Welcome to my Mind
Home Random Ask Me RSS


sixpenceee:

HOW THE MOKIN CHILDREN ARE ABLE TO SEE WITH AMAZING CLARITY UNDERWATER

The Mokin are a group in Thailand that are nomadic and have a sea-based culture. 

In the sea there is less light, so usually one’s iris will dilate. But the Mokin have an adaption where instead of dilating, they constrict as much as possible. 

This allows them to see with much better clarity. Recent studies suggest that any child can quickly learn this trick. It exemplifies how well our brain adapts to our environment. 

SOURCE 

You may also like: SWIMMING BABIES

Post by sixpenceee (via sixpenceee)
August 22, 2014 at 12:24 AM | Post Permalink | 5,309 notes



Celebrities taking part in the ice bucket challenge to raise awareness for ALS. (Part 2)

Post by rubyredwisp (via metal-headz-unite)
August 22, 2014 at 12:24 AM | Post Permalink | 55,217 notes



kiss-my-aspergers:

huffingtonpost:

THIS MAN HAS ALS, AND HIS ICE BUCKET CHALLENGE WILL MAKE YOU LAUGH. THEN IT’LL MAKE YOU CRY

The video begins humorously as Anthony Carbajal, a photographer, dresses up in a neon bikini top and soaps up a car before being doused with ice water. 

So watch the full video here and laugh out loud at the first half and then get ready to tear up in the second half. 

So far, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge has generated approximately $41 million in donations.

Post by huffingtonpost (via candidlycara)
August 22, 2014 at 12:23 AM | Post Permalink | 154,257 notes



joshpeck:

grawly:

I keep seeing a clip from this video on my dash but I dont think anyone has posted the full thing so here’s the almighty loaf uncut.

what a…what did i just watch

Post by grawly (via jew-tube)
August 22, 2014 at 12:21 AM | Post Permalink | 20,178 notes



thehpalliance:

If you use YouTube, you need to know this.
You’ve heard all these rumblings about Net Neutrality over the past several months. Let’s get real: this is about controlling online video. It is estimated that by 2017, video content will account for 80-90% of all global Internet traffic.
This isn’t just about not being able to binge-watch a series on Netflix. It’s about the future of online video as we know it.
Whether your YouTube channel is home to daily vlogs, short films, or just that one video from when the cinnamon challenge seemed like a good idea, you’re a video creator. Your content and comments help shape this community. Let’s keep it that way.
Net Neutrality means that your YouTube videos reach people at the same speed as clips from last night’s episode of the Tonight Show. It means a level playing field for video creators looking to reach an audience. But new Net Neutrality rules could mess that up.
Here’s the deal: Telecommunications companies already charge us to access the Internet through our homes and our phones. New FCC rules could allow them to also charge content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and even PBS) for access to our eyeballs. It could create a fast lane for Jimmy Fallon’s clips, and slow lane for your YouTube videos.
It is really important that the FCC understands that online video creators care about Net Neutrality. Even if you’ve only ever uploaded ONE VIDEO, you are a creator and you have a voice.
If you can, please add your channel to our petition. We’ll deliver this to the FCC in September and demonstrate that the online video community cares about this issue. 
Sign the petition, then spread the word.

thehpalliance:

If you use YouTube, you need to know this.

You’ve heard all these rumblings about Net Neutrality over the past several months. Let’s get real: this is about controlling online video. It is estimated that by 2017, video content will account for 80-90% of all global Internet traffic.

This isn’t just about not being able to binge-watch a series on Netflix. It’s about the future of online video as we know it.

Whether your YouTube channel is home to daily vlogs, short films, or just that one video from when the cinnamon challenge seemed like a good idea, you’re a video creator. Your content and comments help shape this community. Let’s keep it that way.

Net Neutrality means that your YouTube videos reach people at the same speed as clips from last night’s episode of the Tonight Show. It means a level playing field for video creators looking to reach an audience. But new Net Neutrality rules could mess that up.

