fernacular:

Welcome to: If Male Superhero Costumes were Designed Like Female Superhero Costumes!

Aaaaa I dunno. I got tired of guys having no idea why girls find female superhero’s costumes kinda sexist, so I, um, made this?

My main goals were: 1) Make it so the first thing you think of when you look at them is sex, whether you want to or not. 2) make it so that any male human who looks at this feels really uncomfortable. 3) make it funny, because, well, it’s kinda hilarious really.

Not trying to start a war here, just wanted to poke a bit of fun.

So, here you go menfolk, welcome to being a girl who likes comics.

(via jeuxdeau)

twistedfork:

Send Relief

For other ways to donate kindly go to this site or read my previous reblog. Please share. 

Thank you.

Robert Pattinson: “If you find a girl who reads, keep her close. When you find her up at 2 AM clutching a book to her chest and weeping, make her a cup of tea and hold her. You may lose her for a couple of hours but she will always come back to you. She’ll talk as if the characters in the book are real, because for a while, they always are. Date a girl who reads because you deserve it. You deserve a girl who can give you the most colorful life imaginable. If you can only give her monotony, and stale hours and half-baked proposals, then you’re better off alone. If you want the world and the worlds beyond it, date a girl who reads.”

(via niall-oppa)

blaitzen:

Yeah, I’m even going to use capital letters and shit because this is kind of a serious venting post for me, requiring me to temporarily abandon my flippant no-effort no-care face. (Not serious even to stop swearing though)

As I identified myself as an extremely tolerant and caring person, when I…

(via blazelust-deactivated20120127)

shillo:

starexorcist:

russian-tupperware:

aetropos:

yeahyeahno:

chicksdigthephoenix:

super-scout:

aetropos:

starexorcist:

tehmostaewsumblogevar:

starexorcist:

ecrusher:

10knotes:

M&Ms Droplets

now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes

The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.

But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.

The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!

Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.

BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.

Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?

Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo? 

So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.

Thank you for your time.

Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.

Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.

And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.

So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.

hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.

I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe

Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.

The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog? 

On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.

Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?

Rather unlikely!

Actually, Mr. Godot!! 

Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…

If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!

Aah… these M&M’s droplets

So colourful… reminds me of the days of my youth!

the red ones remind me of my hemorroids… *cough*

I have found some new evidence though the original image source suggesting this second image has been tampered with!

This image clearly shows candies that correspond to the colours commonly found in M & M s…  The edge of the bowl is visible, as are some ‘M’ symbols, if you look closely.

This suggests the second image in the original is perhaps just a fabrication based off of the second.

Therefore…

It is clearly a fraud!

You shouldn’t jump the “fraud” gun just yet, Wright. If your source is really the corresponding photo to the first, then the “gumball” picture in question might not be at fault. To put it bluntly, it might just be a copycat. 

To put it another way, this could just be a case of a mistaken and mismatched photoset..

With all the evidence provided, I think it’s safe to assume this case could be solved: The candies in the second photograph are not M&Ms, but the photo itself was not exactly tampered with. It was just a completely separate photo of separate candies, possibly just misplaced in this set by the original poster, who was completely unaware of the mismatch!

Hold it right there everyone.

There is..

A PUZZLE HIDDEN IN THAT BOWL OF MISLEADING CANDY.

uhm

guys the reason the photographer had to use M&M’s in one image and gumballs in the other is….

because I ate the gumballs from the ‘original’ image.

sorry

(HOLY FUCK THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING THING I HAVE EVER BEEN A PART OF)

I DIED.

(via regret-regret-regret)

Recently, NPR did a write up on the pepper-spray incident at UC Davis. It was in regards to coverage of the silent protest of Chancellor Katehi, but what I found most striking were the first two paragraphs.

Hundreds were injured and at least one person died Saturday in Cairo when police swept through a camp of protesters in Tahrir Square. A crackdown continues in Syria. Yemen’s oppressive government remains in place.

It’s always important to keep things in perspective.

As a journalist, the opening graphs are powerful, intelligent connections between protests around the world while keeping in context the struggle each goes through. As a reporter, you want to stress information, and in this case, people dying in the Mideast is a far worse consequence of protesting than being pepper-sprayed. It’s drawing attention to world issues that those in the U.S. might not know about/care about/realise. It’s a brilliant hook.

It’s also disingenuous.

The struggles in the Mideast are incredibly important and must have the support of the world. Every death there is a death too many. But that does not mean the struggles of the OWS protesters, or the pain the pepper-sprayed students felt, is somehow less important, which is what the tone of this lede suggests. It’s comparing the struggles of completely different peoples under completely different circumstances. Yes, being killed is far worse than being pepper-sprayed; yes, fighting for your voice and to overthrow autocratic governments is a desperately important goal; no, fighting to retain our rights for expression and freedom are not somehow inferior.

The Mideast struggles are not the OWS struggles, but that doesn’t make the OWS struggle less. We fought and died for our freedoms, particularly the freedom of expression. We fought and died for our First Amendment. The Mideast is fighting that battle now and they are stronger for it and I cannot support them more. Their uprising is what spurned so many others around the world to look at their governments and say “this isn’t right.”

And that’s what the OWS protesters are doing: they’re looking at the U.S., the Land of the Free, and they’re saying “this isn’t right.” With legislation like SOPA and court rulings like Citizens United that are slowly but surely eroding The People’s voice and power, we are beginning a fight to restore what we died so many years ago to gain. We are struggling to preserve an ideal that others are dying to achieve.

So no, pepper-spray isn’t the same as bullets and we need to keep the struggles in the Mideast and here in perspective, but I don’t believe that perspective is that one is a superior or important struggle than the other.

Let’s talk about deceptive ad practices and how I hate them.

My job is to give people information. It is to help my readers make informed, thoughtful decisions on politics and the state of the world, as well as just let them know what’s going on in their neck of the woods. So when someone comes along and obfuscates that information with deceptions and lies, not only does it make my job harder, but it is a disservice to the constituents and people of this country. It bastardizes the entire democratic process and makes us a weaker country and international laughing stock.

If your side has to lie and cheat just to win? Then maybe they should either consider not running at all or instead highlight their positive aspects, as opposed to spreading falsehoods about the other side, which then take up precious time and energy to debunk but people still believe anyway because the human brain hates to admit it’s wrong.

This isn’t just one side of the debate, either. There are no good guys and bad guys in this. All sides employ similar tactics and it needs to stop.

And shame on the media for not taking the opportunity as one voice to condemn these falsehoods and tactics and point out to the people when these falsehoods are perpetrated. We have the means and the power to better inform our readers and make sure this country is run by informed citizens rather than corporate money and political apathy, but we don’t use what we have to do so. Instead we let it go to focus on the next “big thing,” rather than focus on the pursuit of truth, and if we don’t do it, who the hell will?