My patch of the internet.
Where I post things I like.
HOVER
»

underbree:

drawing-bored:

demonweasel:

MORE THINGS THE NEW BATGIRL DESIGN IS GETTING RIGHT!

seriously, though, we all agree this is the best new super-hero costume in a long, long, long ass time, right?

DEM BOOTS

6 days ago on July 22nd | J | 29,110 notes
girldoesrant:

nowyoukno:

Source for more facts follow NowYouKno

The scary part comes in when you realize author Stephanie Meyer considers it an ideal relationship that young boys and girls should aspire to.

girldoesrant:

nowyoukno:

Source for more facts follow NowYouKno

The scary part comes in when you realize author Stephanie Meyer considers it an ideal relationship that young boys and girls should aspire to.

6 days ago on July 22nd | J | 8,922 notes

reikaoki:

imthezombiequeen:

alishalovescats1701:

crimsonclad:

five-boys-with-accents:

Eeyore is just one of those characters that you wanna scoop up and hug forever.

One awesome thing about Eeyore is that even though he is basically clinically depressed, he still gets invited to participate in adventures and shenanigans with all of his friends. And they never expect him to pretend to feel happy, they just love him anyway, and they never leave him behind or ask him to change.

Oh

oh

And he does feel happy, though. He can be happy. He just doesn’t show it as much as the others do.
There was a whole episode about that - Piglet sees him sitting on a hilltop and thinks he’s sadder than usual, and does all he can to cheer him up. Nothing works and the next day he’s back on the hill, and Piglet apologizes because he thinks in trying to help, he just made him sad again and ”I don’t come here when I’m sad. I come up here because I’m happy.”

There’s just something about that…

6 days ago on July 22nd | J | 691,689 notes
6 days ago on July 22nd | J | 2,471 notes
lovelikeliquor:

repobsession:

manif3stlove:

thecelestialchild:

thecdashrich:

thekewl:

danivalentine:

Jack Nicholson, who played the Joker in 1989 - and who was furious he wasn’t consulted about the creepy role - offered a cryptic comment when told Ledger was dead. 
“Well,” Nicholson told reporters in London early Wednesday, “I warned him.”

That last quote gave me chills

Really? Interesting if true

I read something that said he told him not to do it. Joker is one of, if not the, most sadistic villains. He kills to kill. There’s no method. Which is why all of the previous portrails were campy or jokey.

There is no way you can portray a character like that and not bring home even the smallest bits of it.  It’s kind of sad. The Joker was scary as shit, and I honestly believe that getting into that character messed with his head.

It would be really interesting to see the notebook Ledger kept while working up the character, maybe it did mess with his head.. and that quote is something to think about, if true. 

Heath Ledger was hugely affected by this role. Nicholson did warn him against it. To prepare, Ledger spent vast amount of time alone and kept a production diary as mentioned above. The last thing he wrote in his diary was BYE BYE. Ledger talked about his inability to fall asleep and how even with two ambien he barely slept at night. As is widely known, Ledger died of an overdose. Some say it was accidental while others believe he was a partier… The drugs he died of were meant for insonima, anxiety, pain, and a cold and none were taken in excess. Heath was a troubled man after his role as the joker, but no one can deny he played that role better than anyone ever had or ever will. The sadness of the situation aside, this is an amazing photo of the jokers.

lovelikeliquor:

repobsession:

manif3stlove:

thecelestialchild:

thecdashrich:

thekewl:

danivalentine:

Jack Nicholson, who played the Joker in 1989 - and who was furious he wasn’t consulted about the creepy role - offered a cryptic comment when told Ledger was dead. 

“Well,” Nicholson told reporters in London early Wednesday, “I warned him.”

That last quote gave me chills

Really? Interesting if true

I read something that said he told him not to do it. Joker is one of, if not the, most sadistic villains. He kills to kill. There’s no method. Which is why all of the previous portrails were campy or jokey.

There is no way you can portray a character like that and not bring home even the smallest bits of it.  It’s kind of sad. The Joker was scary as shit, and I honestly believe that getting into that character messed with his head.

It would be really interesting to see the notebook Ledger kept while working up the character, maybe it did mess with his head.. and that quote is something to think about, if true. 

Heath Ledger was hugely affected by this role. Nicholson did warn him against it. To prepare, Ledger spent vast amount of time alone and kept a production diary as mentioned above. The last thing he wrote in his diary was BYE BYE.
heath ledger's last journal entryLedger talked about his inability to fall asleep and how even with two ambien he barely slept at night. As is widely known, Ledger died of an overdose. Some say it was accidental while others believe he was a partier… The drugs he died of were meant for insonima, anxiety, pain, and a cold and none were taken in excess. Heath was a troubled man after his role as the joker, but no one can deny he played that role better than anyone ever had or ever will.

The sadness of the situation aside, this is an amazing photo of the jokers.

6 days ago on July 22nd | J | 373,217 notes

live-through-film-tv-videogames:

The reason I love video games

6 days ago on July 21st | J | 78,951 notes

sidnugget:

ugh-p3asants:

iphone420:

Yesterday was my grandparents 45th anniversary and my grandma was like “if I had killed him 20 years ago I would be out of jail by now” and that basically sums them up

Your grandma is 45?!

yeah she got married the day she was born 

6 days ago on July 21st | J | 357,673 notes
inthecreek:

biologizeable:

ktsaurusr3x:

gardenawayideas:

Help save the honey bees! Please reblog and share :)

I’m very skeptical about this. Last I’ve heard, CCD is caused by a combination of factors, and to blindly point a finger at one source without references just ticks my bullshit meter. Anyone got science to back this up?

I checked out this page on the Ontario Beekeeper’s Association website, and found a couple of recent papers on the subject (though, granted, they are against the use of neonicotinoid, so it might be a one-sided story). The general consensus seems to be (bee?) that sublethal doses of neonicotinoids cause changes in behavior and physiology which leads to colony collapse - immune suppression to make them more susceptible to disease, negative change in foraging behavior, abandonment of poisoned hives, etc - so, yes, it seems that it is a combination of factors, which are aggravated by pesticide poisoning.
Richard J Gill, Nigel E. Raine. Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behavious induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Functional Ecology, British Ecological Society July 7, 2014 
Chensheng Lu, Kenneth M. Warchol, Richard A. Callahan Sublethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health. Bulletin of Insectology 2014
Dave Goulson An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid pesticides. Journal of Applied Ecology 2013
Jeroen P VanderSluijs, Noa Simon-Delso, Dave Goulson, Laura Maxim, Jean-MarcBonmatin, Luc P. Belzunes Neonicotinoids, bee disorders and the sustainability of pollinator services Current Opinion Environmental Sustainability 2013
Rosemary Mason, Henk Tennekes, Francisco Sanchez-Bayo Immune Suppression by Neonicotinoid Insecticides at the Root of Global Wildlife Declines. Journal of Environmental Immunology. 2013

Important topic. Nice background research. Excellent punmanship.

inthecreek:

biologizeable:

ktsaurusr3x:

gardenawayideas:

Help save the honey bees! Please reblog and share :)

I’m very skeptical about this. Last I’ve heard, CCD is caused by a combination of factors, and to blindly point a finger at one source without references just ticks my bullshit meter. Anyone got science to back this up?

I checked out this page on the Ontario Beekeeper’s Association website, and found a couple of recent papers on the subject (though, granted, they are against the use of neonicotinoid, so it might be a one-sided story). The general consensus seems to be (bee?) that sublethal doses of neonicotinoids cause changes in behavior and physiology which leads to colony collapse - immune suppression to make them more susceptible to disease, negative change in foraging behavior, abandonment of poisoned hives, etc - so, yes, it seems that it is a combination of factors, which are aggravated by pesticide poisoning.

Richard J Gill, Nigel E. Raine. Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behavious induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Functional Ecology, British Ecological Society July 7, 2014 

Chensheng Lu, Kenneth M. Warchol, Richard A. Callahan Sublethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health. Bulletin of Insectology 2014

Dave Goulson An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid pesticides. Journal of Applied Ecology 2013

Jeroen P VanderSluijs, Noa Simon-Delso, Dave Goulson, Laura Maxim, Jean-MarcBonmatin, Luc P. Belzunes Neonicotinoids, bee disorders and the sustainability of pollinator services Current Opinion Environmental Sustainability 2013

Rosemary Mason, Henk Tennekes, Francisco Sanchez-Bayo Immune Suppression by Neonicotinoid Insecticides at the Root of Global Wildlife Declines. Journal of Environmental Immunology. 2013

Important topic. Nice background research. Excellent punmanship.

6 days ago on July 21st | J | 5,937 notes

swingsetindecember:

me to, john oliver, i feel your rage about basic continuity 

3 weeks ago on July 2nd | J | 193,178 notes

thepaladog:

Nintendo’s sales haven’t been what they hoped for or expected, so all the executives got together and made the decision to cut their salaries in half to ensure their employees still get paid. They say it’s the fault of the executives that the products aren’t selling well, not their employees, so it isn’t fair for the employees to have to take the hits for that.

Why are there people who don’t like or respect Nintendo again?

3 weeks ago on July 2nd | J | 94,928 notes

moxiearien:

cresentmoon2000:

katiaobinger:

the true american experience is wondering if you just heard firecrackers or gunshots

PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS A JOKE

bonus points: both are illegal in your state and you still cannot tell

3 weeks ago on July 2nd | J | 465,542 notes
For example, Portal (2007) takes an interesting and arguably unconventional route with regards to its two female characters’ distributions of power. Whilst GLaDOS – the antagonist – enforces her power through a disembodied, distorted ‘voice of God’ intonation in order to command, control and manipulate Chell, the latter – the protagonist – enforces her power through stubborn, mute silence in order to confuse, antagonise and infuriate GLaDOS. Both females enforce methods of immense power that have nothing to do with their gender, physical appearance, or sexual appeal, unlike so many female characters often portrayed in video games (McNeilly, 2007).
Remember That One Time When Merina Tried To Write A ‘Contextual Studies: Post-Modernist Feminism In The Media’ Essay And The Whole Thing Turned Into A Portal Fangirling Splurge (via merinathropp)
3 weeks ago on June 30th | J | 423 notes
betterbemeta:

the-exercist:

lindsaylohansmugshot:

the-exercist:

fitblrholics:

If you look at the ingredients list and it’s a bunch of words you don’t even know… neither does your body (x)

Just like if you break apples and grapefruit down into their chemical components, I’m willing to bet that most people wouldn’t recognize the “ingredients” either. It’s a bunch of words you don’t even know:

Don’t use these scare tactics - Chemicals aren’t inherently bad. Literally everything is made up chemicals. Trust me, your body knows what niacin is. It knows how to digest fructose and calcium sulfate. Even if you only consume the most basic and “real” foods that are pulled directly off the vine, you’re still ingesting a series of chemical compounds that you probably can’t pronounce. That’s okay. 

Despite that, there’s a difference between eating natural chemicals and artificially produced chemicals and you can’t really dispute that natural ingredients are better for you

Yes I can.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that is present within many whole foods, yet it can kill you if ingested in significant doses. Poison ivy is natural, but it sure gives people a nasty rash. Peanuts are natural, but a solid percentage of the population is deathly allergic to them. Asparagus berries can make you incredibly sick. Even just looking at the example given in the first post, we have to consider apple seeds - They contain a small amount of amygdalin, which is a cyanogenic glycoside. It is very possible to eat enough seeds to cause a fatal overdose.
Compare it to artificial chemicals like the fluoride complex that is added into many water systems in order to prevent tooth decay. When we drink water, it’s presence is a huge benefit to the population. By the time you drink enough for the dose to hurt you, you’d already have experienced water poisoning. There’s also d-ascorbic acid, a synthetic version of vitamin C that works as an antioxidant. Don’t forget about iodized salt, which works to prevent iodine deficiencies (which effects roughly two billion people around the world and is currently the leading preventable cause of intellectual and developmental disabilities). From the first post’s example, enriched flour is the first cereal ingredient listed: This allows the consumer to get a serving of niacin, iron, folic acid and thiamin. These vitamins are a necessary part of a daily balanced diet, but if we only stuck with naturally produced foods, the average consumer would miss out on the full amount needed. This is called food fortification and it allows many people (especially those under the poverty line) to consume all their daily vitamins and minerals without overextending themselves and their budget. 
At the end of the day:
——-> “Natural” does not inherently mean “healthy” or “good.”
——-> “Artificial” does not inherently mean “bad.”
No one here is arguing that the above posted breakfast cereal is inherently and always going to be “better” for you than an apple. That would be ridiculous. But it’s also silly to say that an apple is automatically better just because it isn’t man made (which most sort of are, considering the history of orchard cultivation and grafting, but that’s for another post). What I’m saying here is that this “Chemicals are bad! Natural is good!” method of thinking is such a simplistic and dumbed-down way of looking at food. Don’t label foods as good or bad for everyone just because your eyes glaze over at any ingredient list longer than two syllables. 
Use technology and medical advances to your advantage! You don’t have to blindly eat what you find in nature anymore. We’re beyond that stage of civilization - Don’t let science frighten you. 

