Lost Arcana
gtsaiyaman01:

So I fired up Twitter today and I see this series of Tweets from dresdencodak and I just
oh my God

gtsaiyaman01:

So I fired up Twitter today and I see this series of Tweets from dresdencodak and I just

oh my God

evilboyendo:

For those extra-blasphemous days.

Open up. Let the Holy Spirit fill you from within, and you shall feel- OH GOD NOT HEADFIRST! NOT HEAD FIRST!

evilboyendo:

For those extra-blasphemous days.

Open up. Let the Holy Spirit fill you from within, and you shall feel- OH GOD NOT HEADFIRST! NOT HEAD FIRST!

Do you have a better book title for Dune?

betterbooktitles:

Yep!

Title and Redesign by Rentz Leinbach.

kelsium:

If you don’t understand the difference between limiting people’s water use because of a massive, long-term regional drought, and completely cutting people’s water off because you think it’s more important that they give you a hundred bucks than that they have access to water I REALLY CANNOT HELP YOU.

expostninja:

samurai-ko:

thommquackenbush:

jennlyons:

jadelyn:

Are you fucking kidding me? Like, no, Shakespeare wouldn’t tweet a sonnet cause 140 characters is a bit short for that. Wrong medium. But you know what he would have? A very active twitter FULL OF DICK PUNS AND YOUR MOM JOKES okay. (And probably also a blog for the sonnets and longer works, that cross-posts links to twitter anyway.)
Get out of here with that pretentious anti-technology bullshit.

He’d rock the fuck out of memes. Don’t deny it.

Exit, pursued by a doge. much run wow 

Reblogging JUST for that last comment.

I love this stuff because it’s obvious to the point of uselessness.  “Shakespeare never tweeted a sonnet.”  No shit he didn’t.  He also didn’t ride in an airplane and rock out to Daft Punk on his iPod, and he didn’t have a World of Warcraft account.  He didn’t get the chicken pox vaccine and then set in his bedroom eating Jello as a kid.  Never owned a single Go-Bot or read a Harry Potter book.  What’s your fucking point?

expostninja:

samurai-ko:

thommquackenbush:

jennlyons:

jadelyn:

Are you fucking kidding me? Like, no, Shakespeare wouldn’t tweet a sonnet cause 140 characters is a bit short for that. Wrong medium. But you know what he would have? A very active twitter FULL OF DICK PUNS AND YOUR MOM JOKES okay. (And probably also a blog for the sonnets and longer works, that cross-posts links to twitter anyway.)

Get out of here with that pretentious anti-technology bullshit.

He’d rock the fuck out of memes. Don’t deny it.

Exit, pursued by a doge.

much run wow 

Reblogging JUST for that last comment.

I love this stuff because it’s obvious to the point of uselessness.  “Shakespeare never tweeted a sonnet.”  No shit he didn’t.  He also didn’t ride in an airplane and rock out to Daft Punk on his iPod, and he didn’t have a World of Warcraft account.  He didn’t get the chicken pox vaccine and then set in his bedroom eating Jello as a kid.  Never owned a single Go-Bot or read a Harry Potter book.  What’s your fucking point?

truenorwegianbowelmovements:

uggly:

Cristian Castro

BONES OF STEEL.

In case there was any confusion as to the scale, that is an actual Beetle hood.

I’ll need one that’s actually functional for use as my new warsteed. And another six at least for the army- lieutenants deserve riding beasts, right?

WAKE. UP. 

WAKE. UP. 

qwertee:

Just 12 hours remain to get today’s Last Chance Tee: “I Demanded a Trial” on Qwertee: http://www.qwertee.com/last-chance
£10/€12/$14 till the timer reaches zero then it’s GONE!
Be sure to “Like” this for 1 chance at a FREE TEE this weekend “Share” it for 2 chances and “Comment” on it for a 3rd chance. Thanks as always:)

qwertee:

Just 12 hours remain to get today’s Last Chance Tee: “I Demanded a Trial” on Qwertee: http://www.qwertee.com/last-chance

£10/€12/$14 till the timer reaches zero then it’s GONE!

Be sure to “Like” this for 1 chance at a FREE TEE this weekend “Share” it for 2 chances and “Comment” on it for a 3rd chance. Thanks as always:)

circlereforged:

officialvarrictethras:

tyler-to-your-doctor:

chronicpainhawke:

what if varric stops calling the companions nicknames

what if it reminds him too much of hawke’s group

Could you imagine, though? If he doesn’t give any of the inquisition any nicknames, and you run into a DA2 character, and he grins broadly and addresses them in their old nickname, and when they leave his face just fucking falls, and someone asks him in passive dialogue later why he doesn’t nickname anyone anymore, and he simply says, “Because that was family.”

