leviramsey Posted February 9, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted February 9, 2008 Full-size version (note, for instance, that the river orgasm runs between G-Spot and Heaven) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 World for NZ's point of view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 http://www.stadiumhunt.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 11, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted February 11, 2008 The Republic of New Netherland (I happen to live in Massachusetts, just a mile or so from the border with Nieuw-Haven) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 20, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20, 2008 The barbecue sauce regions of South Carolina: * The vinegar & pepper of the east is basically the standard sauce of eastern North Carolina (and basically what's known as Carolina barbecue sauce) * The tomato region is essentially the same but with tomato added; it's still very thin and with a pronounced vinegar flavor (and mirrors the standard sauce for central and western North Carolina) * The ketchup-based sauce is basically what passes outside of the Carolinas for barbecue sauce * The mustard-based sauce is unique to South Carolina and largely the result of German settlement there in the 18th century I'm hungry now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Inspired by the WWII rant on another thread, here is a map of what europe would have looked like if hitler had won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 3, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted March 3, 2008 I somewhat doubt that Hitler wouldn't have invaded Ireland after taking the UK... there's also some basis to suggest that de Valera shared my doubts (that the only executions and imprisonments for endangering Irish neutrality were those supporting the Germans, while nearly 40 thousand odd Irishmen fought for the UK may support the notion). To say nothing of this quote: "An independent Ireland would see its own independence in jeopardy the moment it saw the independence of Britain seriously threatened. Mutual self-interest would make the people of these two islands, if both independent, the closest of allies in a moment of real national danger to either." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 3, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted March 3, 2008 And on a related note, this wonderful British forgery: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 3, 2008 Moderator Share Posted March 3, 2008 Explain please Levi and Gringo there appears to be part of the legend missing from that map Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 3, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted March 3, 2008 If you're commenting on Gringo's map, white fairly obviously implies independence/neutrality (given that Switzerland and Sweden are also so colored). My map lacks a legend, but the following discussion appears on the Strange Maps blog "Hitler has often protested that his plans for conquest do not extend across the Atlantic Ocean. I have in my possession a secret map, made in Germany by Hitler’s government – by the planners of the new world order. It is a map of South America and a part of Central America as Hitler proposes to reorganize it," revealed US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his Navy Day address to the nation, broadcast on 27 October 1941. The map, however, was a fake. World War II revisionists (not to put too fine a point on it: those who would have preferred the Nazis to win) claim this proves that FDR was a war-mongerer, prepared to lie shamelessly in order to drag the US into war. But in this case, FDR might have been more mongered against than mongering – the map most probably was a British forgery, not an American one. While FDR indeed was a steadfast advocate for a more active US role in the unfolding conflict, he was up against formidable internal resistance to entry into war. It was the British who had more to gain from American involvement, because they had everything to lose. In this phase of the conflict, Britain stood virtually alone, Nazi Germany controlling most of the European continent and kicking Soviet butt in the early months of Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union. The US would only be dragged into the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, later that same year, on December 7. For Britain, desperate times called for desperate measures, one of which would have been the forgery of this map, the point of which was to instill in the Americans the notion that the Nazis, if victorious in Europe, would not leave the American continent alone, thus challenging the Monroe Doctrine. The story behind the map, as (probably, but not provably) produced by the British intelligence services, went like this: In October 1941, a British agent managed to snatch this map from the bag of a German courier straight after the latter’s involvement in a car crash in Buenos Aires. The map showed how the Nazis intended to reorganise South America into five satellite states, each one a Gau with a German Gauleiter. The Monroe Doctrine being, historically, the dominant pillar of American foreign policy stating that basically any action by a European (by extension, any power outside of the Western Hemisphere) against the sovereignty of any state in the Western Hemisphere would be considered an action hostile to the United States and possibly as grounds for war against the European state in question. It occurs to me that the Monroe Doctrine may explain why the USA stayed a respectful distance away from the Falklands War... one could interpret the doctrine in a way that would obligate the USA to consider Britain hostile in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Don't know if this is the correct thread, but stick these coordinates in Google maps then change to satellite view. 37 38 45.90 N 115 44 57.90 W 25 01 00.48 N 77 17 46.92 W Tee hee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 9, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted March 9, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 Found these world maps on the old interweb , the oil consumption map is interesting , see the way Japan suddenly bloats almost the size of Russia anyway ..take a look if you're interested ... Interesting ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 27, 2008 Moderator Share Posted March 27, 2008 Some interesting things there, for me Africa being the most interesting of all. Its nothing I wasn't already aware of but is still a good visual aid for illustrating the vast inbalances of our modern world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 27, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted March 27, 2008 Existing thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsby Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Did you also know that the current version of World Maps in print demonstrate the Mercator projection - which is a version best suited for navigational purposes. This method ensures accuracy with regards to shape but it hugely distorts the area of countires, especially those close to the poles. This results in the Soviet Union being 223% larger than it actually is Greenland is 554% bigger than it actually is, and Canada 258% bigger. So those maps from which we have all understood the world are good for sailing purposes, bad for understanding correct land mass sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted March 28, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted March 28, 2008 Did you also know that the current version of World Maps in print demonstrate the Mercator projection - which is a version best suited for navigational purposes. This method ensures accuracy with regards to shape but it hugely distorts the area of countires, especially those close to the poles. This results in the Soviet Union being 223% larger than it actually is Greenland is 554% bigger than it actually is, and Canada 258% bigger. So those maps from which we have all understood the world are good for sailing purposes, bad for understanding correct land mass sizes. It's mathematically impossible to have a 2-dimensional map that distorts neither direction nor distance/area. Cartographers have to balance the competing influences. The Mercator aims for minimal distortion of direction (by making any rhumb line a straight line), but that maximizes distortion of distances and areas. [yes, that's a Scalable Vector Graphic... if you have a browser that can't display those, well, too bad...] The Mollweide projection, meanwhile, preserves area but not direction (equal-area): There are compromise projections, such as the Robinson projection, which is the generally used projection for world maps in the USA (though the National Geographic Society switched projections after a decade of use about a decade ago). The Winkel-Tripel is considered by many authorities to be the ideal map, producing very small distance errors (given two pairs of points on the earth that for which the respective distances are equal, the corresponding pairs of points on the map are very close to each other in distance on the map), and small combinations of direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 ^^ call me stupid but without my morning coffee kicking in other than Antartica I can't see whee the 3 maps above look different from any other map of the world I've seen (or each other for that matter ) PS the license to call me stupid expires in 30 secs .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 28, 2008 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2008 Stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 i'm sure that was more than 30 sec :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts