Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Map Pr0n)   Evolution of the territories of the United States. Animated. Without silly songs   (gifpins.com) divider line 47
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

3770 clicks; posted to FarkUs » on 15 Apr 2014 at 10:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-15 08:59:30 AM  

fc03.deviantart.net

 
2014-04-15 09:33:14 AM  
The way was opened up for folks with bravery.
There were plenty of fights To win land rights,
But the West was meant to be;
It was our Manifest Destiny!
 
2014-04-15 09:40:56 AM  

Diogenes: [fc03.deviantart.net image 500x750]


I feel an unusual need to watch the "president's song" now
 
2014-04-15 10:22:13 AM  
Amazing what the native inhabitants all dying off can do. The ultimate invasive species
 
2014-04-15 10:37:24 AM  

Generation_D: Amazing what the native inhabitants all dying off can do. The ultimate invasive species


It might have been an entirely different story if smallpox (in conjunction with other diseases) hadn't wiped out as many as 90% of them.  The weaponry of Europeans at the time was advanced, sure, but not a whole hell of a lot more.  A musket is better than an arrow, but an arrow can sure as hell still kill you and probably at a similar range.  Had the first colonists faced a healthy native population at full force, history might have went down a lot differently.
 
Skr
2014-04-15 10:43:30 AM  
Kinda feel horrible, but after reading the headline I had Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah playing in my head while watching the animation.
 
2014-04-15 10:50:22 AM  

nekom: Generation_D: Amazing what the native inhabitants all dying off can do. The ultimate invasive species

It might have been an entirely different story if smallpox (in conjunction with other diseases) hadn't wiped out as many as 90% of them.  The weaponry of Europeans at the time was advanced, sure, but not a whole hell of a lot more.  A musket is better than an arrow, but an arrow can sure as hell still kill you and probably at a similar range.  Had the first colonists faced a healthy native population at full force, history might have went down a lot differently.


Apply that logic in South America. If not for disease no way the Spanish conquistadors would have been able to defeat the Aztec and Incas. The population of their cities rivaled that of the European capitals.
 
2014-04-15 10:52:03 AM  
I like it, but is there any way to slow it down a tad?
 
2014-04-15 11:03:19 AM  

SinisterDexter: I like it, but is there any way to slow it down a tad?


Drink a lot of cough syrup. Specifically look for Dexromethorphan Hydrobromide in the ingredients.
 
2014-04-15 11:04:50 AM  

SinisterDexter: I like it, but is there any way to slow it down a tad?


This. It is incredibly annoying how fast some of these animated GIFS flip through.
 
2014-04-15 11:06:43 AM  
Silly songs????  I think not!

/ (That's called taxation without reprentation...and it's not fair!)

Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
The pilgrims sailed the sea
To find a place to call their own.
In their ship Mayflower,
They hoped to find a better home.
They finally knocked
On Plymouth Rock
And someone said, "We're there."
It may not look like home
But at this point I don't care.
Oh, they were missing Mother England,
They swore their loyalty until the very end.
Anything you say, King,
It's OK, King,
You know it's kinda scary on your own.
Gonna build a new land
The way we planned.
Could you help us run it till it's grown?
They planted corn, you know
They built their houses one by one,
And bit by bit they worked
Until the colonies were done.
They looked around,
Yeah, up and down,
And someone said, "Hurray!"
If the king could only see us now
He would be proud of us today.
They knew that now they'd run their own land,
But George the Third still vowed
He'd rule them till the end.
Anything I say, do it my way now.
Anything I say, do it my way.
Don't you get to feeling independent
'Cause I'm gonna force you to obey.
He taxed their property,
He didn't give them any choice,
And back in England,
He didn't give them any voice.
(That's called taxation without representation,
and it's not fair!)
But when the Colonies complained
The king said: "I don't care!"
He even has the nerve
To tax our cup of tea.
To put it kindly, King,
We really don't agree.
Gonna show you how we feel.
We're gonna dump this tea
And turn this harbor into
The biggest cup of tea in history!
They wanted no more Mother England.
They knew the time had come
For them to take command.
It's very clear you're being unfair, King,
No matter what you say, we won't obey.
Gonna hold a revolution now, King,
And we're gonna run it all our way
With no more kings...
We're gonna elect a president! (No more kings)
He's gonna do what the people want! (No more kings)
We're gonna run things our way! (No more kings)
Nobody's gonna tell us what to do!
Rockin' and a-rollin', splishin' and a-splashin',
Over the horizon, what can it be?
Looks like it's going to be a free country.
 