And then towards the end of the game, he gives Inquisitor a nickname.

image

also wicked grace nights, what if he tries them at the beginning, but it doesn’t work out because it’s just not the same.

no isabela to cheat at cards, i mean sera’s good but isabela did it with flair, no anders and fenris sniping at each other while losing their coin, no sebastian being the reluctant attendee telling them all that the maker doesn’t approve but goddamn does he know how to hold his alcohol and have a good time, no merrill to ask for the explanations and the stories (varric loved explaining everything to her)

but most of all

no hawke to pull them all together

in the inquisition, they are very much apart of something greater and the organization is huge and try as he might, varric misses when it was just them versus the world (kirkwall)

akapyon:

東京喰種 カネキマスクの作り方 その6

いよいよ仕上げです。

赤い合皮にファスナーを付け、歯のパーツと重ねて縫います。

それをフェイスに貼り付けたら、最後にワッシャーとゴム紐を付けて完成!

ゴム紐は眼帯側にホックを付けて固定できるようにしています。

自分の顔ぴったりのサイズ&リアルなマスクが出来上がりました。

tygenco:

winneganfake:

winneganfake:

All right- I’ve just put a bunch of one-off and experimental pieces up for sale (including some collars, belts, and other items) over on my FB page. I’m not going to glut tumblr with individual posts of every single piece piece, so you’ll have to follow this link to view them all in detail and read through the captions for each there, but if anyone’s interested in picking up any of these, just drop me an ask here, or a message there!

And it’s updated AGAIN. 

With

ALL

MANNER OF

PURE BADASSERY

And a LOT of it at cheaper pricing than I sell this stuff for at events. So go forth and get SOME AWESOME LEATHERWORKS. DO IT. FOR SCIENCE. AND GREAT JUSTICE. GO. 

Damnit all, I hate being poor. Because I have a serious NEED for one of his corsets.

Oh yeah, that reminds me of one more item I need to throw in tomorrow’s set. The last of those prototypes- size 36 in brown. 

Shut the fuck up about vaccinations. Not everyone has to have them, not everyone believes in them. Uneducated fuck.
Anonymous

aspiringdoctors:

restless-wafarer:

aspiringdoctors:

image

You know, my homie and secret best friend Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best….

image

This isn’t an issue of belief or should even be up for discussion. It’s not a debate- like gravity or that the Earth revolves around the Sun isn’t up for debate. It’s a fact, whether or not you like it. Sorry bro.

And any ‘educated fuck’ knows that vaccines are necessary and everyone who can have them should have them.

Have a lovely day, sugar. 

Actually there’s a lot of research and knowledge supporting the fact that vaccines are NOT necessary. It is simply another thing that today’s health system is super big on, just like hospital births and c-sections. And a lot of people actually have long term and short term complications from getting vaccines. Ahem.

Dang guys, you thought I didn’t check my activity log every now and then? Because I knew shit like this would pop up. And, I just finished my block exam and am feeling fiesty.

Actually you’re wrong. That ‘research’ is either completely fabricated OR grossly misinterprets the data OR uses shitty research techniques to get the data they want- all which are grossly unethical, in case you’re curious. I’ve got slides from a recent lecture on vaccines (aka why I am so fired up about this nonsense). You can check out the citations on each slide if you don’t believe me… something unsurprisingly missing from literally every anti-vaccine comment I’ve gotten and website that I have visited. Show me your sources, honey, and if you do, I will blow them out of the water because not a single one stands up to current scientific research standards.

There are however tomes and tomes of research for the safety end efficacy of vaccines. Don’t believe me? Look at a simple google scholar search.

So! Here we go! 

image

image

Holy shit, it’s almost like vaccines SAVE SOCIETY MONEY. In fact, they give money back to society, along with the other programs indicated by red arrows. Which would be really weird for something that is just a healthcare fad like c-sections and hospital births.

And most people have no complications for getting vaccines, and if they do, most of them are short term. In fact, it is devilishly hard to prove an adverse effect was because of a vaccine. Why? Because it’s how we’re wired. We falsely see connections and causes where there are none (called a type 1 error; you are rejecting a true null hypothesis). People are more likely to attribute an adverse health event to a shot- even if that shot is the placebo and the numbers are just the background rate for whatever health event in the population.

image

And here is a graph showing the sample sizes necessary to prove that an adverse event is caused or related to a vaccine.

image

You know what, it was a really good lecture and I’m going to share more more relevant slides in case any one else feels like contradicting me.

These slides show the public health impact of vaccines. Note the differences between the historical peak and post-vaccine era deaths columns. Because saving literally thousands of lives is totally a conspiracy you should beware of.

image

image

And this is why herd immunity is so important! See how high it has to be for measles? Guess what we’re seeing outbreaks of thanks to anti-vaxxers? Don’t forget that one of the deadly complications of measles is SSPE.

image

Look how Hepatitis A infections in older adults when down after kids started getting immunized. Shocking! Could vaccines be… good for …. everyone????

image

Ahem.

winneganfake:

All right- I’ve just put a bunch of one-off and experimental pieces up for sale (including some collars, belts, and other items) over on my FB page. I’m not going to glut tumblr with individual posts of every single piece piece, so you’ll have to follow this link to view them all in detail and read through the captions for each there, but if anyone’s interested in picking up any of these, just drop me an ask here, or a message there!

And it’s updated AGAIN. 

