|
Kamrat posted:What game is that? Primal Rage.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
ulvir posted:No, pretty much in any place where a former social-democratic party decides it's time to go liberalist in order to win votes. So Europe really WAS the center of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
 As an oblate spheroid, where you put the center is largely irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:24
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Torrannor posted:So Europe really WAS the center of the world. What do you mean 'was' ulvir posted:No, pretty much in any place where a former social-democratic party decides it's time to go liberalist in order to win votes. I'm wondering how accurate this is. It seems that most countries are pretty much intact, do tectonic plates stay at the same elevation all the time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Where is the equator supposed to be in that map? Does it run through DC and Turkey like the map implies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Pvt Dancer posted:What do you mean 'was' It has the Great Lakes which were probably formed a bit later...
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Pvt Dancer posted:I'm wondering how accurate this is. It seems that most countries are pretty much intact, do tectonic plates stay at the same elevation all the time? It isn't very accurate. When you look at an actual illustration without any country references, the similarities are pretty much gone: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Pvt Dancer posted:I'm wondering how accurate this is. It seems that most countries are pretty much intact, do tectonic plates stay at the same elevation all the time? E: To give an example, the area around the Rocky Mountains used to be a shallow sea, then the Farallon plate was subducted beneath America which resulted in a giant plateau/mountain chain the likes of the Himalayas, and that has since been eroded down to what is there today. Basically, it's more of a rough idea where the (major) plates were, than an exact map. I suppose geologists can see whether a place was below sea level at a certain point, but I think that map is just to give an idea of where the various plates were and how they correspond to modern borders. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not at all. Currently, Africa sits on top of an upwelling of mantle, which is why the continent is relatively uniformly high-elevation in the south, while Indonesia is just the opposite. Then there's accretion, which adds to to continents' edges, volcanic activity where plates are subducted, and finally orogeny where plates smash into each other. On top of that you have erosion, which can wither away at the continents quite rapidly, though this is very dependent on location/climate. Off topic, but could you tell me more about his "upwelling of mantle"? That results in different features on the face of the planet. Geology on this scale has often been interesting to me, but I don't even know what the field is called. I'd like to know more. Back to maps: Yup, this is very close to a map of the muslim world. Asia somewhat less, and Africa includes majority christian areas as well. Indonesia is a huge exception, and Turkey too. Little Jordan as well. The map is too lovely to see Lebanon or Bahrain or Qatar. And Kazakhstan only sorta maybe? borders Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Yup, this is very close to a map of the muslim world. Asia somewhat less, and Africa includes majority christian areas as well. Indonesia is a huge exception, and Turkey too. Little Jordan as well. The map is too lovely to see Lebanon or Bahrain or Qatar. And Kazakhstan only sorta maybe? borders Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
I feel like any metric that says LGBT rights are more or less the same in all of the US as in, say, the Netherlands is broad enough to be basically worthless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
made of bees posted:I feel like any metric that says LGBT rights are more or less the same in all of the US as in, say, the Netherlands is broad enough to be basically worthless. Blue might as well be one color, which means "not in jail". Yeah some finer details would be nice, I bet wikipedia has some. Yup:  Legend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:World_homosexuality_laws_map Source article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_homosexuality Ooh, this map is good too, it is called "Decriminalizing Homosexuality":  Oh man this is actually great. It notes that France legalized homosexuality for a brief time during the revolution. Abortion was legalized too. Count Roland fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Ooh, this map is good too, it is called "Decriminalizing Homosexuality": I'm curious about Brazil, and probably other countries in the same boat I didn't bother to look hard enough at: did they take actual steps to legalize homosexuality between 1800 and 1870, or was it just never illegal in the first place, and the map is counting from date of independence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Off topic, but could you tell me more about his "upwelling of mantle"? That results in different features on the face of the planet. Geology on this scale has often been interesting to me, but I don't even know what the field is called. I'd like to know more. Anyway, as I understand it (and the science dealing with these mechanisms seems to be relatively young, at least I've seen constant updates and disagreements just in the last year), but the super continent cycle basically goes like this: First a super continent is assembled (we'll get back to how later), which mostly ends large scale geological activity. This also ends the uplift of the ocean ridges, which means potential sea level drops of hundreds of meters. Without subduction and plate movement, and with a single unified slab sitting on top of the mantle, the mantle underneath the supercontinent starts heating up. Over a hundred million years or so, it continues to expand, pushing the continent higher and higher. Meanwhile, at a 90 degrees angle to this, around the circumference of the Earth, a downwelling occurs, as well as an upwelling on the antipode. This warmer mantle also starts eating away at the bottom of the continent, weakening the supercontinent against the force of the uplift. Thus eventually the whole thing starts to break apart, though it doesn't happen in a clean fashion. Take Greenland for example. The North Atlantic (being created separately from the South Atlantic) first began to break through the plate upon which North America lies, but it stopped eventually, and that's why you have the Labrador Sea. The rifting then shifted to between Greenland and Norway, which has of course continued to this day. (Madagascar is another example of something similar happening.) Anyway, over millions of years, plates break off the supercontinent and move away, sometimes smashing into other continents once more (India), until at some point they start to converge again. The most recent theory I've seen for where that happens is called orthoversion, an alternative to the introversion (where the continents basically reverse), and extroversion (where they just continue where they're going until they all hit each other). In that model (which is apparently supported by the location of the centers of previous supercontinents), the new supercontinent assembles at a 90 degree angle to the former supercontinent. In our case, that's the continents likely meeting in the Arctic Ocean, though Anatarctica likely won't be joining us, since it seems to be stuck on the bottom of the world. This essentially means that the former center of the continent (Africa, hence the uplift), becomes part of the new periphery, while former periphery becomes the center. The formation of a supercontinent on top of the world might destabilize the whole arrangement though, and as the upwelling grows, the chances of the whole thing shifting towards the Equator increases. That would essentially shift everything floating on the mantle at once, which would put both the Pangaea Proxima and Antarctica on the Equator. The science here is pretty murky though, but it seems to have happened before, with the continents moving much much (like hundreds of times) faster than during normal continental drift. Finally, this whole system mixes the water of the oceans into the mantle, while also releasing it through volcanoes and poo poo. Apparently it's not balanced though, and the projections put the equilibrium at 2/3rds of the current volume of the oceans. Not sure when that's going to be reached though, it's not like increased solar radiation cooking the oceans aren't relevant on the timescale we're talking about. Count Roland posted:Ooh, this map is good too:
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I'm curious about Brazil, and probably other countries in the same boat I didn't bother to look hard enough at: did they take actual steps to legalize homosexuality between 1800 and 1870, or was it just never illegal in the first place, and the map is counting from date of independence? It isn't legalize, its decriminalize. So remember that laws against homosexuality can fall into other categories. I see Canada is on there in the 60s. Homosexuality was only legalized there within the past decade or so. But they did introduce various laws against discrimination around that time. I don't know if they even mention the gays specifically, but I bet that's why Canada is on the list. I wonder why Turkey is on the list. In the 19th century Turkey started treating different religious groups a lot more equally (christians and jews had typically gotten special taxes and stuff). But Homosexuality? **shrug** Pastry, thanks for the description. Could you point me in the direction of a relevant article or book or wiki? Count Roland fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:But they did introduce various laws against discrimination around that time. I don't know if they even mention the gays specifically, but I bet that's why Canada is on the list. It was very specifically not just generic anti-discrimination laws - the vast majority of those in Canada did not come until after repatriation of the constitution and the institution of the Charter in 1982.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I'm curious about Brazil, and probably other countries in the same boat I didn't bother to look hard enough at: did they take actual steps to legalize homosexuality between 1800 and 1870, or was it just never illegal in the first place, and the map is counting from date of independence? It was illegal under Portuguese colonial rule, but the 1830 penal code (a few years after independence) specifically removed it. Count Roland posted:I wonder why Turkey is on the list. In the 19th century Turkey started treating different religious groups a lot more equally (christians and jews had typically gotten special taxes and stuff). But Homosexuality? **shrug** It was apparently part of the Tanzimât reforms but I can't find any specific information on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Also, it was basically official policy to de-tatar the region by deporting tatars to different regions and importing russians. Happened to a lot of historically nonrussian parts of Russia to solidify claims to the territory. Tartar sauce is actually named after the Tatars, so...
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
point of return posted:Tartar sauce is actually named after the Tatars, so... Both steak tartare and tartar sauce are named pretty much out of 19th century orientalism from French chefs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Both steak tartare and tartar sauce are named pretty much out of 19th century orientalism from French chefs. This is illustrated by the way that Tartar sauce is commonly served alongside seafood, while Tartar people are pretty much as landlocked as anyone on earth can possibly be. The legend behind steak tartare was that the mongols would put meat under their saddles and then ride all day, thereby squishing it into a paste. Tartar sauce doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
So in that case, what's the etymology of the stuff that forms on your teeth when you don't brush or floss?? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:So in that case, what's the etymology of the stuff that forms on your teeth when you don't brush or floss?? Same source as cream of tartar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:supercontinent This is mostly correct. Let me start my spiel with this map:  Ar - Archean (>2.5 Billion years) ePt - early Proterozoic (2.5 - 1.6 billion years old) m-lPt - middle to late Proterozoic (<1.6 billion years old) This is a map of cratons. I think one of the more interesting ways to explain geology is thinking of it something like Imperial Europe. Cratons are the larger polities - they're mostly stable and they're not splitting up anytime soon. There's a geophysical reason for this - the crust underneath is thicker and colder than the surrounding mantle, so mantle convection *really* has to work to pull them apart. The land in between are like the little duchies that change hands from one polity to another depending on which way the wind is blowing. Over time a duchy might get split up and incorporated into a new polity, and the new border starts creating some cultural divergence. A good example of this is the microcontinent Avalonia. At one time, it was a single strip of land, much like the island of Madagascar is today. It rifted off somewhere from a previous large continent and eventually collided with Baltica (now northern Europe) and Laurentia (now North America). Since then, plate tectonics has smashed it up and scattered the remnants to the four winds:  (This map doesn't show the pieces that make up the coast of Maine and most of Newfoundland) Anyway, the continents just kind of bounce around. Over time, rifting pushes them apart until they collide and form one big landmass, heat builds up underneath the supercontinent, and new rifts develop to push them apart again. Their movement is sort of chaotic, because differences in heat flow along the rift axis create differences in spreading rate. So instead of just even spreading like you see in intro textbooks, you get plate rotation and stuff thrown into the mix. To answer the question about mantle upwelling: when Pangaea broke up, it started tearing apart a large continent named Gondwana. Gondwana formed around 550 million years ago, and made up over half of the world's landmass. It covered area of the Earth's surface, so naturally some of the mantle underneath was trying to convect heat to the surface. However, Gondwana was mostly stable because most of the cool, thick crust of the cratons was concentrated near the center. There wasn't really anywhere for that heat to go, so it begins pooling up underneath. When Pangaea begins to break up about 180 million years ago, new rift valleys began opening up around the fringes of the Gondwana landmass. The rifts started in weaker zones of crust (old borders between microcontinents glommed on to the edge) and start prying their way inwards. The heat trapped underneath suddenly finds a conduit to escape, and helps speed the progression of the rifting into the interior of Gondwana. Africa can be considered the core of Gondwana, and southern Africa was at the very heart of it. The heat trapped by Gondwana hasn't had a chance dissipate yet (rocks conduct heat really slowly, so the mantle and lower crust under southern Africa remain a bit puffed up from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Same source as cream of tartar. Which is tartaron, a Greek word for the stuff that can precipitate into a crust on the inside of a wine barrel during fermentation. Chemically, that stuff is bitartrate (from the same word) of potash which, when purified, becomes the aforementioned cream of tartar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:So in that case, what's the etymology of the stuff that forms on your teeth when you don't brush or floss?? tartar (n.) "bitartrate of potash" (a deposit left during fermentation), late 14c., from Old French tartre, from Medieval Latin tartarum, from late Greek tartaron "tartar encrusting the sides of wine casks," perhaps of Semitic origin, but if so the exact source has not been identified. The purified substance is cream of tartar. Used generally in 17c. of encrustations from liquid contact; specific meaning "encrustation on teeth" (calcium phosphate) is first recorded 1806. efb; for a geography thread you guys sure know your etymology twoday fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Mar 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:Africa can be considered the core of Gondwana, and southern Africa was at the very heart of it. The heat trapped by Gondwana hasn't had a chance dissipate yet (rocks conduct heat really slowly, so the mantle and lower crust under southern Africa remain a bit puffed up from it. Would this be why or at least a major factor in why Southern Africa has large amounts of diamonds?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