2014-04-15 11:14:05 AM  

Shelbyville: Apply that logic in South America. If not for disease no way the Spanish conquistadors would have been able to defeat the Aztec and Incas. The population of their cities rivaled that of the European capitals.


Oh no doubt, there were some absolutely epic civilizations in South and Central America.  Seems most of the ones in North America (Cahokia, for example) peaked before European contact.
 
2014-04-15 11:14:16 AM  
Shelbyville:Apply that logic in South America. If not for disease no way the Spanish conquistadors would have been able to defeat the Aztec and Incas. The population of their cities rivaled that of the European capitals.

Not true. The an armored Spaniard on horseback against the Inca was like bringing a tank to a knife fight. The Inca relied on war clubs and rarely ever used bows and they simply couldn't penetrate the Spanish armor. The Spanish meanwhile could stand there killing people until their arms got tired. There are true stories of Spanish knights killing hundreds of Inca soldiers without taking a scratch. People don't realize how big a difference the technology was. It was like War of the Worlds where the aliens are the ones who bring the disease.

Without the disease it would have been a lot harder and not been such a crushing defeat of their kingdoms and culture but the Europeans probably would have triumphed eventually although I doubt Spanish would be the language of the continent.
 
2014-04-15 11:14:39 AM  

SinisterDexter: I like it, but is there any way to slow it down a tad?


Seriously.  I wouldn't mind spending an extra 30 seconds to see what happened over 300 years of history.
 
2014-04-15 11:19:22 AM  
At one time all the current lowest performing education states were all called Georgia.  And we still did not have any gulf coast land.
 
2014-04-15 11:25:32 AM  
Another vote for just a sec or so more for each frame damn.
 
2014-04-15 11:25:36 AM  
No Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, Mariana's...
 
2014-04-15 11:34:07 AM  
Where's the four counties that were not originally part of West Virginia and then were a little while later?

nekom: Generation_D: Amazing what the native inhabitants all dying off can do. The ultimate invasive species

It might have been an entirely different story if smallpox (in conjunction with other diseases) hadn't wiped out as many as 90% of them.  The weaponry of Europeans at the time was advanced, sure, but not a whole hell of a lot more.  A musket is better than an arrow, but an arrow can sure as hell still kill you and probably at a similar range.  Had the first colonists faced a healthy native population at full force, history might have went down a lot differently.


No, not really.  See Africa.  The Euros would still have won, there would just be more Injuns hanging around today.
 
2014-04-15 11:42:03 AM  
I didn't see the state of Franklin in there.
 
2014-04-15 11:48:51 AM  
To The Escape Zeppelin!:
Not true. The an armored Spaniard on horseback against the Inca was like bringing a tank to a knife fight. The Inca relied on war clubs and rarely ever used bows and they simply couldn't penetrate the Spanish armor. The Spanish meanwhile could stand there killing people until their arms got tired. There are true stories of Spanish knights killing hundreds of Inca soldiers without taking a scratch. People don't realize how big a difference the technology was. It was like War of the Worlds where the aliens are the ones who bring the disease.

Without the disease it would have been a lot harder and not been such a crushing defeat of their kingdoms and culture but the Europeans probably would have triumphed eventually although I doubt Spanish would be the language of the continent.


Clearly you have never been to Peru. Metal armor and horses do not fair very well in the jungle and mountains. Had their king/army not been ravaged by sickness and the deceit of Atahualpa, there was no farking way the Spanish could have moved their armies past the coast. Even the well marked and traveled Inca Trail is difficult to locate if you manage to step off of it.
 
2014-04-15 11:49:35 AM  

Erix: SinisterDexter: I like it, but is there any way to slow it down a tad?

Seriously.  I wouldn't mind spending an extra 30 seconds to see what happened over 300 years of history.


