what I was taught. I hope this helps someone. I recommend that everyone try this, whether they are depressed or not. Life is hard, and everyone can use a little extra strength.", "I don't have an eli5 nasser at hand but this Website describes it very well.\n_URL_0_" ]

[ "Polyphasic sleep is supposedly one way - I tried it a couple of times, but I suck at sleeping during the day, so it never worked out for me.\n\nCheck out the various patterns at the Wikipedia page: _URL_0_ ... I would LOVE to get the Uberman pattern going, if it actually works - look at the remark about the Dymaxion pattern, the author couldn't actually test it because his wife wouldn't let him.\n\nAs for myself, I don't sleep that much, typically between 5 and 6 hours a day. It seems to work out fine, I found that it actually helps avoiding caffeine. It may give you a boost, but long-term, it brings you down. I go several days without drinking any soda at all. If you currently have a habit, you need to shake it - that means zero caffeine for at least 7 days (it will suck during the first 24-48 hours, you'll get headaches).\n\nOne or twice a week, I typically crash and have to sleep for a few hours during the day, usually on a weekend.\n\nIt should also be mentioned that most sleep experts agree that cutting down the amount of sleep per day has a negative impact on your health.", "As the short-tempered, sleep-deprived parent of a new 10-week-old, I am honestly not sure it is possible to function on only a few hours sleep.", "You can train yourself to live with little sleep, but long-term, it affects the brain as if you are constantly drunk. You can still do simple tasks, but you will also take much longer for them, care a lot less about consequences if you do something wrong and thus the extra time you gain through sleeping less is more than compensated by the low quality of your work in the time you are awake.", "I think it's very important to have a strong focus in life. That when you wake up you know exactly what to do. \n\nI'm the opposite of that, so sleep is very important to me." ]

[ "Actually, they didn't get it quite right, to the point where they had to eliminate about 10 days in the fall, about 500 years ago, to correct the accumulating error.\n\nSide note: I had an astronomy profession in college (where I learned about this) who also taught history. One of her favorite exam questions was, \"What notable event occurred on Oct 12, 1523 ?\" (not sure of the exact date). This was a day that never existed." ]

[ "It varies from patient to patient. But the general rule is to try and avoid exposure to general anesthesia for ~~unnecessary~~ procedures *that do not really need GA*. It is advised to remove wisdom teeth one at a time under local anesthesia (several weeks to months apart) instead of removing them all at once which requires the patient to go under general anesthesia. Unless there are some factors that suggest removing them all at once. Like 4 badly impacted wisdom teeth (quite unlikely).\n\nEDIT: phrasing.\n\nEDIT 2: When I mentioned/hinted that 4 wisdom teeth removal might require general anesthesia, I did not say that it cannot be done under a local one. It really depends on the patient, how badly the teeth are impacted (depth, angle; they have grades of impaction @dental diagnostic criteria) and dental centers preference (or school of thought).", "General anaesthesia always carries a risk and depending where you are at it is either considered an acceptable risk or not.\n\nWhere I live, and I believe in europe in general only local anaesthesia is used. Because the fact of the matter is that while getting wisdom teeth removed is unpleasant, it is also bearable. I would consider the pain for a week afterwards a much nastier experience.\n\nThe jawline is not that hard to numb down completely. With my operations the applying of the anaesthesia was the worst part because the needle was big and the surgeon used five bottles of agent on different places. After that, I could just try to focus on my breathing and try to stay in my happy place.\n\nWhere I live general anaesthesia is only ever used in the greatest of need. Wisdom tooth removal is such a tiny thing that it would be completely unacceptable to knock people out for it. But they do premed you with sedatives if you ask for them in advance (good for people with anxiety)", "I'm having a tooth out soon and I want to be sedated purely out of fear. I can barely make it through an exam. An extraction would terrify me so I need to be knocked out.\n\nWisdom teeth can be more tricky to pull out. Mine came up so the root was sticking out the side of my gum and they were huge teeth. I would not have wanted to be awake for that.", "It's not really general anesthesia, it's a large dose of valium. You're sedated to the point of oblivion, but still breathing on your own. It's not necessary, but people want it and oral surgeons are more than wiling to provide and charge for it.", "Uh gurl, I do *not* want to be awake getting my wisdom teeth removed. I would not be able to handle that. Give me the full anesthesia please.", "I had mine removed on a valium drip, you're not out but you certainly don't remember a goddamned thing.", "I just kinda wanted to ya know, get fucked up." ]

[ "It is not just 1 number, it's the sum of a transaction history that is cross-referenced to the various accounts that put money in or took it out of your account. If you just made one number bigger, the whole thing wouldn't balance and that would be picked up by the auditors/accountants.", "I think OP is asking what would be stopping a bank from just changing the numbers in the database. This would seem possible from a technical standpoint.\n\nHowever, note that all transaction and changes are subject to auditing. A bank needs to be able to clearly state where what money came from and where it went. They also need to hold a small percentage of their 'virtual' money in reserves, either deposited with the central bank or as actual physical cash. So the amount of virtual worth they can handle depends on their actual reserve.", "The fact that it would be the bank giving away their money to someone. There is absolutely no benefit to the bank to do so.", "Think of your money as real, like coins. If the pile you have has ten coins, and the bank has a pile that has 100 coins, if they give you 25 coins, then they have less coins in their pile. Someone has to account for those coins, and where your balance goes up, theirs goes down, equally. It's always about balancing the transactions, and the money had to come from somewhere to be given to you. The bank has to explain why they have less coins, and where they went. Online accounts must be easier to track, but the money is real.", "Another way to think about it is like a cash register.\n\nIf there's $100 in the till, then the register should say $100. It doesn't matter if you inflate the number on the register, there is still only $100 in the till.\n\nEvery bank works the same way, every number is backed by something. In the old days this meant vaults of cash, but today holding an account with the Federal Reserve is enough.\n\nThe Reserve is like one big vault of cash, but it doesn't actually hold it as they can print and destroy notes as they desire.\n\nSince the Reserve prints money, it's the only institution allowed to make up numbers electronically and turn them into USD. Printing press or computer money, it's the same thing.\n\nPeople are saying the debit/credit system, that definitely helps maintain the integrity of the system, my explanation connects the system to the physical value, or cash.", "Work at a CU, so here's some insight from my side of things, I mean yea technically we could \"create\" a fee reversal and would put money in your account but, it comes off the CU's general ledger (our bottom line) and I imagine gets pulled in a report, plus every transaction is registered to a person, so therefore, the paper trail would come back to someone, so unless this person has some serious system tampering abilities, like over multiple companies, very doubtful this could happen without someone getting screwed.", "Used to work for a bank. All you'd need is someone to remote into the mainframe and change the value. Absolutely no problem", "That would mean the bank was giving away its own money to that person. Why would they want to do that?" ]

[ "Red blood cells do not have a nucleus, and therefore no DNA. Assuming that there is not a separate mutation/issue that impacts RBC production, their red blood cells would be normal. Not sure about other blood products.", "Red blood cells do not have a nucleus therefore they do not have any chromosomes or DNA in them" ]

[ "Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153): The Major Crimes Act (enacted following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1883 Ex Parte Crow Dog decision) provides for federal criminal jurisdiction over seven major crimes when committed by Indians in Indian country. Over time, the original seven offenses have been increased to sixteen offenses currently.\n\nIndian reservations are not their own countries (like Mexico) and operate under the US Bureau of Indian Affairs\n\nTLDR; It depends on the crime being commited whether or not this falls under Tribal or Federal or State jurisdictions", "In California the State of California usually has jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against Indians on Indian land. However, this was a crime committed by a Canadian man on Indian land. Since the suspect is a foreign citizen I imagine the US government got jurisdiction that way." ]

[ "Latino here, In my opinion Morrissey's style of singing is very similar to Mariachi style, including song lyrics and such. Having grown up with maricahi music, listening to Morrissey just feels very similar.", "Someone had the same question and made a documentary about it:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nEDIT: This article sums it up nicely:\n\n_URL_0_", "If they heard him talk about anything they would hate him, he is a twat", "Chuck Klosterman's \"IV\" has an article all about this phenomenon" ]

[ "Because spacetime behaves like it's curved by the presence of mass and energy. What does curvature mean? Let's say we have two points and we draw a straight line between them. Now let's say we want to increase the length of the line while keeping the endpoints fixed. How do we do that? We curve it so that it's no longer straight. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so to increase the distance, we make the line no longer straight.\n\nIf you have two points in empty space, there is some distance between them. Now put the same two points near a black hole, and you'll measure the distance between the points to be larger. The way physicists interpret this is that the space in between the two points near the black hole is curved (there is a larger distance between the two fixed points).\n\n > Why would an empty space have any shape at all either flat or curved?\n\nA completely empty universe would just have the Minkowski metric of Special Relativity, which is globally flat." ]

[ "This is how I understand it. Can someone please fill in the details or correct me on this?\n\nPart of the reason is because, technically, a lot of what they were doing wasn't \"insider\" trading. Typically, insider trading happens (e.g.) when you work for a company or are someway involved in a company and you happen to know that your company did something good, so you and your buddies buy up a bunch of stock in advance of that public knowledge. There are other ways, but basically it's when you or someone you know has knowledge \"inside\" of a company.\n\nThere's plenty of that that went on in Congress as well, and still will. But what was happening was that Congress itself was the \"insider\". It knew it was about to pass a law that, say, hurt companies X, Y, and Z. So they took that knowledge and sold their shares or \"shorted\" them to make a profit off this knowledge.\n\nTechnically, this didn't have anything to do with having \"inside knowledge\" of a company's performance, financials, etc, so it was legal. It's still wrong, though, because it gives lawmakers a financial incentive to make laws one way or another that benefit them financially." ]