twoday posted:efb; for a geography thread you guys sure know your etymology
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Would this be why or at least a major factor in why Southern Africa has large amounts of diamonds? I don't think the specifics of how diamond deposits form have been completely worked out yet, so I can't really speak with any authority on this issue. Here's what I do know. Diamonds are associated with a rock type called kimberlite, which judging by its chemistry and some of the rock fragments caught up in it appear to come from the upper mantle. Their distribution also coincides with those of the cratons, as seen here:  The likely reason that diamonds are associated with the cratons is because their formation happened to coincide with life just beginning to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. So you have large amounts of organic matter being deposited in sediments, along with a lot of that organic matter being subducted down into the mantle. The stuff that makes sedimentary rock has a lower melting point than the mantle and is also more buoyant, so it melts off and floats to the bottom of the craton. Along the way, the organic carbon gets transformed into graphite, and later into diamonds. There's trillions of carats of diamonds deep in the crust where we'll never get to them. The critical part is getting them to the surface. That's where the kimberlite comes in. We know they have to come up to the surface very quickly, because otherwise the heat of the kimberlite and the lower pressure closer to the surface would cause them to break down into graphite. Once the rising kimberlite gets to within a kilometer or two of the surface, it explodes, creating the characteristic pipe-shaped deposits. Our big problem is we don't know exactly what gets the kimberlite eruption started in the first place. Most of the mines in South Africa were formed by kimberlite eruptions around 150 million years ago, which is about the time rifting started moving by to the south and east. BUT they're far enough away from the rifting that the rock close to the surface wasn't affected by it, so it seems unlikely that the rifting is related. Other diamond mines in Canada and Russia are also far from any rift zones. Those same mines are also located in areas with colder mantle than southern Africa's surrounding them, so that also strikes me as unlikely. I'll just shrug and say  To bring this back to politically loaded maps... Here's a map of major mineral deposits in Africa:  Here's a map of major conflicts in Africa:  Note the major overlaps in South Africa, eastern Congo, and the western equatorial coast. The South African ones are mostly protests against the lovely mining conditions in some of the sites, while conflicts in eastern Congo are due in part to the mining of rare earth metals that are used to fund the conflicts. The west African conflicts are the home of the infamous blood diamonds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:This is mostly correct. Let me start my spiel with this map:  Venusian Weasel posted:To bring this back to politically loaded maps...
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
Check out the Nile up there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:Check out the Nile up there. That's gotta be at least a little wrong. The Nile floodplain is the most densely populated part of the country by far, it's true, but it thins out the farther upstream you go. Also the Fayoum Oasis isn't shown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Why don't the Sudanese care about the Nile?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Only Egypt gets the farming bonus along desert river tiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
A bunch of Egypt's governorates are basically just 5-15km wide strips of land centered on the Nile, while other governorates are huge areas of empty deserts and a few oases, so you've got massive differences in population densities. Sudan's states include both the empty desert areas and the Nile valley, so their average population density gets driven down. Edit: Sudan is also almost twice as large as Egypt with just over a third of its population, as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
twoday posted:This is illustrated by the way that Tartar sauce is commonly served alongside seafood, while Tartar people are pretty much as landlocked as anyone on earth can possibly be. I'm pretty sure there's fish in the Volga.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:I'm pretty sure there's fish in the Volga. Seconding this. Astrakhan is one of the world's major sources of caviar because sturgeon are all over the Volga delta.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Both steak tartare and tartar sauce are named pretty much out of 19th century orientalism from French chefs. Its original name was Steak L'Americaine to prove that French Chefs have no lack of incorrect countries to use to make food sound foreign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:That's gotta be at least a little wrong. The Nile floodplain is the most densely populated part of the country by far, it's true, but it thins out the farther upstream you go. Also the Fayoum Oasis isn't shown. I just looked at google maps. The difference is not as large as I would have thought. The delta region is densely populated, but still has a lot of farmland. Zoom in on any part of the Nile flood plain and you'll see both farmland a slew of towns. 200 people per square km? Uhhh, it looks like it'd be close, but it might actually be believable. Egypt does have 80 million people, after all, and they're almost all on the Nile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 21:38
|
|