Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:20 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1717 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 43  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16135
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Ewinkum wrote:
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
this either a wind map or the US covered in hair...

Image

Live:
http://hint.fm/wind/


It's a Merkin.


:lol: very good!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 3036
Morgan14 wrote:
http://internet-map.net/


Map of the internet, in the style of stars in a galaxy. I'd c&p here but it would just look like millions of circles - you need to zoom in to see which websites are which.


Thats brilliant. Planet-Rugby is tiny


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:14 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13030
ID2 wrote:
Morgan14 wrote:
http://internet-map.net/


Map of the internet, in the style of stars in a galaxy. I'd c&p here but it would just look like millions of circles - you need to zoom in to see which websites are which.


Thats brilliant. Planet-Rugby is tiny


Rugby's a small sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11161
Location: EU
Image

Even the "healthy" states start at 20% obesity rate :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8380
Location: Indiana
Akkerman wrote:
Image

Even the "healthy" states start at 20% obesity rate :shock:


I play rugby eight months a year as a wing and according to BMI I'm at 25% and borderline obese. It's a terrible metric.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5204
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Akkerman wrote:
Image

Even the "healthy" states start at 20% obesity rate :shock:


I play rugby eight months a year as a wing and according to BMI I'm at 25% and borderline obese. It's a terrible metric.


I always thought you were better in the centre, Rupeni.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 769
Location: Edinburgh via Raukapuka
Population centers in the U.S.
Image

What the map would look like if the sea level dropped 110m:

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8380
Location: Indiana
etherman wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Akkerman wrote:
Image

Even the "healthy" states start at 20% obesity rate :shock:


I play rugby eight months a year as a wing and according to BMI I'm at 25% and borderline obese. It's a terrible metric.


I always thought you were better in the centre, Rupeni.


I'm 5'11" (180 centimeters). When I started playing rugby to stay in shape more I was 212 pounds (96 kilograms). Three years on (now) I weigh 197 pounds (89 kilograms) which per an online BMI calculator puts me at 27.5. but I have more muscle now I can tell in places like my pecs, arms, legs obviously, than I did three years ago. I just think it's ridiculous I'm in the best shape I've been in, have more muscle mass than before and BMI does not account for that. Heck, when I was in high school looking it up when I was running cross country and 25 miles a week would've still had a BMI of 25 (5'10", 175 lb).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:36 pm
Posts: 13513
Location: Above you.
http://node.9elements.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:28 pm
Posts: 218
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6726
Location: London
ID2 wrote:
Morgan14 wrote:
http://internet-map.net/


Map of the internet, in the style of stars in a galaxy. I'd c&p here but it would just look like millions of circles - you need to zoom in to see which websites are which.


Thats brilliant. Planet-Rugby is tiny

Its about what you do with it, not the size


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 396
Image

If you ever wondered where you'll end up if you dug a hole through the centre of the Earth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16135
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
all hurricanes since 1851
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design ... 1851/3084/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 297
(part of) Argentina on Europe.

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 297
Spoiler: show
Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17709
Location: Centre of the Universe
Can also be bought as a t-shirt...

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 272
Location: STRAYA CUNT. FUCKEN
A very important map. One being explored as we speak; some will find what theyre looking for, some wont.

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34535
Map of the collapse of population in Ireland, between 1841 and 1851, because of starvation, in the worlds richest nation.

Spoiler: show
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
That just says population change. People could have simply moved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34535
theo wrote:
That just says population change. People could have simply moved.

:lol:

Read your history Theo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
camroc1 wrote:
theo wrote:
That just says population change. People could have simply moved.

:lol:

Read your history Theo.


Well it does just say population change rather than those that starved to death. I am sure some people emigrated during that period as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34535
theo wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
theo wrote:
That just says population change. People could have simply moved.

:lol:

Read your history Theo.


Well it does just say population change rather than those that starved to death. I am sure some people emigrated during that period as well.

Do you really want to go down this path.

You do realise that a million people died of starvation between 1845 and 1850, in the richest country in the world.

That is considerably more than total British deaths in WW1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
camroc1 wrote:
theo wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
theo wrote:
That just says population change. People could have simply moved.

:lol:

Read your history Theo.


Well it does just say population change rather than those that starved to death. I am sure some people emigrated during that period as well.

Do you really want to go down this path.

You do realise that a million people died of starvation between 1845 and 1850, in the richest country in the world.

That is considerably more than total British deaths in WW1.


Yes I am aware of that. I was questioning why they didn't put that on the map as it would otherwise suggest that those figures include emigration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34535
Because the figures are figures from two censuses, where they measure the population, not death from starvation.

