sashayed:

silvermoon424:

poppypicklesticks:

billybatsonandjameshowlettsbro:

cosmicallycosmopolitan:

billybatsonandjameshowlettsbro:

james-winston:

The Titanoboa, is a 48ft long snake dating from around 60-58million years ago. It had a rib cage 2ft wide, allowing it to eat whole crocodiles, and surrounding the ribcage were muscles so powerful that it could crush a rhinoTitanoboa was so big it couldn’t even spend long amounts of time on land, because the force of gravity acting on it would cause it to suffocate under its own weight.

I’m so glad they aren’t around

omg me too. I’m scared enough of 26 ft long anacondas. I’m so happy Megalodons, those giant sharks, aren’t alive either

Praise natural selection

I remember watching Walking with Beasts or something similar, or some British tv show about evolution

The subject was something like a 12 foot long water scorpion

I was so startled by its sudden appearance and narration that I yelped: “12 fucking feet?!?!  I’m fucking glad it’s extinct!” 

Dude, prehistory was home to some fucking TERRIFYING creatures. For some reason, everything back then was enormous and scary. Extinction doesn’t always have to be a bad thing!

And Poppy, what you saw was an arthropod known as Pterygotus (it was actually featured in Walking With Monsters). Not only was it as big (or maybe even bigger) than your average human, it had a stinger the size of a lightbulb. REALLY glad that bugger isn’t around anymore.

Also, Megalodon deserves to be mention again, because just hearing its name makes me want to never be submerged in water ever again.

GOD, I HATE THIS POST. HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW THAT SHIT ISN’T STILL AROUND? LURKING? EVOLVING? WE DON’T. WE DON’T KNOW SHIT ABOUT SHIT DOWN THERE. THE OCEAN IS A PRIMEVAL HELLSCAPE NIGHTMARE AND WE ALL GO ON VACATION AND DIP OUR STUPID FRAGILE UNPROTECTED FETUS BODIES AROUND THE EDGES OF IT ON PURPOSE, LIKE THAT’S NORMAL. FUCK THE OCEAN.

(via 8thgradeforever)

leupagus:

disappointingpopsiclejokes:

Disappointing Popsicle Jokes

HOW IS THIS A DISAPPOINTING POPSICLE JOKE

leupagus:

disappointingpopsiclejokes:

Disappointing Popsicle Jokes

HOW IS THIS A DISAPPOINTING POPSICLE JOKE

(via realmenwearpuppypants)

explore-blog:

Ann Friedman's Disapproval Matrix for handling criticism is a thing of genius, not to mention essential internet-age literacy. She explains:

Critics: These are smart people who know something about your field. They are taking a hard look at your work and are not loving it. You’ll probably want to listen to what they have to say, and make some adjustments to your work based on their thoughtful comments.
Lovers: These people are invested in you and are also giving you negative but rational feedback because they want you to improve. Listen to them, too.
Frenemies: Ooooh, this quadrant is tricky. These people really know how to hurt you, because they know you personally or know your work pretty well. But at the end of the day, their criticism is not actually about your work—it’s about you personally. And they aren’t actually interested in a productive conversation that will result in you becoming better at what you do. They just wanna undermine you. Dishonorable mention goes to The Hater Within, aka the irrational voice inside you that says you suck, which usually falls into this quadrant. Tell all of these fools to sit down and shut up.
Haters: This is your garden-variety, often anonymous troll who wants to tear down everything about you for no rational reason. Folks in this quadrant are easy to write off because they’re counterproductive and you don’t even know them. Ignore! Engaging won’t make you any better at what you do. And then rest easy, because having haters is proof your work is finding a wide audience and is sparking conversation. Own it.
The general rule of thumb? When you receive negative feedback that falls into one of the top two quadrants—from experts or people who care about you who are engaging with and rationally critiquing your work—you should probably take their comments to heart. When you receive negative feedback that falls into the bottom two quadrants, you should just let it roll off your back and just keep doin’ you.

Complement with Benjamin Franklin’s trick for neutralizing critics, Daniel Dennett on how to criticize with kindness, and Anne Lamott’s definitive manifesto for handling haters.

explore-blog:

Ann Friedman's Disapproval Matrix for handling criticism is a thing of genius, not to mention essential internet-age literacy. She explains:

Critics: These are smart people who know something about your field. They are taking a hard look at your work and are not loving it. You’ll probably want to listen to what they have to say, and make some adjustments to your work based on their thoughtful comments.

Lovers: These people are invested in you and are also giving you negative but rational feedback because they want you to improve. Listen to them, too.

Frenemies: Ooooh, this quadrant is tricky. These people really know how to hurt you, because they know you personally or know your work pretty well. But at the end of the day, their criticism is not actually about your work—it’s about you personally. And they aren’t actually interested in a productive conversation that will result in you becoming better at what you do. They just wanna undermine you. Dishonorable mention goes to The Hater Within, aka the irrational voice inside you that says you suck, which usually falls into this quadrant. Tell all of these fools to sit down and shut up.

Haters: This is your garden-variety, often anonymous troll who wants to tear down everything about you for no rational reason. Folks in this quadrant are easy to write off because they’re counterproductive and you don’t even know them. Ignore! Engaging won’t make you any better at what you do. And then rest easy, because having haters is proof your work is finding a wide audience and is sparking conversation. Own it.

The general rule of thumb? When you receive negative feedback that falls into one of the top two quadrants—from experts or people who care about you who are engaging with and rationally critiquing your work—you should probably take their comments to heart. When you receive negative feedback that falls into the bottom two quadrants, you should just let it roll off your back and just keep doin’ you.

Complement with Benjamin Franklin’s trick for neutralizing critics, Daniel Dennett on how to criticize with kindness, and Anne Lamott’s definitive manifesto for handling haters.

(via ifeelbetterer)

"The truth is, everyone likes to look down on someone. If your favorites are all avant-garde writers who throw in Sanskrit and German, you can look down on everyone. If your favorites are all Oprah Book Club books, you can at least look down on mystery readers. Mystery readers have sci-fi readers. Sci-fi can look down on fantasy. And yes, fantasy readers have their own snobbishness. I’ll bet this, though: in a hundred years, people will be writing a lot more dissertations on Harry Potter than on John Updike. Look, Charles Dickens wrote popular fiction. Shakespeare wrote popular fiction - until he wrote his sonnets, desperate to show the literati of his day that he was real artist. Edgar Allan Poe tied himself in knots because no one realized he was a genius. The core of the problem is how we want to define “literature”. The Latin root simply means “letters”. Those letters are either delivered - they connect with an audience - or they don’t. For some, that audience is a few thousand college professors and some critics. For others, its twenty million women desperate for romance in their lives. Those connections happen because the books successfully communicate something real about the human experience. Sure, there are trashy books that do really well, but that’s because there are trashy facets of humanity. What people value in their books - and thus what they count as literature - really tells you more about them than it does about the book."

Brent Weeks (via victoriousvocabulary)

BAM

(via starsandatoms)

(via sparrowwingsandfragilethings)


Barcelona, Spain. July 8, 2014 x

Barcelona, Spain. July 8, 2014 x

(Source: haroldmadness, via checkthemargins)

nintendontdodrugs:

orchid-ink:

iraffiruse:

Satisfying things

being a human is so weird

THE DVD LOGO HIT THE CORNER, THE CORNERRRRR.

(via sparrowwingsandfragilethings)

fandomsandfeminism:

Oh wonder woman. Challenging that heteronormativty. You are wonderful indeed.

(via mostlygoesastray)

"We can’t jump off bridges anymore because our iPhones will get ruined. We can’t take skinny dips in the ocean, because there’s no service on the beach and adventures aren’t real unless they’re on Instagram. Technology has doomed the spontaneity of adventure and we’re helping destroy it every time we Google, check-in, and hashtag."

Jeremy Glass, We Can’t Get Lost Anymore 

i’m so sick of seeing people trash this generation for no other reason than that things aren’t the way they used to be. there’s this constant vitriolic stream of people snarling that selfies, check-ins and blogs are the death of culture, and i am bored of it.

the human desire to record and document experience is hardly new. without that urge we wouldn’t have art, music, dance, theatre. the world of electronics evolving around that to give us an even broader scope of options to preserve our unique view of the world and share it with others is a beautiful thing. despite a legion of cynical naysayers constantly shouting otherwise, i’ve not actually become immune to earth’s beauty or my own experiences in it. stop being terrified of change and development and calling it profound.

(via thekatediary)

Last line bolded for emphasis

(via fedoraharp)

Additionally, I’m not losing my sense of adventure every time I Google something, I’m feeding my thrist for knowledge. I have easy access to the most information that humanity has ever amassed, and you want me to not use that? Because let’s be real, my ancestors who had a “sense of adventure” were actually far more restricted in their travel. I can travel more widely and more cheaply than any point in human history, and you’re trying to imply that my “sense of adventure” has died because of the very technology that has made that possible?

Actually, how about this: my “sense of adventure” is tempered by the responsibilities and anxieties I carry far more than Google or check-ins or hashtags. My “sense of adventure” is tempered by the money I have (or rather don’t have) in my bank account. My “sense of adventure” is tempered by what society has taught me about traveling alone at night. My “sense of adventure” is tempered by the fact that a girl from my high school went on an adventure and ended up murdered, and whose family is still seeking justice because of the negligence of the local police department. My “sense of adventure” is the same as my ancestors’ “sense of adventure,” and it not this nostalgic retelling of history. 

And how many of these naysayers have actually taken a trip like Steinbeck or William Least Heat-Moon? How many of them have jumped off a bridge? How many of them feel free to benefit from iPhones and Google and cell service and Instagram, but then criticize younger generations for taking full advantage of the world around them?

We can’t jump off bridges anymore because it’s against laws passed by older generations. We can’t take skinny dips in the ocean because it’s against laws passed by older generations, and adventures aren’t a reality for us because they often cost more money than we have. Technology has made travel more cheap and widespread than ever, and we helped destroy it when we weighed an entire generation down with the responsibilities of another.

(via theladyem)

(tags from pepperonistark)

when people complain this way it reminds me of when i was a kid and during the summer my mom would complain because we stayed inside during the day and watched tv (southern summers y’all) vs when she was a kid they stayed outside and played.

and i was like, INSIDE IS WHERE THE AIR CONDITIONING IS and she said they didn’t have air conditioning back then.

and i finally said, “WELL IF YOU DID, WOULD YOU HAVE STILL SAT YOUR ASS OUTSIDE?”

and she paused for a minute and was like, “oh hell no”

(via carsonphillips)

"The denunciation of the young is a necessary part of the hygiene of older people, and greatly assists in the circulation of their blood."

- Logan Pearsall Smith

(via frozenthoughtbox)

Hell, parents don’t let their kids play outside anymore. Do kids go on unsupervised bike rides these days? Or walk downtown together to the ice cream stand? 

No, parents are so fucking afraid of other adults that when a kid wants to explore, parents are like “hell naw, I’ll drive you to whatever organized pre-approved supersupervised activity is going on.”

And then irony of ironies when the football coach or priest turns out to be a child molester. If you’d just let your kids ride their bikes around the neighborhood or get lost in the woods for a couple hours, they’re statistically much safer from predators. Because predators hang out where kids are. And kids aren’t outside anymore.

As to the original point, something I always think about when people romanticize the past is a passage in The Daily Show’s America: The Book (which I shall now mangle in paraphrase): Before you start treating the Founding Fathers like wise old sages who could foresee the needs of a nation for centuries into the future, remember that they all shat in buckets.

Remember, most people of the past who will be romanticized to you shat in buckets, then threw that shit into the street and wondered why everyone had cholera and dysentery all the time.

(via warrioromen)

(Source: her0inchic, via mostlygoesastray)


iHeartRadio Music Festival 2014 line up! (x)
For more information, visit this and for tickets go here

iHeartRadio Music Festival 2014 line up! (x)

For more information, visit this and for tickets go here

(Source: usasheeran, via broofriends)

sonnetscrewdriver:

flowergirlrobichiko:

thecatsmustbecrazy:

special delivery

BRING ME SCHRÖDINGER’S HEAD

sonnetscrewdriver:

flowergirlrobichiko:

thecatsmustbecrazy:

special delivery

BRING ME SCHRÖDINGER’S HEAD

(via mostlygoesastray)

(Source: 0-es3, via northerndownpour)

direct-news:

@NiallOfficial: Keep finding great pics on my phone! Louis and liam on the set of our macys Xmas commercial for the perfume last year http://t.co/GhpfHAa6Sy

direct-news:

@NiallOfficial: Keep finding great pics on my phone! Louis and liam on the set of our macys Xmas commercial for the perfume last year http://t.co/GhpfHAa6Sy

(via broofriends)

(Source: beppski, via lost-in-daze)

naamahdarling:

malefactum:

I’ve gotten a lot of asks wondering how I make the fangs shown above so here is my easy cheap trick:

• Buy plain fake nails from the store (ex: walgreens, cvs, beauty supply, it’s all cheap really and with a whole pack you can make as many as you want or reuse your old ones!)

• Use scissors to cut out fangs to fit your teeth. (Use a size up from your tooth so it will lie flat.)

Purchase denture glue (yes that stuff that old folks use to keep their fake teeth in with)

Apply a small amount to the back of the fake nail/tooth and hold it on to your tooth until it feels secure. (Your lips will help keep it in, don’t worry if it moves when you push it with your tongue.)

Voila! You’re the inhuman creature you have always wished to be. Just.. you know… don’t eat anything except liquids or your dreams will come crashing down.

Eternally Yours, 

   Malefactum

I used to do this in high school.  It really works, and it looks way better than you’d expect.

Scared the shit out of some kid at the mall with it.

Also, this person is inhumanly beautiful.  Goddamn.

(via sparrowwingsandfragilethings)