With

ALL

MANNER OF

PURE BADASSERY

And a LOT of it at cheaper pricing than I sell this stuff for at events. So go forth and get SOME AWESOME LEATHERWORKS. DO IT. FOR SCIENCE. AND GREAT JUSTICE. GO. 

annericenovelcometolife:

It’s true
Misrepresenting Fair Use

datamuse:

It happened again: another online writer’s stuff got swiped and reused in another venue, without so much as a hey-do-you-mind. When the writer—rather understandably—complained, the re-user got his ire up, claiming fair use, and also that the writer was overreacting and ought to be flattered that someone liked his work enough to rebroadcast it to a wider audience.

Both are pretty common arguments, and they’re equally annoying because they rest on faulty assumptions: that a use of someone’s work is fair if you say it is, and that anyone making their work freely available will be pleased if it gets picked up and re-shared elsewhere. The particulars are as follows: a blogger wrote a post about the possibility of going back to war in the Middle East. The post went viral, getting reshared all over Facebook, and eventually got reposted on a couple of other sites. It also got picked up by a podcaster who read the entire post, verbatim, with a minimal introduction to the effect that he thought the post was really cool.

The blogger was rather displeased, especially since some of these re-posts were without attribution or so much as a link back to his original work. And he let it be known, particularly to the podcaster who had read his essay. The podcaster fired back that his use of the essay was fair, since he wasn’t profiting off of it.

There is an ongoing conversation over how material gets used and re-used online, where entire books and movies are copied and rebroadcast with minimal fuss, even when protected by DRM—if you know how to crack it. But the claim of fair use specifically is one that is often misunderstood and often misused—sometimes unwittingly, sometimes as an excuse. Since the only way to definitively test whether a use is fair is in court and most people don’t want to go to that kind of trouble, uses that are not fair are often let slide with little action beyond vociferous protest; conversely, uses that are fair are often nonetheless withdrawn under threat from the copyright holder, if said holder has sufficient influence and deep pockets.

So what is fair use, anyway? It’s basically an attempt to insert some wiggle room into the labyrinthine rules concerning copyright and what it’s okay to do with copyrighted material, making allowance for the need to make use of such material in order to comment on or criticize it, include it within an academic study, use it in the classroom, and other occasions where it’s unlikely that the user is directly interfering with the copyright holder’s rights.

There are four factors which are to be applied when considering whether your use is fair; however, much of the misunderstanding of fair use seems to arise from users not applying them, or being incompletely aware of them, or oversimplifying them (“my use is educational, therefore it’s fair”—which is not strictly true, and also what some people attempt to justify as “educational” can be rather entertaining).

The main criterion of fair use is that the use is limited and transformative, generally understood as either commentary or criticism, or parody of the original work. Examples would be quoting from a book as part of a review, or writing a parody of an original song—though parodying the entire song is unlikely to be considered fair (for this reason, Weird Al Yankovic gets permission from copyright holders of the songs he parodies, rather than relying on a fair use argument).

In this case, the podcaster read the entire work aloud and issued the recording as part of his podcast, with a minimal introduction. This is neither limited, nor transformative. A better choice would have been to quote from the essay, with commentary, and tell listeners where they could read the whole thing—or seek permission from the author to replicate the work, something the author would have been willing to grant upon request.

The second factor is the nature of the work. It’s easier to make a fair use claim for factual information than for creative work. In this case, the essay was an opinion piece, not a simple reporting of fact. In other words, the intent of the author was to express his experience and interpretation of events, not to be an encyclopedia. This blogger has a distinctive voice and a large following, but even if he had neither, the nature of the piece itself is interpretive and creative.

The third factor is the amount and substantiality of the portion taken. “Amount” is fairly obvious—the usual guideline is no more than ten percent—but what’s meant by substantiality? This refers to the “heart” of the work, which can be a bit nebulous, but basically can be interpreted as whatever is most distinctive or memorable about that work. In this case, the podcaster took the entire thing.

The fourth factor is whether the market for the work is affected. In this particular case, the podcaster initially asserted that the use was fair because the original author had made his work available for free in the first place; therefore, the market for the work, and therefore the author’s income, were not affected. This is true enough. But with so much content being made freely available and easily copied, there’s some question in my mind as to whether potential loss of income ought to be the sole consideration where this factor is concerned. At the very least, re-broadcasting someone’s work without a link back to the original is rude, even though people do it all the time. The podcaster also claimed that he’d made no profit off of the writer’s work, which is patently untrue since while the podcast can be accessed for free if you listen according to its broadcast schedule, a downloadable subscription costs money.

So it’s pretty obvious that this particular instance isn’t really fair, whatever the podcaster says. But of course the only way this can really be tested is by going to court, and as I mentioned previously, in most cases like these people don’t bother. (In this case, after considerable bluster and insult, the podcaster backed down.)

This kind of thoughtful consideration of whether a use is fair seems almost quaint, in these days when you can find the entirety of a newly published book online for free almost immediately, torrent new movies and games, and so on. It pretty much goes against the automatic impulse to share something cool as soon as you stumble upon it. But it takes a special kind of obnoxiousness to engage in that kind of sharing, whatever your motivation, and then bogusly claim that you’re engaging in fair use when called on it. The fifth, unspoken factor in fair use is whether you’re being a dick about it. Like the man says, don’t be a dick.