It is de facto the same thing though.

I find it interesting that your quibble is whether they died of starvation or emigrated, not that the richest country in the world at the time let 1 million of its citizens starve to death in four years.


Last edited by camroc1 on Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13025
camroc1 wrote:
Because the figures are figures from two censuses, where they measure the population, not death from starvation.

It is de facto the same thing though.


Well no it isn't as there was also a lot of emigaration during that time also. Now that was no doubt due to the famine but the drop in numbers is not solely down to people starving to death.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13001
theo wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
theo wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
theo wrote:
That just says population change. People could have simply moved.

:lol:

Read your history Theo.


Well it does just say population change rather than those that starved to death. I am sure some people emigrated during that period as well.

Do you really want to go down this path.

You do realise that a million people died of starvation between 1845 and 1850, in the richest country in the world.

That is considerably more than total British deaths in WW1.


Yes I am aware of that. I was questioning why they didn't put that on the map as it would otherwise suggest that those figures include emigration.


Many of those who emigrated died within months of arriving .

There is a new famine atlas which includes death rates for cholera and other diseases in the arrival ports of England and America.

Horrific.

In the richest country in the world at the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 532
London mapped by common surnames


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:09 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5581
jinxed wrote:

That's good. The Welsh... :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17967
Image

Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

Read more: show
TREES are a gift to students of the past. An entire discipline, known as dendrochronology, is devoted to using tree rings to date ancient wooden objects and buildings. Linguistic archaeologists, it seems, share these arboreal inclinations, though the trees they examine are of an altogether different species.

In 2003 a team led by Quentin Atkinson, of the University of Auckland, in New Zealand, employed a computer to generate a genealogical tree of Indo-European languages. Their model put the birth of the family, which includes languages as seemingly diverse as Icelandic and Iranian, between 9,800 and 7,800 years ago. This was consistent with the idea that it stemmed from Anatolia, in modern-day Turkey, whence it spread with the expansion of farming. A rival proposal, that their origin amid the semi-nomadic, pastoralist tribes in the steppes north of the Caspian Sea, supposes their progenitor to be several thousand years younger.

Some proponents of the steppe hypothesis remained unconvinced. They pointed out that the computer-generated phylogeny, to give the tree its technical name, showed only how Indo-European tongues evolved over time. It said nothing about how they spread across space. As Dr Atkinson and his colleagues report in Science, this issue has now been addressed. The results lend further credence to the Anatolian theory.

Linguistic archaeologists have even less to go on than their peers in other past-oriented disciplines, who can at least pore over the odd trinket for clues to mankind's prehistoric ways. The earliest written records date back less than 6,000 years, long after "proto-Indo-European" is believed to have emerged. Researchers do, however, enjoy an abundance of data about contemporary languages. Because tongues change less chaotically than other aspects of culture, this is more useful to someone studying linguistic prehistory than it might appear.

Dr Atkinson began by collecting basic vocabulary terms—words for body parts, kinship, simple verbs and the like—for 83 modern languages as well as 20 ancient ones for which records are available. For each family, Dr Atkinson and his team identified sets of cognates. These are etymologically related words that pop up in different languages. One set, for example, contains words like “mother”, “Mutter” and “mere”. Another includes “milk” and “Milch”, but not “lait”. (Here is the whole list; known borrowings, such as "mountain" and "montagne" were excluded, as they do not stem from a common ancestor.) Then, for each language in their sample, they added information about where it is spoken—or is thought to have been, based on where ancient texts were discovered—and in what period. The result is a multidimensional Venn diagram that records the overlaps between languages.

Each of the 103 languages, with its cognate sets, temporal and geographical range, constituted one leaf of the Indo-European family tree. The tricky part was filling in the branches. Here, Dr Atkinson resorted to rolling of the dice, using a method called Markov-chain Monte Carlo. This generates a random set of boughs (each assigned its own randomly generated cognate sets, time and place) that fits the known foliage. Next, an algorithm calculates how likely it is that this tree would sprout the modern leaves given the way languages evolve and travel. For instance, it is assumed that a cognate can only be gained once, by an ancestral language, but lost many times, whenever it disappears from any of the descendants. And languages, or at least their speakers, might migrate in any direction, though less readily across water or mountain ranges, say, than through plains and valleys.

The first rolls of the dice are unlikely to offer a good fit. They might, for example, have Icelandic and Iranian as siblings, as opposed to distant cousins. So the algorithm tweaks the tree, again at random, and decides whether the new branches are any better. If so, they are kept; if not, the algorithm reverts to the previous tree in the series. Repeat this process long enough, typically millions of times, and a point is reached where no further improvement is possible. Let a forest of such equally likely trees grow, then look at the number of those with roots in Anatolia and the steppes. The proportions reflect the relative likelihood that either of the hypothesis is correct.

Dr Atkinson's findings leave much less room for doubt. The Anatolia-rooted trees are orders of magnitude more numerous than those growing out of the steppes (see picture; an animated version of Indo-European peregrinations is available here). The researchers verified the method's validity by getting it to retrace the evolution of modern romance languages from its Roman roots. The model returned an accurate reconstruction, closely in keeping with historical records. In linguistics, then, cultivating trees pays. So does a bit of gambling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14555
Flockwitt wrote:
jinxed wrote:

That's good. The Welsh... :shock:



That's the thing with Wales, massive diaspora too just tended to bed in easy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34535
kiap wrote:
Image

Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family

Read more: show
TREES are a gift to students of the past. An entire discipline, known as dendrochronology, is devoted to using tree rings to date ancient wooden objects and buildings. Linguistic archaeologists, it seems, share these arboreal inclinations, though the trees they examine are of an altogether different species.

In 2003 a team led by Quentin Atkinson, of the University of Auckland, in New Zealand, employed a computer to generate a genealogical tree of Indo-European languages. Their model put the birth of the family, which includes languages as seemingly diverse as Icelandic and Iranian, between 9,800 and 7,800 years ago. This was consistent with the idea that it stemmed from Anatolia, in modern-day Turkey, whence it spread with the expansion of farming. A rival proposal, that their origin amid the semi-nomadic, pastoralist tribes in the steppes north of the Caspian Sea, supposes their progenitor to be several thousand years younger.

Some proponents of the steppe hypothesis remained unconvinced. They pointed out that the computer-generated phylogeny, to give the tree its technical name, showed only how Indo-European tongues evolved over time. It said nothing about how they spread across space. As Dr Atkinson and his colleagues report in Science, this issue has now been addressed. The results lend further credence to the Anatolian theory.

Linguistic archaeologists have even less to go on than their peers in other past-oriented disciplines, who can at least pore over the odd trinket for clues to mankind's prehistoric ways. The earliest written records date back less than 6,000 years, long after "proto-Indo-European" is believed to have emerged. Researchers do, however, enjoy an abundance of data about contemporary languages. Because tongues change less chaotically than other aspects of culture, this is more useful to someone studying linguistic prehistory than it might appear.

Dr Atkinson began by collecting basic vocabulary terms—words for body parts, kinship, simple verbs and the like—for 83 modern languages as well as 20 ancient ones for which records are available. For each family, Dr Atkinson and his team identified sets of cognates. These are etymologically related words that pop up in different languages. One set, for example, contains words like “mother”, “Mutter” and “mere”. Another includes “milk” and “Milch”, but not “lait”. (Here is the whole list; known borrowings, such as "mountain" and "montagne" were excluded, as they do not stem from a common ancestor.) Then, for each language in their sample, they added information about where it is spoken—or is thought to have been, based on where ancient texts were discovered—and in what period. The result is a multidimensional Venn diagram that records the overlaps between languages.

Each of the 103 languages, with its cognate sets, temporal and geographical range, constituted one leaf of the Indo-European family tree. The tricky part was filling in the branches. Here, Dr Atkinson resorted to rolling of the dice, using a method called Markov-chain Monte Carlo. This generates a random set of boughs (each assigned its own randomly generated cognate sets, time and place) that fits the known foliage. Next, an algorithm calculates how likely it is that this tree would sprout the modern leaves given the way languages evolve and travel. For instance, it is assumed that a cognate can only be gained once, by an ancestral language, but lost many times, whenever it disappears from any of the descendants. And languages, or at least their speakers, might migrate in any direction, though less readily across water or mountain ranges, say, than through plains and valleys.

The first rolls of the dice are unlikely to offer a good fit. They might, for example, have Icelandic and Iranian as siblings, as opposed to distant cousins. So the algorithm tweaks the tree, again at random, and decides whether the new branches are any better. If so, they are kept; if not, the algorithm reverts to the previous tree in the series. Repeat this process long enough, typically millions of times, and a point is reached where no further improvement is possible. Let a forest of such equally likely trees grow, then look at the number of those with roots in Anatolia and the steppes. The proportions reflect the relative likelihood that either of the hypothesis is correct.

Dr Atkinson's findings leave much less room for doubt. The Anatolia-rooted trees are orders of magnitude more numerous than those growing out of the steppes (see picture; an animated version of Indo-European peregrinations is available here). The researchers verified the method's validity by getting it to retrace the evolution of modern romance languages from its Roman roots. The model returned an accurate reconstruction, closely in keeping with historical records. In linguistics, then, cultivating trees pays. So does a bit of gambling.

