Text

officialtardis:

thatsmoderatelyraven:

iminliikewithyou:

thatsmoderatelyraven:

Did you know Dennis from the spongebob movie 

image

is voiced by Justin Bieber?

image

That’s not true…

Um yeah it is…

so that’s why i hated Dennis so much

Actually its Alec Baldwin. Justin Bieber was 10 when this movie came out.

Photo
laliberty:

In other news, Americans are easily swayed by bi-partisan propaganda.
Naturally, Mark Strauss filters things through his handy republican-democrat dichotomy prism (always pro-Democrat and from the Allowable Opinion Talking Points): “And how will it impact the midterm elections?”
As if the last 6 years haven’t been enough proof that democrats are more than willing to wage wars and trample civil liberties, Strauss would have us believe this is all a Republican-exclusive phenomenon.
And his big question is how it will affect primaries (ignore that io9 is where I go for my sci-fi updates)? Seriously, mid-term elections? Who cares? How about, “how will it further impact our lives if the powerful and heavily-armed bi-partisan sociopaths with a monopoly on force are given populist cover to continue to take our property, destroy our liberties, and endanger our lives?”
I know I shouldn’t expect much from Strauss and the loyal left-statists at io9/Gawker, but I couldn’t not comment on this ridiculousness.

laliberty:

In other news, Americans are easily swayed by bi-partisan propaganda.

Naturally, Mark Strauss filters things through his handy republican-democrat dichotomy prism (always pro-Democrat and from the Allowable Opinion Talking Points): “And how will it impact the midterm elections?”

As if the last 6 years haven’t been enough proof that democrats are more than willing to wage wars and trample civil liberties, Strauss would have us believe this is all a Republican-exclusive phenomenon.

And his big question is how it will affect primaries (ignore that io9 is where I go for my sci-fi updates)? Seriously, mid-term elections? Who cares? How about, “how will it further impact our lives if the powerful and heavily-armed bi-partisan sociopaths with a monopoly on force are given populist cover to continue to take our property, destroy our liberties, and endanger our lives?”

I know I shouldn’t expect much from Strauss and the loyal left-statists at io9/Gawker, but I couldn’t not comment on this ridiculousness.

(Source: io9.com)

Photo
chelle-the-evil-queen:

adhoption:

listener-blue:

johnnysjetpack:

amerahames:

the fragility

Because there aren’t girls stickers My god you must be so oppressed

Except of course there are girl stickers.
Aren’t they pretty :)

And of course the girl stickers would be deemed as  ’perpetuating gender roles’ and ‘forcing societies standards of femininity on young girls’. Which actually I wouldn’t disagree with except for the fact that this company makes loads of different stickers, many of which are gender neutral….
However, the question I have is this..
Why are the girl stickers the fault of society, whereas the boy stickers are seemingly the fault of boys themselves and their ‘fragility’?
Why is it oppression when gender roles are forced on girls, but when they are forced on boys it is a-ok?
Hm?

Point proven.

shots fucking fired

chelle-the-evil-queen:

adhoption:

listener-blue:

johnnysjetpack:

amerahames:

the fragility

Because there aren’t girls stickers
My god you must be so oppressed

Except of course there are girl stickers.

Aren’t they pretty :)

And of course the girl stickers would be deemed as  ’perpetuating gender roles’ and ‘forcing societies standards of femininity on young girls’. Which actually I wouldn’t disagree with except for the fact that this company makes loads of different stickers, many of which are gender neutral….

However, the question I have is this..

Why are the girl stickers the fault of society, whereas the boy stickers are seemingly the fault of boys themselves and their ‘fragility’?

Why is it oppression when gender roles are forced on girls, but when they are forced on boys it is a-ok?

Hm?

Point proven.

shots fucking fired

(via officialtardis)

Text

twinkletwinkleyoulittlefuck:

cell-mate:

crackerhell:

ethanwearsprada:

i think it’s a universal truth that everyone in our generation takes pluto’s losing its planetary status as a personal offense

yes

pluto is smaller than russia. why did we ever even consider it a planet?

