~~It's called port wine because it originated in *Port*ugal; from Wikipedia:~~
> ~~Port wine (also known as Vinho do Porto, Porto, and usually simply port) is a Portuguese fortified wine produced exclusively in the Douro Valley in the northern provinces of Portugal.~~
EDIT: So, apparently, I used an incorrect source (sorry!) that doesn't actually give the source of the name. Here is an article from the Encyclopædia Britannica that does:
> Port, also called Porto, [is a] sweet, fortified usually red wine ... named for the [Portuguese] town of Oporto, where it is aged and bottled.
I'm skeptical as well, but it might be the phrasing of the post, rather than Keegan's own phrasing. Double checking on a rather obvious one, Jutland seems to have been fought 60 miles off shore, which I'm fairly certain puts it "outside the sight of land", but I wouldn't disagree with calling it a "coastal location" which is used at the end of the post. So I'd need to see Keegan's phrasing to be certain, but petrov76 might just be a bit too literal when he describes Keegan as meaning in sight of land. The Japanese fleet was several hundred miles from Midway after all.
They are ruminates, like cows, they have a completely different digestive system then most mammals. From what I can remember, correct me if I'm wrong (you always do), cannot vomit the way we do.
The Flood Story exists in the Epic of Gilgamesh. (Written somewhere between 2750 BCE and 2500 BCE)
Quick and dirty version: The Gods were angry because mankind was making too much noise. So they sent a flood. One God took pity and saved Utnapishtim's family, by warning him to give up all his earthly possessions and build a boat and carry his family and the animals in it while the gods flooded the world.
The answer lies in the difference in bonding between metals (iron and gold) and ceramics (coal and rocks).
"In ceramics, however, dislocations are not common (though they are not nonexistent), and they are difficult to move to a new position. The reasons for this lie in the nature of the bonds holding the crystal structure together. In ionically bonded ceramics some planes—such as the so-called (111) plane shown slicing diagonally through the rock salt structure in Figure 3, top—contain only one kind of ion and are therefore unbalanced in their distribution of charges. Attempting to insert such a half plane into a ceramic would not favour a stable bond unless a half plane of the oppositely charged ion was also inserted. Even in the case of planes that were charge-balanced—for instance, the (100) plane created by a vertical slice down the middle of the rock salt crystal structure, as shown in Figure 3, bottom—slip induced along the middle would bring identically charged ions into proximity. The identical charges would repel each other, and dislocation motion would be impeded. Instead, the material would tend to fracture in the manner commonly associated with brittleness."
hoes is the plural of a garden implement.
hos is just illiterate.
The colloquialism ho' is in fact an elision of the word whore. Apostrophes are used in the place of dropped letters or phonemes. As the W is silent in whore it is only necessary to use an apostrophe After the o as such ho' unlike 'n' as in rock'n'roll, though one would not be in error if they chose to use both, 'ho'. Given this the proper spelling of the plurality is ho's. Further the plural possessive, as in " I am those whores' pimp" would be ho's'.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
reference: [link] [link]
He's a smart man that communicates like a child and that has very little education. He's more ignorant than stupid. I've always found that his ideas are just "primitive" versions of things that make sense. For instance, one time he was speaking about his mind telling his body to do things, or something along those lines, and Gervais and Merchant were laughing at him, of course.
Entire books have been written on this subject by some of the greatest minds in history... [link]
It's also a modern concept used in criminal psychology and ethics. The ideas are almost always rational, his explanations are just silly.
He was actually a radio producer before meeting Gervais and doing stuff with him.
It's sad that an obviously spurious quote garners so many upvotes. The word "deflation" is a dead tell that the quote is inauthentic, as it did not come into usage until long after Jefferson's death. The language and phrasing is indicative of more modern English; Jefferson simply did not write in this manner (and neither did anyone of that time period), as any person who has actually read his writings will be able to attest.
Here are Jefferson's actual words, with context, from a letter written to John Taylor:
We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican, as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient. And **I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
And as usual, SJWs don't bother to look around before speaking up.
> Women scientists in the 21st century
>In the early 21st century in the United Kingdom and the United States, nearly 50 percent of medical degrees and doctorate degrees in the biomedical sciences were awarded to women.
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
Of course, it doesn't say what race those women were, so if they were cis white women they probably don't count.
> apartheid state
Apartheid =/= occupation.
Unless you want to argue that Israel is motivated by some doctrine of racial supremacy (among other qualifications)?
Edit: since there seems to be some confusion, here are some definitions from Oxford, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam Webster, which might be helpful to contrast against the definition of occupation under intl law, as well as the current and historical realities characterizing life in the West Bank and Gaza (i.e. the existence of the PA and Hamas, under which a majority of Palestinians live autonomously, multiple past offers for statehood by Israeli leadership to Palestinian leadership [i.e. 2001, 2008], the motives behind the occupation [i.e. chronic terrorism in the form of rocket attacks, suicide bombings, kidnappings etc.]).
Edit 2: Since I'm seeing about a dozen comments repeating the same 'chosen people' meme, let's clear something up: Jews see themselves as "chosen" to carry the burden (i.e. commandments) of the Torah. Judaism does not advocate racial superiority, and it is actually one of the only monotheistic religions that does not automatically condemn all non believers to hell (in fact, non-Jewish people only have to follow the 7 Noahide laws to enter heaven, while Jewish people are bound by over 600 biblical commandments). I'm in no way a religious scholar, but this is readily accessible information and it's disturbing to see so many people argue that Jewish thought advocates racial superiority over other nations when a two second google search would expose that BS outright.
~~Humans have ~10,000 taste buds, for comparison. [source]~~
Bumping NietzscheIsMyCopilot's comment which is better sourced:
> And as for your numbers, according to encyclopedia, humans only have between 2,000 and 8,000 taste buds.
That's quite not correct I'm afraid. ١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩٠ were always east Arabic numbers, Indian numbers never looked like that. West Arabic numbers looked similar to modern Latin numbers, but were slightly different.
Here's a diagram of the history of base-10 numbers symbols, with the original Indian numbers that branched off into east Arabic (that is still in use), west Arabic that were then mostly adopted as Latin numbers and modern Indian numbers.
Indeed! In 1967 they were attacked by four neighboring countries. Four against one and it took them all of six days to send them back home with their proverbial tails between their legs. One of many sources
I agree with all of this, but I thought I'd just throw in my 2c as a biologist. Let's think for a second about what "cooking" actually is: It's the denaturation of proteins and lysis of cells in your food. We cook food for various reasons, but high on that list is to kill the bacteria, and also to make the food easier to get energy from. Anyway, there are many ways to denature a protein. You can heat it up. You can put it in acid. You can use enzymes to do it. Notably, all of these methods are indeed ways to "cook" food. The fish dish ceviche is cooked by the acid in the lime juice that it sits in. Meat tenderizers like the ones found in papaya denature proteins enzymatically.
So back to your question: 99c will denature proteins almost identically to 100c. Bringing the water to a boil, may however, create steam inside of cells, forcing them to lyse. This will have a much weaker effect on what you consider "cooking" than the temperature will, but could make a small difference, particularly in plant cells that are resistant to lysis because of their tough cell walls.
The challenge to answering this question is that the first permanent settlements predate our oldest written records by thousands of years. Settlements at the site of Jericho, for example, go back as far as 9,000 BCE, and sedentary societies like the Natufian culture are even older. Our oldest examples of Sumerian cuneiform, by contrast, date to some time in the 3000s BCE.
This means that the first city-builders were further removed in time from the first writers than the first writers are from us! This makes it rather difficult to know what the first settled peoples thought, since the city-dwellers' ancestors had abandoned their hunter-gatherer existence thousands of years prior to those earliest records.
My answer is assuming that by the "beginning of civilization," you're referring to the transition from nomadic existence to permanent settlements. If you're referring instead to what people thought at the time of the development of writing, or the formation of the earliest sprawling empires, perhaps someone else can shed more light.
And now I'm a bit sad, because I'd love to know what those earliest settled peoples thought about the transition away from nomadic life, but we'll almost certainly never have any way of finding out. The vast majority of humanity's past is irrecoverably forgotten, save for whatever we can infer from the artifacts our ancestors left behind.
Under Lenin's "Land Decree" he wrote retiring workers would
Lose the land they worked on, and
Gain a pension.
>> "Peasants who, owing to old age or ill-health, are permanently disabled and unable to cultivate the land personally, shall lose their right to the use of it but, in return, shall receive a pension from the state."
If that worker worked 20 years they qualified for a full pension:
>> "In 1987 the Soviet Union had 56.8 million pensioners; of this number, 40.5 million were retired with full pensions on the basis of twenty years of service and age eligibility"
By the way, the soviet state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) was not a "communist state." Communism (as Marx himself defined it) is stateless & comes after the state "withers away & dies:"
>> "Marx argued that for socialism to be realized, the state would have to be done away with."
ie, Marx advocated using the state to advance to socialist/communism, but they are not the same thing. In other words, "communist state" is an oxymoron.
The Battle of Poltava (Peter the Great of Russia v. Swedish King Karl XII) was the conclusion to Karl's unfortunate decision to march across Russia, and the bloodiness of Sweden's defeat was the death knell to the Swedish Empire and status as a major European power. Sweden, never the most populous of European nations, relied on a smaller but professional army. Marching across scorched earth, outnumbered and withered, the Swedes were destroyed. Karl survived, and would try to reclaim Swedish power among the other Scandinavian powers in an attack on Norway, but he was shot in the head, possibly by a disgruntled Swedish soldier, or a really lucky Norwegian
All answers are subjective, of course, but my vote for the most unlikely victor of the 20th Century would be the heavily-outnumbered US Navy at the Battle of Midway. Pacific Fleet commander Chester Nimitz received some excellent intelligence and determined to ambush a superior force, when he might easily have avoided a showdown. Military historian John Keegan called it "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare."
I'm on mobile, so I'll need to come back to this with better sources and formatting, but I honestly believe it's a combination of restricted market and France's Italian ambitions.
First, who can "afford" Byzantine titles? Spain is recovering from La Reconquista and looking west, not east. So no go there. England is relatively poor during this period, as the English monarchy is consolidating power and fending off nobles - and is probably not interested anyway. And the Hapsburg monarchy could pay, but why? They're more interested in securing a border with the Ottomans rather than expanding into the Balkans. And Russia doesn't really exist as a kingdom yet. So France is probably the only one to be willing to purchase such titles.
Second, the purchaser of the titles, King Charles VIII, is the man who invades Italy in an attempt to expand French borders in the only direction where he could meet success. While he had a slight claim to the Kingdom of Naples through marriage, possessing titles that might entail him to ancient Roman/ Byzantine land claims could shore up his reasons for invasion. Legitimizing an invasion in multiple ways would help his nobility sign on to his war effort and hopefully increase the chances of success.
I very much doubt it was ever about reconstituting the Byzantine Empire. Western Europe had written off much of the Ottoman European holdings as "lost", so it was just the sad and inglorious end to the Byzantine claimants.
Edit for sources:
> E Pluribus Unum
The history of E Pluribus Unum might be more of a pop culture reference. At the time of the American Revolution in 1776, it was the tagline of a popular periodical, "The Gentleman's Magazine" which sourced dozens of articles from other periodicals into one. It's tagline "E Plubribus Unum" was on every front page.
A modern day equivalent may be using buzzfeed's tagline "Media Company for the Social Age" in a way like "A Democracy for the Social Age"
I personally find this makes the slogan neater, since it brings a more personal connection to the people who founded the revolution- they also liked pop culture references and, if they had the capabilities, they would have put memes on town bulletin boards
Edits: Did some grammar editing, also here's a source: [link] I first learned about it while watching "The Revolution" on History Channel. Great documentary series.
So some of the basic stuff on education during the time can be found in this article (and the books they cite): [link] (pg 24-25).
This is also a pretty good overview of some sources that includes much of this information: [link]
And for (actually really nice) stats about higher education and the focus on vocational training under Stalin, try here: [link]
OP: That last source may help you with your PhD problem, as it shows the number of people in higher education rose dramatically under Stalin, even given the purges.
I think he said katydid, but i could be wrong. Also, the video OP posted there was an actual lizard of some kind on the mat as well, so it could be that he is into extinct and living reptiles so his house is full of food for them and they might often escape haha
It appears to be some form of Heart Urchin. For all I know it could be, but the tentacles seem to be underdeveloped, thus assuming it is a young one.
I recognized the shape from Biology lab last semester, when we made a Sand Dollar zygote. It is in the same phylum as them etc.
It is a lot more complicated than that. Poop definitely contains things that were in the body at one point.
>Normally, feces are made up of 75 percent water and 25 percent solid matter. About 30 percent of the solid matter consists of dead bacteria; about 30 percent consists of indigestible food matter such as cellulose; 10 to 20 percent is cholesterol and other fats; 10 to 20 percent is inorganic substances such as calcium phosphate and iron phosphate; and 2 to 3 percent is protein.
TIL: Tithonus' wife, an immortal, asked the gods to give Tithonus eternal life, but forgot to ask he be given eternal youth. So he aged, withered, dried up, and shrank in his old age until he ultimately turned into an immortal cricket.
Actually, fevers are considered moderate until 105F. Severe fevers will cause permanent brain damage, convulsions, and death when body temperature reaches or exceeds 108F. The reason fevers approaching 105 require medical treatment is the possibility and likelihood of a severe fever developing and the need to be close to medical professionals for when the fever reaches that severe level
Source: EMT-B, Pre-Med Student, and because that probably won't be enough for ya, [link]
EDIT: This information pertains to adults. For infants and children, it is a whole different story
What I believe to be the best food
What I believe to be the best animal
What I believe to be the best time
Is that good? can I get the karma now? or do I need to post more things the hivemind will obviously upvote...burrruruurupdurpu.
"I have no idea what the biological definition of this term is or when it is and isn't applicable, so rather than do even a cursory Google search I'm going to assume it would apply to humans if it weren't for the SJWs"
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
> Subspecies are groups at the first stage of speciation; individuals of different subspecies sometimes interbreed, but they produce many sterile male offspring.
Hrm... No, that doesn't sound like it applies to human races. Maybe human races not fitting the definition of subspecies is why they aren't considered subspecies?
More researching brings up a repeated point that significant genetic differences are required, differences which aren't present when comparing humans of different races.
While everything that people are saying about immortals is true, it is important to mention that Achilles' mother had multiple children before him, who all died when she dipped them into the Styx. So even if you're a demigod, the odds are still great that you will die if you enter the river Styx.
It's interesting to compare Britannica's article on Wikipedia vs. Wikipedia article on Britannica. I find the former poorly written and biased.
This might blow your mind more
> Best Answer: Story of Troy was considered for a long time just a myth, but when Agamemnon's tomb was discovered in late 19th century, everything started to seam different. Until today that's the only physical proof that any of those character was a real person, but if Agamemnon really existed, why not Achilles, Hector, Paris and all the others?
Link to the tomb
For the most part, the only thing between galaxies is the warm-hot intergalactic medium. However, globular clusters are often found "outside" of galaxies in that they occupy the galactic halo primarily rather than the main body of the galaxy itself, at least in spiral galaxies.
While I can't speak as to what the movie will cover, he was an accomplished novelist and screenwriter in his time, including writing the movie "Spartacus" and the book "Johnny Got His Gun" among numerous other things.
He seems to have had a habit of ruffling feathers. Probably most notably, he refused to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (which in its time, when there was a lot of screaming about the color red from whichever point of view, basically was an anti-communist section of the US congress), and was "blacklisted" or barred from working in the industry (under his own name). He was one of the "Hollywood 10", most of whose names most of us probably don't recognize. Also on that list (the blacklist, not the hollywood 10) is early movie pioneer and legend Charlie Chaplin.
Trumbo's Wikipedia page can tell you more.
Richard Henry Dana, Jr. was a Harvard man who suffered ophthalmia, in his case usually described as a weakness of the eyes, following having the measles. He took two years off and signed on to a ship that was trading furs on the west coast, in the San Francisco area. He wrote an excellent account of his voyage on the Pilgrim called "Two Years Before the Mast," which is a terrific read [Gutenberg]. Though he had some college education, he was not aboard as an officer, and so his book has the great combination of being about the life of a common sailor and bearing the deft prose of an educated man, an advantage he had over most of his shipmates.
By accounts, the 'cure' worked. Dana went back to Harvard, attended Law School, and went on to some renown. He was on the team that prosecuted Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
I'm sure his ophthalmia isn't what you had in mind, but 2 years on a brig didn't make his bad eyes worse, but rather the opposite, so that's got to count for something.
I have my doubts about your source and those numbers. The "tongue map" is an incredibly antiquated concept that has already been debunked (source)
And as for your numbers, according to encyclopedia, humans only have between 2,000 and 8,000 taste buds.
Impossible, the President of the United States must be an American-born citizen. Musk, for all of his many virtues, was born in South Africa not to parents of American citizenship.
The original pledge from 1892 says otherwise. Source.
> "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Indeed. They tried twice under Kublai Khan, in 1274 and 1281. Both times, their fleets were destroyed by storms. The Japanese refered to the second storm as "Kamikaze" (meaning "divine wind").
This was because a retired Emperor went on a pilgrimage to pray for divine intervention to thwart the Mongol invasion. However, the term "Kamikaze" later became the name for both storms.
Source Enyclopedia Britannica
It seems you're not aware of the difference between "apartheid" and an "occupation", or its derivatives (i.e. restrictions on unfettered movement), so in the interest of furthering constructive debate, lets clear these "criteria" of apartheid up:
Apartheid- "A policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race."
More definitions: Oxford, Merriam Webster, Britannica
I.e. - under apartheid, black South Africans had no rights in a country in which they were the majority of the population.
Israel's Arab citizens, even though they are a minority, hold seats in the Knesset, the Supreme court, have state sponsored Arabic-speaking schools and media, are allowed to vote and are entitled to the same legal rights as Jews. That completely debunks the definition of apartheid within Israel proper.
Now, if you would like to argue that Israel employs discriminatory policies against non-Israelis in the West Bank, particularly in regards to freedom of movement via the checkpoints that went up after the second intifada, that's another matter. However, the proper terms should be employed when characterizing its status, mainly as an occupier, rather than an apartheid government, unless one considers the West Bank to be a permanent part of the state of Israel and somehow manages to argue that Palestinians enjoy no measure of autonomy (i.e. the PA and Hamas do no exist), they have no separate national aspirations (never requested nor been offered a separate state), and they are subject to certain policies (such as the need to pass through checkpoints) because Israel is inspired by some doctrine of racial supremacy, rather than security concerns (i.e. suicide bombings).
Sumerian continued to be used in administrative, legal, and royal writing, usually alongside Akkadian and its descendants Assyrian and Babylonian, and also as a religious language, for over a thousand years after it ceased being used in everyday life by most Mesopotamians. There is evidence of it being studied by at least some people as late as the Hellenistic period, where there are tablets with Sumerian words written with Greek letters.
You technically could, but you would have to use some pretty intense force.
The esophagus is only 10 inches in length and about 1 inch wide. Granted, it does stretch a little to accommodate food, but not by very much.
Since the esophagus runs behind the trachea and the heart, you would run the risk of killing someone if you forcefully shoved your entire arm down their throat.
Now, realistically speaking, you would have obstacles such as teeth and bone to get through. You probably wouldn't be able to force your arm entirely through without it getting stuck in the person's mouth.
Not to mention, living people bite pretty damn hard. The average human bites with a force of 171 pounds.
Also, human bites are the most dangerous to receive. They contain many strains of bacteria and are the most likely to become seriously infected. Human mouths are absolutely filthy.
But, so long as you don't mind getting your arm stuck in a biting, bacteria-infested mouth, I don't see why you couldn't at least try!
( Love Larry Niven! Dont forget: the Stars my destination by Alfred Bester)
Telepotation also would ammount to near immortality. Here is my angle:
Assuming the teleportation is of a digital nature, every time use said device you are in-fact disintegrated and then re-assembled.
"The physical basis of aging is either the cumulative loss and disorganization of important large molecules (e.g., proteins and nucleic acids) of the body or the accumulation of abnormal products in cells or tissues." Britannica
The process of mechanical teleportation (in theory) would be rebuilding you from scratch every time you used it, and in a reality where such tech exists, it is implied that a level of control to only recreate and reorganize what you want (healthy tissues, sinew and bone), and omit the rest (cellular and corrosion on an atomic level).
In-fact, while we are theorizing, teleportation would not only halt the ageing process to nearly a standstill, it could and probably would be able to improve you to near perfection.
I bet it would be addictive as well.
No. White tigers are a genetic anomaly. White tigers are not a species and do not have a native habitat. Tigers do not inhabit any section of the globe in which it would be advantageous for their survival to be white.
Source: White Tigers: Conserving a Lie
Forrest and his men also massacred 300 mostly black, unarmed Union soldiers who had surrendered when Fort Pillow was overrun in April 1864.
Watch this. The Poisoner's Handbook. Mentioned at bottom of article.
Great PBS documentary. It covers that story. Standard Oil went to the president to create a panel of scientists to say leaded gas was okay. President went along. Eventually, the leaded gas inventor, who washed his hands in leaded gas to prove it was safe, died of lead poisoning.
Update: It has been pointed out to me that the leaded gas inventor didn't die from lead poisoning. However, he did get lead poisoning. Still a great documentary with lots of interesting stories.
> would it still be a 365 1/4 day year?
The number of days in a year has been decreasing.
This is not just a physics calculation - we also observe it in coral fossils.
Like rings on trees which tell you how many years old a tree is, some coral make a daily pattern. 600 million years ago there were 423 days in a year.
This is called rhodopsin (visual purple). When our eyes are exposed to dim lighting, we have monochromatic vision and see white and after a while it turns to it's original color, purple. That is my best explanation.
It's probably 50 lbs on land like the story says, in water though... based on a density of ~2g/cm^3 (source: [link]) It would be roughly half the weight, more or less. Although that is the lower estimate, so it probably effectively weighs more than 25 lbs somewhere. Keep in mind though it is much harder to move underwater.
This isn't going to work very well.
There is no photosynthesis below about 200m even with algae using special pigments tuned to the wavelengths that penetrate best (blues and greens). Below that it is rapidly gets rather dark.
The attenuation coefficient for very clear seawater under blue-green light is about 2%. That is, for every meter of seawater an optimized laser is going to lose 2% of its power.
At a depth of 1km your beam will need to be about 485 million times stronger to produce the same brightness of spot. If you want something as bright as a 50 milliwatt laser then naively you're going to need a 24 megawatt monster.
You will also likely light up a huge area of the ocean floor due to beam dispersion and not just one spot, and start ionizing and violently boiling seawater which is probably going to produce an opaque wall of steam and plasma which will stop the beam.
The only good news is that all of our nuclear submarines are all likely to survive the initial alien attack. Unless you can boil the whole ocean it's effectively a laser-proof barrier.
Its dramatic irony. The robot works diligently to report the content of the article, unaware that the article calls for the end of botting. We, as a third party, can appreciate the full dramatic irony.
I get really tired of people providing this as a rebuttal to "Communism clearly has not worked" So here is this, just for you.
Just a few things. That dog is not half wolf.
If it were, it would be illegal to own in CA.
Hybrids make the worst pets. They are legally considered wild animals and would be even less welcome in such places.
You may be thinking of the Motion Pictures Patent Company which attempted to control the production of movies to those within the organization.
They an oft cited reason for the industry largely relocating to California.
> Why are we dead-set on covering these costs?
I don't know who "we" is here. I'll assume it's the people of the United States of America.
In this case, the USA was populated by puritans who landed at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. The brought with them the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601.
The Elizabethan Poor Laws established a property tax levy specifically to create a local pool of taxpayer-funded public welfare assistance for the poor, infirm, and widows. This was run by a position that was second only to Mayor or Selectman until around the US Civil War - the local Overseer of the Poor.
The laws arose as a result of the enclosure movement, which saw the elimination of common land in Britain and its replacement with private property and fee simple real estate lots.
Put simply, they fenced everything off and gave out private deeds. Then they allowed land to be convertible to capital (mortgage, etc).
The old peasant class that didn't 'own' land, but always could use it to subsistence farm and graze cattle and sheep were now dispossessed of land.
They became the urban poor. Now the question became, "What do we do with the urban poor?" Wage-labor resulted. Hire them out for some rate. But not all of them had the physical or mental capacity to earn a living, and even many who did could not find work. They congregate in towns and cities. They grow discontent. They threaten the system. So what do you do?
Elizabethan poor laws.
There has never been a time in the history of the United States in which there was not taxpayer-funded social welfare for the poor. The last time it happened was in pre-capitalist feudal societies that still had common land the poor could farm and live upon without needing capital to purchase it.
According to advanced human nutrition, a healthy man is 15% bone, 45% muscle, 15% fat.
That means an 80 kg man would have 12 kg of bone, 36kg of muscles and 12 kg of fat.
Bone is made up of minerals which aren't use for energy.
Fat is universally 9 calories per gram.
Muscle is a little bit more complex. It will vary depending on the individual, since different DNA structures synthesize different types of muscle. A gram of protein is 4 calories, but that won't be useful for us by itself since muscle is mostly water. Hydrated lean muscles are about 20% or so protein with a negligible amount of glycogen. 36 kg of muscle would thus contain 7.2 kg of protein. The caloric density of protein is 4 cal/g.
So we have 12000 g* 9cal/g= 108000 calories from fat
7200 grams of protein* 4 cal/g= 28400 calories
More if our 80 kg person is a woman, since women store more fat and have less muscle.
It's hard to tell from just one photo/angle, but it looks like a snuff box - if you search ebay and antiques sites for "WWI snuffboxes" you'll find images of similarly sized/shaped boxes, although the design of this one looks a bit unusual. They were a very common item from WWI soldiers to have.
Edit: found one with a very similar design, but in a slightly different shape. Definitely a snuff box.
Most content filters do. I was at school when filters had just become common practice. They all sucked. Biology research was impossible, Encyclopedia Britanica was our method for accessing the internet without a firewall. Because it ran from a custom version of IE5/6 you could catch it while it was loading and hit the [link] link that popped up in the loading credits and get unabridged access to the entire internet.
Since the Britannica that we had ran automatically as administrator you could then use that version of IE to install whatever you want, even modify the start screens, sounds etc.
Britannica may suck compared to Wikipedia, but in all honesty I still appreciate their terrible application security from when I was in school.
No we wouldn't, because the "surface" of gas giant planets is defined at the point where there is 1 atmosphere of pressure.
Some history for the right-wing crowd:
>"Fascists made no secret of their hatred of Marxists of all stripes, from totalitarian communists to democratic socialists. Fascists promised to deal more “firmly” with Marxists than had earlier, more democratic rightist parties. Mussolini first made his reputation as a fascist by unleashing armed squads of Blackshirts on striking workers and peasants in 1920–21. Many early Nazis had served in the Freikorps, the paramilitary groups formed by ex-soldiers to suppress leftist activism in Germany at the end of World War I. The Nazi SA (Sturmabteilung [“Assault Division”], or Brownshirts) clashed regularly with German leftists in the streets before 1933, and when Hitler came to power he sent hundreds of Marxists to concentration camps and intimidated “red” neighbourhoods with police raids and beatings..."
Source (sorry it's not the limbaugh letter)
It is the lack of high contrast scenes in the game. Most areas in Diablo III, especially the first two acts that set the mood for the game, are all using a limited, fairly uniform palette. I love that look, if you stop and take a look around it feels like a living painting - but it can't create tension.
Diablo II areas had a limited palette as well, but they always included shadows and highlights, creating tension even on the snow-white, amply-lit parts of Act V.
Speaking of lighting, it was used for maximum effect in Diablo II while it is completely absent from Diablo III. Light and darkness have been replaced with a flat ambient light. This works well with the outdoor settings creating the painting effect, but once again creates no tension at all. It is especially evident on indoor settings like catacombs; it looks gloomy, but there is no darkness at all. Aesthetics aside, this also means that you can always see what is coming to you and you never feel that you are exploring a dangerous place.
tl;dr: flat dynamic range; lack of contrast in colours, ambient lighting without heavy shadows and no light radius mean no tension.
I think the fires were just the "ALERT" signal as you said, and once people were paying attention, you could transmit additional information with lanterns, flags, guns, runners, etc.
That's backed up a little bit here: [link]
because they were helpful against turks a long time ago and they didn't have to deal with russian imperialism against them. They also didn't get to enjoy the communism it brought.
63% of them have favourable view of Russia [link]
did some googling and TIL about [link]
it looks like our Frăția [link]
I would like to know this as well. I have never seen images like this before, and considering that at least one head has been moved off island (the one I've seen is in front of the Bishop Museum in Hawaii), I imagine there would be more information/imagery on the topic.
EDIT: Not a very good source, but it seems that this may indeed be real. Going back through the other threads where this image was posted recently, several comments made it out to be Thor Heyerdahl, so I googled "Thor Heyerdahl easter island full body moai" and that is what I got. Seems legit despite my side-eyeing of Heyerdahl.
EDIT 2: A similar image on Britannica's page. Seems legit. Caption reads: "The tallest standing Easter Island stone statue (about 37 feet [12 metres] high) after being excavated by Thor Heyerdahl (top right, leaning against statue); it was subsequently partially buried again."
Firstly, your statement here is false:
> We can't even take a look at the other half of the galaxy just because of incredibly bright and dense center!