THERE'S NO TIME FOR THAT NOW.
mimg.ugo.com
 
2014-04-15 12:01:51 PM  
It is much too fast but there is a solution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXhh_Zy-zJM
 
2014-04-15 12:09:17 PM  

nekom: Shelbyville: Apply that logic in South America. If not for disease no way the Spanish conquistadors would have been able to defeat the Aztec and Incas. The population of their cities rivaled that of the European capitals.

Oh no doubt, there were some absolutely epic civilizations in South and Central America.  Seems most of the ones in North America (Cahokia, for example) peaked before European contact.


There was a perfectly straight-faced documentary on PBS a few weeks ago that gave evidence for Carthaginian/Celtic settlements in South America. Long story short: if true, they they went native.
 
2014-04-15 12:21:16 PM  
Jekylman:
There was a perfectly straight-faced documentary on PBS a few weeks ago that gave evidence for Carthaginian/Celtic settlements in South America. Long story short: if true, they they went native.

I am absolutely fascinated with early human migration, and I'm inclined to believe that people got around a lot more than we realize.  The problem is SO much of it is agenda based (i.e. Mormon diffusionists or people who want their ancestors to have been here the whole time) it can be difficult to trust a lot of sources, even productions that make it to mainstream media outlets.  The Solutrean hypothesis is interesting, the clovis points are almost stunningly similar but as far as I know, the DNA hasn't backed it up.  Now it's entirely possible that a small group of Europeans made it here, lived for a few generations and either died out or melted into the larger gene pool, in which case there wouldn't be much of a DNA footprint left.

The Zuni enigma is pretty damned fascinating though, suggesting that Japanese sailors in the 12th century made it to the American southwest and either became or merged with the Zuni people.  Cool story if true, there is a lot of compelling evidence but I don't think it's widely accepted among anthropologists.
 
2014-04-15 12:32:02 PM  

Jekylman: nekom: Shelbyville: Apply that logic in South America. If not for disease no way the Spanish conquistadors would have been able to defeat the Aztec and Incas. The population of their cities rivaled that of the European capitals.

Oh no doubt, there were some absolutely epic civilizations in South and Central America.  Seems most of the ones in North America (Cahokia, for example) peaked before European contact.

There was a perfectly straight-faced documentary on PBS a few weeks ago that gave evidence for Carthaginian/Celtic settlements in South America. Long story short: if true, they they went native.


While it wouldn't surprise me if a few wayward travelers managed to make it from Europe (aside from the Norse, who we know did make it), North Africa, Polynesia, or China to the New World during the historical period, it is clear that they made no lasting impact here until the Spanish (and possibly the Portuguese, secretly) came over in force.
 
2014-04-15 12:38:47 PM  
I noticed that Kentucky was listed as a "disputed area" claimed by the C.S.A during the Civil War period. Kentucky never seceded from the Union but still had slaves as did a couple of other States in the Union. I guess that is what they are trying to show but it doesn't seem accurate to me. Teachers tend to neglect the fact that not all of the slave states were part of the confederacy and some were still in the Union.
 
2014-04-15 12:40:01 PM  
cgraves67:
While it wouldn't surprise me if a few wayward travelers managed to make it from Europe (aside from the Norse, who we know did make it), North Africa, Polynesia, or China to the New World during the historical period, it is clear that they made no lasting impact here until the Spanish (and possibly the Portuguese, secretly) came over in force.

The Norse had no lasting impact either.  There weren't very many of them and they didn't stay long (IIRC natives drove them off).  There is a book out there that tells of two native Americans who washed up in Holland in 60 BC.  That kind of thing is certainly plausible, you're out there fishing and the current carries you away, somehow against all odds you survive and make landfall in a strange continent.  I can't imagine that would end well though.  You find yourself, maybe one other person, in a land where none of the flora and fauna are familiar and you can't communicate with the people.
 
2014-04-15 12:49:49 PM  

nekom: cgraves67:
While it wouldn't surprise me if a few wayward travelers managed to make it from Europe (aside from the Norse, who we know did make it), North Africa, Polynesia, or China to the New World during the historical period, it is clear that they made no lasting impact here until the Spanish (and possibly the Portuguese, secretly) came over in force.

