Page 5 of 46
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:25 pm
by Flyin Ryan
etherman wrote:Flyin Ryan wrote:Akkerman wrote:
Even the "healthy" states start at 20% obesity rate
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).
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 5:59 pm
by Plato'sCave
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:43 pm
by 7N31
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:02 pm
by croyals
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
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:46 am
by gurudoright
If you ever wondered where you'll end up if you dug a hole through the centre of the Earth
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:43 am
by Taranaki Snapper
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:14 am
by PumaBoot
(part of) Argentina on Europe.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:48 am
by PumaBoot
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:51 am
by Nieghorn
Can also be bought as a t-shirt...
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:15 am
by macabyte
A very important map. One being explored as we speak; some will find what theyre looking for, some wont.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:16 am
by camroc1
Map of the collapse of population in Ireland, between 1841 and 1851, because of starvation, in the worlds richest nation.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:32 am
by theo
That just says population change. People could have simply moved.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:48 am
by camroc1
theo wrote:That just says population change. People could have simply moved.
Read your history Theo.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:19 am
by theo
camroc1 wrote:theo wrote:That just says population change. People could have simply moved.
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:23 am
by camroc1
theo wrote:camroc1 wrote:theo wrote:That just says population change. People could have simply moved.
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:26 am
by theo
camroc1 wrote:theo wrote:camroc1 wrote:theo wrote:That just says population change. People could have simply moved.
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:38 am
by camroc1
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:40 am
by theo
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:46 am
by waguser
theo wrote:camroc1 wrote:theo wrote:camroc1 wrote:theo wrote:That just says population change. People could have simply moved.
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:36 am
by jinxed
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:09 am
by Flockwitt
That's good. The Welsh...
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:32 pm
by kiap
Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:35 pm
by AND-y
Flockwitt wrote:
That's good. The Welsh...
That's the thing with Wales, massive diaspora too just tended to bed in easy.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:47 pm
by camroc1
kiap wrote:
Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:53 pm
by Hellraiser
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:55 pm
by kiap
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?
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:58 pm
by camroc1
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:32 pm
by kiap
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:34 pm
by camroc1
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:54 pm
by kiap
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?
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:29 pm
by camroc1
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:41 pm
by dargotronV.1
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
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.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:46 pm
by etherman
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:22 pm
by Massey Ferguson
theo wrote: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.
Yep, the common figure quoted is a million dead, a million emigrated. That map doesn't distinguish.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:26 pm
by waguser
Massey Ferguson wrote:theo wrote: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.
Yep, the common figure quoted is a million dead, a million emigrated. That map doesn't distinguish.
many who emigrated died within 6 months
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:43 pm
by jinxed
etherman wrote:
That's a fantastic find.
It linked to another interesting site...
http://worldnames.publicprofiler.org/
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:31 pm
by Nolanator
Class. My name has a high density in Ireland and then a smattering of occurrences in Europe. Only seen in USA, Canada, Argentina, Australia and NZ outside of Europe. Obviously just places where Irish people went.
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:49 pm
by frankster
Nolanator wrote:
Class. My name has a high density in Ireland and then a smattering of occurrences in Europe. Only seen in USA, Canada, Argentina, Australia and NZ outside of Europe. Obviously just places where Irish people went.
Mine is virtually all UK + Anglophone former colonies - the top country is Aus (and yes I do have family there)
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:12 am
by Taranaki Snapper
USF's collection of maps of America. Includes killing frost dates from 1911, Hog production circa 1860, 1900, Paths of Western Exploration and many more.
http://www.metafilter.com/121115/What-w ... April-1891
Re: The Unusual Maps Thread
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:38 pm
by Taranaki Snapper
