The Random Image Thread (keeping it PG-13 at the worst)

How's life?
User avatar
flabberghastedpepper
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:12 pm

Post by flabberghastedpepper »

Image
i can haz?
Now you might have a very minor case of serious brain damage! But don't be alarmed, all right? Uh, although if you do feel alarmed, try to hold on to that feeling because that is the proper reaction to being told that you've got brain damage.
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25359
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

Image
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25359
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

Image
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

radarman wrote: Image


that could only be from the short-lived logan's run tv series
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
DEyncourt
Posts: 17395
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:38 am

Post by DEyncourt »

StaticAge wrote:
DEyncourt wrote:
StaticAge wrote:
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.

Not to mention that it only accounts for ancestors having one child per couple. That's totally unreal. And, of course, more kids means that the population doesn't exponentially double each previous generation the way the picture portrays it as happening.

(In other words, I have two siblings, but all of us combined only have one set of parents. The graph assumes that every single person in the population has two unique parents; according to the graphic there would need to be six people one generation ago for me and my siblings)

Um, no.

There is nothing in that population graphic about siblings--it is only about a given person's direct ancestors. Going back N generations there are 2^N slots to be filled, and for almost everyone when N=18 there are likely many individuals who fill several of the 256K slots of that generation, perhaps as often as hundreds of times for some particular ancestors. It matters not if while tracing back your paternal line that your (great^X)-grandfather was a single child or was in a family with 10 siblings because none of those siblings are your direct ancestors (unless, of course, they are through another branch).

I know it doesnt mention siblings, thats my point. If going back each generation really doubles the population, you have to think about how at some point it also must taper off to an ancient common ancestor. How would that happen?
[snip]

But that original graphic does NOT double the population. I think that you are confusing the number of slots in a theoretically complete chart of one's ancestors with actual people. If you go back 30 generations (as was done in the original population graphic), then there will be 2^30 or just over 1 billion slots to fill. If you also use the given world population estimate for 1400 CE as being under a half-billion, then by necessity every person who was alive then would have to appear in the chart at least twice on average. This is NOT the same thing as saying that every person must appear twice: I've argued that a overwhelming majority people of 1400 CE will not appear at all and that some individuals will appear thousands if not millions of times (if you allow an extension of my previous arguments to 30 generations instead of the 18 for which I argued).

If one were inclined towards young-Earth creationism then one could go back about 300 generations (by the 5 generations per century reckoning) and have a chart with 2^300 slots which has "Adam" and "Eve" appearing in alternating slots.
User avatar
DukeofNuke
Posts: 33305
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
Title: FREE RADICAL
Location: Scintillating!

Post by DukeofNuke »

TOS wrote:
DukeofNuke wrote:
TOS wrote: Image

I see Dave 7 times.


yeah that quite annoyed me ... i thought that surely others could have been found

At least, moar Ripley !
intellectual/hipster/nihilist

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

Lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky.....
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.

Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.

...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
User avatar
StaticAge
Posts: 4776
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:29 pm

Post by StaticAge »

DEyncourt wrote:
StaticAge wrote:
DEyncourt wrote:
StaticAge wrote:
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.

Not to mention that it only accounts for ancestors having one child per couple. That's totally unreal. And, of course, more kids means that the population doesn't exponentially double each previous generation the way the picture portrays it as happening.

(In other words, I have two siblings, but all of us combined only have one set of parents. The graph assumes that every single person in the population has two unique parents; according to the graphic there would need to be six people one generation ago for me and my siblings)

Um, no.

There is nothing in that population graphic about siblings--it is only about a given person's direct ancestors. Going back N generations there are 2^N slots to be filled, and for almost everyone when N=18 there are likely many individuals who fill several of the 256K slots of that generation, perhaps as often as hundreds of times for some particular ancestors. It matters not if while tracing back your paternal line that your (great^X)-grandfather was a single child or was in a family with 10 siblings because none of those siblings are your direct ancestors (unless, of course, they are through another branch).

I know it doesnt mention siblings, thats my point. If going back each generation really doubles the population, you have to think about how at some point it also must taper off to an ancient common ancestor. How would that happen?
[snip]

But that original graphic does NOT double the population. I think that you are confusing the number of slots in a theoretically complete chart of one's ancestors with actual people. If you go back 30 generations (as was done in the original population graphic), then there will be 2^30 or just over 1 billion slots to fill. If you also use the given world population estimate for 1400 CE as being under a half-billion, then by necessity every person who was alive then would have to appear in the chart at least twice on average. This is NOT the same thing as saying that every person must appear twice: I've argued that a overwhelming majority people of 1400 CE will not appear at all and that some individuals will appear thousands if not millions of times (if you allow an extension of my previous arguments to 30 generations instead of the 18 for which I argued).

If one were inclined towards young-Earth creationism then one could go back about 300 generations (by the 5 generations per century reckoning) and have a chart with 2^300 slots which has "Adam" and "Eve" appearing in alternating slots.

My point is that because people can have, in your words, individuals appearing in several slots, that the implication that the population of 1400 or so are related is false, because families that produce consecutive generations where siblings appear means that sections of the population need not depend on a larger base, instead, the population is sustained and constrained as far back as you like, isolating them from other people alive at whatever point in history you want to say everyone is related to everyone.