[ "I'm not sure what 'stresses' you are taking about, but I'm going to take a guess at what you mean and work from there. \n\nYou are at your most vulnerable when you are asleep. You are effectively unconscious and many of your senses are non-responsive or at least sort of 'muted' as it were. This means that when you wake up at 2:30 in the morning because you heard a bump downstairs, or a loud howl of wind, your mind goes into overdrive because the 'threat' could be quite a lot closer due to your unconscious state. You need to be ready for a fight just in case. Your brain isn't perfect and it can sometimes relay that fear to other, non threatening but still stressful situations.", "I think it's a peak in your stress hormones. One approach to dealing with it is, when it happens, write down the things you are worried about and what step or steps you will take to deal with them the next day. Then during the day, take these steps. Repeat as needed.", "I think it has to do with your level of serotonin production being lower during the night so your body can sleep. Since you have less 'feel-good' hormone flowing through it's easier for the little stuff to bother you. Also, when waking up to start your day melatonin decreases and serotonin increases. That's when you find yourself thinking 'Why did I let that little thing bother me?'", "Your body is also at its lowest ebb 2-3am so it's more likely that, if awake, you will stress about things generally. \n\nBest thing to do is get up, read a book, and ten minutes later you'll be right as rain. Then back to sleep." ]

[ "Because our personalities relate in some manner. I figured this out by looking into it and wondering my friends were my friends. It really just came down to being weird, funny, spontaneous, talkitive and stuff like that. My brain just likes these people and gets a 'high' off of them. Sorta like a drug", "I'm completely introverted and it takes me a while to come out of my shell. For some reason certain people come talk to me over and over regardless of how awkward it is since I'm also socially really deficient. Eventually I crack and we can become really good friends from there. That's the closest to clicking I get. I don't typically go out of my way to talk to people. In fact I don't think I've initiated a single friendship that I can remember since my late middle school days. Guess it's just different for everybody.", "The general answer is \"Similar Personalities\" - but for you to find out if someone has similar likes/dislikes and approaches can take quite a while. The more specific answer I think is humor. Humor is generally universal, but what you find humorous can be extremely specific. Since there's so many types and approaches to humor it's a great indicator of other things in that person's life.\n\nLPT - try to start off every relationship with a joke, could save you a lot of time" ]

[ "Because it's simply a math problem involving physics equations.\n\nConsider a math problem from your school text book where there are a pair of train tracks leading from Chicago to St. Louis which is 250 miles away. A train leave Chicago at noon going at 50 mph while at the same time a train leaves St. Louis traveling at 75 mph. Where along the route would you need to be waiting to watch the trains cross each others path (an *eclipse*) and at what time would that happen?\n\nSolving such a problem isn't too hard, and since the planets follow a predictable path with a predictable speed too (as dictated by [Newton](_URL_0_)) you can solve for them too if you gather all the numbers about where they are and how fast they orbit.", "It's not like they have to calculate every rotation. They create functions describing the motions of both bodies, and they can find when these functions meet to give the required output. As the other posters said, planets and moons move at near constant speeds, so there's an element of constancy which greatly helps in these kinds of calculations." ]

[ "I looked this up because I was curious. Basically it's gunk (phlegm?) that builds up in your throat overnight from your horizontal position, then goes away once you're upright." ]

[ "Window period of HIV testing: this is the time between when you acquire HIV and when an HIV test becomes positive. If you donate blood between those two time points, that unit of blood may transmit HIV.\n\nImperfect testing: the tests used to screen the blood supply for communicable diseases are very good, but not perfect. A population with a higher rate of infection with a disease has a higher rate of false negative test results. Using medical terminology, I am referring to the dependence of negative predictive value on pre-test probability for a test with a given sensitivity.", "Medical Director of hospital blood bank here. No one has mentioned that the test for hiv currently employed is nucleic acid testing (NAT). This brings the false negative window down to about 5-7 days post infection. It is a different test than the antibody test performed on people being tested for hiv in a doctors office.", "I would imagine that even if there is somehow a hundred percent screening rate (which is highly unlikely even if you're just allowing for human error) the tests themselves are probably not 100% accurate. In other words, nothing's perfect so it's far too risky to chance it when you'd have a higher chance of there being infection in the blood being screened.", "You should really do some more research into this. The 3 month window or one year people are mentioning is extremely rare. Statistically even the over the counter oraquick test will usually show a real positive in days or weeks. (I believe the average is 2 weeks) To say 3 months is to meet FDA requirements that or be something like 99.97% accurate which means almost no one takes that long to develop antibodies and very few verifiable scientific provable cases of it taking anywhere near this long. The 3 months is based mostly on the time period in trials in which the company could demonstrate a level of effectiveness. Mostly what I'm really saying is that if you want a more scientific answer find out someone who knows the real up to date science instead of all the comments here who are giving you their knowledge of hiv infection based off a 2-5 day training instead of really knowing true infection timetables well enough to speak to the FDAs reasoning and science. So far no one I've seen answer has given any real medical credentials. (4 year hiv/hep c/iv drug tester/counselor here) You learn being in a field like this there is the truth scientifically and the \"truth\" some health care pros tell people to try and change their behavior.", "As others have stated, there is a window period where HIV can be transmitted but not detected. There is also a logistical side. Donated blood is tested in pools to maximize efficiency and save money. Samples from donors are combined and tested as one sample. Depending on the blood center, pool size can vary from 10 to 50 donors. If the pool tests negative, all of the units are deemed safe for transfusion and released to general inventory. If the pool tests positive, then they go back and test the individual donor samples to determine which donor was positive. If a group with a higher rate of HIV is allowed to donate, it increases the potential of false negative blood making it into the general inventory. It also increases the number of positive pools and reduces the efficiency of pooling donors for testing.\n \nAll of that being said, the permanent deferral for men that have sex with men (that is the FDA's definition) was not helping because it was eliminating many perfectly safe donors and a huge double standard. African Americans account for 44% of new HIV cases [source](_URL_0_) but the FDA does not bar African Americans from donating blood. I believe that the new guideline will be a vast improvement and will allow many safe donors to donate blood.\n\nI'm a Medical Laboratory Scientist working in a Blood Center", "I had a transfusion and when I was filling out the consent the med professional told me that no one in the \"western world\" has gotten HIV from a transfusion since 1989. How is that possible with the lag time between infection and coming up positive?", "This will never get seen, and will get a bit rambly but here it goes:\n\nWe're not worried about HIV too much any more, testing and follow up is pretty good. There are groups of the population that are at a higher risk of blood-bourne transmissable illnesses, and we're playing it safe on the 'unknowns' People who have had blood donations are (usually) forbidden from donating because of a fear they might transmit something unknown. It does upset a few patients when they find out they can't save lives after their life was saved.\n\nThese unknowns are pretty scary to think about. \n\nWe're only now getting testing underway for prion diseases (laymans: mad cow) and since that has a 30 year odd incubation before showing symptoms, we could have been spreading that for years. So cheers to everybody who has been working on that.\n\nOnce upon a time, AIDS was a weird disease only some groups of the population seemed to get, and the cause wasn't known. When it was shown to be blood borne, it was all hands on deck to secure the blood supply. The history behind that is sticking with us a bit, and I do believe the criteria need revision, but we must not forget that it isn't HIV we're worried about any more, it is the possibility of another huge blood borne outbreak.", "The HIV test is an antibody test not a viral test. When a person is first infected with HIV their body takes weeks to months to develop a detectable antibody load. Additionally during this time the viral load is the highest that it will ever be outside of end stage AIDS. So the time period immediately following infection with HIV is a period in which a person will test negative for HIV but they are extremely infectious.", "Follow-up question: if it can't be detected for three months, could they potentially hold the blood for three months and then test it? Sorry if stupid question.", "One reason that doesn't seem to be mentioned is that people getting HIV from a blood transfusion isn't merely hypothetical. It happened to quite a few people before they started testing for it, and at that point in time, it was a guaranteed death sentence. Many adults and children were infected, and they were typically shunned and feared by society until they died a horrible death a few years later. The rules were put into place to try to prevent that.\n\nNobody has been infected from a blood transfusion in years, and HIV is relatively easy to treat now (though expensive), but the regulations stemmed from an awful situation and people are scared to risk having that happen again.\n\nIn the eyes of people who support the ban, we've been doing just fine without that extra blood, and if even just one child were to be infected, it would be proof that the ban should never have been lifted, and that child's blood would (in their eyes) be on the hands of everyone who wanted the ban lifted, not to mention the entire gay community. Nevermind that children cureently do die from blood loss, although I'm not sure how common it is to not be able to receive a needed transfusion.", "Because people still get infected with screened blood. Happens in the US. My mother got a nice settlement out of it after years of legal disputes, but it got bad.....lawyers accused us of everything in the book including incest. \n\nHell I even had to get tested.\n\nThe case started falling apart after everyone in the family cleared and a second patient came forward.", "When a positive HIV test comes up many more expensive and accurate tests must be run to confirm it. If a group with high instances of being HIV positive gives a lot of blood that's a lot more money (potentially) that the blood bank must pay for the follow up tests when there is a positive.", "Why does anal sex between men any different to anal with a woman in regards to contracting hiv?", "Because we don't test for HIV, we test for antibodies. The antibodies can take over a year to show up, and since the test is actually for other diseases it's only 80-something percent accurate, so it becomes good policy to exclude those who are most likely to contract HIV. \nPeople who've had a tattoo within a year, admitted IV drug users, people who've had surgery within the past 6 months and homosexuals are generally discouraged if not banned from donating blood. It's not just about HIV, it's about hepatitis too. \nI'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that these are the people most likely to contract a blood Bourne disease...", "Here's an explanation that is supplementary to others here: STIs travel in groups. If a person has HIV (or any other STI) then the odds of them having another STI simultaneously skyrocket.\n\nRemember that there was a time that nobody knew about HIV. Given how the blood supply is handled it just makes sense to be overly cautious.", "A key factor that hasn't been mentioned is the fear of a new blood-borne virus. Blood services are wary of the risk of a new disease like HIV that might not be immediately identified.\n\nHIV wasn't discovered overnight. AIDS symptoms were identified in 1982 as \"Gay-related immune deficiency\", and there was a great deal of uncertainty as to why so many gay men were becoming sick; It was speculated that the disease may have been caused by drug use or a combination of lifestyle factors rather than a virus. Two years later, the disease was renamed AIDS, as so many other groups (Haitians, haemophiliacs etc) were experiencing the same symptoms. It wasn't until 1986 that the HIV virus was formally identified and confirmed as the cause of AIDS, by which time thousands of people had been infected by contaminated blood products.\n\nWe can identify HIV-infected blood (although not perfectly), but we can't identify blood infected with a completely new virus. The fear is that blood transfusion could massively increase the impact of such an outbreak, by spreading a virus from small high-risk groups to the wider population. Restrictions on donations by high-risk individuals are part of a broad set of reforms to the blood products system; The rights of donors need to be carefully balanced with the rights of recipients and vice-versa.", "There is a window of time between a person being infected and when a test can detect HIV. In other words a person can have HIV, but still test negative for a few weeks afterward. So recently infected person could test negative, and then donate HIV infected blood \n\nSo it is safer to just exclude groups with high infection rates from donating blood. Men who have sex with men (MSM) still have some of the highest rates of new HIV infections in Western countries. Something like 60-70% of new HIV infections in the USA today are among MSM. Meanwhile MSM make up an estimated 2% of the population according to the Center for Disease Control.", "HIV is not the only disease that can be passed by transfusion. High risk groups are not just at risk of carrying HIV, but other diseases as well. Sometimes a disease is new, and there is no test for it. The only way to mitigate that risk is eliminate risky donors from the donor pool. \n\nThere was no test for HIV until 1985. It was in the blood supply for years. Thousands were infected. New diseases appear all the time. \n\nIt is really, really stupid to let high risk groups donate blood. That's homophobic, you say? Please tell me more about gay bath houses. \n\nStupid that we are even talking about this.", "Yould think the CDC could not, you know, ship samples of Ebola virus by mistake, or leave smallpox virus laying around unsecured, (as they've done this year) but hey, I'm sure allowing a population to donate blood who statistically have higher rates of AIDS is just terrific risk management.", "Basically, there is a period of time between getting the virus and being able to detect HIV in the bloodstream. And if you're gay and engage in anal sex, it is much more likely that you will have the HIV virus.", "If the result is positive the staff run further tests to confirm which are more expensive. Homosexuals have more HIV/AIDS by percent so that means more money to test all the positives.", "Tests aren't perfect and the higher risk rate equates to a higher disposal rate meaning higher cost.", "because there's always a few that slip through the cracks.", "each positive instance of HIV probably slows them down significantly" ]

[ "I can only speak from my experiences, but I'm much more comfy when my ears are cold. A warm pillow makes my ears too warm. So I flip the pillow and it feels more pleasant against my ears and keeps them cool." ]

[ "Your solar plexus is a bundle of nerves. If you are hit there, the nerves are shocked for a while, and cause your diaphragm to be paralyzed. This keeps you from breathing.", "After being \"winded\" many times, I've developed a method to recover quickly. Now this might be an actual thing that is well known about. And feel free to call me out on this.\n\nBut what I do is, I put all the effort I can into exhaling. I reasoned that while it is hard to breath normally when you have the wind knocked out of you. Exhaling is easier than breathing in. And other than being quite terrifying, once you breath out. You automatically breath in. Repeating this will get you back to normal in no time flat.\n\n*tl;dr* Breath out rather than in to recover quicker", "Follow up questions : can the wind be knocked out of you, and your body is unable to restart breathing?", "While the volume of air in your lungs can increase/decrease as you breath, there is a base amount of air that is always retained in the lungs which is called the Residual Volume. Even when you exhale as much as possible, you will not be able to remove this residual volume from your lungs. A strong enough force to your diaphragm however, could actually push some of that residual volume out, which can be very painful and can cause the alveoli to collapse. This force will likely also over stimulate the solar plexus, temporarily paralyzing your diaphragm, ultimately making it difficult for you to catch your breath. Just lie on your stomach and tough it out, it sucks but you're tough." ]

[ "Hey, one I can answer! \n\nFirst off, the \"information\" that enters a tube is not audio, it is just an electrical signal. \n\nThe internal components of a vacuum tube are the cathode, anode, grid, and heating element. The small signal (~mv) that needs to be amplified enters the tube via the grid, which rests between the cathode and anode which are both coated with a material that encourages electron flow. The anode is positively charged with a much higher voltage than the grid, while the cathode is negatively charged. As the small signal hits the grid it creates a fluctuation in the large flow of electrons between the cathode and anode, thus amplifying the signal. The heating element is used to promote the flow of electrons, while keeping the components in a vacuum both promotes electron flow and reduces component wear to to oxidation. \n\nSource: I build guitar amps. \n\ntl;dr Small signal modulates big signal." ]

[ "It's impossible to know, but you might be surprised. Some quick examples:\n\n1. The Internet as we know it today was the result of the work of Tim Berners-Lee, an employee of CERN, the operator of the LHC. He coupled the Internet, the largest node of which was then at CERN, with the concept of HyperText (which allows you to \"mark up\" and therefore create a webpage with formatting, links, etc). CERN was later the host of the world's first modern website.\n\n2. Abstract concepts to us, like relativity, have surprising uses. As it happens, relativity is crucial to the operation of GPS, which wouldn't be accurately able to locate a device on Earth using timing signals from space without it.\n\n3. Technology driven for one purpose can often be redirected for another. By building the LHC we've had to solve some incredibly challenging problems, the first to spring to mind being that it produces about a petabyte of data per second, which needs to be assessed and stored in real-time. That's a pants-on-head stupid amount of data, and I can't think of any such challenge that we've ever had to overcome before, and it's an interesting way of foreseeing some of the challenges we're almost certainly going to face with the growth of the Internet." ]

[ "[Here is a \"Simple to Remember\" explanation of the six main reasons why](_URL_0_), written by folks who have a lot of experience with this question.", "They have a distinct religion/culture from the rest of the people around them. People make fun of people that are different." ]

[ "There is absolutely nothing at all hypocritical about the position. The difference is that police are agents of the state whose word and direction represent the will of the state. The more militarized a police force the more the state is able to control the populace. There is also NO Constitutional provision protecting the right of agents of the state to carry a firearm.\n\nAn individual, by contrast, is not an agent of the state. They are a private individual citizen with a protected Constitutional right to protect their liberty, property, and family from force whether it be from another private individual or the unjust actions of the state.", "Libertarians want a small government and they want people to decide most things. They don't care if people have guns - they want them to be able to *choose* what they buy, what they do, including buying guns.", "Why do Liberals think that police are racist psychos and that only police should have guns?", "Well, there isn't parity. I'm not going to argue the libertarian side, but those items made available to the police, are prohibited to the other citizens.", "The people who \"ardently support the 2nd Amendment\" today are actually ardently supporting a modern bit of retconning, that is, the notion that the *purpose* of the 2nd is to guarantee unfettered private ownership of weapons. And that's not correct, never has been.\n\nLet's set the Wayback Machine to the late 1950s. In those days *every* bona fide Constitutional scholar (AND the SCOTUS) agreed that the PUPOSE of the 2nd was precisely what it said: to protect the right of well-regulated militias. And as such, it was seen as somewhat obsolete, like the 6th, which prohibits the quartering of troops in private homes in peacetime.\n\nThe very few gun-nut challenges of that were all defeated in court. For example, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which made automatic--and other--weapons mostly illegal for private ownership) would be pretty clearly unconstitutional if the 2nd was *about* guaranteeing unfettered private ownership. And in US v Miller, 1938, the Supreme Court upheld that very notion: it's about well-regulated militias, not private firearm ownership.\n\nFurther, in those days, the NRA was an organization for gun *owners,* particularly hunters. Die-hard liberals like John Kennedy were lifetime members. And when JFK *did* die hard of gun violence, the NRA was in the forefront in calling for *stricter* gun control laws.\n\nIn the 60s-70s, when blacks and other marginalized groups finally got tired of whitey's shit, some of them started muttering darkly about arming themselves and shooting some white folks. Some actually did. The reaction of conservative demi-god Ronald Reagan--then Governor of California--was typical: he signed *serious* gun control legislation so fast his pen left skid marks.\n\nBut then, sometime around the late 70s-early 80s, things changed. The NRA was quietly co-opted to be a front for gun *manufacturers,* and a new far-right-loon faction started gaining power in the Republican party. Somewhere along they way, they just completely obliterated the earlier notion that the 2nd was about militias, and made it \"self evident\" that it was about private ownership of guns. Today, the NRA is actively fighting gun control legislation that *it itself* pushed for.\n\nNow, the interpretation of Constitutional rights does indeed sometimes change. But until such change is sanctified by a SCOTUS decision, it remains just popular propaganda. And the *last* thing the court said about the 2nd was \"well-regulated militias.\" The Firearms Act of 1934 still stands." ]

[ "There *ARE* 30 packs of soda. Walmart sells them. [Here's a link for 30 cans of Diet Mt Dew](_URL_0_) If you want to see other examples you can google 30 pack of soda, thats how I found that link.", "Do you mean something like this _URL_1_ . In short the do package beer and soda the same, minus the 2 liter bottle, they just market to what sells best." ]

[ "There is a lot of ritual involved in smoking and a lot of nostolgia for most people that goes beyond the physical addiction. \n\nMany people have their work tied in mentally to cigarette breaks. The stress is the stress of that ritual being disrupted. For a smoker the smoke break is like waiting for Christmas and Christmas comes every two hours. Take that away and it becomes hard to tolerate previously tolerable things. \n\nThere is also a sort of fraternity among smokers that you loose. Many people met lots of friend over bumming, giving away cigarettes to others. Smoke breakers usually move in crowds, whether in work or in bars and it is a social network that can get you laid or advance your career (if your boss smokes, if a hot friend of a friend smokes, you get new ways too talk to them.)\n\nSmoking is like a little present you get every day with all sorts of great memories and people attached to it. It's not just raw addiction to the drug that makes people miserable, it is loosing the habit itself. \n\nAt least for me anyway. For chain smokers it is probably different or people who can still light up when ever it is probably different.", "For starters, nicotine is extremely addictive. The withdrawal symptoms affect both body and mind, with cravings and mood swings quite frequent.\n\nAnd another factor is that smoking is largely a thoughtless habit ... you don't think about each individual cigarette, you tend to just light one up out of habit. So finding something else to do with your hands is a big factor in successfully kicking the habit." ]

[ "When you visit websites that link to pages of interest, they send your pseudo identity and your interest profile to central ad servers. When you visit another page that has an ad spot for a remarketing ad, they pull your identity and interest profile and select those ads that are best matched to you. Your pseudoidentity is an id number that's generated and kept on your browser as a cookie." ]

[ "Because they have very limited mental capacity. They are like a very primitive computer programm. \n\nFind food source. Avoid fast moving thing on collision course. Breed. \n\nThey can't process that there is an entity that doesn't want them to come to a certain spot.", "A fly's brain has a bag of tricks. One of them is to seek food when hungry. A second one is to avoid being hit. It does not have a trick to remember that food in a single spot might be dangerous. Insects do not reason.\n\nSource: I took a graduate class called \"Reverse Engineering the Fly\". Very interesting class.\n\nEDIT: For those interested, you can see a description of the class at _URL_0_ . I can't find an online syllabus, but...", "I always wonder why some flies are more agressive than others. The flies at home are more chill and land on my legs and arms while the flies at work land on my face, ears and also seem to bite sometimes. Does anyone have an info about this?", "Flies, like ants, leave a scent trail with them. It is like a night club: the more people who are there the more people are drawn to it. That is why jar traps work so well. So many flies have climbed in to die other flies think it is a party.", "It actually can remember food at a certain spot is dangerous. It's called fear conditioning and fruit flies (Drosophila) are extensively researched to understand the mechanisms for that. It involves a wide range of protein synthesis to form long-term plastic changes in the nervous system. \n\nThey can learn to associate a stimulus with fear and avoid it. \n_URL_1_\n\nIt might just not perceive your slow human reflexes to be dangerous.", "Flies eat by puking on your skin, which feels like a bite, then slurping up the digested slurry. While landing on the same place may be coincidental, it would save digestive acids to go back to the same place and slurp up a nicely aged pool of your dissolved skin, that was previously prepared.", "Not sure if this is allowed, but similar question here:\n\nWhy do mosquitos insist on trying to fly into my ears?\n\nThe only times I even know mosquitos are around is when that high-pitched buzzing ramps up in my ear. Often followed by me slapping the side of my face and shaking around like my hair caught fire.", "Flies feed by regurgitating their stomach acid onto their food and then slurping the mess back down. Its trying to eat at that location.", "I read a while ago it is because flies secrete a pink sugary substance to mark an area of potential food for themselves and other flies to find. So the fly is probably coming back to that sugary substance it left behind." ]

[ "No, there was never a point in human history where we could use wooden tools but not stone tools. \n\nThe \"stone age\" is just a term used to describe when we used tools that were naturally occurring. \n\nWe used fire hardened spears and flint knapped with stone.\n\nEdit- Flint knapping not flint mapping.", "For those interested, there's a great YouTube Channel called Primitive Technology. \n\n[Here's him making a stone age axe to cute trees with.](_URL_0_)", "Wood, bone and horn were used at the same time as stone tools were also being used, to some extent it depended upon the availability of suitable materials. Generally whatever suitable material that was readily available was used, with certain material being better suited for different tasks.", "If you did have the means to obtain wooden tools, wouldn't stone tools be immediately sought?", "There probably was some kind of wood revolution that came as we started using stone. Having tools like axes, knives, and drills would have allowed our ancestors to use wood differently than any other time before. Planks of wood instead of logs and things like that would have changed a lot. It would be considered the same as the Stone and later ages, because they gave us the tools that allowed us to shape wood in new ways.\n\nMost wood from that long ago has rotted away, but it has been preserved in a few places. Wood artifacts have been found in bogs, in permafrost, and other cold or oxygen deprived environments. One big problem is the they tend to break down pretty quickly once they're found, since it's hard to store them properly and they can be extremely fragile. Even some of the things from King Tut's tomb, that were preserved for thousands of years, have pretty much fallen apart since they were found.", "If you can pick up a piece of wood and hit something with it, you can pick up a piece of stone and do the same thing. And for *most* purposes, the stone would probably be better.\n\nIt's heavier, so it makes a better hammer. It holds an edge better, so it makes a better axe or knife.\n\nThere were definitely all wood tools made (some spears were just sharpened sticks), but stone tools would have been used alongside them for every purpose in which a rock would be better." ]

