sci-fact: “ I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and then many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go on to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me. ”                              ~ Richard Feynman; (Born 95 years ago today, May 11, 1918) It’s okay  … not to know the answer? I like that too.

sci-fact:

“ I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and then many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go on to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me. ”
                              ~ Richard Feynman; (Born 95 years ago today, May 11, 1918)

It’s okay  … not to know the answer? I like that too.

(via sagansense)

toastedpopsicle:

madmadamemolly:

growlywolf:

choochoomothafucka:

Source

What gay men give to the world.  A-yup.

On the second one.

There’s this one gay club I go to that actually has a problem of straight guys going there to dance with girls.  I guess these guys don’t understand that girls can also be gay, because they assume that any girls at the club are there with their gay guy friends.

So one night I was out on the dance floor, and I see this guy.  He’s like over six-foot, at least, all beefed-up, muscle shirt, looks kindof like a douchebag.  And he’s just circling the dance floor, in one continuous loop, looking at the crowd like a predator, and it’s creeping me the fuck out.

It’s creeping me out enough that I don’t immediately realize what’s going on nearby.  Some girl has attracted one of the Assholes, who has proceeded to begin grinding on her.  She’s pushing him away, telling him to get lost.  He’s pulling that whole, “come on, don’t be a bitch” spiel, and generally just not getting the message.

BAM.  Suddenly, the prowling guy swoops in, like some sort of Gay Avenger.  He shoves himself between the girl and the Asshole, grabs the Asshole by the hips, and starts dirty dancing him like a God-damned fuck machine.  Asshole completely flips his shit, like how DARE another man try to dance with him at a GAY BAR???, starts spitting curses, and tears ass off the dance floor and out onto the sidewalk.

The Gay Avenger turns back to the girl, inclines his head in an, “are you okay?” sort of gesture.  She nods, and he returns to his previous position of circling the dance floor, looking for his next target.

Told this story to some guys upstairs.  Apparently Gay Avenger is a regular there.

someone write a comic book about Gay Avenger.

(via bigmamag)

spaceplasma: The Big Bang’s Playing on TV Noise, in analog video and television, is a random dot pattern of static displayed when no transmission signal is obtained by the antenna receiver of television set and other display devices. The random pattern superimposed on the picture, visible as a random flicker of “dots” or “snow”, is the result of electronic noise and radiated electromagnetic noise accidentally picked up by the antenna. This effect is most commonly seen with analog TV sets or blank VHS tapes. There are many sources of electromagnetic noise which cause the characteristic display patterns of static. Atmospheric sources of noise are the most ubiquitous, and include electromagnetic signals prompted by cosmic microwave background radiation,or more localized radio wave noise from nearby electronic devices.   Microwaves are a low-energy form of radiation but higher in energy than radio waves. The cosmic microwave background blankets the universe and is responsible for a sizeable amount of static on your television set—well, before the days of cable. Turn your television to an “in between” channel, and part of the static you’ll see is the afterglow of the big bang.

spaceplasma:

The Big Bang’s Playing on TV

Noise, in analog video and television, is a random dot pattern of static displayed when no transmission signal is obtained by the antenna receiver of television set and other display devices. The random pattern superimposed on the picture, visible as a random flicker of “dots” or “snow”, is the result of electronic noise and radiated electromagnetic noise accidentally picked up by the antenna. This effect is most commonly seen with analog TV sets or blank VHS tapes.

There are many sources of electromagnetic noise which cause the characteristic display patterns of static. Atmospheric sources of noise are the most ubiquitous, and include electromagnetic signals prompted by cosmic microwave background radiation,or more localized radio wave noise from nearby electronic devices. 

 Microwaves are a low-energy form of radiation but higher in energy than radio waves. The cosmic microwave background blankets the universe and is responsible for a sizeable amount of static on your television set—well, before the days of cable. Turn your television to an “in between” channel, and part of the static you’ll see is the afterglow of the big bang.

(via shychemist)

Lady Olenna: look everyone's a little bit gay
Tywin: no they fucking aren't
Lady Olenna: well maybe not at Incesterly Rock they're not
“

The scientific man does not aim at an immediate result. He does not expect that his advanced ideas will be readily taken up. His work is like that of the planter — for the future. His duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way. He lives and labors and hopes.

Nikola Tesla, “Radio Power Will Revolutionize the World” in Modern Mechanics and Inventions (July 1934)

(via sagansense)

“

Here’s the thing. Men in our culture have been socialized to believe that their opinions on women’s appearance matter a lot. Not all men buy into this, of course, but many do. Some seem incapable of entertaining the notion that not everything women do with their appearance is for men to look at. This is why men’s response to women discussing stifling beauty norms is so often something like “But I actually like small boobs!” and “But I actually like my women on the heavier side, if you know what I mean!” They don’t realize that their individual opinion on women’s appearance doesn’t matter in this context, and that while it might be reassuring for some women to know that there are indeed men who find them fuckable, that’s not the point of the discussion.

Women, too, have been socialized to believe that the ultimate arbiters of their appearance are men, that anything they do with their appearance is or should be “for men.” That’s why women’s magazines trip over themselves to offer up advice on “what he wants to see you wearing” and “what men think of these current fashion trends” and “wow him with these new hairstyles.” While women can and do judge each other’s appearance harshly, many of us grew up being told by mothers, sisters, and female strangers that we’ll never “get a man” or “keep a man” unless we do X or lose some fat from Y, unless we moisturize//trim/shave/push up/hide/show/”flatter”/paint/dye/exfoliate/pierce/surgically alter this or that.

That’s also why when a woman wears revealing clothes, it’s okay, in our society, to assume that she’s “looking for attention” or that she’s a slut and wants to sleep with a bunch of guys. Because why else would a woman wear revealing clothes if not for the benefit of men and to communicate her sexual availability to them, right? It can’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that it’s hot out or it’s more comfortable or she likes how she looks in it or everything else is in the laundry or she wants to get a tan or maybe she likes women and wants attention from them, not from men?

The result of all this is that many men, even kind and well-meaning men, believe, however subconsciously, that women’s bodies are for them. They are for them to look at, for them to pass judgment on, for them to bless with a compliment if they deign to do so. They are not for women to enjoy, take pride in, love, accept, explore, show off, or hide as they please. They are for men and their pleasure.

Why You Shouldn’t Tell That Random Girl On The Street That She’s Hot » Brute Reason  (via albinwonderland)

(via sodigress)