Welcome to The Daily Question, a blog dedicated to the advancements in modern random fact gathering. A new question will be posted everyday, about almost anything, so please check back soon. Also, feel free to check out the archives, which are full of more fun facts. Have fun!

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Bloggers Need Breaks Too

The Daily Question will be on vacation from June 28th until July 15th. Feel free to check out the archives in absence of a daily question. ENJOY THE SUMMER!

Sunday, June 21, 2009

June 21- Presidents

Since it is The Daily Question's trend to incorporate questions with holidays, it would be a crime not to ask a presidential question about Father's Day. I was going to ask how many father/son pairs there were in the White House, but that's to easy. To Google I went. Originally, Father's Day (or Fathers' Day, if you're an English major) was started in Eastern Washington state in the 1910's. By the 1930's, companies had begun marketing the holiday as a commercial day. But who made it a "holiday"? With that, I ask the question: Which president made Father's Day a federal Holiday?








The president was Lyndon Johnson, and he declared it in 1966.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

June 20- Random

Could you imagine a world without pens? More specifically, could you imagine a world without ballpoint pens? You may laugh, but there are many things that make pens more useful than pencils. You can sign papers with them, they don't have to be sharpened, and they aren't scarily sharp. But alas, there was a time where ballpoint pens didn't exist. In fact, it wasn't until 1938 that the ballpoint pen was invented by two brothers living in Europe. One was a newspaper editor, and the other a chemist. Their idea for a pen with a free moving ball and ink cartridge was patented in 1938. By 1940, they had started a successful pen company in Argentina. The idea was noticed by an American, who started selling the pens at Gimbels in 1949. But, for my daily question, I ask: what are the names of the brothers who came up with the original ballpoint pen idea?





The brothers were Lazlo and Georg Biro.
If you liked that fact, I noticed it while reading "The Mental Floss History of the World". It's a fantastic book. Pick it up at pretty much any bookstore, even if you don't like history.

Friday, June 19, 2009

June 19- Music

This question comes from true procrastinetic dismay. Originally, I was going to post something about musical theory- what the treble clef means, what 4/4 means at the beginning of a song, or in between certain measures. It's to late in the day for that. Next I wandered into the realm of bands, something I am more comfortable with. But all those questions are lame. What am I supposed to ask? Who is the drummer for The Police? That's a ridiculous question to ask such fine intellectuals like yourselves. We're about trivia here, not trivial! Anyway... I ended up going with something that isn't so much musical trivia, but something that might possibly make you hum a tune while surfing the web. So for my question today, I ask: How many times does a bell ring before the guitar starts on the song "Hell's Bells by AC/DC?


I'm truly sorry...



The bell rings 4 times, and continues ringing once the guitar starts.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

June 18- Sports

Since I am blogging right now to avoid studying for French finals, it makes perfect sense that this question be about a sport loved by the French people, and pretty much every country outside the U.S.: Soccer/Football. Now for 1000's of years, countries from all over the world have developed their own versions of ball games. The Greeks and Romans are especially known for having games like modern day soccer/football. But, unfortunately, it is my unpleasant duty to announce today that though the word "ball" implies "sphere", the shape of a soccer ball is not a sphere. Which brings me to my daily question: What shape is a soccer ball?






The shape of a soccer ball is actually a, well, uhhh, it's a truncated icosahedron. Basically, a bunch of hexagons and octagons sewn together.
For more info visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truncated_icosahedron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

June 17- Geography

Isn't the National Geographic Society great? From their Bees to their magazine, National Geographic is full of fun and useful information. How useful, you might just be asking. Well first of all, the magazine was great today when I was hanging out in a radio station after school. Second, the magazine came enclosed with a nifty little map of Asia. But more importantly, this most recent July '09 issue provided me with a cool question for today. Some of you might have heard of a place called Angkor. Old city. Destroyed. All that jazz. Anyway, when I first started reading the article, I could not place where Angkor was, until the article was significantly underway. So, for my daily question, I ask: Where is the destroyed city of Angkor located?


By the way, I'd just like to throw out a thanks to a certain radio station that did a shout out about The Question today... appreciate it!!!


Angkor is a region in Cambodia. Not to be confused with Angkor Wat, (as I was) which is a temple complex within the region of Angkor.
To read more about Angkor, visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor
For Angkor Wat, visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat
For National Geographic: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ (also features a link to the Angkor Wat article.)

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

June 16- Science

I hope you are as excited as I am to be returning to the regular daily loop. Today's question is a bit of a cross-over question between science and music, so I did have a bit of turmoil coming down to the decision. As you can most certainly tell, I chose to put it under science. Since it was beautiful today, I decided to sit out on my sun porch and listen to music. And not just normally listening to music on a sissy iPod, I mean listening to music on the phonograph. If you've never listened to music on a record player before, you definitely should some time. Anyway, all this was brought on today when I was looking downstairs in my basement and found a container of jazz records. Well, you can bet I popped those guys in there as soon as I could get up the stairs. And as I watched the record spin tunes from the likes of Prima and Brubeck, I began to wonder how it was actually being brought to me. So for my daily question, I ask: How does a phonograph work?







There is an infinity of informational depth that you could get into on the subject of sound, and no one, me especially, likes hearing complexities that I couldn't care less about. So basically, a record is started with a sound. The sound travels down a tube, and makes a part called the diaphragm vibrate. The diaphragm is connected to a stylus, that then pushes down on the new record, at this point made out of wax. The record is on a platform being spun as the imprints are being made on it. Think of it as the childrens' song about bones: The sound is connected to the, diaphragm. The diaphragm's connected to the, stylus. The stylus is connected to the, record. This process makes a piece of wax with tiny little groves all over it. Now, do it in reverse. When you put the wax on a spinning platform, and let the stylus spin slowly down it, the sound is sent down a diaphragm, and out the horn. Then, a contented jazz enthusiast can obsorb the music.
For more info visit: http://www.pbs.org/weta/roughscience/series2/challenges/sound/page3.html

Monday, June 15, 2009

This Ongoing Week's Peculiarity Part 2

In fear of jeopardizing the success of The Question, I am going to post my entire paper, and then return to normal postings. Hope you enjoy! If in the unlikely event you experience a spelling or grammatical error, please comment and tell me so.

What it Takes to be Great
Throughout the course of American history, a select few behemoths of men and women have forever changed the face of culture, society, and even the American way of life itself. They have included politicians, artists, war heroes, writers and athletes. Most have come from different lifestyles, different states, and different niches. So what brings these exclusive few into the pantheon of American greatness? In my opinion, their ability to affect the public came from their ability to effectively communicate with the public. There is no better example than that of George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant. Both were shockingly different, yet both had successful careers as high ranking generals and then two-term presidents. At first glance, it seems improbable that they had anything in common, but if you look just beneath the surface, you can see their two genius techniques of reaching out to the common man, through public image and social behavior.
Ulysses S. Grant was born on April 27, 1822 in Ohio. He was born into a middle class family. His father, Jesse, owned a modestly successful tannery that brought a fair amount of money into the family. Jesse Grant was very ambitious and opinionated. He acquired these personality traits when working for a judge’s family. They helped educate him and get his tannery started (Bunting 9). On the other side of the spectrum, his mother Hannah was often described as a quiet or taciturn woman, a term often used to depict Grant (Bunting 9, Bunting 2). Ulysses had 5 siblings, and for most of his life, he remained one of his father’s favorites. For this reason, his father often pushed him towards greatness and nothing less. One example of this was his father’s insistence that he go to boarding school in preparation for attendance at West Point and a career in the military. Although he ultimately followed this path, the military life was originally not appealing to Grant.
Now this is the first difference we can see between the two. George Washington was born on February 22, 1732. However, he wasn’t being pushed for greatness the way Grant was by his father. Being born into an aristocratic Southern family, he might not have been able to do much more than be a gentleman farmer (Howard). The closest thing that came to academic excellence for Washington was being sent to boarding school a couple of times. By the time he was 16 he had established some connections and was trying to accumulate land.
One thing that can be said of Grant at this point is that he was a “doer”, and remained so for his entire life. During the Civil War, Grant usually did what needed to be done, quickly and efficiently. A job started was always finished. “One of my superstitions has always been when I started to go anywhere, or to do anything, not to have to turn back until the thing intended was accomplished.” (Bunting 11) This attitude helped him get through West Point, and by the time he was through, actually enjoy it.
Here is yet another difference between the two. Though Washington was certainly ambitious, he was not known as a fast reactor. During the Revolutionary War and his presidency, he would often hold war councils or cabinet meetings. The meetings took time, however, with a cabinet of Henry Knox, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the outcome was often good decision making. (The Presidents episode 1)
One thing Grant and Washington did have in common was their love of horses. Both were called some of the best horsemen of their day (The Presidents episode 1, Bunting 18.)
One attribute that made Grant good for riding was his size. Even when he was entering into West Point at the age of 17 he weighed 117lbs and stood 5’1”. Washington rode more for show, which is probably good since his height was over 6 feet (Presidents episode 1).
Only one year after Grant’s graduation from West Point, The Mexican War was beginning. Grant experienced much action throughout the war. This war gave him a chance to hone some of his fighting skills which later made him an effective general. The Mexican War provided him an opportunity to be under fire. In his first glance at combat, he was ordered by Zachary Taylor to attack Mexico’s right flank as an infantryman. Another glance at combat for Grant was his volunteer mission through Monterrey. In this instance, he rode through the streets leaning on the side of his horse, so no one had a shot at him, a tricky equestrian feat at the least (Bunting 24). He was also known to take care of his wounded men. Many of his peers remember Grant tending for the wounded after battle (Bunting 24). Showing his aggressiveness on the battlefield and sympathy towards his men are both traits of a good general and one that would help Grant later.
Here, we can see how Grant’s and Washington’s army experience differ from each other. Even though Washington and Grant participated in smaller wars before the ones they are known for, Washington was rapidly thrown into battle in his early years. His first major command in the French and Indian War was the defense of Fort Necessity. Fort Necessity was built after a brief run in with the French, who were a much larger force. The fort was not very well defended, and Washington later had to surrender to the French. Further into the war, when Washington was under the command of British General Edward Braddock, Braddock was conducting a march to Fort Duquesne. The British were ambushed. American Indians were swarming from the sides of the road, attacking the widely uncovered red-coats in a thin line along the road. Braddock was eventually killed, and Washington had two horses shot from under him and four holes put through his jacket (Adler 53). This was not a good way to begin a military career, especially compared to Grant’s string of successes.
The war with Mexico was only the beginning of Grant’s military career. If not for the bloodiest conflict in American history, the Civil War, his career would have probably spun into some dark corner of history. Grant’s go-get’em attitude helped him in his first war, and would undoubtedly help him win the next. Early in the war, the union suffered at the hands of many inept generals. However, at this same time, Ulysses S. Grant was along out in the West, rising through the ranks, and helping to capture imperative locations along the Mississippi River (Dallek, et al 552)
Fortunately for the Union, Grant’s work in the West didn’t go unnoticed. As early as February, 1862, he was commanding large units of men. He continued to keep pushing, and effectively controlled large chunks of Confederate land near the Mississippi River. (Dallek, et al 552)
In March, 1864, Grant was given command of all Union Armies. This was a great honor only bestowed on a few since. He continued to be aggressive, this time through Northern Virginia. He wanted Lee, and wanted him bad. With a seemingly blatant disregard for casualties, Grant pushed his men forward after Lee. Just in one battle, the battle of The Wilderness, he lost 17,000 men. At Cold Harbor, 7,000 men lost. But Grant failed to cease, “Whatever happens, we will not retreat” (Dallek, et al 552). This method worked, and Grant finally caught Lee, forcing him to surrender on April 9th, 1865, effectively ending the war.
Washington’s experience was quite the opposite. He was on the defending side of the conflict. The British had legions of men to send against America, while he only had a few militia men. Washington’s plans had to be focused more on strategy, though sometimes they were executed with aggression. The famous example of crossing the Delaware to capture a fort in Trenton on Christmas Eve is just one example of aggression with careful planning. Not that I’m insinuating Grant didn’t have good strategy also, it’s just that Washington didn’t have the men to spend.
Washington got to make these strategic decisions through a series of lucky breaks. Even though he was part of some unsuccessful missions in the French and Indian war, he was brought up to rank of Colonel by the end of the conflict. During the beginning of the Revolution, 1775, he was made military advisor for New York. After that, in a short period of time, he was made Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army (Howard). After years of Guerrilla tactics, and some well planned Napoleonic techniques, America had the opposing general, Cornwallis, cornered. He eventually surrendered at the end of the Battle of Yorktown.
And for these two men, their stories could easily have ended there. They both had money, celebrity, power, and yet, there destiny had not been completely found. Both still had more years of dedicated service to their country. After their victories, they were almost guaranteed to be nominees for president, if not easily being elected. In fact, George Washington didn’t even have a campaign, and was elected unanimously
(Presidents episode 1). Grant won by a pretty good margin both times he ran also. Thankfully, for the sake of historical comparison, they had similar problems to deal with while in office, the main problems being domestic.
A misconception of Grant’s presidency was that he really didn’t do much, and the entire time he was fighting scandals. After the war, things weren’t all well and good in the South. At the time, the Ku Klux Klan was wreaking havoc on African-Americans in the Deep South. To combat the killing, Grant launched a war on terrorism, and went after the KKK. In the end, Grant is able to temporarily destroy the KKK with help from many federal troops.
Where he ran into problems was in his second term. Even after his cabinet, mostly made up of people Grant owed a favor or friends of his family, continued to discredit the executive branch with scandals, he continued to trust them. Then, Southern states were taken by the Democrats. This created a lot of political tension, so when violence started up again in the South, Grant was unable to do anything (Presidents episode 4).
Thankfully, Washington’s domestic problem wasn’t as severe as Grant’s, but he acted in a very similar way. To help pay for the Revolutionary War, new taxes were being put in place on liquor. Farmers in Western Pennsylvania didn’t like that, since they made a lot of whiskey. In response, the farmers were trying to start a rebellion. As soon as he got the news, Washington mustered up some troops and quickly stomped out the riot, without a single shot being fired (Presidents episode 1).
So if they both had similar problems that were both dealt with effectively, why then is Washington thought of as one of the better presidents, and Grant is usually forgotten (Presidents episode 4). The answer can be found in the second term of their presidential stays. After Grant’s men continued to betray him, he naively took no action. Washington on the other hand, since he placed some of the smartest cabinet members together, didn’t have as many internal problems. In fact, he was able to build a capital and make a federal banking system. Once again, there are two techniques that made these men completely different.
So what made them successful? I don’t think you could achieve a higher level of success in America than being a top commanding general then president for two terms. So what did they have in common? As I said before, how they were able to become great was through their ability to connect. This is one of the only common traits between the two, even down to their appearance. Grant was often described as “seedy”, yet in pictures of Washington, you can always see him standing tall and regal (Presidents episode 1) (Leadership). Yet through all these differences, they could motivate people. One way they did this was to be with the soldiers they were leading. Washington was freezing at Valley Forge along with his men. Grant was sometimes described as a “dust covered man on a dust covered horse”, meaning that he was often riding right along side of his Union troops (Civil War). What both these generals did was offer inspiration to their men.
What these generals also offered was an aggressive attack. Just looking back into history, I am reminded of times when soldiers would follow an aggressive leader into battle, even if their plan was less than intelligent. Soldiers don’t want to be under
command of a cowardly leader, nor would anyone for that matter. As I showed earlier, their tactics, and personality traits show their aggressiveness.
Another thing that helped them get noticed was their public image. Washington especially mastered this concept. One of the first things he did as president was to go to every state in the new country. When traveling, he would ride comfortably in a stagecoach, but right before he entered a town, hop onto his beautiful white equine, and win the hearts of all that lived there. Grant took a different approach. He was one of the most photographed people of the 1800’s (Presidents episode 4). It would be very had for someone not to know who Ulysses S. Grant was, and what he looked like.
So why does this matter now? Because, contrary to popular belief, people aren’t much different now than they were 150 years ago. Two completely different men who had two frighteningly similar challenges both meet their goal with relative success. This undeniably shows that the ability to connect with the people that you lead and work with through aggressiveness and like ability can bring you as far as you’d like to go, if that be general, president, or both.




