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

May 04 2017


Saturn's North Pole Hexagon (Source NASA) 

The first true-color images of Saturn taken during Cassini’s close encounter are coming in — and they’re beautiful! 
Reposted fromUnderOrion UnderOrion viaDeva Deva
1557 30ee 500


I hate Twitter

Reposted fromKaiju-Squidling Kaiju-Squidling viaFiriath Firiath

April 28 2017



You’re on a massive spaceship with what’s left of humanity. It’s the only ship, what’s on the ship is all you have. There are no humans left except for the few thousand people on board.

There are a few Star Trek-style replicators throughout the ship. These produce food, clothing, medicine – all material needs. In order to produce enough for everyone to live comfortably, they require a few hundred people to use stationary bikes for a few hours each week to generate the required energy.

Paradise, right? Enough people are more than happy to spend some time helping the community meet its needs, and many just enjoy the exercise, so there shouldn’t be any problem getting those replicators running!

The trouble is, immediately after boarding the ship, a few people camped out by the replicators and claimed them as their own. Using the resources from the replicators, they have bribed some people to guard them and “their” replicator and beat up anyone who tries to use them.

Now that these people have total access to the replicators, they have total power over who gets food, water, medicine, etc. They demand that everyone on the ship use the bikes every day, all day, or they will not be allowed to eat or drink. (The exception is their enforcers, who are rewarded with more resources for keeping the population in line in a variety of ways.)

Overworking everyone else produces enough energy for the replicator-hoggers to live like kings. They order up luxuries for themselves from the replicators, and eat and drink when and whatever they want. They order up food and throw it away when they decide they don’t want it. Huge piles of objects go unused in their quarters.

They make rules for how everyone else on the ship has to live, under threat of violence from their enforcers. People who can’t or won’t spend all day using the bikes are deliberately allowed to die from hunger and thirst, and the resource-hoarders say it’s because life must be earned.

The resource-hoarders allow the ship to fall into disrepair, and even throw wild parties and break things. Engineers beg to be allowed to effect repairs, but the resource-hoarders refuse, even when warned that in a few years the ship will break down completely and no one will survive. They call the engineers liars and conspirators.

And people just… sort of get used to it. They rationalize it, they say that the resource hoarders work hardest of all because they decide who gets what and when. Even though there are thousands more being forced to work than there are resource hoarders or their enforcers, people are afraid, or don’t want to think about it, or they justify it, or they dream of the day when they can work their way up the ranks of the enforcers and hog resources too. 

And, I mean, it’s not human nature to hoard resources. Most people share their rations and help each other survive as best they can. It’s literally like eight jerks just camping out by the replicators surrounded by guards they bribe with the fruits of everyone else’s work.

But we let them do it. And the idea that we shouldn’t is considered wacky and fringe.

Reposted frombwana bwana
4339 133b 500
when the most insightful things happen in the last five seconds of TV productions
Reposted fromoelsen oelsen

April 27 2017

Reposted fromgruetze gruetze viaszydera szydera
Reposted fromanderer-tobi anderer-tobi viaraZe raZe

April 26 2017







i hate when scientists are like ‘this planet cant have aliens on it because there’s no water! the atmosphere is wrong! theres not enough heat to sustain life!’ because dude theyre aliens, nobodys saying they need any of those things to exist

we’re so humanocentric it’s infuriating. just because we can’t live there doesn’t mean nothing can! like, never mind aliens, we do this with our own fucking planet! scientists used to think nothing could possibly live at the bottom of the oceans, because “all life needs sunlight to survive, of course!” yet what did we find when we invented submarines that could go deep enough? the barren wasteland the scientists were expecting? fuck no! the bottom of the sea is teeming with all sorts of weird and wonderful creatures even wackier than anything they ever came up with in star trek! when we discover aliens, we probably won’t even fucking realise it, because they’ll be so different from what we’re used to as ‘life’, we won’t even recognise them as living beings

things are  heating up in the alien fandom

Another thing that bothers me is when scientists stumble upon a huge black hole or something and say shit like “it’s impossible, it shouldn’t exist, it breaks the laws of physics”…Buddy, do you know who made the laws of physics? HUMANS. HUMANS WHO HAVE NEVER EVEN LEFT THE SOLAR SYSTEM. It isn’t “breaking” anything. Maybe instead of saying it’s impossible to exist, you should look at these old laws from a different perspective. Science is an ever-changing field that’s full of discovery, but sometimes scientists are SO STUBBORN! I understand not wanting to have to rethink years of research but COME ON.

The problem with this discussion is that it’s based on false premises, i.e. that scientists are conservative people who view physics laws as religion and anything contradicting them as heresy. That’s a popular view often shown in fiction and in the popular press, and tends to make non-scientists feel good about themselves (”I may not know as much as them, but at least I’m not as close-minded”). It’s also a very inaccurate and insulting view of scientists.

While one can never generalise things across an entire group of people, and there are indeed scientists out there who are somewhat ossified (and in the end of the 19th century, it’s true that the science field in general was rather calcified. The public has just failed to notice scientists have moved on from this point of view), the vast majority are extremely forward-thinking and would like nothing better than being proven wrong in some cases. Science advances as much through its failures as through its successes, and it’s in fact the very basis of the scientific method to be ready to expose oneself to being proven wrong (that’s the meaning of having falsifiable theories: a theory is scientific only if it contains the seeds of its own potential destruction). When a scientist sees something incompatible with their previous knowledge, they don’t exclaim “that’s impossible!” but “that’s curious…”. Cracks in current theories are usually where new knowledge is hidden, so scientists actually actively look for them.

What the general audience mistakes as conservatism is actually a combination of traits that are vital for scientists to be able to do actual scientific work:

  • The threshold of proof is very high in science. Humans can easily be misled, our brains are specialists in fooling themselves, anecdote is not data, so don’t expect a scientist to take your tall tale at face value. To be worthy of scientific examination, a phenomenon must be repeatable, independent from the observer, and if possible noticeable in controlled conditions. While it’s true that some discoveries (like some animal species) have started as hearsay, a typical scientist will need more before they go on a wild goose chase for the Yeti;
  • Our current scientific theories (with “theory” used in its scientific meaning, which is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation”, i.e. quite the opposite of a hunch or hypothesis) are extremely successful and have large amounts of data backing them up. This is especially true of General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. These theories have been repeatedly tested and found correct, sometimes down to 10 figures or more after the decimal, both through observation and experimentation. If you want to claim that one of these theories is wrong, the quality of the evidence you are going to have to give will have to match the quality of the evidence in favour of these theories. And if the only evidence against them is your misguided ideas about how the world should be, whether due to religious belief or plain ignorance, don’t expect scientists to have a lot of patience listening to you;
  • While scientists value imagination, they are careful with trying to extrapolate too far from what is already known, and wild speculation is frowned upon, as it’s far too easy to fool oneself into expecting things that won’t happen. Scientific research is like walking in the dark: you make small steps and try to feel your way around. You don’t make long jumps and hope not to hit a wall or fall into a hole. Unless you have good reason, based on previous knowledge (like moving in an area you already know), to know that the direction you’re going is the right one.

So to take again the examples shown by the previous rebloggers, a scientist will never say: “this planet cant have aliens on it because there’s no water! the atmosphere is wrong! theres not enough heat to sustain life!“. At most, they will say: “This planet cannot support life as we know it (i.e. carbon-based water-dependent life)“, and that’s a perfectly correct statement. Could it support other types of life? Who knows? So far, we haven’t observed any other type of life, so it’s impossible to actually answer the question without a fair amount of speculation, and as I wrote, scientists prefer to leave speculation to others.

As for the “it’s impossible, it shouldn’t exist, it breaks the laws of physics“, it’s actually laughable that anyone could think a scientist would ever say that! Maybe in a bad Hollywood movie, but in real life? In real life, cosmologists and particle physicists are actually eager to observe stuff that cannot be explained by their current theories. General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (and in particular the Standard Model) are extremely successful, but also desperately incomplete (and in the case of the Standard Model, rather inelegant), and actually completely incompatible with each other. Which is a shame, as some of the things we’d like to know depend on having a theory to bridge the two. That’s why scientists are eager to discover something that cannot appropriately be explained by these two theories. Such a crack, as I wrote above, would provide hints as to a better way to describe the universe.

So stop propagating this false image of the scientist as a kind of high priest that thinks they hold the truth in their hands and shout down any kind of alternative as heresy. That’s not how scientists are, that’s not how science works, and it reflects more on your own lack of understanding of science than on any imaginary scientist’s failings.

Reposted fromstardust-rain stardust-rain viaraindancer raindancer

April 25 2017

7304 1602 500
Reposted fromoolong oolong
Reposted from3ch0 3ch0 viaczinok czinok
0999 769c











I have been waiting all year to post this.


This has been in my queue for months.

I missed it last year and I vowed that would NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.


omg i didnt reblog this last year!


Omfg ok I literally just came on Tumblr to find this to reblog and it was the first post that loaded on my dash that is weird af ok

I’ve cued this a year early. and I’m sort of excited to see it and then think WOAH LOOK WHERE I WAS A YEAR AGO.

hi future me, it is april 25th 2014 currently and i have scheduled this for 2015

and now, we wait

9061 3565
Reposted fromvolldost volldost
3789 a693 500
Reposted fromRockYourMind RockYourMind viaDeva Deva

April 24 2017

Play fullscreen


Predator: The Musical (Arnold Schwarzenegger) https://youtu.be/qlicWUDf5MM

Reposted frombwana bwana viapsyentist psyentist

Daß Lügen kurze Beine haben, ist ja auch so eine Weisheit, und der reine Zufall, daß mir gestern ein alter Aufsatz aus eigener Werkstatt in die Hände fiel, in dem ich die dem „Stern“ entliehene Information fand, daß der Türkischunterricht an deutschen Schulen einst nicht von Multikulti-Ideologen eingeführt wurde, sondern von Figuren wie dem Kohler, die mit dem muttersprachlichen Unterricht die „Rückkehrbereitschaft“ zu fördern beabsichtigten; der Jungtürken „vorbehaltlose Eingliederung in das deutsche Schulsystem“ war nämlich, wie der „Stern“ zitierte, nicht erwünscht, wie es bis kurz vor der Jahrtausendwende sogar noch Rückkehrprämien gab, und zwar nicht für irgendwelche Flüchtlinge, sondern für Türkinnen, die seit dreißig Jahren im Land gewesen sein mochten, aber hier unter keinen Umständen zuhause sein sollten. Und heute mit ihren Kindern, die zur Hälfte ohne Abschluß die Schule verlassen, immer noch vorm türkischen Sender sitzen, und die Töchter kramen dann vielleicht sogar das Kopftuch wieder raus, denn irgendwo will der Mensch halt hingehören. Und falls es Erdoğans Türkei ist, haben jene dafür gesorgt, die jetzt am lautesten schreien, daß „die Eingewanderten sich gar nicht integrieren wollen“, also jedenfalls 20 Prozent von ihnen nicht.

Es ist schlimm, wenn die Leute faschistisch wählen, so wie viele bestens integrierte Franzosen (m/w) es in Bälde tun werden. Viel interessanter als Kohlers zwei Drittel scheinen mir aber jene 50 Prozent der türkischen Gemeinde, die gar nicht erst zur Wahl gegangen sind. Wahlabstinenz, sagt die Forschung, hat, Protestgewähle hin oder her, einen ganz klaren Ort: den Rand.

Gärtners kritisches Sonntagsfrühstück: Randbedingung | TITANIC – Das endgültige Satiremagazin
Reposted frome-gruppe e-gruppe
Reporting on the election has often been characterised by muddled terminology. The Political Compass has long pointed out that left and right essentially describe economics. Macron, for example, is regularly reported as being economically ‘liberal’ and socially ‘left wing’. In reality, Macron is a classic libertarian in the US sense, with a socially liberal outlook and, crucially, an extreme right wing (ie neoliberal) economic agenda. This mix appeals to a significant section of younger voters who, being steadfastly pro-business, dislike most forms of state engagement in either the economy or society in general. He‘s certainly the closest of the candidates to Social Darwinism.

Le Pen is similarly misrepresented as ‘extreme right wing’. Her extemism is in her social attitudes, not her economics. Indeed France’s National Front has often been economically to the left of the pre-Hamon Socialist Party in its attachment to the public sector and opposition to globalisation and privatisation. The party, with its strong strain of nationalism, might well be described as a form of national socialism.

Fillon, unlike Macron, marries conservative social policies with neoliberal economics; but this most establishment of the candidates is dogged with an undignified judicial enquiry that undermines his moral authority.

Hamon’s attempts to protray himself as different from the market-friendly Hollande Socialist Party may not convince a sufficient number of its disappointed core supporters. Mélenchon’s unpredicted surge in support reflects his appeal as an anti-establishment candidate of the uncompromising left at a time when the political establishment — and neoliberalism — are widely disliked.

One of the important questions of the election is whether this split in the left will again serve the interests of the National Front. Through ego, a distrust of Hamon’s socialist commitments or fear of personal political damage if aligned with an ideologically promiscuous party — or perhaps all three — Mélenchon has refused Hamon’s appeal to create a unified left. So far.

In the event of apparent policy shifts, the position of candidates on our chart will correspondingly alter.
Reposted fromshikaji shikaji viaRekrut-K Rekrut-K

5 things you should know about skin hunger


I’ve posted blogs in the past that mentioned the term skin hunger, the physical and psychological need for meaningful human touch, and I received an inquiry asking for more information about this phenomenon. So, here you are. Top 5 things you should know about skin hunger.

1. It’s an actual *NEED*

Like the name suggests, skin hunger isn’t a desire, it’s a primal necessity that like food, water, and sleep, humans will hunger, long, and ache for when they need it.

The outcomes of unmet skin hunger have been explored in a number of well-documented (but ethically questionable) research studies. Babies in hospitals, orphanages, and other institutional settings that receive adequate bio care (feeding, bathing, and changing) but are left in cribs for 20+ hours a day and not touched or held, experience lasting neurological changes including shrinking of the volume of gray matter in the brain. Adults deliberately exposed to the common cold virus in a lab are less able to fight off the virus and more likely to experience severe symptoms if they didn’t get many hugs in the two weeks prior to the study.  

2. It can be partially satiated through sex, but doesn’t have to be

The intimacy of sexual activity is a method to satisfy skin hunger, but it’s only one method. Skin hunger isn’t about sex and there are dozens of ways to nurture your need and provide it for others that isn’t inherently sexual or romantic. Examples include:

  • Hand shakes
  • high fives
  • hugs
  • pats/rubs on the back
  • shoulder squeezes
  • nose boops
  • massages
  • piggy back rides
  • dancing
  • holding hands
  • linking arms
  • playing footsies
  • kisses (on the head, hand, cheek, or lips)
  • cuddling
  • using a friend’s shoulder as a pillow while watching TV or riding the bus
  • stroking their hair
  • tickling
  • horseplay (pillow fights, play wrestling, etc.)
  • sitting on laps are all examples.

3. Tons of people aren’t getting their skin hunger needs met for a host of different reasons

Lots of us are skin starved, but some populations that may experience touch deprivation most include:

  • Tweens and teens: Have you ever noticed that people in this age group are constantly horsing around, shoving, and playfully hitting each other in the arm? In western social norms, 11-17 years old are often considered too old for kissing and snuggling their parents, and too young to be given privacy for kissing and snuggling a boyfriend or girlfriend. My theory is they turn to tackling each other to meet skin hunger needs.
  • Elderly: Social isolation and extreme loneliness that can occur in later life as spouses, friends, and family die off has had a well documented affect on touch deprivation and overall health outcomes.
  • Institutionalized: Whether it’s in a prison or a hospital, there’s been some research on the torture-like effects of going days, months, years, or even decades without human touch as a matter of institutional policy.
  • Men: Those pesky social norms that make cuddling, hugging, and hand-holding “feminine” behaviors and “feminine” behaviors undesirable has left lots of men folk in severe touch isolation.
  • All of us: Between ever increasing work commutes keeping people alone and away from their loved ones for more hours of the day, social media that does a phenomenal job of connecting us emotionally but can disconnect us physically, this irksome but prevalent cultural myth that conflates touch with sex, concerns about touch and sexual harassment, and an epidemic of deep chronic loneliness, it’s safe to say many/most/all of us might be a bit skin hungry.

4. Skin hunger is related to violence


Observational research has found a number of correlations between touch and aggression. Researchers observed people sitting with their friends or family members in cafes and restaurants in different nations and noticed how many times they touched each other (leaning against them, rubbing their back while talking, putting an arm around their shoulder, etc). Participants in cultures that experience less violence were observed to touch each other much more than cultures with high rates of violence. Among the highest was France with 110 touches in 30 minutes. In the US it was 2 touches in 30 minutes.

The interactions among low-touch cultures were also more aggressive and violent among the peer group, not just within the country at large. For example, a 30 minute observation showed more pushing, hitting, and aggressive verbal communication among the American participants with low rates of meaningful touch.

5. There have been conscious attempts made recently to meet human touch needs


Skin hunger is a relatively new concept, and it’s starting to be seen a public health issue crucial to our well being . As such, active efforts to bridge the touch gap have been started, and include the free hugs campaign, cuddle parties, professional cuddling businesses, senior care facilities offering training for their staff on touch as part of elder care, and hospital volunteer programs to cuddle sick newborns.

Check back next week for another Top 5 Friday!

Dr. Jill McDevitt is a nationally recognized, San Diego based sexuality educator, speaker, writer, and the resident sexologist at Swiss Navy. She has a BA in Sexuality, Marriage, and Family, MEd in Human Sexuality Education, and PhD in Human Sexuality, which means she is the only known person in the world with all three degrees in sex. It also means she has the coolest job ever!

Reposted frombwana bwana viaRekrut-K Rekrut-K

April 21 2017

7053 6aeb 500
Reposted fromtichga tichga
1059 9da5



Well… the rains gotta stop somewhere

Oh my god, someone has footage of it! I remember one time my dad, lil brother, and I were leaving a Ryan’s. We were waiting for a chance to hop onto the road and in the distance we just saw everything turn grey. We saw it come closer and closer and come to find out it was rain!

It was just a wall of rain - the end of the rain, really. I’ve never seen it again, but it’s so cool to see footage of the edge of rain!

Reposted frommarvinetta marvinetta viasiknitrus siknitrus
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!