Demorou, mas aconteceu!


Olá!

Cá estou novamente…pensei em aposentar este blog (eufemismo para: fechá-lo), mas dando uma olhadinha por aqui percebi que tem coisas bacaninhas, além das bobagens! hahahhahah E, por incrível que pareça, ele ainda é meu blog que recebe mais tráfego! Digo “por incrível que pareça” porque não escrevo mais aqui desde janeiro de 2014 (aquele post de outubro não conta…).

…deve ser o número de palavras-chave despudoradas 😉 hahahahahahah

Enfim, o fato é que abandonei este blog quando o espaço para imagens acabou (me recuso a pagar uma anuidade para o WordPress só pra poder colocar meus amados wallpapers!), aí eu reativei meu blog antigo

Fiore Rouge, de 2005 e abri mais um (Another Aurora), só de imagens. Acontece que o espaço no Fiore Rouge foi para as cucuias também!!! Já faz meses, aliás…mas ele é meu xodó, mais do que o Janus. Então, apesar de receber poucos visitantes e não ter mais espaço para nada, continuarei ali. E no Aurora. Enquanto o Janus recebe mais visitantes, o Aurora tem mais seguidores. Não entendo a razão, mas tudo bem 🙂

Visitem ambos, caso tenham interesse!!! Ah, e não se esqueçam também do meu blog sobre o Andre Matos

 

Anúncios

Simplified map of London


This map came from here. And so did the following comments:

  1. “I live in London and this map is fairly accurate. The Very Rich area would be Pimlico, maybe Notting Hill, Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster, the West End, Primrose Hill, maybe Hampstead. London has other wealthy areas but what differentiates these from those is that these areas have always been wealthy, rather than Johhny come lately areas that have been gentrified.”
  2. “General rules of thumb: in a city the wealthier neighborhoods tend to be upwind, upriver, and uphill. Occasionally extreme geographic constraints will override those rules. In the case of London, the Thames was horribly polluted and smelly in the first half of the 18th century (look up “The Great Stink”). My guess is that the “Very Rich” area would be the westernmost part of London in 1850, and that the “Losers” area west of there developed after the Thames was cleaned up. (I should line up some historical maps of London to the above map to see.)”
  3. “It just goes to show you. It takes a lot of losers to support a few rich folks.”
  4. “Have you seen the houses in Richmond or Hampstead? They don’t look like looser houses to me… There was actually an article in Time Out which mapped the London Boundary in relation to were the first Harvester eatery is located. So, were Harvester starts London stops. That is a clever way to show social divide within a city.”

US States Renamed For Countries With Similar GDPs


Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a convenient way of measuring and comparing the size of national economies. Annual GDP represents the market value of all goods and services produced within a country in a year. Put differently:

GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + (exports – imports)

Although the economies of countries like China and India are growing at an incredible rate, the US remains the nation with the highest GDP in the world – and by far: US GDP is projected to be $13,22 trillion (or $13.220 billion) in 2007, according to this source. That’s almost as much as the economies of the next four (Japan, Germany, China, UK) combined.

The creator of this map has had the interesting idea to break down that gigantic US GDP into the GDPs of individual states, and compare those to other countries’ GDP. What follows, is this slightly misleading map – misleading, because the economies both of the US states and of the countries they are compared with are not weighted for their respective populations.

Pakistan, for example, has a GDP that’s slightly higher than Israel’s – but Pakistan has a population of about 170 million, while Israel is only 7 million people strong. The US states those economies are compared with (Arkansas and Oregon, respectively) are much closer to each other in population: 2,7 million and 3,4 million.

And yet, wile a per capita GDP might give a good indication of the average wealth of citizens, a ranking of the economies on this map does serve two interesting purposes: it shows the size of US states’ economies relative to each other (California is the biggest, Wyoming the smallest), and it links those sizes with foreign economies (which are therefore also ranked: Mexico’s and Russia’s economies are about equal size, Ireland’s is twice as big as New Zealand’s). Here’s a run-down of the 50 states, plus DC:

  1. California, it is often said, would be the world’s sixth- or seventh-largest economy if it was a separate country. Actually, that would be the eighth, according to this map, as France (with a GDP of $2,15 trillion) is #8 on the aforementioned list.
  2. Texas’ economy is significantly smaller, exactly half of California’s, as its GDP compares to that of Canada (#10, $1,08 trillion).
  3. Florida also does well, with its GDP comparable to Asian tiger South Korea’s (#13 at $786 billion).
  4. Illinois – Mexico (GDP #14 at $741 billion)
  5. New Jersey – Russia (GDP #15 at $733 billion)
  6. Ohio – Australia (GDP #16 at $645 billion)
  7. New York – Brazil (GDP #17 at $621 billion)
  8. Pennsylvania – Netherlands (GDP #18 at $613 billion)
  9. Georgia – Switzerland (GDP #19 at $387 billion)
  10. North Carolina – Sweden (GDP #20 at $371 billion)
  11. Massachusetts – Belgium (GDP #21 at $368 billion)
  12. Washington – Turkey (GDP #22 at $358 billion)
  13. Virginia – Austria (GDP #24 at $309 billion)
  14. Tennessee – Saudi Arabia (GDP #25 at $286 billion)
  15. Missouri – Poland (GDP #26 at $265 billion)
  16. Louisiana – Indonesia (GDP #27 at $264 billion)
  17. Minnesota – Norway (GDP #28 at $262 billion)
  18. Indiana – Denmark (GDP #29 at $256 billion)
  19. Connecticut – Greece (GDP #30 at $222 billion)
  20. Michigan – Argentina (GDP #31 at $210 billion)
  21. Nevada – Ireland (GDP #32 at $203 billion)
  22. Wisconsin – South Africa (GDP #33 at $200 billion)
  23. Arizona – Thailand (GDP #34 at $197 billion)
  24. Colorado – Finland (GDP #35 at $196 billion)
  25. Alabama – Iran (GDP #36 at $195 billion)
  26. Maryland – Hong Kong (#37 at $187 billion GDP)
  27. Kentucky – Portugal (GDP #38 at $177 billion)
  28. Iowa – Venezuela (GDP #39 at $148 billion)
  29. Kansas – Malaysia (GDP #40 at $132 billion)
  30. Arkansas – Pakistan (GDP #41 at $124 billion)
  31. Oregon – Israel (GDP #42 at $122 billion)
  32. South Carolina – Singapore (GDP #43 at $121 billion)
  33. Nebraska – Czech Republic (GDP #44 at $119 billion)
  34. New Mexico – Hungary (GDP #45 at $113 billion)
  35. Mississippi – Chile (GDP #48 at $100 billion)
  36. DC – New Zealand (#49 at $99 billion GDP)
  37. Oklahoma – Philippines (GDP #50 at $98 billion)
  38. West Virginia – Algeria (GDP #51 at $92 billion)
  39. Hawaii – Nigeria (GDP #53 at $83 billion)
  40. Idaho – Ukraine (GDP #54 at $81 billion)
  41. Delaware – Romania (#55 at $79 billion GDP)
  42. Utah – Peru (GDP #56 at $76 billion)
  43. New Hampshire – Bangladesh (GDP #57 at $69 billion)
  44. Maine – Morocco (GDP #59 at $57 billion)
  45. Rhode Island – Vietnam (GDP #61 at $48 billion)
  46. South Dakota – Croatia (GDP #66 at $37 billion)
  47. Montana – Tunisia (GDP #69 at $33 billion)
  48. North Dakota – Ecuador (GDP #70 at $32 billion)
  49. Alaska – Belarus (GDP #73 at $29 billion)
  50. Vermont – Dominican Republic (GDP #81 at $20 billion)
  51. Wyoming – Uzbekistan (GDP #101 at $11 billion)

This map was suggested by Morgan via strangemaps@gmail.com, and can be found here. Please note that the GDP data used for this comparison are not necessarily the same as those used in compiling the original map.

(this very cool post has come from this very cool blog)

Stephen Hawking


Zygmunt Bauman – The Global Factory of Wasted Humans


Zygmunt Bauman, one of the greatest sociologists of our time, a harsh critic of modernity, talks about “The Global Factory of Wasted Humans” in a filmed conference published on the French video portal “Audiovisual Research Archive”

“The production of ‘human waste’ – or more precisely, wasted lives, the ‘superfluous’ populations of migrants, refugees and other outcasts – is an inevitable outcome of modernization. It is an unavoidable side-effect of economic progress and the quest for order which is characteristic of modernity. As long as large parts of the world remained wholly or partly unaffected by modernization, they were treated by modernizing societies as lands that were able to absorb the excess of population in the ‘developed countries’. Global solutions were sought, and temporarily found, to locally produced overpopulation problems. But as modernization has reached the furthest lands of the planet, ‘redundant population’ is produced everywhere and all localities have to bear the consequences of modernity’s global triumph. They are now confronted with the need to seek – in vain, it seems – local solutions to globally produced problems. The global spread of the modernity has given rise to growing quantities of human beings who are deprived of adequate means of survival, but the planet is fast running out of places to put them. Hence the new anxieties about ‘immigrants’ and ‘asylum seekers’ and the growing role played by diffuse ‘security fears’ on the contemporary political agenda” (from the description of his book “Wasted Lives: Modernity and Its Outcasts”).