BECAUSE IT’S A PART OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM

OHANA MEANS FAMILY

FAMILY MEANS NO ONE IS LEFT BEHIND

(via officialtardis)

Text

little-space-kitty:

I’m hungry but I’m in the bath right now. Why can’t someone feed me pizza in the bath?

Photoset

fuckyeahharrypotterletsfanblog:

Honestly fuck you and fuck whoever made these.

(Source: pjo678, via carry-on-my-wayward-waffle)

Photo
laliberty:

Net Neutrality: The Story Not Being Told

Protesters and corporations working together?
It was only three years ago this month when protestors were waving signs in Wall Street’s Zuccotti park.
But this week, in an ironic turn of events, the protesters have teamed up with many of the corporations they undoubtedly rallied against.
If you can’t beat ‘em… eh?
Why are protesters and corporations holding hands?
In case you missed it, here’s the full rundown of what happened this week…
On Wednesday, you may’ve noticed [the above] icon on some of your favorite websites…
Websites donning it on their front page were in support of what was calledInternet Slowdown Day.
They were fighting against, of course, the evil cable companies.
“Cable companies want to set up toll booths on the Internet,” one activist website reads. “This would destroy net neutrality and ruin the open Internet that we know and love.” …
The argument, according to the protesters, is this…
Your Internet Service Provider (ISP), if allowed to create “fast lanes,” would essentially wield the power to pick what websites are accessible on the Internet.
They would be able to block content and rhetoric they don’t like. And reject websites and applications that may compete with their business models…
The Internet would be corporatized. And have the power of full censorship.
“The Internet was designed to empower people,” said Derek Slater, Google policy manager.
He continued: “To get online, you need to use an Internet access provider. But once you’re online, you decide what to do and where to go. Anyone, anywhere can share their opinions freely – and any entrepreneur, big or small, can build, launch and innovate without having to get permission first.”
All of this, according to the protesters, is at stake.
Of course, it’s bad news for all the big-name US streaming and image websites too. Because they use so much bandwidth, they’ll take the biggest hit if they’re being forced to pay for what they use.
That’s why almost all of them — from Netflix to WordPress — took part in Wednesday’s protest. …
We agree with the message. Keeping an open Internet is extremely important…
But, as reporter Jon Healey pointed out in the Los Angeles Times, there are some important details that have been glossed over in the Battle for the Net protest. 
“First,” Healey writes, “nothing in the FCC rules today stops Internet service providers from creating ‘fast lanes’ or ‘slow lanes’…The courts threw out the two previous efforts by the commission to require ISPs to manage traffic on the last mile in a neutral way.”
Technically, Healey explains, ISPs can strike deals with content companies to prioritize traffic. In fact, it’s already happened.
Just take a look at what Michael Weinberg, vice president of digital advocacy group Public Knowledge, said last February:
“We now have an Internet service provider telling content providers that the only way its service can work is if you pay an extra fee.”
He was referring to a deal between Netflix and Comcast. Netflix, Comcast said, was using too much bandwidth. So they decided to choke them out by slowing their website. If you’re a Netflix user, you might recall laggy videos late last year. …
Meanwhile, Comcast’s CEO Brian Roberts called cable a “highly competitive and dynamic marketplace.”
Phh.
He must’ve practiced that one. Because he didn’t even crack a smile when he said it.
We don’t have to seek far to see that’s total bullsh*t. Most Americans, probably you included, live in a local monopoly, cable-wise.
It’s a running joke here in Baltimore how horrible Comcast’s service is.
We laugh about it because we have to. It’s all we can do to keep from choking cable guys in the streets.
And the frustration isn’t limited to the Charm City.
Take a look at these maps from Consumerist…
Here’s one of Minneapolis-St. Paul…

Quite the competitive and dynamic marketplace, eh?
And one of Los Angeles…

And one more of Boston…

…
Here’s the story not being told…
“While popular arguments focus on supposed ‘monopolists’ such as big cable companies,” Wired magazine writes, “it’s government that’s really to blame.
“Companies can make life harder for their competitors, but strangling the competition takes government.
“Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property.
“ISPs also need “pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.”
Problem? Local governments, and their public utilities, charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost.
“For example,” says Wired, “rights-of-way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction.”
Not to mention all the time and money wasted sitting around waiting for approval. The “little guy” doesn’t even stand a chance to compete.
The real bottleneck, then, isn’t the broadband providers. It’s those who determine what hoops they have to jump through to get approval.
“This reduces the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy service — such as AT&T U-verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. The lack of competition makes it easier for local governments and utilities to charge more for rights of way and pole attachments.
“It’s a vicious circle,” Wired writes.
“And it’s essentially a system of forced kickbacks. Other kickbacks arguably include municipal requirements for ISPs such as building out service where it isn’t demanded, donating equipment, and delivering free broadband to government buildings.”
Puh.