[ "here we go i will post what i think and say it is true, and then someone will post why what i post is wrong and then you will have the correct answer :) \n\n\none side says we use the same pathways in the brain when imagining something as we do when we actually see it.\n\nthe other side says no that is not true, we use the memory networks in our brain to remember what things look like." ]

[ "People care less about obeying rules when they are about to die. At this point what do they have to lose? Did Jerry over in cell D12 make a rude comment about your mother? Maybe Jerry should get stabbed 12 times with a sharpened tooth brush. What are the guards going to do about it? Kill you? lol!", "It is custom. There also might be the fear that an inmate with literally nothing to lose would kill another over the slightest thing.\n\nI was told that an inmate on death row believes if he kills an officer he will be tried for it which would start the whole process over for him and buy him more time.\n\nThis is not true. But all that matters is that the inmate believes it.\n\nOne small part of the reason is that working on death row is voluntary. An officer may believe that confinement is the only way to deal with the behavior of individuals. But they may not believe that once an person is confined and cannot harm others then he should also be killed.", "They tend to be pretty bad people, and they have nothing to lose.\n\nMost inmates can look forward to being released someday, until they manage to commit crimes while in prison. Even those with life sentences have a future to think about, and bad behavior can make that future much worse.\n\nThose on death row can act with impunity because they (likely) have no future, and any punishment the state can mete out pale in comparison to death.\n\nDo you want some 19-year-old doing five years for being an accomplice to a liquor store robbery sharing a cell with a person like that?" ]

[ "Rule of law and civilization happened.\n\nIn the old days it wasn't just that violent punishments were more common, it was that violence itself was much more common than it is today.\n\nDespite all the wars happening around the world, if you lived in the last hundred years you were less likely to die a violent death than at any other time in history. \n\nThis affects all parts of society. Not too long ago in the most civilized parts of the world it was common and normal to witness violent spectacles far worse than anything ISIS does today. Taking your kids to the town square to witness a man being gruesomely tutored to death for something that we wouldn't even consider a crime today was not out od the ordinary in medieval Europe.\n\nViolence was much more common in those days.\n\nWhat happened was that eventually the rulers managed to achieve a monopoly on violence. The process was quite bloody and violent at times but the end result meant that there was a lot less violence to go around.\n\nBasically the government ended up saying \"The only one who can kill and maim and torture and imprison people is me\".\n\nThis has reduced overall violence quite a lot and let to the rise of something called a \"culture of law\" vs \"culture of honor\".\n\nThe more towards a culture of law a society is oriented the less emphasis there is on upholding personal honor as a means of keeping yourself safe. Violence goes down and even the violence committed by the state decreases.\n\nYou get fewer police shootings and draconian punishments at the price of need to cede all your rights to commit violence to the state.\n\nThe state has to defend its monopoly on violence, when that fails pockets of society end up creating their own means of keeping themselves safe.\n\nAmerica is far more oriented towards the honor side than for example some countries in Europe and inside the US you have a divide between place like New England and the South. You also have pockets in big cities where the people have stopped believing in the rules of law and that the police is there to help them and started to protect themselves by being violent and showing the world that they are not to be messed with.\n\nYou don't want that.\n\nMeanwhile if you compare the damage done by thieves and robbers in places that appear to be lax on crime and value attempts at rehabilitation over vengeance, you will find that harsh punishments don't really do much to help.\n\nExtreme punishments like hacking a thief's hand of or whipping someone in public for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person are not making society safe, they instead correlated with extremely unsafe conditions.", "1) the constitution of the US prevents cruel and unusual punishment. Likely other countries have similar laws.\n\n2) The laws that protect people defending their homes can go too far. For example, recently Oklahoma's law that protects people who use deadly force in their home made them completely immune to any prosecution as long as they say they feared for their lives.\n\nNow, people can sincerely fear for their lives, or people can just say it, similar to the Trayvon Martin \"stand your ground\" ridiculousness. This is something we see a lot in police brutality cases that are made public. An unarmed person (usually a minority) will be shot and killed by police in a situation that would seem to not merit murdering a person. Should police be able to shoot anyone without consequence? This goes for people who use deadly force to defend themselves in a situation that was not dangerous." ]