|
Tom Smykowski posted:Where are there Roma in Oregon? Here and there, they move around a lot.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
The only Roma in Oregon I've ever seen are tomatoes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
76% of Stormfront are trolls from 4chan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Why are Muslims so low on that list? I'd expect them to be at the top.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
On one hand, Neo-Nazis speak for themselves, but you'd figure a site like Stormfront would get more general white supremacists/America roo-rah types.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Why are Muslims so low on that list? I'd expect them to be at the top. No you see the jews colluded with the blacks to make the muslims terrorists so it's not really their fault they're just misguided and aearemrasmdfklajsadf someone somewhere unironically believes this
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Georgia is less racist than Washington. I'll allow it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Why are Muslims so low on that list? I'd expect them to be at the top.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
In Bir Tawil news...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Why are Muslims so low on that list? I'd expect them to be at the top. The type of person who goes to Stormfront is going to be more likely to see Islamist radicals as warriors against the Zionist Occupied Government (their phrase for Jewish influence on the US government) and a potential ally of convenience (though not more than that) than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Also there's not that many Muslims in America, so they rank low on the list of minorities to hate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Georgia is less racist than Washington. I'll allow it. Georgia is mostly poor blacks, and while that and its history makes it a huge breeding ground for racists they're mostly the old secret klan grand cyclops whatever types rather than the colluding internet crybaby types.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Georgia is mostly poor blacks, and while that and its history makes it a huge breeding ground for racists they're mostly the old secret klan grand cyclops whatever types rather than the colluding internet crybaby types. Nope. According to this map *thumps hand on map* washington is more racist than georgia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
That's adorable 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
What he didn't form the People's Republic of North Sudan? What kind of imperialist monster is he? That man is the best father.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
What are the chances that either Egypt or Sudan supports his claim in order to refinforce their own claim on the Hala'ib Triangle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
They probably won't care enough to say anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Politically loaded dumb question. Is Denmark bigger than South America?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Politically loaded dumb question. Mercator makes this difficult to tell, but in reality South America is significantly larger than Greenland 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Mercator makes this difficult to tell, but in reality South America is significantly larger than Greenland 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Everybody knows that the map is the territory. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:I too had similar notions back in high school, but what if? It's still a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, so yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:It's still a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, so yes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:But the points is that Greenland is about 15 times smaller than portrayed on this map, isn't it? Yes, because the Mercator projection is designed for navigational purposes, not as an accurate representation of the landmasses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Yes, because the Mercator projection is designed for navigational purposes, not as an accurate representation of the landmasses. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
E: Wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Oh, so Mercator mentioned by Torrannor is a projection. I though he used that word to denote red mark on South America. No, the map is a Mercator projection, and there's a long-running slapfight about how it's bad because it oppresses minorities or the global south or some such thing because it somehow became the standard map for use in schools despite never being designed for that purpose. Winkel tripel 4 lyfe, incidentally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Little hint: on new google maps, if your computer is powerful enough, if you zoom all the way out and click the "Earth" thing in the corner you'll see a globe, which will make it easier to judge sizes of things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
kalstrams posted:Oh, so Mercator mentioned by Torrannor is a projection. I though he used that word to denote red mark on South America.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:No, the map is a Mercator projection, and there's a long-running slapfight about how it's bad because it oppresses minorities or the global south or some such thing because it somehow became the standard map for use in schools despite never being designed for that purpose. Isn't Mercator primarily a navigation map? Like, it's very useful for figuring out your heading to get from X to Y to Z, and that's why it originally became popular?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Hell, Mercator is the famous map projection. If an average person could name even one, that would be it, although I doubt that they could (not trying to sound all superior or anything, the reason nobody knows is that it mostly totally doesn't matter).TheBalor posted:Isn't Mercator primarily a navigation map? Like, it's very useful for figuring out your heading to get from X to Y to Z, and that's why it originally became popular? Yes. Mercator's big thing is that it prefers Azimuths. So wherever you are on a map, draw a line to where you want to go. The angle between that line in North is the compass bearing towards where you want to go. Follow that bearing, and you'll get there eventually. Of course, for long distance travel things get much more complicated, because you actually want to travel along a geodesic (or a great circle, if you were on a spherical planet but you aren't ), and you need to worry about whether you actually can sail in a straight line (ships really can't, especially before 1900), and whether you can actually determine your longitude. If you can't, then you'll want to use the method of running down a westing/easting, and then a Mercator is pretty useful, since it's easy to tell what's all at the same latitude.
PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:43
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
TheBalor posted:Isn't Mercator primarily a navigation map? Like, it's very useful for figuring out your heading to get from X to Y to Z, and that's why it originally became popular? Mercator preserves angles (and bearing), which is why it is still used extensively in web mapping like Google Maps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
It is good for internet maps because it treats latitude and longitude like a square grid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
withak posted:It is good for internet maps because it treats latitude and longitude like a square grid. A rectangular grid with the mapped distance between parallels varying by 1/cos (latitude), but yes. (Plate Carrée is the true square grid)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
But yeah, people get pissed at Mercator because it gets used in a lot of non-navigation contexts, and ends up being the most commonly-seen map by the public and by schoolchildren, when it'd be nice to have that role filled by a map that preserves area a little better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:A rectangular grid with the mapped distance between parallels varying by 1/cos (latitude), but yes. Yeah, it's good for programmers who don't want to think about projections. The only unit they have to worry about is degrees; never mind that one degree near the north pole is a whole lot smaller than one degree at the equator.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
withak posted:Yeah, it's good for programmers who don't want to think about projections. The only unit they have to worry about is degrees; never mind that one degree near the north pole is a whole lot smaller than one degree at the equator. Of course trying to make algorithms that actually take that into account is challenging. Using UTM is one option, but depending on what you need, it can be either more challenging to use than Mercator (a given) or less than optimal (due to its own sources of distortion).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
If you make a map of the world where lines of longitude and lines of latitude are straight lines, then you have a rectangular projection. Now presumably you're going to space your lines of longitude evenly because what kind of maniac makes a rectangular projection and makes longitude uneven. That leaves how you distribute your lines of latitude, and the different rectangular map projections all scale the vertical direction differently. The simplest one is the Equirectangular projection, and there you just space lines of latitude evenly too. In other words, if a north-south distance is 1km on Earth at the equation, and it's 1mm on your map, then a north-south distance of 1km at 60º will be 1mm on your map as well. This projection is nice and simple, but it doesn't preserve areas or shapes. If you drew a big square on the ground in Norway, and then drew it on your map, it would come out rectangular, and if you drew a big square of the same size at the equator, it would be smaller on your map than the square in Norway. This is because lines of longitude on Earth get shorter the further you go from the equator, and at the poles they become zero. But since your map is rectangular, it makes them all the same length, so the further north or south you go, the more the east-west direction gets stretched. One way to deal with this is to stretch the vertical direction exactly as much as the horizontal direction gets stretched, so that a square (or any other shape) looks the same on Earth as it does on the map, no matter how far north or south you are. This is the Mercator projection, and it's the only rectangular map that preserves shapes and angles. This makes it handy for things like Google maps because it means if you zoom in at the level of a city or a street nothing is stretched or squeezed weirdly. The problem with the Mercator is that it distorts the size of things. An Equirectangular projection already makes things near the poles appear larger than they are since it stretches the east-west, and Mercator makes it worse by also stretching the north-south. In fact it distorts things so badly at the poles that a Mercator has infinite vertical size. If you don't care about shape, and want to preserve size instead, then you can squeeze the vertical direction to counteract the horizontal stretching. Unlike Mercator, there's a whole family of rectangular projections that preserve area, since the relative size of horizontal and vertical lines don't matter. Equal area projections will make squares look like rectangles, and squeeze the shape of things. However, you can choose a pair of lines a specific distance from the equator where squares still look the squares. These are the standard parallels, and regions near them have the least amount of shape distortion, and of course, no area distortion. There's a bunch of equal area projections with different standard parallels, and the most infamous is the Peters projection. The Peters projection has its standard parallel at 45º, and it's the most eurocentric projection ever made. Africa, SE Asia, Central America etc get distorted beyond recognition, but Europe looks nice and pristine on the Peters projection. Unless you live in Norway in which case, gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
In general, the Peters projection sucks and that one West Wing clip on YouTube sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 04:52
|
|