It's also incorrect.

It is generally accepted that Gaelic came to Ireland (and tfrom there to Scotland) via the Iberian peninsula, in connection with the Bronze Age copper and tin trade.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13759
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
jinxed wrote:



Londonistan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17967
camroc1 wrote:
It is generally accepted that Gaelic came to Ireland (and tfrom there to Scotland) via the Iberian peninsula, in connection with the Bronze Age copper and tin trade.

How does that make it incorrect?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34535
kiap wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
It is generally accepted that Gaelic came to Ireland (and tfrom there to Scotland) via the Iberian peninsula, in connection with the Bronze Age copper and tin trade.

How does that make it incorrect?

Look at the timeline for Spain and Ireland.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17967
camroc1 wrote:
kiap wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
It is generally accepted that Gaelic came to Ireland (and tfrom there to Scotland) via the Iberian peninsula, in connection with the Bronze Age copper and tin trade.

How does that make it incorrect?

Look at the timeline for Spain and Ireland.

I thought you'd say that.

Exactly what IE language was spoken in Iberia (and in which parts of it) 3000-4000 years BP? What was some of the vocabulary used?

I suspect you don't know the answers. The data used may not be complete and their map therefore may be incorrect but your "general" assertions do not make it so.

Provide some more precise facts on this language they have missed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34535
kiap wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
kiap wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
It is generally accepted that Gaelic came to Ireland (and tfrom there to Scotland) via the Iberian peninsula, in connection with the Bronze Age copper and tin trade.

How does that make it incorrect?

Look at the timeline for Spain and Ireland.

I thought you'd say that.

Exactly what IE language was spoken in Iberia (and in which parts of it) 3000-4000 years BP? What was some of the vocabulary used?

I suspect you don't know the answers. The data used may not be complete and their map therefore may be incorrect but your "general" assertions do not make it so.

Provide some more precise facts on this language they have missed.

Tartessian.

No need for that tone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17967
camroc1 wrote:
kiap wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
kiap wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
It is generally accepted that Gaelic came to Ireland (and tfrom there to Scotland) via the Iberian peninsula, in connection with the Bronze Age copper and tin trade.

How does that make it incorrect?

Look at the timeline for Spain and Ireland.

I thought you'd say that.

Exactly what IE language was spoken in Iberia (and in which parts of it) 3000-4000 years BP? What was some of the vocabulary used?

I suspect you don't know the answers. The data used may not be complete and their map therefore may be incorrect but your "general" assertions do not make it so.

Provide some more precise facts on this language they have missed.

Tartessian.

Interesting, 700-500 BCE. Recent work classifying it as a Celtic language (Koch) although not accepted by some other linguists who doubt it is even Indo-European (Ramos). Is enough known to place it in the chronological tree?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34535
kiap wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
kiap wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
kiap wrote:
How does that make it incorrect?

Look at the timeline for Spain and Ireland.

I thought you'd say that.

Exactly what IE language was spoken in Iberia (and in which parts of it) 3000-4000 years BP? What was some of the vocabulary used?

I suspect you don't know the answers. The data used may not be complete and their map therefore may be incorrect but your "general" assertions do not make it so.

Provide some more precise facts on this language they have missed.

Tartessian.

Interesting, 700-500 BCE. Recent work classifying it as a Celtic language (Koch) although not accepted by some other linguists who doubt it is even Indo-European (Ramos). Is enough known to place it in the chronological tree?

Koch,Karl,Guerra and Freeman, with an overview by Cunliffe have written lots in 'Celtic from the West'

In the same volume Oppenheimer reinterprets some of his earlier work taking account of Tertassian as a 'celtic' language.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3715
Some interesting maps, some of which have been done here already, in this article today http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... n-pictures


Such as this beauty
Image

Quote:
Each Englishman is an island, but it takes a Frenchman to put that saying into practice. This fine piece of ego-cartography was produced by Philippe Gonzalvez back in the 1980s. 'I must say that by now there is much more snow on the Mountains of Moustache and that the Hair Republic has been invaded by the Federation of the Face,' he reports.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5204
jinxed wrote:


That's a fantastic find.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1717 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 43  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anonymous_joe, BillW, Bing [Bot], Caley_Red, diarm, Farva, Flockwitt, Google Adsense [Bot], guy smiley, LandOTurk, Leinster in London, ticketlessinseattle, Witchfinder General, WoodlandsRFC and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group