Actually, we can't see the other side not because of the bright center, but because there are huge clouds of dust in between us and the center. In fact, if they weren't there, the center would be a few times brighter than Venus in the night sky!
So, that said, how do we know the Milky Way's shape? There are basically a few observations you can make to tell you the shape of the Milky Way.
1) You can look at the Milky Way, and see how many stars there are in every direction. From this we know the Milky Way is flat, with a bit of a bulge if you are very careful- amazingly, Herschel tried the first map of the Milky Way just by counting stars in all directions in the 18th century. It looks similar to an edge on galaxy today actually...
2) Obviously this isn't right, so the next thing you can do is measure the speeds of various stars in the sky and map how everything is going (you can also map the speeds of dust clouds in the galaxy in the radio). From this a better picture emerges, where we see that these stars have a rotational speed greater than just a random motion. You can thus tell that we're in a spiral galaxy because these stars are rotating around the center... and from looking at various stars' rotational speeds and distances, we can even figure out some of the arms in our galaxy.
3) Finally, we also compare what we see in our galaxy to other spiral galaxies, and we see similar signatures in our galaxy compared to those. Call it a nice double check to an existing model. :)
Hope that helps!
"The consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that while many cultures bestow power preferentially on one sex or the other, matriarchal societies... have never existed."
For anyone wondering, the Java Sea is roughly 900 miles (1,450 km) by 260 miles (420... km) in size and has a mean depth of 151 feet (46 m).
In addition, the sea saw a lot of World War II action. It was here on Feb. 27, 1942 that the Japanese unleashed an offensive that resulted in 2,300 allied sailors killed while only losing 36 of their own :(. With that, it would be interesting to see if authorities come up with anything from that era during this search for additional debris or remains.
The beat comparison is that there were somewhere between 900,000 and 18,000,000 Native Americans living above the Rio Grande ( [link]) but there are more sources for lower numbers around 1 million than the gigantic 18 million number. Additionally, smallpox had a 95% mortality rate, making it easily much worse than the concerted effort of European colonists. I don't know where that 90,000,000 number comes from, but I can't imagine that an additional 70 million people lived in Mexico and South America.
Here's a short historical piece about <strong>Banishment and Exile</strong>, which is what we are discussing here.
Exile and banishment, prolonged absence from one’s country imposed by vested authority as a punitive measure. It most likely originated among early civilizations from the practice of designating an offender an outcast and depriving him of the comfort and protection of his group. Exile was practiced by the Greeks chiefly in cases of homicide, although ostracism was a form of exile imposed for political reasons. In Rome, exile (exsilium) arose as a means of circumventing the death penalty (see capital punishment). Before a death sentence was pronounced, a Roman citizen could escape by voluntary exile. Later, degrees of exile were introduced, including temporary or permanent exile, exile with or without loss of citizenship, and exile with or without confiscation of property. The Romans generally determined punishment by class, applying sentences of banishment to the upper classes and sentences of forced labour to the lower classes.
From the Anglo-Saxon penalty of outlawry, English law developed the practice of banishing criminals as an alternative to capital punishment. By the 18th century, English convicts were being deported to penal colonies in North America and Australia. The first convoy to take the 15,800-mile (25,427 km) trip to Australia departed on May 13, 1787, with 730 prisoners. Banishment and transportation to Australia ended in 1868. In the 20th century, exile was frequently imposed for political offenses, a notorious destination being the Russian region of Siberia, especially during the era of the Soviet Union.
This is not a political statement. Revisionism is a well known and fascinating aspect of both historic and contemporary Marxist political debate and theoretical discourse; given the profound influence Marxist thinking has had in shaping wider left-wing discourses (both in the sense that it has inspired and been challenged by them), it is a debate that also has significance for both the history of social democracy and academia (where Marxist thinking and debate has had a profound influence on a number of fields). Whilst you can have revisionism in any kind of field, this is definitely one of the more notable and famous examples of an area where there has been a lot of debate over revisionism, its prevalence and its legitimacy as a practice.
Reagan was talking about "those brave workers in Poland" and you do realize that in 1980, Poland was communist hence, no private sector.
It's a theory, but in the mid-18th century, a handful of piano makers were experimenting with uprights. Domenico del Mela and German Christian Ernst Friederici both made these kinds of pianos. My thought is you're looking at one of these, mainly because of how close the pins are to the keys, and that you only have about 6 octaves (Pianoforte-style). Also, the hammers/actions are hidden, so not sure. That said, it could also be a wall-climber piano (in the style of William Southwell).
More googling leads me to believe it is a "Giraffe" piano. Couldn't find one with bookcases like yours, but it's the right build for it.
Best of luck!
/u/Bobb-o_Bob mentions that it could be a clavicytherium. Looking at the angles of the pin block, and the hidden actions, this is definitely also a strong possibility. I don't see hammers or plectra, so without that info, it's hard to surmise what it really is.
That said, this thing has been out of vogue for at least 150 years.
>Obama was raised poor
>Don't think Hillary Clinton was "born with a silver spoon in their mouth" but middle-upper class (raised in a suburb, her dad managed a successful small business in the textile industry). Unlike Obama she's been rich for decades though.
She grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, where her father’s textile business provided the family with a comfortable income; her parents’ emphasis on hard work and academic excellence set high standards.
I'm not sure what they use as the basis for 'comfortable.' but seeing as she went to Yale, one has to believe the comfort level is pretty subjective.
When I speak of being poor, I mean someone who has had to deal with the health care industry while not being able to afford insurance. Someone who has experienced our criminal justice system as someone who couldn't afford an attorney to represent them. Someone who has dealt with a public defender when all they do is plea bargain and convince someone to accept it. Someone who had to visit a pantry or rely on donations from a church to have meals. Someone who was raised on food stamps and see how the welfare system works. Neither of those have ever experienced any of that.
>The Katyn massacre was in 1940, prior to the war between Germany and the USSR
Yes, and why were they not at war yet? The Molontov-Ribbentrop Pact. Hitler and the Soviets divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. And WWII began with the German invasion of Poland in 39'. So while yes, the USSR was not involved, the massacre clearly occurred at least partially within the context of WWII.