Here’s the deal: Telecommunications companies already charge us to access the Internet through our homes and our phones. New FCC rules could allow them to also charge content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and even PBS) for access to our eyeballs. It could create a fast lane for Jimmy Fallon’s clips, and slow lane for your YouTube videos.

It is really important that the FCC understands that online video creators care about Net Neutrality. Even if you’ve only ever uploaded ONE VIDEO, you are a creator and you have a voice.

If you can, please add your channel to our petition. We’ll deliver this to the FCC in September and demonstrate that the online video community cares about this issue.

Sign the petition, then spread the word.

Post by thehpalliance (via demonic-lionfish)
August 21, 2014 at 10:33 PM | Post Permalink | 37,570 notes



captain-america-in-berk:

adorkable-hiccup:

abit-0f-a-fixer-upper:

so I was randomly exploring google earth like I do in my spare time and I stumbled across this tiny island here

image

so I click on the pictures and

image

WAIT A SECOND

image

THIS

image

LOOKS

image

FAMILIAR

image

nearly burst into tears

blessed world

"This, is Berk"…


GRAB YOUR BAGS EVERYBODY WE’RE GOING TO BERK

Post by abit-0f-a-fixer-upper (via ava-dakedavra)
August 21, 2014 at 10:29 PM | Post Permalink | 5,537 notes



miss-elsaba:

The face of a broken man 

Post by miss-elsaba (via princelupin)
August 21, 2014 at 9:52 PM | Post Permalink | 12,993 notes



Post by exgynocraticgrrl (via lapris)
August 21, 2014 at 8:13 AM | Post Permalink | 48,027 notes



deux-zero-deux:

it actually is illegal. officers are required to wear their name tags for accountability purposes.
if a cashier can be penalized for being on the clock without a name tag, so can an officer. the biggest fucked up part about it is that you can’t even report it to their superiors because their superiors probably told them to remove their tags.

deux-zero-deux:

it actually is illegal. officers are required to wear their name tags for accountability purposes.

if a cashier can be penalized for being on the clock without a name tag, so can an officer. the biggest fucked up part about it is that you can’t even report it to their superiors because their superiors probably told them to remove their tags.

(Source: thesoftghetto)

Post by thesoftghetto (via gtfothinspo)
August 21, 2014 at 8:12 AM | Post Permalink | 66,272 notes



prattical:

same

prattical:

same

Post by prattical (via baguetttes)
August 21, 2014 at 8:11 AM | Post Permalink | 26,436 notes



What are your headcanons about me?

spideypool:

secretlymartinfreeman:

askboxmemes:

Just curious. 

This sounds really fucking awesome.

Guys make headcanons about me.

I DARE YOU WRITE HEADCANONS ABOUT ME

Post by askboxmemes (via knittingthenight)
August 20, 2014 at 11:06 PM | Post Permalink | 129,025 notes



anatomicalart:

briannacherrygarcia:

itscourtoon:

bathsabbath:

thorhugs:

compactcarl:

egriz:

im not even an artist and these prices are hurting my feelings 

This is what I have to dig through every time I look for new jobs to apply for.

For non-artists, let’s give you a little perspective.

For me, an illustration takes a bare minimum of 6 hours. Mind you, that’s JUST the drawing part. Not the research, or the communications, or gathering information. Just drawing.

That’s if it’s a simple illustration.

My art deco or more detailed stuff can take 20+ hours each.

Even simple, cartoony things still take at least 3 hours.

Let’s go with the second one. 2 illustrations for $25. Figuring 6 hours each. 12 hours total, for JUST the drawings. That’s approximately $2.08/hour. 

Asking these prices is an insult. But what’s even more hurtful is there are people out there that will take these jobs. Which only encourages rates like this to be acceptable. And there are people who will try to say these are just what you have to do to get started.

I believed that. So my first coloring gigs were just $10/page. The day someone offered me $25/page for just flatting work, I realized just how wrong I’d been. I’m still not making the rates I’d like, but now I refuse anything below $25/page. Because there is value in my time.

In any standardized industry, even ones that pay piece rate over hourly, these numbers are criminal.

Do your fellow artists a favor. Never accept jobs like these. There are others that pay legitimate rates. Or at least closer to legitimate.

Such baby bullshit. Don’t even get out of bed for these rates.

    If you are an artist who wants to make money off their art, I highly suggest you buy The Graphic Artist’s Guild Handbook. It goes in depth about copyright issues and even contains contract and model release templates. The 2013 book *I believe* states the average professional charges $72 an hour. This article calculated that to make a 40k annual salary you would need to charge about $60 per hour.

  After graduating from Art Center in 2012, I think I asked for somewhere between $35-45 an hour and got laughed at by multiple big name clients, which was infuriating, sadly expected, and terrifying with over $100K worth of student loans staring me in the face. If they tell you it will be “great exposure” that’s a red flag. Ask yourself how their exposure can compare to your Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Flickr and Facebook pages combined? 

And when you do get a decent paying gig, PROTECT YOURSELF. You have the right to negotiate and revise a contract. Do not start a job until you have a contract signed. If they don’t provide you with one, MAKE ONE. And make sure you have your bases covered. You can specify in a contract that maybe two revisions are included in your cost, and if they ask you to revise the piece more than twice, they will have to pay extra. In terms of payment schedule, I usually do the 50/50 Method (50% before, 50% after) or the 3/3/3 Method (1/3 before, 1/3 in the middle, 1/3 after all work has been received). Both of those are pretty standard in the industry, as they guarantee you will get compensated for your time, even if the job goes bad.

Remember you have a skill, and you have spent time honing that skill and you deserve to be adequately paid for that time and effort. You will have clients dismiss you because, honest to God they think, “Well, I could do that if I wanted. Hell, my five year old does it now.” No they can’t, because they didn’t, they don’t, they won’t and they probably never will. And good luck hiring a five year old. They can’t keep a fucking deadline.

And in a last ditch effort they’ll say, “But that drawing only took you an hour!” Son, that drawing took me 20. fucking. years.

10 Dollars for 1 minute of animation.  Oh my god my heart.  It took my team 6 months and a team of 12 to make a 4 minute short. 

The Graphic Artist’s Guild Handbook

I second this book! I’ve had it for several years now, and it’s been a HUGE help in my work as a freelance artist. It gives great advice on what to charge for different areas of art!

Please remember. Your art is worth a respectable payment! Accepting ridiculously low prices actually hurts the arts/illustration/animation communities because it makes employers believe they can employ people without offering decent pay.


Check the internet if you need help figuring out what you should be charging for your commissions. Invest in the books that will inform you professionally, and put your foot down if you think someone is trying to cheat you out of your time and hard work.
You have a right to refuse a job, and/or request decent payment. If your employer denies a you decent pay, well then they’re probably not a very good employer.
Do not undersell your skills. it is bad for the art community and you are worth more then that.

Post by egriz (via enoshima-junko)
August 20, 2014 at 10:56 PM | Post Permalink | 54,403 notes



Daft Punk -  Digital Love
Daft Punk - Digital Love

79,985 plays

Last night I had a dream about you
In this dream I’m dancing right beside you
And it looked like everyone was having fun
the kind of feeling I’ve waited so long

Don’t stop, come a little closer
As we jam the rhythm gets stronger
There’s nothing wrong with just a little, little fun
We were dancing all night long

(Source: dabe-strudel)

Post by dabe-strudel (via robotsandink)
August 20, 2014 at 10:24 PM | Post Permalink | 14,349 notes



Post by tastefullyoffensive (via letsplaybamboozeled)
August 20, 2014 at 10:20 PM | Post Permalink | 217,931 notes



alohasophh:

sixpenceee:

In high school I took a lot of social science classes. It was interesting, but all the politics and the roaring debates in classroom was a major turn off. Don’t get me wrong. I recognize it’s important. But to me, it was a whirling pool of anger and resentment.
That’s not the major reason I chose to be a science major, but it’s a contributing factor. I thought science was all factual information. People in lab coats striving to better understand our world. To me that was beautiful and I wanted to be a part of it. Burning people at stake for a different viewpoint was centuries ago… right? 
Wrong. Science is just as susceptible to that “whirlpool of anger and resentment” as anything else. Even if something has been proven with impeccable data and results, it does not guarantee acceptance with open arms.
Take Dr.Bruce Lipton for example. We now take epigenetics (study of changes due to modified gene expression) seriously. But in the 1990’s when the topic was first introduced, scientists blew up into hysterics at the thought of the concept. This is why Dr.Lipton left the academia for good in 1992, because although his experiments supported his views, he felt his message was falling onto deaf ears.
An interesting book, I’m reading called The Mind (edited by John Brockman) also highlights an example. When Darwin came back from his voyage, he displayed his Galapagos finches and reptiles, the crucial evidence of evolution. John Gould who was a great ornithologist at the time and knew a lot about birds, corrected some of Darwin’s information and gave him more crucial information in support of evolution. 
But Gould himself still remained a creationist and didn’t stand for evolution. As the book says "the man who knew more saw less and the man who knew less saw more"
I learned that great things take time. Facts and statistics don’t persuade people. Some are forever imprisoned by their own beliefs.
Here is a great article on how some people respond to scientific evidence by twisting information to fit their preexisting views (LINK)
Ofcourse science is a ever changing field and I’m sure by the time I’m 40, science textbooks will be revised and edited many times over. But many new concepts are heavily ridiculed and then gradually accepted generations later. 
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
-Max Planck

I aspire to be you.

alohasophh:

sixpenceee:

In high school I took a lot of social science classes. It was interesting, but all the politics and the roaring debates in classroom was a major turn off. Don’t get me wrong. I recognize it’s important. But to me, it was a whirling pool of anger and resentment.

That’s not the major reason I chose to be a science major, but it’s a contributing factor. I thought science was all factual information. People in lab coats striving to better understand our world. To me that was beautiful and I wanted to be a part of it. Burning people at stake for a different viewpoint was centuries ago… right? 

Wrong. Science is just as susceptible to that “whirlpool of anger and resentment” as anything else. Even if something has been proven with impeccable data and results, it does not guarantee acceptance with open arms.

Take Dr.Bruce Lipton for example. We now take epigenetics (study of changes due to modified gene expression) seriously. But in the 1990’s when the topic was first introduced, scientists blew up into hysterics at the thought of the concept. This is why Dr.Lipton left the academia for good in 1992, because although his experiments supported his views, he felt his message was falling onto deaf ears.

An interesting book, I’m reading called The Mind (edited by John Brockman) also highlights an example. When Darwin came back from his voyage, he displayed his Galapagos finches and reptiles, the crucial evidence of evolution. John Gould who was a great ornithologist at the time and knew a lot about birds, corrected some of Darwin’s information and gave him more crucial information in support of evolution. 

But Gould himself still remained a creationist and didn’t stand for evolution. As the book says "the man who knew more saw less and the man who knew less saw more"

I learned that great things take time. Facts and statistics don’t persuade people. Some are forever imprisoned by their own beliefs.

Here is a great article on how some people respond to scientific evidence by twisting information to fit their preexisting views (LINK)

Ofcourse science is a ever changing field and I’m sure by the time I’m 40, science textbooks will be revised and edited many times over. But many new concepts are heavily ridiculed and then gradually accepted generations later. 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

-Max Planck

I aspire to be you.

Post by sixpenceee (via sixpenceee)
August 20, 2014 at 10:18 PM | Post Permalink | 2,177 notes




Welcome to Platform 9¾ | 1 / 2112 Next »







Photobucket Photobucket Howdy. Andrew here, 19 years old, living in the snowy northland known to some as Canada. Fandom, SJ, atheism, and so on. This is my personal, basically, so be ready for content whiplash.
DEADPOOL FAN
{ MUTANT & PROUD }
HERO OF RAGE
{ wear }



"Those patient Hufflepuffs
are true and unafraid of toil"












Theme based on and images from Pottermore.com by J.K. Rowling
Originally coded for Tumblr by Jennifer at Tholaire. Modifcations for each house by Rachel Dana