Work Cited
Bunting, Josiah. Ulysses S. Grant Times Books, 2004
Adler, David A. George Washington: An Illustrated Biography United States of America: Holiday House, 2004
Howard, Alan B. “Toward Fact: A Biography” University of Virginia June 2009. June 9, 2009
“Valley of the Shadow of Death” The Civil War Prod. Ken Burns. PBS.
“Episode 1: 1789-1825” The Presidents. A&E Television Network, 2004
“Episode 4: 1865-1885” The Presidents. A&E Television Network, 2004
Dallek, Robert, et al. American History: Beginnings Through Reconstruction. Evanston: McDougal Littell, 2008.
(Serious NOTE: There is one resource that I do not have with me currently to cite, but it was a magazine article about the leadership of Washington. For the in page citation, it is under (Leadership). As soon as I find it, I will add it to the works cited list.)





Wednesday, June 10, 2009

June 10- Geography

Sorry I haven't been regular with the blog, but as I said before, it's going to be a busy last couple days of school. I will post my paper as promised, but I want to make sure it is up to par. Hopefully tomorrow I can have the first section out. Anyway, just to satisfy your hunger for more daily facts, this question comes straight from Africa. This country has done fairly well for itself over the years against invaders, and they aren't afraid to show it. On the national flag, they actually have a picture of an AK-47 assault rifle. So, for my question, I ask: Which coastal African country has an AK-47 on their flag?





The country is Mozambique.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

June 7- This Week's Peculiarity: Part 1

As this school year rounds to a close at an ever alarming rate, I can't be 100% sure of of being able to write up a question everyday. More specifically, I have a research paper due the 16th. WAIT. Before you burst into tears, I have good news! I'm pulling a Charles Dickens. No, I'm not growing mutton chops. Instead, I am going to release my paper in a few parts everyday. The rough draft is due Wednesday, so I should have it spaced out so it will be completely posted by Friday. So what is this paper about that makes it so much more important than The Question (besides the fact that it is about 25% of my grade)? Well, in it I am comparing George Washington and Ulysses Grant. Both were completely different men (as you'll find out), and yet, they both were very successful generals and presidents. What makes them similar? Well, hopefully as this saga continues, I will convince you of how this is in fact possible.

So without further ado, I give part one of my research paper:

Throughout the course of American history, a select few behemoths of men and women have forever changed the face of culture, society, and even the American way of life itself. They have been politicians, musicians, war heroes, writers and even athletes. Most have come from different lifestyles, different states, and different niches. So what brings these exclusive few into the pantheon of American greatness? In my opinion, their ability to affect the public came from their ability to effectively communicate with them. There is no better example of this than that of George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant. Both were shockingly different, yet both had successful careers as high ranking generals and then 2 term presidents. At first glance, it seems improbable that they had anything in common, but if you look just beneath the surface, you can see their two genius techniques of reaching out to the common man, through public image and social behavior.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

June 6- Random

I'd just like to start off this post with stating how hard it is to come up with a random question that doesn't fit into any other category. So today, I am going to ask a question that isn't quite intellectualy stimulating, but just random cinema trivia. Bruce Lee was a founding father of the "Kung Fu" film industry. Pioneering movie techniques that are still in use today, Lee has left his mark on fighting movies forever. However, he was able to do so in a short amount of time. This brings me to my daily question: How many movies was Bruce Lee in?