>And blaming the massacre of the Warsaw Uprising on the USSR is extremely debatable
It is debatable. It's certainly fairly controversial. But many Soviet moves clearly were not motivated by logistical necessity. For example;
>the Soviet government refused to allow the western Allies to use Soviet air bases to airlift supplies to the beleaguered Poles.
They also had a clear motivation to let the London backed Poles within Warsaw thin themselves out on the enemy.
>By allowing the Germans to suppress the Warsaw Uprising, the Soviet authorities also allowed them to eliminate the main body of the military organization that supported the Polish government-in-exile in London. Consequently, when the Soviet army occupied all of Poland, there was little effective organized resistance to its establishing Soviet political domination over the country and imposing the communist-led Provisional Government of Poland (Jan. 1, 1945).
And finally, Soviet authorities told the Poles to revolt. Clearly implying a level of support that they never provided.
>As the Red Army approached Warsaw (July 29–30, 1944), Soviet authorities, promising aid, encouraged the Polish underground there to stage an uprising against the Germans.
This dude is joking, he's talking about adopting a goat instead of a human child. As /u/ptahhotep said in an earlier post, "kid" can also mean young goat.
>I find no reference to the actual reason of the winter solstice in the story of Chist's birth.
Exactly. Jesus was not born anywhere near the winter solstice. The date was moved specifically to allow people who celebrated the solstice and Saturnalia to continue celebrating. And the celebration of Sol Invictus actually was held on the 25th. Source
The last group of pagans lasted up until the 14th century. The Baltic Pagans managed to exist so long mainly thanks to isolation and generally keeping to themselves. However, Prussian raiding groups eventually led to a Polish Prince calling upon the Teutonic Order to come and cleanse the pagans. Within the next few decades the Teutons preform something that can best be described as religious genocide, mercilessly slaughtering pagans as they went. Eventually, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Jogaila, married the 14 year old Queen Hedwig of Poland and converted to Catholicism in an attempt to stop the war with the Teutons. The Teutons continued until their decisive defeat at Tannenberg in 1410.
I also disagree with some of his positions, but it's still an interesting talk.
>he described porn as - 'filmed prostitution'
That's a very old definition of pornography (a notoriously difficult phenomenon to define). In fact, that's the etymological root of the word.
>I hope he has something worthwhile and original to say
It was mainly the hands thing that I thought you'd like. He's not the first to talk about the lack of sensuality through touch in porn, or its overall effects on society, but his observations about how it affected him personally on a psychological level were thought-provoking, and the way he knitted all the facets together into a coherent narrative certainly has rhetorical force.
Well, there is a massive amount of atmosphere, so 0.000055% of that is pretty substantial. Let's work it out.
A quick search of The Google tells us that the atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion (that's 5,500,000,000,000,0000) tons.
0.000055% of that is 3,025,000,000 (three billion, twenty-five million) tons. That's a shitload, especially considering we only use about 11million tons of oil every year.
As for your second question, when we burn (most) things in our atmosphere they combust by reacting with oxygen, therefore, we get 2 Hydrogens + 1 Oxygen = H₂O
So this does sound pretty viable, if it all works out. I'd point out that these calculations were done pretty quick, and I'd welcome anyone else who'd like to to check my math.
Edit: added subscript (thanks /u/webchimp32)
Edit 2: It's been pointed out that the math here, whilst still correct in itself, relies on a few faulty assumptions. Sorry :( Please refer to /u/LifeAuction's comments here
Edit 3: copypasta from my comment below; okay, you guys need to chill; this isn't my idea, I just did the math on the comnent above about 0.00055% being a small amount. I was simply pointing out that it is in fact still a huge amount, even though it's a small proportion.
And I do verily believe that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being in force in the United States (which principle possesses the general government at once of all the powers of the state governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government), it would become the most corrupt government on the earth.
Put in to camps, actually, right before she says
>I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s shit.
And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being shit.
So... she wants to make modern feminism into a new version of The Shakers?
I'm ok with this.
FFS, SJWism really IS like a cult...
No, the treaty of 1910 was forced on the Japanese on the guise of a mutual treaty. In fact, it was nullified in the 1960s by a mutual treaty. I don't know where you are coming up with this. The Koreans did not support the Japanese occupiers. The March 1st movement involved 2 million demonstrators in Korea. The movement spanned into Manchuria as well.
You seem to be making up history as you go.
To expand the example a little bit:
Because the Great Lakes are freshwater, they are lakes instead of seas - even though they are connected to the world ocean.
But saltwater lakes, like the Great Salt Lake, are lakes even though they are saltwater because they are not directly connected to the world ocean. Because of this same fact, the Dead Sea is technically a lake despite its name. [link]
Hey, look what I made!
Did no one catch this???
> versified animal tales that satirize contemporary human society
>Help make it happen
for Sarah Nyberg Libel Fund and Reynard Fox!
>Wikipedia promotes itself as an "encyclopedia" (with the goal to replace Encyclopedia Britannica)
If Wikipedia's goal is to replace Encyclopedia Britannica then Encyclopedia Britannica's goal must be to replace Buzzfeed.
For perspective: 1/6 of an army would be something like 20 000 people, assuming full paper strength.^1
The Eastern Front alone had 30 million casualties, all told.
The Red Army lost about 11 million soldiers.^2
Thus the chances of not being a victim of the German genocide in the East were abysmally slim.
so the auteur theory was pioneered by French film buffs in the Cahiers du Cinema around the 1950s (though if often associated with the French "New Wave" of thd 1960s) and it reinvented many aspects of film criticism. This lead to a revolution which pushed directors much further out in front. I think Britannica has a good one sentence definition of the theory here:
> The auteur theory, which was derived largely from Astruc's elucidation of the concept of caméra-stylo (“camera-pen”), holds that the director, who oversees all audio and visual elements of the motion picture, is more to be considered the “author” of the movie than is the writer of the screenplay
one key difference is film is a visual medium, the Mise en scene is an important part of the work more so arguably than even the script.
essentially it was argued a director puts his firm stamp on all the films he makes and a good clear example of this is John Ford (who i'm told hated the theory and saw film as a collaborative effort-i can't source that though) which also highlights how this idea brings even non "high art" directors into its definition. I can't really talk about what existed before this but here's i think the key part of your answer
> The surface of this solid layer, where the pressure is lowest, is composed of an extremely dense form of iron.
