1. 02:12 5th Apr 2014

    Notes: 408326

    Reblogged from a-study-in-benedict

    lesbianships:

    sonianeverland:

    barbiefett:

    azurite-crystals:

    So lemme get this straight

    Robin Thicke

    image

    this is ok and sexy and fun haha

    Justin Timberlake

    image

    This is ok and artsy and oh wow how modern

    Miley Cyrus

    image

    THIS IS OBSCENE WHAT A SLUT I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT SHES DOING THIS IS MADDNESS HOW DARE SHE WHAT A SLUT WHAT DOES HER FATHER THINK I AM GOING TO FAINT

    Is this correct?

    reblogging a gain

    Because naked women have to be under a man’s control or else they’re dangerous and scary

    image

    (Source: crystvl)

     
  2. 02:11

    Notes: 255374

    Reblogged from a-study-in-benedict

    thebaconsandwichofregret:

    emilylouiserichardson:

    The last picture is the face of fear.

    that is the face of a man who knows he’s looking at a future Michelin starred chef

    (Source: averagebritishteenager)

     
  3. 02:08

    Notes: 128094

    Reblogged from a-study-in-benedict

    cakesandfail:

    youwillneverjustbeablipintime:

    whoever

    image

    invented

    image

    waistcoats

    image

    seriously

    image

    thank

    image

    you

    image

    It was this guy:

    image

    Charles II, huge royal babe and 17th-century fashion icon.

    image

     
  4. 02:02

    Notes: 236270

    Reblogged from a-study-in-benedict

    puppyclub:

    heathers-rivera:

    there is always hope 

    i live for this post

     
  5. 01:39

    Notes: 231829

    Reblogged from a-study-in-benedict

    dansrules:

    disneyfab:

    this literally gave me chills.

    I’ve never hit the reblog button so fast in my life.

    (Source: starssight)

     
  6. 18:18 13th Mar 2014

    Notes: 684

    Reblogged from carriehopefletcher

    bee-yoo-ti-ful asked: Who's your boyfriend?

    carriehopefletcher:

    Alex Day. 

    xxx

     
  7. 18:16

    Notes: 113932

    Reblogged from barnaclesinathunderingtyphoon

    snowdor:

    commander-butts:

    commander-butts:

    I’m gonna start watching Game of Thrones LET’S FUCKIN DO THIS

    ISN’T THAT BLONDE CHICK HIS SI STER? ?

    image

    (Source: commanderbutt)

     
  8. 18:16

    Notes: 118419

    Reblogged from barnaclesinathunderingtyphoon

    thewifeofloki:

    thewifeofloki:

    what the hell do you mean chicks don’t like plaid

    image

    this one does

    image

    oh shit

    image

    wHAT

    image

    image

    CHICKS REALLY LIKE PLAID WATCH OUT

    image

    chick magnet

    (Source: plaideangel)

     
  9. 18:15

    Notes: 54534

    Reblogged from barnaclesinathunderingtyphoon

    Okay, okay, I’m going to tell you what Hermione sees in Ron.

    A trio is a balancing act, right? They’re equalizers of each other. Harry’s like the action, Hermione’s the brains, Ron’s the heart. Hermione has been assassinated in these movies, and I mean that genuinely—by giving her every single positive character trait that Ron has, they have assassinated her character in the movies. She’s been harmed by being made to be less human, because everything good Ron has, she’s been given.

    So, for instance: “If you want to kill Harry, you’re going to have to kill me too”—RON, leg is broken, he’s in pain, gets up and stands in front of Harry and says this. Who gets that line in the movie? Hermione.

    “Fear of a name increases the fear of the thing itself.” Hermione doesn’t say Voldemort’s name until well into the books—that’s Dumbledore’s line. When does Hermione say it in the movies? Beginning of Movie 2.

    When the Devil’s Snare is curling itself around everybody, Hermione panics, and Ron is the one who keeps his head and says “Are you a witch or not?” In the movie, everybody else panics and Hermione keeps her head and does the biggest, brightest flare of sunlight spell there ever was.

    So, Hermione—all her flaws were shaved away in the films. And that sounds like you’re making a kick-ass, amazing character, and what you’re doing is dehumanizing her. And it pisses me off. It really does.

    In the books, they balance each other out, because where Hermione gets frazzled and maybe her rationality overtakes some of her instinct, Ron has that to back it up; Ron has a kind of emotional grounding that can keep Hermione’s hyper-rationalness in check. Sometimes Hermione’s super-logical nature grates Harry and bothers him, and isn’t the thing he needs even if it’s the right thing, like when she says “You have a saving people thing.” That is the thing that Harry needed to hear, she’s a hundred percent right, but the way she does it is wrong. That’s the classic “she’s super logical, she’s super brilliant, but she doesn’t know how to handle people emotionally,” at least Harry.

    So in the books they are this balanced group, and in the movies, in the movies—hell, not even Harry is good enough for Hermione in the movies. No one’s good enough for Hermione in the movies—God isn’t good enough for Hermione in the movies! Hermione is everybody’s everything in the movies.

    Harry’s idea to jump on the dragon in the books, who gets it in the movies? Hermione, who hates to fly. Hermione, who overcomes her withering fear of flying to take over Harry’s big idea to get out of the—like, why does Hermione get all these moments?

    [John: Because we need to market the movie to girls.]

    I think girls like the books, period. And like the Hermione in the books, and like the Hermione in the books just fine before Hollywood made her idealized and perfect. And if they would have trusted that, they would have been just fine.

    Would the movies have been bad if she was as awesome as she was in the books, and as human as she was in the books? Would the movies get worse?

    She IS a strong girl character. This is the thing that pisses me off. They are equating “strong” with superhuman. To me, the Hermione in the book is twelve times stronger than the completely unreachable ideal of Hermione in the movies. Give me the Hermione in the book who’s human and has flaws any single day of the week.

    Here’s a classic example: When Snape in the first book yells at Hermione for being an insufferable know-it-all, do you want to know what Ron says in the book? “Well, you’re asking the questions, and she has to answer. Why ask if you don’t want to be told?” What does he say in the movie? “He’s got a point, you know.” Ron? Would never do that. Would NEVER do that, even before he liked Hermione. Ron would never do that.

    — Melissa Anelli THROWS IT DOWN about the way Ron and Hermione have been adapted in the movies on the latest episode of PotterCast. Listen here. This glorious rant starts at about 49:00. (via karakamos)
     
  10. 18:12

    Notes: 2323

    Reblogged from barnaclesinathunderingtyphoon

    orsholya-chan:

    Okay i’m done.. i’m f***ng done.. 

     
  11. 18:11

    Notes: 751736

    Reblogged from barnaclesinathunderingtyphoon

     
  12. 18:11

    Notes: 10268

    Reblogged from barnaclesinathunderingtyphoon

    (Source: courtsorcerer)

     
  13. 18:10

    Notes: 319404

    Reblogged from barnaclesinathunderingtyphoon

    image: Download

    tyleroakley:

entropiaorganizada:

hookteeth:

… Y’see, now, y’see, I’m looking at this, thinking, squares fit together better than circles, so, say, if you wanted a box of donuts, a full box, you could probably fit more square donuts in than circle donuts if the circumference of the circle touched the each of the corners of the square donut.
So you might end up with more donuts.
But then I also think… Does the square or round donut have a greater donut volume? Is the number of donuts better than the entire donut mass as a whole?
Hrm.
HRM.

A round donut with radius R1 occupies the same space as a square donut with side 2R1. If the center circle of a round donut has a radius R2 and the hole of a square donut has a side 2R2, then the area of a round donut is πR12 - πr22. The area of a square donut would be then 4R12 - 4R22. This doesn’t say much, but in general and  throwing numbers, a full box of square donuts has more donut per donut than a full box of round donuts.The interesting thing is knowing exactly how much more donut per donut we have. Assuming first a small center hole (R2 = R1/4) and replacing in the proper expressions, we have a 27,6% more donut in the square one (Round: 15πR12/16 ≃ 2,94R12, square: 15R12/4 = 3,75R12). Now, assuming a large center hole (R2 = 3R1/4) we have a 27,7% more donut in the square one (Round: 7πR12/16 ≃ 1,37R12, square: 7R12/4 = 1,75R12). This tells us that, approximately, we’ll have a 27% bigger donut if it’s square than if it’s round.
tl;dr: Square donuts have a 27% more donut per donut in the same space as a round one.

Thank you donut side of Tumblr.

    tyleroakley:

    entropiaorganizada:

    hookteeth:

    … Y’see, now, y’see, I’m looking at this, thinking, squares fit together better than circles, so, say, if you wanted a box of donuts, a full box, you could probably fit more square donuts in than circle donuts if the circumference of the circle touched the each of the corners of the square donut.

    So you might end up with more donuts.

    But then I also think… Does the square or round donut have a greater donut volume? Is the number of donuts better than the entire donut mass as a whole?

    Hrm.

    HRM.

    A round donut with radius R1 occupies the same space as a square donut with side 2R1. If the center circle of a round donut has a radius R2 and the hole of a square donut has a side 2R2, then the area of a round donut is πR12 - πr22. The area of a square donut would be then 4R12 - 4R22. This doesn’t say much, but in general and  throwing numbers, a full box of square donuts has more donut per donut than a full box of round donuts.

    The interesting thing is knowing exactly how much more donut per donut we have. Assuming first a small center hole (
    R2 = R1/4) and replacing in the proper expressions, we have a 27,6% more donut in the square one (Round: 15πR12/16 ≃ 2,94R12, square: 15R12/4 = 3,75R12). Now, assuming a large center hole (R2 = 3R1/4) we have a 27,7% more donut in the square one (Round: 7πR12/16 ≃ 1,37R12, square: 7R12/4 = 1,75R12). This tells us that, approximately, we’ll have a 27% bigger donut if it’s square than if it’s round.


    tl;dr: Square donuts have a 27% more donut per donut in the same space as a round one.

    Thank you donut side of Tumblr.

    (Source: nimstrz)

     
  14. 18:15 12th Mar 2014

    Notes: 7245

    Reblogged from fishingboatproceeds

    Tags: vlog brothers

    edwardspoonhands:

    I met Olga in 2010 at VidCon. She was a very smart, very clever, very cool young woman. I thought it was weird (but kinda cool) that Tom had found a cool fan who could hold her own with a bunch of the top-tier VidCon folks and let her behind the curtain a little bit.

    It…

     
  15. image: Download