laliberty:

Net Neutrality: The Story Not Being Told

Protesters and corporations working together?

It was only three years ago this month when protestors were waving signs in Wall Street’s Zuccotti park.

But this week, in an ironic turn of events, the protesters have teamed up with many of the corporations they undoubtedly rallied against.

If you can’t beat ‘em… eh?

Why are protesters and corporations holding hands?

In case you missed it, here’s the full rundown of what happened this week…

On Wednesday, you may’ve noticed [the above] icon on some of your favorite websites…

Websites donning it on their front page were in support of what was calledInternet Slowdown Day.

They were fighting against, of course, the evil cable companies.

“Cable companies want to set up toll booths on the Internet,” one activist website reads. “This would destroy net neutrality and ruin the open Internet that we know and love.” …

The argument, according to the protesters, is this…

Your Internet Service Provider (ISP), if allowed to create “fast lanes,” would essentially wield the power to pick what websites are accessible on the Internet.

They would be able to block content and rhetoric they don’t like. And reject websites and applications that may compete with their business models…

The Internet would be corporatized. And have the power of full censorship.

“The Internet was designed to empower people,” said Derek Slater, Google policy manager.

He continued: “To get online, you need to use an Internet access provider. But once you’re online, you decide what to do and where to go. Anyone, anywhere can share their opinions freely – and any entrepreneur, big or small, can build, launch and innovate without having to get permission first.”

All of this, according to the protesters, is at stake.

Of course, it’s bad news for all the big-name US streaming and image websites too. Because they use so much bandwidth, they’ll take the biggest hit if they’re being forced to pay for what they use.

That’s why almost all of them — from Netflix to WordPress — took part in Wednesday’s protest. …

We agree with the message. Keeping an open Internet is extremely important…

But, as reporter Jon Healey pointed out in the Los Angeles Times, there are some important details that have been glossed over in the Battle for the Net protest. 

“First,” Healey writes, “nothing in the FCC rules today stops Internet service providers from creating ‘fast lanes’ or ‘slow lanes’…The courts threw out the two previous efforts by the commission to require ISPs to manage traffic on the last mile in a neutral way.”

Technically, Healey explains, ISPs can strike deals with content companies to prioritize traffic. In fact, it’s already happened.

Just take a look at what Michael Weinberg, vice president of digital advocacy group Public Knowledge, said last February:

“We now have an Internet service provider telling content providers that the only way its service can work is if you pay an extra fee.”

He was referring to a deal between Netflix and Comcast. Netflix, Comcast said, was using too much bandwidth. So they decided to choke them out by slowing their website. If you’re a Netflix user, you might recall laggy videos late last year. …

Meanwhile, Comcast’s CEO Brian Roberts called cable a “highly competitive and dynamic marketplace.”

Phh.

He must’ve practiced that one. Because he didn’t even crack a smile when he said it.

We don’t have to seek far to see that’s total bullsh*t. Most Americans, probably you included, live in a local monopoly, cable-wise.

It’s a running joke here in Baltimore how horrible Comcast’s service is.

We laugh about it because we have to. It’s all we can do to keep from choking cable guys in the streets.

And the frustration isn’t limited to the Charm City.

Take a look at these maps from Consumerist

Here’s one of Minneapolis-St. Paul…

MinneapolisCoverage

Quite the competitive and dynamic marketplace, eh?

And one of Los Angeles…

LosAngelasCoverage

And one more of Boston…

BostonCoverage

Here’s the story not being told…

“While popular arguments focus on supposed ‘monopolists’ such as big cable companies,” Wired magazine writes, “it’s government that’s really to blame.

“Companies can make life harder for their competitors, but strangling the competition takes government.

“Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned “rights of way” so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property.

“ISPs also need “pole attachment” contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.”

Problem? Local governments, and their public utilities, charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost.

“For example,” says Wired, “rights-of-way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction.”

Not to mention all the time and money wasted sitting around waiting for approval. The “little guy” doesn’t even stand a chance to compete.

altThe real bottleneck, then, isn’t the broadband providers. It’s those who determine what hoops they have to jump through to get approval.

“This reduces the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy service — such as AT&T U-verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. The lack of competition makes it easier for local governments and utilities to charge more for rights of way and pole attachments.

“It’s a vicious circle,” Wired writes.

“And it’s essentially a system of forced kickbacks. Other kickbacks arguably include municipal requirements for ISPs such as building out service where it isn’t demanded, donating equipment, and delivering free broadband to government buildings.”

Puh.

Link

laliberty:

dermoosealini:

laliberty:

Mike Munger:

We can all play this game, so lets make it interesting by taking out the politician part and replacing it with the people who actually run these things in the real world…the Koch Brothers and corporations.

"Do you believe ‘the Koch brothers’ should make rules for regulating sales of high performance electric cars’?

"Do you think ‘the Koch brothers’ should be able to choose subsidies and taxes to change the incentives people face in deciding what energy sources to use?”

"Do you believe ‘Halliburton and Lockheed Martin’ should be in charge of hundreds of thousands of troops, with the authority to use that coercive power?”

Or even better…we can play the lolbertarian game and replace the word ‘unicorn’ with that maaaaaagical dream word ‘volunteerism’ and see how well it applies to the real world.

"Do you think that ‘volunteerism’ will create and should be in charge of a mass transit system"

"Do you think 'volunteerism' should be in charge of hundreds of thousands of troops, with the authority to use that coercive power?”

You see sweetness, no one is saying that democracy is perfect but in the real world if you would rather be ruled over by for profit corporations then that’s your call.

I got news for you darling, most people don’t believe in the benevolent Koch unicorn, the benevolent Halliburton Unicorn and benevolent Goldman Sachs unicorn.

I know this might be new to you, darling, but libertarians qua libertarian have no particular love for the Koch brothers or Goldman Sachs or Halliburton. Hell, Halliburton and Goldman Sachs thrive primarily due to state largess. My #corporatism tag may be of some interest to you.

You see [sweetness?], without state power, the dastardly for-profit corporations you fear would become far less threatening. As I’ve said time and time again:  Corporatism cannot be separated from the state because it is a byproduct of the state.

So long as there are centers of power, those with means will aim to wield that power or work it in their favor. And there’s no greater power than the state’s monopoly on force. 

If government cannot impose taxes or offer tax breaks, impose tariffs or offer subsidies, impose regulations or offer liability protections, impose fees and licensing or offer interest-free loans, impose wage and price controls or offer bailouts - then what good is it for a corporation or the rich to “control” the government? 

Ultimately, the only way to reduce corporatist sway is to reduce the state. Ergo, the only way to eradicate corporatism is to eradicate the state. Only then will organizations - through the pressure of competition to please potential consumers instead of bureaucrats and politicos - become accountable to all of us instead of a select few who hold the reigns of power.

And while you damn democracy with faint praise (“[not] perfect”), I recognize it for what it is: illegitimate.

Here’s the apparently tricky part you’ve missed: voluntaryism (or “voluntarism” - volunteerism" is something else) doesn’t want to authorize anyone to be “in charge of a mass transit system” or “thousands of troops with the authority to use that coercive power.” We want people to live their lives peacefully (that is, without harming the lives, liberty, or property of others) as they wish (that is, without violent interference from outsiders).

Text

When I’ve lost count in orchestra and have to guess when to come in

whatshouldwecallconservatory:

image

(via carry-on-my-wayward-waffle)

Photo
parislemon:

wilwheaton:

For my brother-in-law, who is Cowboys Super Fan Number One. (via reddit)

Was impressed by just how much Romo Romo’d last night.

parislemon:

wilwheaton:

For my brother-in-law, who is Cowboys Super Fan Number One. (via reddit)

Was impressed by just how much Romo Romo’d last night.