And to go even further with the “some people are inherently allergic to peanuts” stuff, by erasing everything we have learned about foods like their chemical composition, people are at risk. Not just for death, but for quality of life— My girlfriend has a fructose malabsorbtion problem and some fruits and vegetables make her ill. However, she CAN eat these foods to some capacity: in some cases, cooking can break down the fructose into glucose enough to tip the threshold for where she gets sick. In other cases, she can eat them if she eats an equal amount of other food. 
But if she doesn’t know what’s in each food she eats, she is at risk of getting sick— even for days afterward. What are the most common culprits? Not high-fructose corn syrup, which is almost always clearly marked on our handy Nutrition Facts.
It’s unmarked fruit juice, sometimes listed under “natural flavors” or “fruit sugar” or “natural sweetening” as a sweetener in items that proudly proclaim “All-natural!” or “Chemical-free!”
Another culprit is sometimes honey, which actually has nearly the same composition as high-fructose corn syrup. Maple sugar can be risky as well.
By not identifying that these things are in fact made of molecules, which have effects on the human body, harm is done to real people. All for the fantasy that things produced by a plant or a bee are magically better or aren’t made of matter or something else inane.

betterbemeta:

the-exercist:

lindsaylohansmugshot:

the-exercist:

fitblrholics:

If you look at the ingredients list and it’s a bunch of words you don’t even know… neither does your body (x)

Just like if you break apples and grapefruit down into their chemical components, I’m willing to bet that most people wouldn’t recognize the “ingredients” either. It’s a bunch of words you don’t even know:

image

Don’t use these scare tactics - Chemicals aren’t inherently bad. Literally everything is made up chemicals. Trust me, your body knows what niacin is. It knows how to digest fructose and calcium sulfate. Even if you only consume the most basic and “real” foods that are pulled directly off the vine, you’re still ingesting a series of chemical compounds that you probably can’t pronounce. That’s okay. 

Despite that, there’s a difference between eating natural chemicals and artificially produced chemicals and you can’t really dispute that natural ingredients are better for you

Yes I can.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that is present within many whole foods, yet it can kill you if ingested in significant doses. Poison ivy is natural, but it sure gives people a nasty rash. Peanuts are natural, but a solid percentage of the population is deathly allergic to them. Asparagus berries can make you incredibly sick. Even just looking at the example given in the first post, we have to consider apple seeds - They contain a small amount of amygdalin, which is a cyanogenic glycoside. It is very possible to eat enough seeds to cause a fatal overdose.

Compare it to artificial chemicals like the fluoride complex that is added into many water systems in order to prevent tooth decay. When we drink water, it’s presence is a huge benefit to the population. By the time you drink enough for the dose to hurt you, you’d already have experienced water poisoning. There’s also d-ascorbic acid, a synthetic version of vitamin C that works as an antioxidant. Don’t forget about iodized salt, which works to prevent iodine deficiencies (which effects roughly two billion people around the world and is currently the leading preventable cause of intellectual and developmental disabilities). From the first post’s example, enriched flour is the first cereal ingredient listed: This allows the consumer to get a serving of niacin, iron, folic acid and thiamin. These vitamins are a necessary part of a daily balanced diet, but if we only stuck with naturally produced foods, the average consumer would miss out on the full amount needed. This is called food fortification and it allows many people (especially those under the poverty line) to consume all their daily vitamins and minerals without overextending themselves and their budget. 

At the end of the day:

——-> “Natural” does not inherently mean “healthy” or “good.”

——-> “Artificial” does not inherently mean “bad.”

No one here is arguing that the above posted breakfast cereal is inherently and always going to be “better” for you than an apple. That would be ridiculous. But it’s also silly to say that an apple is automatically better just because it isn’t man made (which most sort of are, considering the history of orchard cultivation and grafting, but that’s for another post). What I’m saying here is that this “Chemicals are bad! Natural is good!” method of thinking is such a simplistic and dumbed-down way of looking at food. Don’t label foods as good or bad for everyone just because your eyes glaze over at any ingredient list longer than two syllables. 

