pyrzqxgl

. . . it was the simplest thing in the world to transform anyone into beast, bird or fish, or anything else, and back again, once you know how to pronounce the mystical word: "Pyrzqxgl."
~ Monday, July 21 ~
Permalink

cheese3d:

i think i can accurately say that i can crush a man’s head with my thighs


219,662 notes
reblogged via the-goddamazon
Permalink

toueinc:

not enough polyamory fics, never enough polyamory fics


2,724 notes
reblogged via absentlyabbie
Permalink

likeafieldmouse:

Monotropa Uniflora

"Also known as the ghost plantIndian pipe, or corpse plant. 

Unlike most plants, it is white and does not contain chlorophyll. Instead of generating energy from sunlight, it is parasitic, more specifically a myco-heterotroph. Its hosts are certain fungi that are mycorrhizal with trees, meaning it ultimately gets its energy from photosynthetic trees. Since it is not dependent on sunlight to grow, it can grow in very dark environments as in the understory of dense forest. It is often associated with beech trees. 

The complex relationship that allows this plant to grow also makes propagation difficult.

The plant is sometimes completely white but commonly has black flecks and a pale pink coloration. Rare variants may have a deep red color.”


29,753 notes
reblogged via autisticdean
Permalink

(Source: memewhore)


137,440 notes
reblogged via donniedoughnuts
Permalink
professorfangirl:

“I’m afraid that the following syllogism may be used by some in the future.
Turing believes machines think Turing lies with men Therefore machines do not think
Yours in distress, Alan”

I can’t wait for The Imitiation Game, because so, so often Turing’s homosexuality goes unmentioned in stories about his work in artificial intelligence and computing. It’s frustrating, because questions of gender and identification are right at the heart of the Turing Test: the “Imitation Game” is itself a test of the ability to think based on the ability to know gender. In “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950), Turing explained the game:
"(It is) played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman….It is A’s object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification." That is, the man must make the judge think that he is a woman. Then Turing asks, “‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A [the man] in this game?’ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, ‘Can machines think?’"
So the “imitation” in the imitation game, the proof of thought, depends on the simulation, one could say the performance, of heteronormative gender roles.

This is terrifically simplified, but it suggests a tragic implication of Turing’s story: if a machine must be able to identify gender in order to think, then “Turing lies with men, therefore machines do not think” implies that because Turing cannot properly determine gender (that is, who he should be fucking), Turing cannot quite think—is, therefore, not quite fully human.

Excuse me, I’ll be over here crying.

***
(There’s a good overview of these issues in “The ‘Sinister Fruitiness’ of Machines: Neuromancer, Internet Sexuality and the Turing Test” [x])

professorfangirl:

“I’m afraid that the following syllogism may be used by some in the future.

Turing believes machines think
Turing lies with men
Therefore machines do not think

Yours in distress,
Alan”

I can’t wait for The Imitiation Game, because so, so often Turing’s homosexuality goes unmentioned in stories about his work in artificial intelligence and computing. It’s frustrating, because questions of gender and identification are right at the heart of the Turing Test: the “Imitation Game” is itself a test of the ability to think based on the ability to know gender. In “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950), Turing explained the game:

"(It is) played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman….It is A’s object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification." That is, the man must make the judge think that he is a woman. Then Turing asks, “‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A [the man] in this game?’ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, ‘Can machines think?’"

So the “imitation” in the imitation game, the proof of thought, depends on the simulation, one could say the performance, of heteronormative gender roles.

This is terrifically simplified, but it suggests a tragic implication of Turing’s story: if a machine must be able to identify gender in order to think, then “Turing lies with men, therefore machines do not think” implies that because Turing cannot properly determine gender (that is, who he should be fucking), Turing cannot quite think—is, therefore, not quite fully human.

Excuse me, I’ll be over here crying.

***

(There’s a good overview of these issues in “The ‘Sinister Fruitiness’ of Machines: Neuromancer, Internet Sexuality and the Turing Test” [x])


218 notes
reblogged via professorfangirl
Permalink
mostlycatsmostly:

Upside-down Chico (by FRESHPhotoLive)

mostlycatsmostly:

Upside-down Chico (by FRESHPhotoLive)


307 notes
reblogged via mostlycatsmostly
Permalink

chillona:

heyfunniest:

random-and-interesting:

Introducing, Dodocool Lightning Cable

Dodocool - $9.97

Apple - $19.00

IT’S CHEAPER TOO GUYS 

NO MORE BROKEN LIGHTNING CABLE FOR ME YESS

Thank fucking GOD


87,167 notes
reblogged via donniedoughnuts
Permalink

aber-flyingtiger:

rupeerose:

teafortrouble:

megg33k:

I need feminism because most men’s restrooms still aren’t equipped with baby changing stations. As someone who was married to a man who had sole custody of his young son, I’m hyperaware that feminism means EQUALITY, not female superiority. Feminism should and does support a man’s right to be as much of a parent to his child(ren) as any mother is allowed/expected to be.

This is a constant problem for Mr. Tea and myself. We’ve got twins, so even though I can change one kid on the change table in the ladies’ room, he’s left standing sort of awkwardly in the lobby with a messy child while I change one, come back, and get the other.

Nobody’s suggesting that men aren’t parents, so the lack of change tables goes well beyond ‘gender role reinforcing’ and straight into ‘ridiculous’.

My dad actually almost got kicked out of a mall once for changing my brother in the womens room of a mall. The only reason they didn’t call the cops on him was because the ladies in the room supported him.

I’d never even considered this but I support it


169,315 notes
reblogged via victoriansilurianlesbianthespian
Permalink

simsgonewrong:

im thinking about doing a lets play for the sims 3, would yall be interested in watching that? its just an idea bc i know theres thousands out there but i kinda want to do that?

Yes! I watch let’s play for minecraft and would love that.


649 notes
reblogged via simsgonewrong
Permalink

Optime!

grizzlyhills:

flightcub:

interretialia:

life-of-a-latin-student:

ratwithoutwings:

i’m so upset

I just realized that the reason ghosts say Boo! is because it’s a latin verb

they’re literally saying ‘I alarm/I am alarming/I do alarm!!

I can’t

present active boōpresent infinitive boāreperfect active boāvīsupine boātum

Recte!

image

if it comes from the latin word, they’re actually saying “I’M YELLING!” which is even cuter

do they speak latin because it’s a dead language

(Source: pidgeling)


56,250 notes
reblogged via punwitch