It would look like a shiny metal!
You link to a catholic website to counter the claim that the catholic church killed Bruno over science. How interesting.
Here are two secular sources which disagree with that catholic website.
Wow, I dont see anyone commenting about the US house/senate elections in 1994. On November 8, 1994 Republicans regained the House and Senate for the first time 40 years (though they had controlled the Senate in periods of time more recently).
The Democratic loss was brought about by a myriad of issues including the dying off of the highly Democratic "Greatest Generation" as well as the final part of the backlash against the Civil Rights laws the Democrats had passed in the 1960s.
Brief piece: [link]
If you want a more in depth book on the subject (since Southern Republicans are still a dominant force in American Politics today) I highly recommend "The Rise of Southern Republicans"
I hate to piggyback but I would also like to mention that his article that he referenced, while perhaps not wrong, is in fact a blog with zero citation. and not a scholarly article.
What should have been pointed out right away is that it doesn't matter what a number of revered ancestors/farmers thought two and a half centuries ago. If an idea is good, it stands on its own merits, not on whose mouth it came out of. This is basically a mix of appeal to authority and appeal to tradition.
EDIT: Forgot to add non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that having a religious belief entails pushing it in your government. So even if some of the founding fathers were Christian, that has no bearing on if Christianity is the foundation of American Government.
It has been suggested that when gambling first originated, it was associated with predicting the future/fate and divinity:
>The origin of gambling is considered to be divinatory: by casting marked sticks and other objects and interpreting the outcome, man sought knowledge of the future and the intentions of the gods. From this it was a very short step to betting on the outcome of the throws. The Bible contains many references to the casting of lots to divide property.
>However, in ancient times casting lots was not considered to be gambling in the modern sense but instead was connected with inevitable destiny, or fate. Anthropologists have also pointed to the fact that gambling is more prevalent in societies where there is a widespread belief in gods and spirits whose benevolence may be sought.
Source, from the <em>History</em> section
Social Media has never been viable, because it requires such a low commitment from its user base, and doesn't have any mechanisms to filter itself. People Tweet to hear themselves speak, and we can empirically show the relation between Narcissism and Twitter. (Not Kidding. Go find the study.)
Investors mistook Social Media as if it was the second coming of Television, but in reality each media platform has its own effects on society. Instead of making an independent observation on how humans react with Social Media, we hopped aboard the Hyper train, with billions lost.
And rather than treating what Social Media actually is capable of (not much,) we 'projected' what we wanted on it, as if history is a linear function.
What was really embarrassing, was that I had a political science professor tell me that a democratic revolution wasn't possible without twitter.
People today lack any kind of historical perspective, and fail to understand how atypical our life really is.
We have a number of worldviews which are failing us, but we can't call them out, because the past is for losers.
In the future, people will consider morons for believing some of the most obvious bullshit....especially the things that are 'politically correct.'
CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas
>The gaseous air pollutants of primary concern in urban settings include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide; these are emitted directly into the air from fossil fuels such as fuel oil, gasoline, and natural gas that are burned in power plants, automobiles, and other combustion sources. Ozone (a key component of smog) is also a gaseous pollutant; it forms in the atmosphere via complex chemical reactions occurring between nitrogen dioxide and various volatile organic compounds (e.g., gasoline vapours).
From the article:
>orporatism, Italian corporativismo, also called corporativism, the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the “corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups.
It's closer to "syndicalism" rather than "rule by money".
Onto part 2:
From the article:
> Capitalism, also called free market economy, or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.
There is no demonstrable relationship between "capitalism" and "bad businesses".
Well, Encyclopedia Britannica, Oxford Reference, and other encyclopedia sites and books I found all refer to him as "Willy", so unless you have a source that says he was never called Willy I am inclined to believe that Wikipedia made the right decision here.
"In less than an hour"
Well the first 4 minutes were making sure everyone in the house knew you were going to be on the internet and to not pick up the phone. Then, if no one was expecting any calls, it was another 5 minutes of redialing to see if you could connect at 26.4 instead of 24.6, not that you could really tell the difference. After listening to the modem play you the song of its people, you were there, and it would only take another minute or two to get Alta Vista to come up.
After that, you'd submit your search terms. At this point you had another minute or two to go grab a Capri Sun, even though you weren't allowed to have drinks near the computer.
When your search results came back, they would obviously not be sorted by relevance because that wasn't a real thing yet. What you want is probably on page 4 or so, worst case scenario. This is because there are only 4 pages of results. Oh and skip the Britannica link - that costs money. Still does. Seriously, scroll down. "To continue reading, activate your free trial".
About now you will be randomly disconnected, so you start the whole thing over again, except this time you give Excite! a chance.
When you do find some sort of relevant information, it will be contained in a website with a poorly compressed animated background that drags the page loading down to a glacial pace and makes much of the text illegible. You select all of the text with ctrl-a in order to get some contrast.
The rule of thumb for all questions like this is
"It was invented by E. E. 'Doc' Smith in the 1930s."
- I don't know if that's actually true in this case, but it may well be.
I tossed in Afghanistan before I picked up the link, but Afghanistan had long been part of the maneuvering between Russia and Britain I tossed it in there specifically because it's known as "The Death of Empires" because there's no way to pacify that many small isolated raiding mountain tribes.
But seriously, LOOK AT THE FUCKING MAP. What does that say? Persia Afghanistan 1848.
Damn, son, read the actual links.
Not true, at least according to this article. The massacre occured on the 3rd and 4th of June, and the article states that the event occurred after the massacre.
>By June 5 the military had secured complete control, though during the day there was a notable, widely reported incident involving a lone protester momentarily facing down a column of tanks as it advanced on him near the square.