
The Random Image Thread (keeping it PG-13 at the worst)
- Pithecanthropus
- Posts: 6226
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:46 pm
- Title: Roast Master
- Location: St. Cloud, MN
- Contact:
set DeusEx.JCDentonMale bCheatsEnabled true
There's drunk, there's Army drunk, then there's Disney Princess drunk.
- DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33881
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
There's drunk, there's Army drunk, then there's Disney Princess drunk.
- DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33881
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
- Séamas
- Posts: 7155
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 pm
- Title: Honorary Consul General
- Location: Where am I?
Cool.
One of my college roommates lives there, he and his husband own a cafe..
One of my college roommates lives there, he and his husband own a cafe..
And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.
- Freakout Jackson
- Posts: 1878
- Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:53 am
- Title: Chillin' with mah trollees™
- Location: Undisclosed Location™
- DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33881
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
- Freakout Jackson
- Posts: 1878
- Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:53 am
- Title: Chillin' with mah trollees™
- Location: Undisclosed Location™
Freakout Jackson wrote:
That's wrong. Funny, but wrong. (and funny because of Weasley)
Also, yes, he did violate the prime directive all the time.
- DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33881
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
- DukeofNuke
- Posts: 33881
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
- Title: FREE RADICAL
- Location: Scintillating!
I have some problems with that population graphic.
First, the usual reckoning for human generations is about 30 years and not the 20 years (5 generations per century) used there. Certainly a particular generational separation could be as small as 14 or as large as 45 (ignoring lab-implanted embryos for a few women further past menopause as this has been available only for the last generation) but usually 30 is used as an average for the general popluation in the long run. Using 3 generations per century one winds up with a genetic pool of 2^18 or about a quarter-million people in 1400 CE--still a large number but not the billion people in that graphic.
Second, aside from the emigrant exodus from Europe, Asia and (sometime involuntariry) Africa which began as a trickle in the early 1500's and reaching into the millions per year by the late 1800's, humans are mostly a stay-at-home bunch. Sure, war and drought and other natural and man-made disasters have caused some mass movements at times, but even after such there is a tendency for people to return to where they are from if it is at all possible. Even for much of the immigrant population into the US which have almost entirely stayed there was the strong idea that after these people got rich in the US that they would return home wherever that might be.
There is also the (sub)urbanization of local populations where to one degree or another the Industrial Revolution has forced people to move from farms to cities (and then to the suburbs in the 20th century), but this can be viewed as a kind of man-made "disaster" for which the movement was more often one way than not, and this is a more modern phenomenon dating from about 1750 CE or later depending on from which particular people you are descended.
Still, even today there are many localities in Europe and Asia and Africa where despite considerable modern mobility there are distinct local populations that share characteristic speech and sometimes ethnic distinctions. To be sure: this was sometimes because some groups were despied by others like the Jews or the Untouchables in India, but even when you discount these prejudicial cases you can find considerable distinctions between people from relatively close Old World towns like, say, Liverpool and Manchester in England. Confine yourself to the travel possibilities of 1400 CE and these local populations were all but locked to the locality (aside from such disasters as cited above).
So are you "related to everybody...twice" by statistical reasoning? It is a nice sentiment but not at all realistic. My ancestors in 1400 CE Japan were highly unlikely to have had even a notion of anyone's ancestors in 1400 CE Europe or Africa much less engage in sex and thus be directly related. On the other hand each of us is likely to be related to nearly everyone in the district or town of origin in 1400 CE via dozens if not hundreds of paths.
First, the usual reckoning for human generations is about 30 years and not the 20 years (5 generations per century) used there. Certainly a particular generational separation could be as small as 14 or as large as 45 (ignoring lab-implanted embryos for a few women further past menopause as this has been available only for the last generation) but usually 30 is used as an average for the general popluation in the long run. Using 3 generations per century one winds up with a genetic pool of 2^18 or about a quarter-million people in 1400 CE--still a large number but not the billion people in that graphic.
Second, aside from the emigrant exodus from Europe, Asia and (sometime involuntariry) Africa which began as a trickle in the early 1500's and reaching into the millions per year by the late 1800's, humans are mostly a stay-at-home bunch. Sure, war and drought and other natural and man-made disasters have caused some mass movements at times, but even after such there is a tendency for people to return to where they are from if it is at all possible. Even for much of the immigrant population into the US which have almost entirely stayed there was the strong idea that after these people got rich in the US that they would return home wherever that might be.
There is also the (sub)urbanization of local populations where to one degree or another the Industrial Revolution has forced people to move from farms to cities (and then to the suburbs in the 20th century), but this can be viewed as a kind of man-made "disaster" for which the movement was more often one way than not, and this is a more modern phenomenon dating from about 1750 CE or later depending on from which particular people you are descended.
Still, even today there are many localities in Europe and Asia and Africa where despite considerable modern mobility there are distinct local populations that share characteristic speech and sometimes ethnic distinctions. To be sure: this was sometimes because some groups were despied by others like the Jews or the Untouchables in India, but even when you discount these prejudicial cases you can find considerable distinctions between people from relatively close Old World towns like, say, Liverpool and Manchester in England. Confine yourself to the travel possibilities of 1400 CE and these local populations were all but locked to the locality (aside from such disasters as cited above).
So are you "related to everybody...twice" by statistical reasoning? It is a nice sentiment but not at all realistic. My ancestors in 1400 CE Japan were highly unlikely to have had even a notion of anyone's ancestors in 1400 CE Europe or Africa much less engage in sex and thus be directly related. On the other hand each of us is likely to be related to nearly everyone in the district or town of origin in 1400 CE via dozens if not hundreds of paths.
- Séamas
- Posts: 7155
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 pm
- Title: Honorary Consul General
- Location: Where am I?
DEyncourt wrote: I have some problems with that population graphic.
First, the usual reckoning for human generations is about 30 years and not the 20 years (5 generations per century) used there. Certainly a particular generational separation could be as small as 14 or as large as 45 (ignoring lab-implanted embryos for a few women further past menopause as this has been available only for the last generation) but usually 30 is used as an average for the general popluation in the long run. Using 3 generations per century one winds up with a genetic pool of 2^18 or about a quarter-million people in 1400 CE--still a large number but not the billion people in that graphic.
Second, aside from the emigrant exodus from Europe, Asia and (sometime involuntariry) Africa which began as a trickle in the early 1500's and reaching into the millions per year by the late 1800's, humans are mostly a stay-at-home bunch. Sure, war and drought and other natural and man-made disasters have caused some mass movements at times, but even after such there is a tendency for people to return to where they are from if it is at all possible. Even for much of the immigrant population into the US which have almost entirely stayed there was the strong idea that after these people got rich in the US that they would return home wherever that might be.
There is also the (sub)urbanization of local populations where to one degree or another the Industrial Revolution has forced people to move from farms to cities (and then to the suburbs in the 20th century), but this can be viewed as a kind of man-made "disaster" for which the movement was more often one way than not, and this is a more modern phenomenon dating from about 1750 CE or later depending on from which particular people you are descended.
Still, even today there are many localities in Europe and Asia and Africa where despite considerable modern mobility there are distinct local populations that share characteristic speech and sometimes ethnic distinctions. To be sure: this was sometimes because some groups were despied by others like the Jews or the Untouchables in India, but even when you discount these prejudicial cases you can find considerable distinctions between people from relatively close Old World towns like, say, Liverpool and Manchester in England. Confine yourself to the travel possibilities of 1400 CE and these local populations were all but locked to the locality (aside from such disasters as cited above).
So are you "related to everybody...twice" by statistical reasoning? It is a nice sentiment but not at all realistic. My ancestors in 1400 CE Japan were highly unlikely to have had even a notion of anyone's ancestors in 1400 CE Europe or Africa much less engage in sex and thus be directly related. On the other hand each of us is likely to be related to nearly everyone in the district or town of origin in 1400 CE via dozens if not hundreds of paths.
I was thinking the same thing.
I am pretty certain that a lot of my great-great grandparents were second or third cousins.
I don't know much about Manchester--but one huge distinction for Liverpool is that a huge amount of its population descend from Irish famine refugees.
The British Isles are interesting in just what you are saying--there are regional ethnic differences that are still evident from migrations hundreds and thousands of years ago.
I don't know much about Manchester, but one major difference between it and Liverpool is that Liverpool absorbed a ton of Irish after the famine.
I know all through the British Isles there are some fairly ancient ethniic differences
And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.

Unlimited Growth is the Ideology of a Cancer Cell
New scorpion species discovered in the Santa Catalina Mtns outside Tucson, AZ. This one is carrying its young on its back.
http://www.livescience.com/27265-new-ar ... ecies.html

http://www.livescience.com/27265-new-ar ... ecies.html
- Séamas
- Posts: 7155
- Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 pm
- Title: Honorary Consul General
- Location: Where am I?
OldYoda wrote:![]()
My sister's husband is in FDNY, and has done that a couple times--other times they just roll the car end over end out of the way. He once kicked in a windshield when a car tried to pass them on a street where they were responding to a fire.
And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.