<pedantic>Scale</pedantic> Was [Re: Combining 4 C-class networks: how?]
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 12:33:25AM +0200, Harald Thingelstad wrote:
> Sorry to break in but..
> Looking upon the earth as flat is a fine assumption if you're working on a
> small scale.
You've got that backwards. Small scale is large area, large scale is
small area, cartographically. It helps to remember that cartographic
scales are a fractional representation. 1:5,000 is large scale, while
1:100,000 scale is small scale (1/5000 vs. 1/100,000). That is <one
unit on the map>:<n units on the planet>.
> And yes, it's rather popular to think of the earth as (approximately)
> round these days, but we may not always do so. It's entirely a matter of
> which simplifications we see as most important.
It is approximately round (spherical). A better approximation is made
with an ellipsoid (rather than a spheroid). But, I didn't know it was
popular to think of the Earth as round. It's flat on a map (Flat Earth
Okay, I'm done.
According to MegaHAL:
The emu is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace.