Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

March 13 2017

2856 380d



I’d love it so much if he did this play for real.

March 09 2017

Play fullscreen



The entirety of Sherlock series two with the humans removed.

Inspired by (x)

addendum: series one completed.

Favorite fanvid series by favorite person. Enjoy!

6897 4f3f




I have this photo open in a tab in Google and just can’t seem to close it up. Every day I click over to it just to have another look. I really like how beautiful she is, how she knows how beautiful she is, but most of all it absolutely fascinates me because I can’t get over who she is.

Just curious, what does this have to do with Stephen Colbert?

This IS Stephen Colbert. :)

March 06 2017

March 05 2017

0175 ca51 500


This capture should be at least slightly difficult to place - just Sherlock in the doorway - but it’s not.  Not all all.  It’s the look in his eyes, I think:

I feel like standing up when I see this look, too.

Play fullscreen


Mr. Rogers making a case for $20 million in funding to the Senate in 1969.

I lost it around the 4 minute mark.

Kids should feel loved. Accepted. Important. And I grew up with parents that made me feel ALL THREE.

But I still needed Mr. Rogers. Don’t we all?

Always reblog

6541 d1e9 500

March 04 2017


technology related sensory memories from my childhood

  • sliding the metal cover on floppy disks
  • the slight resistance of inserting cassette and video tapes
  • ripping off the strips of holed paper off of dot matrix printer paper 
  • rolling the wheel on a disposable camera to take another photo

Sort of tech:
- Snapping little in cartridges into your school cartridge pen
- The sound of milk being delivered at 6am - the clink of glass bottles and the hum of the electric milk float vehicle
- Smell of tinten killer used to erase ink
- The sound of your Commodore 64 video game loading (from a cassette loaded into a keyboard-console

5052 c601 500


Just some fluffy pretties.

It’s looks like Old Man’s Beard

5075 c531 500


I can’t take it 😍 #LSSC

5111 009f


Thank goodness they exist. Makes me laugh even when feeling like crying.

This was the moment I stopped despairing over the election and started watching the Late Show every day. There is still joy in the world.

5128 f9c7 500


With 3 Million People Watching Live, Stephen Colbert Proved Why He’s Leading Late Night

After only an hour to prepare, Colbert dismantled Trump’s speech.

Esquire’s Matt Miller 

5162 314d



I have this photo open in a tab in Google and just can’t seem to close it up. Every day I click over to it just to have another look. I really like how beautiful she is, how she knows how beautiful she is, but most of all it absolutely fascinates me because I can’t get over who she is.

Just curious, what does this have to do with Stephen Colbert?

This IS Stephen Colbert. :)

5183 6b2a


Human Ray Of Sunshine Stephen Colbert pt. 40/?

No greater joy than seeing Stephen laugh.

March 01 2017

3678 c9f8

I have this photo open in a tab in Google and just can’t seem to close it up. Every day I click over to it just to have another look. I really like how beautiful she is, how she knows how beautiful she is, but most of all it absolutely fascinates me because I can’t get over who she is.

February 24 2017


Katharine Hepburn is extremely underrated nowadays, especially compared to her fellow Ms. Hepburn. I mean, all respects to Audrey, but most of the excuses people give for liking her better have to do with things that Kate did too. For example:

  • “Audrey Hepburn was a fashion icon.” This is true, but people who say this don’t seem to realize that Kate was one of the first major Hollywood stars to wear pants (not pajamas) onscreen and/or in publicity photos in a glamorous setting (Ginger Rogers wore them occasionally in the ‘30s in rehearsal scenes in Fred & Ginger movies, but the costumes wren’t made out to be glamorous). Therefore, part of Audrey’s style may not have existed without Kate.
  • “Audrey Hepburn played many enduring roles.” This is also true, but so did Kate. For example, there’s Susan Vance in Bringing Up Baby, Tracy Lord in The Philadelphia Story and Amanda Bonner in Adam’s Rib.
  • “Audrey Hepburn was the more beautiful.” I can’t give a real retort for that one because it’s totally subjective and she was gorgeous, but still, have people who say that ever even looked at Kate?
  • I can’t think of any more, but I’ll update the post when I do.

February 21 2017

1298 79a5 500






dont you just love capitalism..  

Black Mirror predicted this we are all goona die

my god but I get mad when someone flippantly dismisses important scientific progress because you can make it sound dumb by framing it the right way.

For a start, of course a lot of science sounds dumb.  Science is all in the slogging through the minutiae, the failures, the tedious process of filling in the blank spaces on the map because it ain’t ’t glamorous, but if someone doesn’t do it, no one gets to know for sure what’s there.

Someone’s gotta spend their career measuring fly genitalia under a microscope. Frankly, I’m grateful to the person who is tackling that tedium, because if they didn’t, I might have to, and I don’t wanna.

But let’s talk about why we should care about this particular science and spend money on it. (And I’ll even answer without even glancing at the article.)

Off the top of my head?

  • -advances in robotics
  • -advances in miniature robotics
  • -advances in flight technology
  • -advantages in simulating and understanding the mechanics and programming of small intelligences
  • -ability to grow crops in places uninhabitable by insects (space? cold/hot? places where honeybees are non-native and detrimental to the ecosystem?)
  • -ability to improve productivity density of crops and feed more people
  • -less strain on bees, who do poorly when forced to pollinate monocultures of low nutrition plants
  • -ability to run tightly controlled experiments on pollination, on the effects of bees on plant physiology, on ecosystem dynamics, etc
  • -fucking robot bees, my friend
  • -hahaha think how confused those flowers must be

Also worth keeping in mind? People love, love, love framing science in condescending and silly sounding terms as an excuse to cut funding to vital programs. *Especially* if it’s also associated with something (gasp) ‘inappropriate’, like sex or ladyparts. This is why research for a lot of women’s issues, lgbtq+ issues, minorities’ issues, and vulnerable groups in general’s issues tends to lag so far behind the times. This is why some groups are pushing so hard to cut funding for climate change research these days.

Anything that’s acquired governmental funding has been through an intensely competitive, months-to-years long screening by EXPERTS IN THE FIELD who have a very good idea what research is likely to be most beneficial to that field and fill a needed gap.

Trust me.  The paperwork haunts my nightmares.

So, we had a joke in my lab: “Nice work, college boy.” It was the phrase for any project that you could spend years and years working on and end up with results that could be summed up on a single, pretty slide with an apparently obvious graph. The phrase was taken from something a grower said at a talk my advisor gave as a graduate student: “So you proved that plants grow better when they’re watered? Nice work, college boy.”

But like, the thing is? There’s always more details than that. And a lot of times it’s important that somebody questions our assumptions. 

A labmate of mine doing very similar research demonstrated that our assumptions about the effect of water stress on plant fitness have been wrong for years because *nobody had thought to separate out the different WAYS a plant can be water stressed.* (Continuously, in bursts, etc.). And it turns out these ways have *drastically different effects* with drastically different measures required for response to them to keep from losing lots of money and resources in agriculture.

Nice work, college boy. :p

Point the second: surprise! Anna Haldewang is an industrial design student.  She developed this in her product design class.  And, as far as I can tell, she has had no particular funding at all for this project, much less billions of dollars. 

‘grats, Anna, you FUCKING ROCK.

ps: On a lighter note, summarizing research to make it sound stupid is both easy AND fun. Check out @lolmythesis – I HIGHLY RECOMMEND. :33

Okay, so I actually know Anna. She is my classmate and my friend, and I know this project quite well. And I could not have put the above statement any better.

Here’s the thing guys, bumblebees are endangered, but they have a very important roll in our ecosystem. While we are doing everything we can to stabalize the bee populations, we also have to make sure that an important job is being done in our ecosystem. This drone was a conceptual way to aid that as we work to stabalize bee populations.

I have never been so mad at Tumblr before. This is a huge accomplishment for a student, let alone a female in our male dominated industry. Stop shitting on everything, it doesn’t make you cool. Oh and actually read into things before you go tearing them apart.


This is an ingenious accomplishment, and I’m certainly not contesting that. I can only imagine the time and effort and critical thinking (beyond anything I could ever achieve) that it took to produce this device. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a good solution, or that it doesn’t create a dilemma between conservation vs technology.
What scientist worth their salt would really want the population at large to blindly embrace a new technology without questioning its implications? It’s valid to ask whether such a technology might replace endangered pollinators, and whether the efforts to aid and sustain populations might be defunded and ultimately abandoned by politicians once presented with a man made alternative. And it’s not as if there is no solution that can restore the bees. We know for example that adopting farming practises which restore wildflowers and abandoning harmful pesticides can make an impact, if only these could be put into practise in a large scale endeavour.
I understand Haldewang has not earned money in the production of the device, and that she regards it as a teaching tool ‘at first’ - nevertheless she has filed a patent and hopes that it will become a marketable product, and the dean of SCAD specifically speaks of its potential use in large scale farming.
Obviously this short article does not tell the full story about the endeavours of this institution, so unfortunately it’s hard to surmise how much the conservation of bees are of practical concern here. There is nothing in the article that stresses the importance of continuing efforts with shrinking bee populations, or that this drone has been created in support of such efforts. The very name 'Plan Bee’ suggests that bees themselves may be written off in favor of a technological solution; the fact that Haldewang claims she didn’t know about the declining bee populations when she began her work (which is fairly astonishing) would seem to indicate that conservation is not on the agenda at all. I’d be really interested to hear if there is a plan to utilize this technology in harmony with bee conservation efforts, with the ultimate goal of restoring bee populations.

February 20 2017

1312 8c39 500
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!