71–80 of 84 posts
I didn't read the article but the first thing that jumped into my head is why are they comparing the size of a continent to sizes of countries?
People seem to compare the US with Europe all the time. Edit: My favourite being an, apparently serious, assertion by an HN user than Europe would fit in Texas... :-)
Awful blogspam devoid of any original thought. Besides, it is obvious, looking at the provided Mercator map, that Africa is at least twice the size of US and China, so the argument that Mercator somehow makes Africa appear much smaller is clearly bullshit. The only areas that Mercator distorts significantly are polar regions. You would have a point comparing Canada with Africa on Mercator map. However the US and Chin…
edit - are you looking at the right line for the equator?
Related link : The Mercator Puzzle : https://gmaps-samples.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/poly/puzzledr... A nice way to get a feel for the distortions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While we’re talking about map projections, I’ve long been partial to Cahill’s octahedral maps. Gene Keyes has some derivatives and a comprehensive website about the subject. http://www.genekeyes.com/B.J.S._CAHILL_RESOURCE.html I’ve recently been trying to make some better Cahill spinoffs of my own. Here’s a conformal version: http://i.imgur.com/RhZL1FN.jpg
Would you mind sharing how you go about making these? I found the Cahill projection a few years ago and was disappointed that I couldn't seem to find one in print. The one I found that seem to resemble it is the Waterman projection which is also available in printed versions.
Spend a month or two reading the appropriate books about cartography, complex analysis, and approximation theory, and then write some Matlab code. :-)
I didn't read the article but the first thing that jumped into my head is why are they comparing the size of a continent to sizes of countries?
In other news, look how many continents can fit in the ocean. See how many moons can fit in the earth. Lots of smaller things can fit in larger things!
Awful blogspam devoid of any original thought. Besides, it is obvious, looking at the provided Mercator map, that Africa is at least twice the size of US and China, so the argument that Mercator somehow makes Africa appear much smaller is clearly bullshit. The only areas that Mercator distorts significantly are polar regions. You would have a point comparing Canada with Africa on Mercator map. However the US and Chin…
The US is between the 30th and 45th parallel north. South Africa lies on the 30th parallel south. There is massive distortion between the sizes of the US and Africa on a Mercator map. edit - are you looking at the right line for the equator?
[1] http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/110730/mercator-scale...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US is between the 30th and 45th parallel north. South Africa lies on the 30th parallel south. There is massive distortion between the sizes of the US and Africa on a Mercator map. edit - are you looking at the right line for the equator?
Except the distortion is clearly not massive if you look at the map and the actual size comparison on the globe, I don't know why you keep saying that. Check the math here [1]. You would see that the latitudes where US and China are located are not massively distorted, even if you don't trust your own eyes. The whole "Mercator map is used (or was made) so that US appears larger than it is" is such bullshit that it bo…
From your link the contiguous US would appear to be represented at ~ 1.7 times larger scale than the continent of Africa, on average. If I am comparing area and something is generally over 1.5 times bigger than it should be, that is a massive distortion, other more massive distortions notwithstanding.
edited to add -
I don't think the article or anyone in particular is trying to claim that the Mercator projection was created or used to make the US look larger, I mean, the map predates the USA by over 200 years.
People are trying to discourage it because it is a distortion that is only really of use to people navigating the sea in boats using paper charts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup. From the very beginning. Remember, the UN is a product of WWII. All the winners got a seat at the table.
That is incorrect. The word 'China' after WWII referred to what is now called Taiwan. Nixon eventually normalized relations with mainland China and arranged for Taiwan's seat to be swapped for the mainland Chinese.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is incorrect. The word 'China' after WWII referred to what is now called Taiwan. Nixon eventually normalized relations with mainland China and arranged for Taiwan's seat to be swapped for the mainland Chinese.
That is incorrect. The PRC (People's Republic of China) came into being in 1949. The UN was founded in 1945. That's a 4 year difference. At the time, there was only one China and the government that signed the treaty was the same as the one that was eventually exiled into Taiwan.
The temporary halt to the power struggle over mainland China was just a self preservation tactic on the part of both parties.