Answer:
Answer for question 1: Re-enactors will never be able to completely replicate all of the situations and challenges of life in the past. Re-enactors, like historians, suffer limitations that cannot be ignored. A paucity of historical sources, for example, may mean that a recreated regiment can never be certain that its clothes are identical to those worn by troops serving in the regiment in the past. Furthermore, for the reasons of cleanliness and safety, certain characteristics cannot be replicated. Most re-enactment groups attempt to compensate for these inescapable modern effects (such as the use of modern toilets rather than digging a trench and food carried from home rather than scavenged in a nearby village) by striving for a realistic representation in every other manner.
Answer for question 2: In the absence of an audience, mainstream reenactors make an effort to appear real, yet they may fall out of character. Hidden stitches and undergarments may not be period-appropriate, but visible stitches are likely to be made in a period-correct manner. Food served in front of an audience is likely to be historically accurate, although it may not be seasonally or geographically appropriate. Modern things are occasionally utilized "after hours" or in a covert manner. The normal approach is to put on a nice show, but correctness is only required to the extent that others can see it.
Explanation:
Visitors to re-enactment activities obtain an understanding of a particular period. They gain an appreciation of how different life was in the past by simply asking questions, watching how food is prepared over a campfire, and looking at the tents that were used to sleep in. It's a true hands-on experience, since visitors are frequently allowed to sample food, touch uniforms to feel how heavy the cloth is, and learn about the steps involved in firing a musket. Through these contacts with the public, re-enactors pass on their expertise and perspective, making history very accessible. This is what distinguishes re-enactment from more traditional methods of teaching and learning history.
Answer:
It depends.The golden rule is nothing is the best, except commercial ads. Decision to apply for college can take someone to the hell or the heaven, depending on what their motivation is (what they really want to do) and who they are.
Explanation:
If we judge a fish by its ability to climb, it will live all its life believing that it's stupid. I think the decision to apply to college is the same here. Get to know ourselves first, and then decide what we will study in a particular college. Then college will be a place where enable us to intensively study about what we concern most and meet others who have the same interest with us and maybe become our partners in our career path. My favorite example is the life of Steve Jobs, who met his dear colleagues accompanying with him to develop Apple as we see today in university. However, college can be the hell if we don't enjoy what we study there, then attending college is just time-consuming and fruitless.
Furthermore, some can succeed without stepping in college. In technology-driven world, we can gain knowledge and skills somewhere not necessarily at university. For instance, some online courses like Coursera or Edx offer free lectures from bigs universities. So, everyone can learn almost everything somewhere. The key of success is not attending college or not, the true question is: how big is your motivation?
Answer:
Oh no, what is going to be the future of humanity! o0o
Explanation:
