1. rollingstone:

    Michael Jackson died 5 years ago today.

     

  2. (Source: iraffiruse, via npr)

     


  3. "If you’re nice to an animal, it loves you for life. If you’re nice to a person, who the fuck knows what’s gonna happen."
    — @llvvzz (via nevver)

    (via nevver)

     

  4.  

  5. marxisforbros:

    "There’s a cure?!" asked the girl that kills everything she touches
    "Hey shut up we’re perf" replied the girl that makes clouds. 

    (Source: x-menunited, via regaliciousss)

     

  6. memeguy-com:

    Didnt I say you were grounded

    (via regaliciousss)

     


  7. Some time ago I wrote a fulsome appreciation of another Disney movie, Frozen. I stand behind my praise of that film, which was less a fractured fairy tale than an original story inspired by some wonderful Hans Christian Anderson storytelling. But, in Frozen, there is narrative and normative coherence. Victory is won through the love of one sister for another and the heroine gains, not just familial love, but also a more mature openness to the possibility of genuine romantic love. The writers of Frozen crafted a beautiful story intended to show real virtue. In Maleficent we see Disney at its increasingly common worst. Envisaged, no doubt, as yet another “subversive film” (like Pocahontas) undercutting traditional norms, the bottom line won out even over the shallow political correctness.

    Maleficent is literally degrading to all. And its attitude has become so common as to evidence a degraded culture. The view of the movie’s makers seems to be that they have a right, so long as they preach the “right” attitudes, and have a Strong Female Lead, to dispense with any actual, crafted story showing real emotions and motivations evincing real virtues as well as vices.

    As for the Strong Female Lead, it has become all too common in our society that we all claim to demand that all women be “strong” in the very narrow, limited sense that they be capable of strenuous action, strong emotion, and bashing things about. Sadly, for too many (especially men) in our culture, “strong” women are women who can be used and thrown away without remorse because they are “equal” and “responsible for their own lives,” as if we are not all, in the end, responsible for one another. The truly strong woman in our society today is the one capable of seeing such pedantic drivel for what it is: propaganda intended to strip them of their humanity and turn them away from higher callings, lowering them to the level of the degraded males who also are told, now, that strength means nothing more than rejecting traditional roles, converging into sexual ambiguity, then following their desires of the moment.

     

  8. nicevoices:

    "Just Enough" - Andrew Ripp feat. Charlene Marie

    Just another reminder that Nashville does earn its “Music City” title.

     
     


  9. In reality there is no reason at all why avoiding chemicals should be better for the environment – quite the opposite in fact. Recent research by Jesse Ausubel and colleagues at Rockefeller University looked at how much extra farmland Indian farmers would have had to cultivate today using the technologies of 1961 to get today’s overall yield. The answer is 65 million hectares, an area the size of France.

    In China, maize farmers spared 120 million hectares, an area twice the size of France, thanks to modern technologies getting higher yields. On a global scale, between 1961 and 2010 the area farmed grew by only 12%, whilst kilocalories per person rose from 2200 to 2800. So even with three billion more people, everyone still had more to eat thanks to a production increase of 300% in the same period.

    So how much land worldwide was spared in the process thanks to these dramatic yield improvements, for which chemical inputs played a crucial role? The answer is 3 billion hectares, or the equivalent of two South Americas. There would have been no Amazon rainforest left today without this improvement in yields. Nor would there be any tigers in India or orang utans in Indonesia. That is why I don’t know why so many of those opposing the use of technology in agriculture call themselves environmentalists.

    So where does this opposition come from? There seems to be a widespread assumption that modern technology equals more risk. Actually there are many very natural and organic ways to face illness and early death, as the debacle with Germany’s organic beansprouts proved in 2011. This was a public health catastrophe, with the same number of deaths and injuries as were caused by Chernobyl, because E.-coli probably from animal manure infected organic beansprout seeds imported from Egypt.

    In total 53 people died and 3,500 suffered serious kidney failure. And why were these consumers choosing organic? Because they thought it was safer and healthier, and they were more scared of entirely trivial risks from highly-regulated chemical pesticides and fertilisers.

    If you look at the situation without prejudice, much of the debate, both in terms of anti-biotech and organic, is simply based on the naturalistic fallacy – the belief that natural is good, and artificial is bad. This is a fallacy because there are plenty of entirely natural poisons and ways to die, as the relatives of those who died from E.-coli poisoning would tell you.

    For organic, the naturalistic fallacy is elevated into the central guiding principle for an entire movement. This is irrational and we owe it to the Earth and to our children to do better.

    This is not to say that organic farming has nothing to offer – there are many good techniques which have been developed, such as intercropping and companion planting, which can be environmentally very effective, even it they do tend to be highly labour-intensive. Principles of agro-ecology such as recyling nutrients and promoting on-farm diversity should also be taken more seriously everywhere.

    But organic is in the way of progress when it refuses to allow innovation. Again using GM as the most obvious example, many third-generation GM crops allow us not to use environmentally-damaging chemicals because the genome of the crop in question has been altered so the plant can protect itself from pests. Why is that not organic?

    Read on…

     


  10. "As admirably altruistic as it sounds, the problem with voluntourism is its singular focus on the volunteer’s quest for experience, as opposed to the recipient community’s actual needs."
    — Rafia Zakaria - Opinion: The white tourist’s burden: Growing Western demand for altruistic vacations is feeding the white-savior industrial complex 

    (Source: aljazeeraamerica, via mamua)

     

  11. kateoplis:

    Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.

    When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.

    At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.

    At best, the large automakers are producing electric cars with limited range in limited volume. Some produce no zero emission cars at all.

    Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. …

    Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.”

     


  12. "The government belongs to the poor people of the country. We are custodian of people’s hope. For whom should the government be? For educated people or a few others? Government should be for the poor. If the rich want to educate their children, they can send them anywhere. If the rich fall ill, hundreds of doctors are at their service. So the foremost responsibility of the government should be to listen to the poor and work for them. If we do not work for the poor, the people will never pardon us."
    — Narendra Modi, India’s new PM
     


  13. "If You Ever Want To Be In Love" - James Bay

    Ees gud, vurry gud. I think you like much.

     


  14. Basically.

     

  15. wilwheaton:

    Fuck the NRA.

    (Source: comedycentral, via neil-gaiman)