I'm watching the netflix documentary on Ted Bundy, and i realized that most serial killers i have heard of were active during the 60's - 70's. Why was there a rise in serial killers during this period?

EDIT: Didn't recieve any notifications for this post, went to check on it just now and hot dang did this blow up! Thanks for the answers everybody!

"Continent" is traditionally defined as landmass surrounded by water, but all three Old World continents aren't defined this way, but with overland boundaries. The definition originates from Ancient Greece as far as I know, which first defined Europe, Asia, and Africa.

This brings me to my question.

Before the concept of "Asia" from Greece, did China consider itself as being on the same continent as Persia and India, and not the same continent as Europe? Or would they have considered it either a Eurasia continent or India to be a separate subcontinent?

Additionally, what was the pre-modern Islamic conception of continents? As I understand it, they basically had the same view of Europe, Africa, and Asia but they considered Anatolia to be joined with Europe as "Rum" because of the Byzantine Empire, Seljuks and Ottomans after that.

A brief rundown on my career situation:

• I have a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science/Artificial Intelligence
• I'm 28 years old
• I've been working as programmer since I graduated.
  • It's not fulfilling for me. I want to expand humanity's knowledge through research and philosophizing.

A brief rundown on my obsession with historic research:

• I've been doing my own personal historical research since I was a teenager; perusing archives, preserving information, making discoveries, writing about it, citing sources...
• It's practically an addiction -- I can spend 16 hours a day doing this every day. I have had to force myself not to do it because it interferes with my job and my sleep
• I don't get much joy out of just reading books on history, I prefer to use the books to garner insights on a topic
• Usually this is on more modern, or obscure topics, simply because that's where the discoveries are. For example, the history of electronic music, video games, or the local history of places in the country I live in

So, the question -- given my situation, what are the ways for getting myself into a position where I can specifically do historic research as a job?

I've had these ideas:

• Offer my programming skills to an archive or a research library, for their web interfaces, or in the task of digital history. Negotiate a transition to a researcher position.
• Attempt to negotiate with a university into doing a masters in digital history, using my computer science degree as leverage
• Start again doing a BA (not ideal due to the student loan...)

Thanks everyone.

The Battle of the Somme has gained notoriety as an example of the futility of offensives in the trench warfare on the Western Front. Are the claims that soldiers strolled across the no-man's-land in neat rows true? Did the British really expect the artillery bombardment to break the German defenses? And did the Germans really cut the British down in swathes? Furthermore, was the offensive flawed in concept, or execution? Had the British learned from the previous year, and did they learn from the Somme?

They all speak their native languages, they aren't nobles who speak French or anything like that. Who among them can reasonably communicate with another?

any akkadiologists here? next year i will be joining a ba programme in middle eastern studies, and have the option to choose the akkadiology path. as much as i feel inclined to study ancient history and am sure akkadian is a fascinating area to study, i am deeply ignorant about what is left to research in this field. i would love to read your opinions.

In most films and tv shows, stories which take place in the late 1800s and early 1900s don’t generally show a sailors life. We’ve seen thousands of depictions from the 1700s and the 1930s and up, but it seems there’s a gap. Maybe this is because of the American Wild West, and the fact that life on the frontier was more exciting, but I am genuinely curious about sailors in the same time period.

Were there pirates? What kind of major changes were they dealing with industrially? And what was the most popular type of ship that was used in this period? Thank you for any help.

Whenever I watch a western, or see a 19th century ranch, it will be a house with barns and outhouses.. but never a watchtower or citadel?

You would imagine that a simple defensive structure like a tower would add great value, yet i've never seen it? Why did the ranchers in the west build their ranches the way they did, why didn't they add a defensible tower like the villages in medieval europe, where the settlers hailed from?

WW2 stands out to me as a time of great imagination where any idea could gain traction, find adherents, and find its way into combat. These were the days of cross-channel fuel lines, radar, and bombs based on atoms. I understand that they even considered ice-based aircraft carriers, bats fitted with incendiary devices, and other things that never took hold.

I was wondering. Why don't we hear anything about any kind of ballistic protection for soldiers landing on the beaches of Omaha? I mean even in the early planning stage.

I understand that they took the beach without it (and that taking Omaha was more difficult than expected) but success was not guaranteed and it seems unlike planners to ignore the idea. Perhaps they didn't and their thoughts just aren't well known.

I understand that steel is heavy but having a guy drag a shield isn't the only way to use it. What about a steel plate on a float that wading soldiers could push off the boat's ramp and hide behind as they went ashore? I understand that it would be big and come at the expense of men and other equipment. However, even if it displaced one guy, it would pay for itself with the first man it saved.

How about a shield that could convert to a wheeled version and be advanced up the beach by waves of men? I understand that they wouldn't help much against fire from the side or by plunging fire or by mortars etc. However, planners still didn't really know what they'd find. Perhaps engineers could use the cover as protection from sniper fire. Let the guys be creative.

Or maybe the guys would find it useless and ditch it as soon as they hit the sand.

Is there anything out there we haven't really heard about yet?

I know Switzerland used german Bf-109s in their air force yet were slightly more friendly with France and England, but I've also heard that they did not tolerate either side from violating their air space.

I was just wondering if Switzerland leaned more towards one side during the war, or were they truly a neutral power?

Basically, why would someone consider Ecgberht of Wessex to be the first king of England? He controlled a lot of land and had other English kings as sub-kings, sure, but so did Offa of Mercia. Or is the Amazon Alexa thing just not a good source of historical information?

I am having a disagreement about agricultural importance comparitively in these time frames and was wondering if any of you have that type of data on hand/ know where to find it.

As far as I am aware there are many cases of nomadic peoples (e.g. the Mongols under Genghis Khan) who had no permanent place of settlement, yet were also armed with strong metal armour and weapons, as well as any metal used for tools and any other utensils. Without the permanent infrastructure to mine, smelt, and forge metal how would they acquire enough to high grade metal for this? Would it all come from trade and stealing, or am I mistaken about how nomadic they were?

Read this paragraph in my Political Science textbook and was slightly confused by it. I know that many American colonists thought of themselves as Englishmen and that one of their goals was to gain representation in Parliament, so this statement confused me. Any further insight into the goals of the colonists in the prelude to the Revolutionary War would be appreciated.