The graph isn't presenting a math problem accounting for slots, it's saying that everyone is related because of those "slots."

If you want to have a graph that truly shows everyone related to everyone by number of slots, you'd want to have the bottom number equal to the number if everyone who has ever lived throughout all time.
Remember we're a minority and every one of us counts.
User avatar
rjprice
Posts: 4943
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:03 pm

Post by rjprice »

Image
There's drunk, there's Army drunk, then there's Disney Princess drunk.
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

Image
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30684
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by dv »

rjprice wrote: Image

That's... hard core.
Image
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

ow ow ow ow ow

Image
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
Kirk
Posts: 25939
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: SLO

Post by Kirk »

Looks like broken neck and dead, ugh
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

Image
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
Kirk
Posts: 25939
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: SLO

Post by Kirk »

rjprice wrote: Image

Yup, that's how its done. I can't stand those mouth stops (little white piece) and don't use them.
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30684
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by dv »

Kirk wrote:
rjprice wrote: Image

Yup, that's how its done. I can't stand those mouth stops (little white piece) and don't use them.

Wait, so that isn't Extreme Tooth Removal™?
Image
User avatar
DukeofNuke
Posts: 33305
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:33 pm
Title: FREE RADICAL
Location: Scintillating!

Post by DukeofNuke »

Kirk wrote: Looks like broken neck and dead, ugh


that's from one of the "Final Destination" movies
intellectual/hipster/nihilist

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."
-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
ukimalefu
Posts: 44210
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:52 pm
Title: want, but shouldn't, may anyway
Location: Failed State

Post by ukimalefu »

DukeofNuke wrote:
Kirk wrote: Looks like broken neck and dead, ugh


that's from one of the "Final Destination" movies


I was going to say that it looks like videogame rag doll physics.
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30684
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by dv »

ukimalefu wrote:
DukeofNuke wrote:
Kirk wrote: Looks like broken neck and dead, ugh


that's from one of the "Final Destination" movies


I was going to say that it looks like videogame rag doll physics.


Yeah.

There are actually videos of gymnastic faceplants all over Youtube. (Olympians, no less.)

That's why there's padding, I guess.
Image
User avatar
Séamas
Posts: 6905
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 pm
Title: Honorary Consul General
Location: Where am I?

Post by Séamas »

ScifiterX wrote:
Séamas wrote: If they still aired Looney Tunes, they would know better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Looney_Tunes_Show


The description makes it sound dreadful. Is it any good?
And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30684
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by dv »

Séamas wrote:
ScifiterX wrote:
Séamas wrote: If they still aired Looney Tunes, they would know better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Looney_Tunes_Show


The description makes it sound dreadful. Is it any good?

Good enough to be renewed for a second season.

Although given the network it's on, you may have to be a stoner to appreciate it.
Image
User avatar
mmaverick
Posts: 8966
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:45 pm
Title: my steady systematic decline
Location: BC

Post by mmaverick »

flabberghastedpepper wrote: Image
i can haz?


sure, just work in the groupon building and spend a fortune on a small amount of skittles. or buy giant bags from amazon and do it yourself.
This post is not racist.
User avatar
Geesie
Posts: 26077
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:18 am
Title: Couldn't hit it sideways
Location: Searching for my mainline

Post by Geesie »

Image
Image
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

Image
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
rjprice
Posts: 4943
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:03 pm

Post by rjprice »

Image
There's drunk, there's Army drunk, then there's Disney Princess drunk.
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

Image
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25359
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

Image
User avatar
maurvir
Posts: 25359
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Title: Steamed meat popsicle

Post by maurvir »

Image
Image
User avatar
Freakout Jackson
Posts: 1878
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:53 am
Title: Chillin' with mah trollees™
Location: Undisclosed Location™

Post by Freakout Jackson »

Dont_Mess_With_Canadian_Girls.jpeg
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

Image
Image
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
Kirk
Posts: 25939
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: SLO

Post by Kirk »

That's a nice pistol range.
User avatar
rjprice
Posts: 4943
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:03 pm

Post by rjprice »

Image
There's drunk, there's Army drunk, then there's Disney Princess drunk.
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

Image
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
Séamas
Posts: 6905
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:32 pm
Title: Honorary Consul General
Location: Where am I?

Post by Séamas »

TOS wrote: Image

Responsible, law-abiding gun owner.
And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

Good thing he's wearing that orange hat.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.

Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.

...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

and i'm sure that's near bear on the railing
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
user
Posts: 29386
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:40 pm
Title: Stupid cockwomble

Post by user »

That's what's he's shooting at - the bear.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.

Science is Truth for Life. In FORTRAN tongue the Answer.

...so I'm supposed to find the Shadow King from inside a daiquiri?
User avatar
TOS
Posts: 39391
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:48 pm

Post by TOS »

whoops i meant to say near beer
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
User avatar
Kirk
Posts: 25939
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: SLO

Post by Kirk »

I liked it better as near bear
User avatar
dv
Posts: 30684
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:42 pm

Post by dv »

Kirk wrote: I liked it better as near bear

If a bear was near me, I'd probably grab a gun.
Image
Post Reply