Use technology and medical advances to your advantage! You don’t have to blindly eat what you find in nature anymore. We’re beyond that stage of civilization - Don’t let science frighten you. 

And to go even further with the “some people are inherently allergic to peanuts” stuff, by erasing everything we have learned about foods like their chemical composition, people are at risk. Not just for death, but for quality of life— My girlfriend has a fructose malabsorbtion problem and some fruits and vegetables make her ill. However, she CAN eat these foods to some capacity: in some cases, cooking can break down the fructose into glucose enough to tip the threshold for where she gets sick. In other cases, she can eat them if she eats an equal amount of other food. 

But if she doesn’t know what’s in each food she eats, she is at risk of getting sick— even for days afterward. What are the most common culprits? Not high-fructose corn syrup, which is almost always clearly marked on our handy Nutrition Facts.

It’s unmarked fruit juice, sometimes listed under “natural flavors” or “fruit sugar” or “natural sweetening” as a sweetener in items that proudly proclaim “All-natural!” or “Chemical-free!”

Another culprit is sometimes honey, which actually has nearly the same composition as high-fructose corn syrup. Maple sugar can be risky as well.

By not identifying that these things are in fact made of molecules, which have effects on the human body, harm is done to real people. All for the fantasy that things produced by a plant or a bee are magically better or aren’t made of matter or something else inane.

3 weeks ago on June 30th | J | 36,389 notes
clementinemorrigan:

adoptpets:

thenagaqueen:

I have been a cat owner my whole life and I literally never knew that tiger lilies and stargazers were also highly toxic to cats.  Even drinking the water from the vase that lilies are in can kill the cat!  I brought in a tiger lily from our yard today and just thought to look it up and found out (and of course removed the lily from our house as soon as I saw).  How scary!

Other toxic flowers for cats:
Amaryllis (Amaryllis sp.)
Autumn Crocus (Colchicum autumnale)
Azaleas and Rhododendrons (Rhododendron sp.)
Castor Bean (Ricinus communis)
Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum sp.)
Cyclamen (Cyclamen sp.)
English Ivy (Hedera helix)
Kalanchoe (Kalanchoe sp.)
Lilies (Lilium sp.)
Marijuana (Cannabis sativa)
Oleander (Nerium oleander)
Peace Lily (Spathiphyllum sp.)
Pothos (Epipremnum aureum)
Sago Palm (Cycas revoluta)
Spanish thyme (Coleus ampoinicus)
Tulip and Narcissus bulbs (Tulipa and Narcissus sp.)
Yew (Taxus sp.)

Important info for cat friends!!!

clementinemorrigan:

adoptpets:

thenagaqueen:

I have been a cat owner my whole life and I literally never knew that tiger lilies and stargazers were also highly toxic to cats.  Even drinking the water from the vase that lilies are in can kill the cat!  I brought in a tiger lily from our yard today and just thought to look it up and found out (and of course removed the lily from our house as soon as I saw).  How scary!

Other toxic flowers for cats:

  • Amaryllis (Amaryllis sp.)
  • Autumn Crocus (Colchicum autumnale)
  • Azaleas and Rhododendrons (Rhododendron sp.)
  • Castor Bean (Ricinus communis)
  • Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum sp.)
  • Cyclamen (Cyclamen sp.)
  • English Ivy (Hedera helix)
  • Kalanchoe (Kalanchoe sp.)
  • Lilies (Lilium sp.)
  • Marijuana (Cannabis sativa)
  • Oleander (Nerium oleander)
  • Peace Lily (Spathiphyllum sp.)
  • Pothos (Epipremnum aureum)
  • Sago Palm (Cycas revoluta)
  • Spanish thyme (Coleus ampoinicus)
  • Tulip and Narcissus bulbs (Tulipa and Narcissus sp.)
  • Yew (Taxus sp.)

Important info for cat friends!!!

3 weeks ago on June 30th | J | 78,995 notes
ultrafacts:

Source (Want more facts? Click HERE to follow)

ultrafacts:

Source (Want more facts? Click HERE to follow)

4 weeks ago on June 29th | J | 5,288 notes