The Norse had no lasting impact either.  There weren't very many of them and they didn't stay long (IIRC natives drove them off).  There is a book out there that tells of two native Americans who washed up in Holland in 60 BC.  That kind of thing is certainly plausible, you're out there fishing and the current carries you away, somehow against all odds you survive and make landfall in a strange continent.  I can't imagine that would end well though.  You find yourself, maybe one other person, in a land where none of the flora and fauna are familiar and you can't communicate with the people.


Sorry, I wasn't clear about that point in my overly elaborate sentence. Everyone who did or might have come to the Americas between the advent of written history and 1492 CE failed to have a lasting impact on the existing populations. Although the Portuguese may be an exception. It is unclear when they founded they got to Brazil and they were quite secretive about their charts and such. The trade winds would have carried them far into the Atlantic before coming back to the coast of Africa. We know they utilized that route. It is possible that they were aware of South America prior to Columbus finding Central America.
 
2014-04-15 12:56:30 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Shelbyville:Apply that logic in South America. If not for disease no way the Spanish conquistadors would have been able to defeat the Aztec and Incas. The population of their cities rivaled that of the European capitals.

Not true. The an armored Spaniard on horseback against the Inca was like bringing a tank to a knife fight. The Inca relied on war clubs and rarely ever used bows and they simply couldn't penetrate the Spanish armor. The Spanish meanwhile could stand there killing people until their arms got tired. There are true stories of Spanish knights killing hundreds of Inca soldiers without taking a scratch. People don't realize how big a difference the technology was. It was like War of the Worlds where the aliens are the ones who bring the disease.

Without the disease it would have been a lot harder and not been such a crushing defeat of their kingdoms and culture but the Europeans probably would have triumphed eventually although I doubt Spanish would be the language of the continent.


The entire population of the natives was here.  There were only so many ships that could only bring over so many at a time.
 
2014-04-15 01:15:43 PM  

Generation_D: Amazing what the native inhabitants all dying off can do. The ultimate invasive species



Are you aware that the the native peoples of the Americans and the folks from Europe are the same species?
 
2014-04-15 01:22:44 PM  
Seriously? They couldn't put a speed slider on that?
 
2014-04-15 01:24:08 PM  

Livinglush: To The Escape Zeppelin!: Shelbyville:Apply that logic in South America. If not for disease no way the Spanish conquistadors would have been able to defeat the Aztec and Incas. The population of their cities rivaled that of the European capitals.

Not true. The an armored Spaniard on horseback against the Inca was like bringing a tank to a knife fight. The Inca relied on war clubs and rarely ever used bows and they simply couldn't penetrate the Spanish armor. The Spanish meanwhile could stand there killing people until their arms got tired. There are true stories of Spanish knights killing hundreds of Inca soldiers without taking a scratch. People don't realize how big a difference the technology was. It was like War of the Worlds where the aliens are the ones who bring the disease.

Without the disease it would have been a lot harder and not been such a crushing defeat of their kingdoms and culture but the Europeans probably would have triumphed eventually although I doubt Spanish would be the language of the continent.

The entire population of the natives was here.  There were only so many ships that could only bring over so many at a time.


You see the thing is you land a small force covered with artillery, and then you just keep bringing in more and more forces until you have your way.   One should not forget that most of the tribes that the Spanish are vilified for destroying were ruthless with the surrounding tribes.   The Aztec and the like were feared enough to take a chance with the newcomers.

Wooden clubs don't beat guns when History gets moving.
 
2014-04-15 01:30:24 PM  

Shelbyville: nekom: Generation_D: Amazing what the native inhabitants all dying off can do. The ultimate invasive species

It might have been an entirely different story if smallpox (in conjunction with other diseases) hadn't wiped out as many as 90% of them.  The weaponry of Europeans at the time was advanced, sure, but not a whole hell of a lot more.  A musket is better than an arrow, but an arrow can sure as hell still kill you and probably at a similar range.  Had the first colonists faced a healthy native population at full force, history might have went down a lot differently.

Apply that logic in South America. If not for disease no way the Spanish conquistadors would have been able to defeat the Aztec and Incas. The population of their cities rivaled that of the European capitals.


As I recall, Pizzaro conquered the capitol of the Inca empire with less than 100 men quite some time before disease was a factor. Also, when Cortez tried for the second time to conquer Technoctilan in 1521 every province in the Aztec empire revolted. Of course, many Aztec had died from smallpox in the preceding year....

Cortez had 17 muskets, not sure how many Pizzaro had. The big thing was having steel weapons (swords and armor). Even without disease I think the native American populations would never have been able to turn back the Europeans.
 
2014-04-15 01:35:11 PM  

give me doughnuts: Generation_D: Amazing what the native inhabitants all dying off can do. The ultimate invasive species


Are you aware that the the native peoples of the Americans and the folks from Europe are the same species?


somethingsomethingsomethingnoblesavagesomethingsomethingcharlesmann
 
2014-04-15 01:38:42 PM  

enemy of the state: Shelbyville: nekom: Generation_D: Amazing what the native inhabitants all dying off can do. The ultimate invasive species

It might have been an entirely different story if smallpox (in conjunction with other diseases) hadn't wiped out as many as 90% of them.  The weaponry of Europeans at the time was advanced, sure, but not a whole hell of a lot more.  A musket is better than an arrow, but an arrow can sure as hell still kill you and probably at a similar range.  Had the first colonists faced a healthy native population at full force, history might have went down a lot differently.

Apply that logic in South America. If not for disease no way the Spanish conquistadors would have been able to defeat the Aztec and Incas. The population of their cities rivaled that of the European capitals.

As I recall, Pizzaro conquered the capitol of the Inca empire with less than 100 men quite some time before disease was a factor.


Charles Mann has a rather ridiculous theory that still attributes this victory to smallpox.  He and Jared Diamond have the same problem - they took a smart theory that had limited, but accurate, application and then  tried to stretch it into a huge blanket of cultural apologetics.
 
2014-04-15 02:07:49 PM  

FarkingReading: SinisterDexter: I like it, but is there any way to slow it down a tad?

Drink a lot of cough syrup. Specifically look for Dexromethorphan Hydrobromide in the ingredients.


Would Whisky or Bourbon be an adequate substitute? Cuz that I can do.
 
2014-04-15 02:11:06 PM  
No silly song, fark you OP.  School House Rock is the best.
i1.cpcache.com
 
2014-04-15 02:12:11 PM  

gimlet: Clearly you have never been to Peru. Metal armor and horses do not fair very well in the jungle and mountains. Had their king/army not been ravaged by sickness and the deceit of Atahualpa, there was no farking way the Spanish could have moved their armies past the coast. Even the well marked and traveled Inca Trail is difficult to locate if you manage to step off of it.


I have been to Peru. The Spanish spent years hunting the Inca king after they rebelled. They followed the Inca even over the mountains and into the Amazon sending an army deep into the jungle to destroy their last stronghold. The Spanish were exceptionally skilled at dangerous expeditions and had the advantage of thousands of years of military tactics and history to draw upon. The difference in military technology really cannot be understated, the Spanish went through the Inca army like a hot knife through butter in any attempt at open combat. And forcing a guerrilla style war is difficult when the Spanish were willing to kill literally everyone if that's what it took.

I'm not saying that it would have been a quick process but I think that in time the Europeans eventually would have conquered South America the same way they took Africa or India.
 
2014-04-15 02:33:48 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: gimlet: Clearly you have never been to Peru. Metal armor and horses do not fair very well in the jungle and mountains. Had their king/army not been ravaged by sickness and the deceit of Atahualpa, there was no farking way the Spanish could have moved their armies past the coast. Even the well marked and traveled Inca Trail is difficult to locate if you manage to step off of it.

I have been to Peru. The Spanish spent years hunting the Inca king after they rebelled. They followed the Inca even over the mountains and into the Amazon sending an army deep into the jungle to destroy their last stronghold. The Spanish were exceptionally skilled at dangerous expeditions and had the advantage of thousands of years of military tactics and history to draw upon. The difference in military technology really cannot be understated, the Spanish went through the Inca army like a hot knife through butter in any attempt at open combat. And forcing a guerrilla style war is difficult when the Spanish were willing to kill literally everyone if that's what it took.

I'm not saying that it would have been a quick process but I think that in time the Europeans eventually would have conquered South America the same way they took Africa or India.


Regardless of the morality of it, the Spanish had essentially been at war for a few hundred years chasing the invaders out of their own country.   They would have known better than anybody else how to get the job done.   I believe some people here seem to be unaware of the scope of the Reconquista and how it changed the Spanish.     They were just getting started.
 
2014-04-15 03:16:05 PM  
 
2014-04-15 03:42:26 PM  

cgraves67: 1492 CE


You do realise that 1492 AD is simply a year, but by using the term CE, you in fact make the reader pause to reflect on the actual meaning of the year 1492, that is to say, a reference to the birth of Jesus? Whereas anno domini means 'year of our lord', and CE means 'common era', the concept of AD passes in and out with no religious overtones, CE evokes exactly what it is supposed to avoid.

As for me, I can go straight to the idea of 1200 BC and Celtic pottery finds without any Christian concerns, but you lingered, however briefly, upon typing 1492 CE, about what it most certainly did not reference, at least not out loud.

But what does all this mean, really? It means you could have typed an informative passage about early settlement of the americas without attention-whoring your rejection of traditional convention.
 
2014-04-15 05:10:39 PM  

letrole: cgraves67: 1492 CE

You do realise that 1492 AD is simply a year, but by using the term CE, you in fact make the reader pause to reflect on the actual meaning of the year 1492, that is to say, a reference to the birth of Jesus? Whereas ...


Damn, is this a bot? I've never seen such an eloquent knee-jerk reaction over two letters.
 
2014-04-15 06:00:35 PM  

SinisterDexter: I like it, but is there any way to slow it down a tad?


My thought exactly. It's really cool, but it should animate at about 3/4 speed, otherwise you have to watch it 17 times to follow everything.

Still pretty cool.

Obbi: letrole: cgraves67: 1492 CE

You do realise that 1492 AD is simply a year, but by using the term CE, you in fact make the reader pause to reflect on the actual meaning of the year 1492, that is to say, a reference to the birth of Jesus? Whereas ...

Damn, is this a bot? I've never seen such an eloquent knee-jerk reaction over two letters.


His name is "Le Troll". I have hmm tagged so I won't respond on accident.
 
2014-04-15 06:29:38 PM  

Obbi: I've never seen such an eloquent knee-jerk reaction over two letters.


I've  never seen an educated person consider mere compound sentences to be eloquent.

Mikey1969: His name is "Le Troll". I have hmm tagged so I won't respond on accident.


Translation: You have nothing worthwhile to contribute, but were driven to respond regardless. The words 'Pavlov' and 'bell' and 'drool' spring to mind.
 
2014-04-15 11:59:40 PM  

letrole: Obbi: I've never seen such an eloquent knee-jerk reaction over two letters.

I've  never seen an educated person consider mere compound sentences to be eloquent.

Mikey1969: His name is "Le Troll". I have hmm tagged so I won't respond on accident.

Translation: You have nothing worthwhile to contribute, but were driven to respond regardless. The words 'Pavlov' and 'bell' and 'drool' spring to mind.


It does seem like people often tag people as troll only so that they can publicly out said troll.

That said, I completely agree with the AD/CE thing.  I am guessing that something like 50-75% of people don't even realize what AD or BC stand for.  Using CE would only serve to confuse them.

/BCE is even dumber than CE, just stick with BC
//What ever happened to year 0?
///BC could be before cero (spanish for zero)
////AD could be after doughnut (a zero looks like a doughnut)
// AD/CE problem solved and you don't have to worry about the pesky year 0  thing
 
2014-04-16 10:25:12 AM  

nekom: , history might have went down a lot differently.


yeah can you imagine exactly ZERO innovation and everyone still living in teepees?  fark that would be awesome.

or not.. not is good too
 
2014-04-16 10:59:33 AM  

RogermcAllen: It does seem like people often tag people as troll only so that they can publicly out said troll.

That said, I completely agree with the AD/CE thing.  I am guessing that something like 50-75% of people don't even realize what AD or BC stand for.  Using CE would only serve to confuse them.

/BCE is even dumber than CE, just stick with BC
//What ever happened to year 0?
///BC could be before cero (spanish for zero)
////AD could be after doughnut (a zero looks like a doughnut)
// AD/CE problem solved and you don't have to worry about the pesky year 0  thing


Or just say 1492. I doubt people are going to be confused and think you are talking about the years where Egypt dominated the Levant when the article is discussing the formation of the modern United States of America.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report