He been in 26 movies: "Game of Death II" (1981);"Game of Death" (1978); "Enter the Dragon" (1973); "Return of the Dragon" (1973); "The Chinese Connection" (1973);"Fists of Fury" (1971); "Marlowe" (1969); "Ren hai gu hong" (1960); "Lei yu" (1957); "Zha dian na fu" (1956); "Zao zhi dang cu wo bu jia" (1956); "Er nu zhai" (1955); "Ai xia ji" (1955); "Gu er xing" (1955); "Ai" (1955); "An Orphan's Tragedy" (DVD title) (1955); "Wei lou chun xiao" (1953); "Ci mu lei" (1953); "Ku hai ming deng" (1953); "Qian wan ren jia" (1953); "It's Father's Fault" (1953); "Ren zhi Chu" (1951); "My Son, Ah Chung" (1950); "Meng li xi shi" (1949); "Fu gui fu yun" (1948); and"The Birth of Mankind" (1946).

And since I blatantly copied that, here is my source, and their sources: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080923172656AAu7Hyu

Friday, June 5, 2009

June 5- Music

Can you believe those writers at The Daily Question? 2 entire days without posts! Well, hopefully I can succeed in quelling your zero-Daily Question sadness. A few hours ago, I got back from a dance.. on a boat. All in all, it was pretty good, however, there were a few songs that no one really likes, and kind of stands in the side of the room for. Anyhow, when I was fashionably standing on the side, I thought of what question I should ask today. Then it hit me! I'm listening to MUSIC, on a BOAT! How about a question inquiring into the realm of nautical music! Back in the good ole' days, large sailing ships were controlled by sails. This method was used late into the 19th century. To control the sails, many sailors would have to pull at different ropes at the right times to get the desired speed. As you could imagine, getting dozens of people to do something perfectly in unison could be a difficult task. To help combat this problem, songs came into being that had a certain rhythm for pulling. Each job had its own beat, making the pulling completely efficient. So for my daily question I ask: What is the name of this kind of song?







The name of this genre of music is a "Sea Shanty".

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

June 2- Science

In 2006, 5% of astronomers worldwide voted on a subject that would be hotly debated until now, and probably for a while to come. What vote could this possibly be? The split decision to degrade Pluto from being a planet to a dwarf planet. How could such an atrocity have taken place? How dare the IAU make such a decision?! It's to small to be a planet anyway...whatever your opinion is, technically, Pluto isn't a planet anymore. So for my daily question, I ask: Why?







The new definition of a planet is a bit more complex than the former definition of a planet. First, a planet must orbit around the sun. Well, lots of things do that. Comets, Asteroids, all that stuff. It needs to have enough gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape. Gravity is a force that surrounds anything with mass. The more mass, the more gravity. If there is enough mass, an object can pull itself into a ball, the tightest object it can become. Pluto can do that. Finally, a planet must clear everything near its orbit. This is where Pluto just doesn't match up. There are lots of thing near Pluto that it just doesn't have enough gravity to pull into it. So, unfortunately for now, Pluto remains a "dwarf planet".

Monday, June 1, 2009

June 1- History

I don't mean to brag, but I have quite an extensive iTunes collection. Miles Davis, Grateful Dead, Talking Heads-you name it, its on there. But with a great iTunes library, also comes embarrassment. One time, I was talking to my friend on the phone and listening to my iPod on shuffle, and it was blasting over the speakers, and then, to my dismay and utter chagrin, ABBA pops on. I had a good reason, it was on there for a mix tape I had previously made for my mom, but the deed had been done. So why am I telling you this? Well, it's not an interesting story, but is in fact a quintessential anecdote! You see, the song that popped on was Waterloo, and being the history buff that I am, decided to check out the lyrics to see if there was any relation to the famous battle; and in fact, there was! The songs states: My, my/ At Waterloo Napoleon did surrender. Anyway, you can see where this is going. So for my daily question, I ask: Where was the Battle of Waterloo and what was it about?













The Battle of Waterloo was Napoleon's last ditch attempt to save his thrown on his 100 days back from exile during the Waterloo Campaign. Napoleon was eventually forced to surrender. It was fought just South of Brussels, Belgium in Waterloo. The sides were basically France against all the other major European powers to protect their interests.