Australia

Snakes are awesome as long as they're viewed from behind a wall of glass. The "Oh hai. Are you food?" picture and text made me laugh out loud.
 
Last edited:
Terrific article on the Taipan, thanks.

:)

Yeah, I'm thinking. "How about a post devoted to things in Australia that live in the water and will kill you?"

Shouldn't run to more than about 15 pages.


[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/DangerousWater.jpg[/qimg]​


Maybe 16 pages. ;)
DropBearOnJetSki.jpg
 
Jason Alexander of Seinfield fame once talked of planning a holiday to Australia. Concerned about the population of deadly creatures we have he explained one consistent thing about Australia - You look on a map to decide which are the dangerous bits - you quickly discover the whole damn map is the dangerous bit.
 
Thats really well done - and the original map is gorgeous - Do you know anything about its history
 
Thats really well done - and the original map is gorgeous - Do you know anything about its history

The detail from the Cape and Gulf areas are clearly from Leichardt's 1844 expedition while it lacks Central Australian details from Stuart's 1860 trip. Perhaps produced sometime between these years, unless they omitted the centre details despite being available.
 
Last edited:
Thats really well done - and the original map is gorgeous - Do you know anything about its history?


Yes mate, and in fact you can buy it online for a mere $US 5.00.

Here's a description:


"Australia" drawn and engraved by J.Rapkin, published in Tallis's Illustrated Atlas, 1851. The original is a detailed steel engraved map with original hand colouring and a centrefold which is just visible on the image. Small inset views of Sydney, Aborigines and wildlife.

Here's a snippet showing the Adelaide area at full resolution (400 dpi).​


It's available from Steve Bartrick Antique Prints and Maps.
 
Last edited:
The detail from the Cape and Gulf areas are clearly from Leichardt's 1844 expedition while it lacks Central Australian details from Stuart's 1860 trip. Perhaps produced sometime between these years, unless they omitted the centre details despite being available.


Exactly what you said! Well done indeed.


Happy birthday, Mate.
 
Therefore Perkins was the greater performance.
Depends on your definition of "greater", surely?

Part of the skill in short-track speed skating is in staying upright. Bradbury was clearly better at that than everyone else. Therefore Bradbury is the "greater" athlete, since there was no opportunity for Perkins to achieve a similar result. All Perkins had to do was swim faster than everyone else. There was no chance of screwing up the way there was in speed skating, unless you count accidentally inhaling water and drowning. Bradbury was the only one who was able to stay on his feet, and that to me is a "greater" performance than someone whose only ability was to be more slippery. :p
 
I recently learned that Melbourne is larger in population than Los Angeles (USA's second-largest city).
 
I recently learned that Melbourne is larger in population than Los Angeles (USA's second-largest city).


Yes, it's a bit counter-intuitive, isn't it? Similarly to noting that Australia has five cities with populations over a million compared to the USA's nine, it shows how much we're concentrated into a relatively small part of the continent.

Another, somewhat striking, statistic that highlights the difference in the spread of our urban populations is the number of cities with populations between 100,000 and 1,000,000. Australia has 13 whereas the United States has 266.
 
I recently learned that Melbourne is larger in population than Los Angeles (USA's second-largest city).

I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. Los Angeles City population is about 3 million. Melbourne's population is 78,000

Melbourne's urban population is close to 3.5 million. Los Angele's urban population is approaching 14 million
 
I recently learned that Melbourne is larger in population than Los Angeles (USA's second-largest city).

That's only because of city boundary definitions. Melbournes population is actually Melbournes population, since it includes the entire residential region. Los Angeles entire Metro area contains 15 million people, but contains 88 "cities" in Los Angeles County alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles_Area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Los_Angeles_County,_California
 
I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. Los Angeles City population is about 3 million. Melbourne's population is 78,000

Melbourne's urban population is close to 3.5 million. Los Angele's urban population is approaching 14 million

No, it's because of the way the cities are defined. Melbourne is one city with lots of suburbs, the Greater Los Angeles Metro area is 88 cities in Los Angeles County, plus more cities in Orange County, San Bernadino County, Riverside County and Ventura County, of which the biggest is Los Angeles with 3.79 million people, compared to Melbournes 4.13 million people. If all those other cities were defined as suburbs rather than separate cities, Los Angeles would indeed be much larger than Melbourne, but because they're technically separate, even though they're really not, it isn't.
 

Back
Top Bottom