Audrey Hepburn in costume for The Secret People (1952) (via)

Audrey Hepburn in costume for The Secret People (1952) (via)

aos-skimmons:

that-big-gay-impala:

THE SARCASM IN THIS POST IN LETHAL

woman mothers.

winedrunklovers:

why do pop punk bands think they need like 6 opening bands. why? do you guys travel in packs? more people to chip in to order pizza? are you ALL getting out of this town???

I just watched a spoken word on Harry Potter erotica and in related news I will apparently do anything to postpone sleeping

DRUGS
Anderson .Paak

I don’t give a fuck you don’t give a fuck we was made for each other

thebrainscoop:

Science Needs Women: 
For Women in Science; the L’Oreal Foundation 

I’m sharing this video on any platform I can because when I first found it last week it had something like 1,400 views, but it’s the most beautifully produced and succinctly narrated video addressing some of the most complicated issues facing women in STE(A)M fields I’ve found yet. 

I’m sharing this for every time I’m called a “feminazi.”

…for every time I’m told that my concerns aren’t valid, our that our issues are imagined.

…for every time I hear “women just don’t like science,” or worse - “women just aren’t good at science.”

…for every time we’re told that we can have a family or a career, but not both - and for every time we feel like we have to decide between the two.

…for every time a study comes out saying as many as 64% of women endure sexual harassment during field work

…for the fact that women earn 41% of PhD’s in STEM fields, but make up only 28% of tenure-track faculty in those fields.

…and because we need more women mentors in these fields to stand up for issues that are not “women’s issues” - these are people issues that affect our collective society as a whole.

The women in this video are my heroes and they should be your heroes, too.

"We’re adults, but, like…adult cats. Someone should probably take care of us, but we can sort of make it on our own."
my roommate, on the question “are we adults” (via disjunct)

enjolradz:

friendly reminder that if we’re mutuals and you wanna exchange snapchat names or instagram or something you’re more than welcome (encouraged) to shoot me an ask

dduane:

jekoh:

the-illusion-of-sanity:

I remember people applauding in the cinema

So super-cool random Bond-y nerd fact — shaking a martini makes it colder faster but it also melts the ice, thus watering down the alcohol.So all those times Bond specified that his drinks be shaken, not stirred, he was essentially diluting his alcohol (one can assume to allow him more of his senses).Another fun fact: This man is gorgeous.

One other fun fact: as necessary context…
Fleming took an expert to lunch to find out how the proper Martini should be made. However, as was often the case with him when he was extending hospitality to a guest who was assisting him with research, the lunch itself became very alcoholic, and when Fleming later added Bond’s preferences for the drink to his prose work, he got it backwards. Martinis are properly stirred instead of shaken exactly to prevent this dilution. (Some experts also feel that only drinks containing both fruit juice and ice should be shaken, and that shaking in drinks that don’t contain juice “bruises the gin”. …Uh, okay.)
…But this kind of hiccup was nothing new. Fleming’s ask-a-guest notes were frequently compromised by the liquid component of his research lunches. And cf. this from Cyril Ray’s In A Glass Darkly:

…but then Ian Fleming (who was once my immediate superior, when he was Foreign Manager for Kemsley Newspapers, and I was the Moscow correspondent of the Sunday Times) knew nothing about wine, except what he was told when he rang up friends in the wine trade, and then usually [in print] got it wrong.

This should be added, though: in his essay “How To Write A Thriller”, Fleming says that “an independent character who knows what he wants and gets it” is a more interesting character than someone who wilts in the face of critique (or mere error). So maybe what we have here — in the books anyway, and by extension, the films — is Fleming sticking up for both himself and his character after the fact, and damn the experts.
Meanwhile, in other news: Daniel Craig is still gorgeous.
dduane:

jekoh:

the-illusion-of-sanity:

I remember people applauding in the cinema

So super-cool random Bond-y nerd fact — shaking a martini makes it colder faster but it also melts the ice, thus watering down the alcohol.So all those times Bond specified that his drinks be shaken, not stirred, he was essentially diluting his alcohol (one can assume to allow him more of his senses).Another fun fact: This man is gorgeous.

One other fun fact: as necessary context…
Fleming took an expert to lunch to find out how the proper Martini should be made. However, as was often the case with him when he was extending hospitality to a guest who was assisting him with research, the lunch itself became very alcoholic, and when Fleming later added Bond’s preferences for the drink to his prose work, he got it backwards. Martinis are properly stirred instead of shaken exactly to prevent this dilution. (Some experts also feel that only drinks containing both fruit juice and ice should be shaken, and that shaking in drinks that don’t contain juice “bruises the gin”. …Uh, okay.)
…But this kind of hiccup was nothing new. Fleming’s ask-a-guest notes were frequently compromised by the liquid component of his research lunches. And cf. this from Cyril Ray’s In A Glass Darkly:

…but then Ian Fleming (who was once my immediate superior, when he was Foreign Manager for Kemsley Newspapers, and I was the Moscow correspondent of the Sunday Times) knew nothing about wine, except what he was told when he rang up friends in the wine trade, and then usually [in print] got it wrong.

This should be added, though: in his essay “How To Write A Thriller”, Fleming says that “an independent character who knows what he wants and gets it” is a more interesting character than someone who wilts in the face of critique (or mere error). So maybe what we have here — in the books anyway, and by extension, the films — is Fleming sticking up for both himself and his character after the fact, and damn the experts.
Meanwhile, in other news: Daniel Craig is still gorgeous.
dduane:

jekoh:

the-illusion-of-sanity:

I remember people applauding in the cinema

So super-cool random Bond-y nerd fact — shaking a martini makes it colder faster but it also melts the ice, thus watering down the alcohol.So all those times Bond specified that his drinks be shaken, not stirred, he was essentially diluting his alcohol (one can assume to allow him more of his senses).Another fun fact: This man is gorgeous.

One other fun fact: as necessary context…
Fleming took an expert to lunch to find out how the proper Martini should be made. However, as was often the case with him when he was extending hospitality to a guest who was assisting him with research, the lunch itself became very alcoholic, and when Fleming later added Bond’s preferences for the drink to his prose work, he got it backwards. Martinis are properly stirred instead of shaken exactly to prevent this dilution. (Some experts also feel that only drinks containing both fruit juice and ice should be shaken, and that shaking in drinks that don’t contain juice “bruises the gin”. …Uh, okay.)
…But this kind of hiccup was nothing new. Fleming’s ask-a-guest notes were frequently compromised by the liquid component of his research lunches. And cf. this from Cyril Ray’s In A Glass Darkly:

…but then Ian Fleming (who was once my immediate superior, when he was Foreign Manager for Kemsley Newspapers, and I was the Moscow correspondent of the Sunday Times) knew nothing about wine, except what he was told when he rang up friends in the wine trade, and then usually [in print] got it wrong.

This should be added, though: in his essay “How To Write A Thriller”, Fleming says that “an independent character who knows what he wants and gets it” is a more interesting character than someone who wilts in the face of critique (or mere error). So maybe what we have here — in the books anyway, and by extension, the films — is Fleming sticking up for both himself and his character after the fact, and damn the experts.
Meanwhile, in other news: Daniel Craig is still gorgeous.

dduane:

jekoh:

the-illusion-of-sanity:

I remember people applauding in the cinema

So super-cool random Bond-y nerd fact — shaking a martini makes it colder faster but it also melts the ice, thus watering down the alcohol.

So all those times Bond specified that his drinks be shaken, not stirred, he was essentially diluting his alcohol (one can assume to allow him more of his senses).

Another fun fact: This man is gorgeous.

One other fun fact: as necessary context…

Fleming took an expert to lunch to find out how the proper Martini should be made. However, as was often the case with him when he was extending hospitality to a guest who was assisting him with research, the lunch itself became very alcoholic, and when Fleming later added Bond’s preferences for the drink to his prose work, he got it backwards. Martinis are properly stirred instead of shaken exactly to prevent this dilution. (Some experts also feel that only drinks containing both fruit juice and ice should be shaken, and that shaking in drinks that don’t contain juice “bruises the gin”. …Uh, okay.)

…But this kind of hiccup was nothing new. Fleming’s ask-a-guest notes were frequently compromised by the liquid component of his research lunches. And cf. this from Cyril Ray’s In A Glass Darkly:

…but then Ian Fleming (who was once my immediate superior, when he was Foreign Manager for Kemsley Newspapers, and I was the Moscow correspondent of the Sunday Times) knew nothing about wine, except what he was told when he rang up friends in the wine trade, and then usually [in print] got it wrong.

This should be added, though: in his essay “How To Write A Thriller”, Fleming says that “an independent character who knows what he wants and gets it” is a more interesting character than someone who wilts in the face of critique (or mere error). So maybe what we have here — in the books anyway, and by extension, the films — is Fleming sticking up for both himself and his character after the fact, and damn the experts.

Meanwhile, in other news: Daniel Craig is still gorgeous.

thesmexyslender:

tennants-hair:


VIVA LA PLUTO MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

DO YOU SEE THIS? DO YOU? ALL OF YOU WHO HAD WRITTEN OFF PLUTO, WHO HAD CROSSED IT OFF YOUR PLANET LIST? REMEMBER HOW IT WAS ‘TOO SMALL” TO BE A PLANET? HOW NASA, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION REMOVED ITS PLANETARY STATUS AND  CHANGED ITS NAME TO 134340? HOW EVERYONE THEN CONSIDERED THERE TO BE EIGHT PLANETS, NOT NINE?
BUT SOME OF US REMAINED LOYAL TO PLUTO. IT WAS NEVER FORGOTTEN. AND NOW HERE WE ARE, AND JUSTICE IS UPON US AFTER 8 YEARS.
BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? PLUTO HAS AT LEAST FIVE MOONS, A PRETTY BIG NUMBER FOR A ”DWARF-PLANET”, HUH? ESPECIALLY WHEN EARTH, QUITE BIGGER THAN PLUTO AND AN OFFICIAL PLANET ONLY HAS ONE. AND GUESS WHAT ELSE? ERIS, THE PLANET WHICH EVERYONE THOUGHT TO BE BIGGER THAN PLUTO, MAY NOT BE BIGGER AFTER ALL. AND THE BEST PART IS THAT PLUTO HAS AN ATMOSHPERE. THAT’S RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, A SUPPOSEDLY NON-PLANET HAS AN ATMOSPHERE. AGAIN, ISN’T THAT IMPRESSIVE?
SO LOOK AT THIS. NEW FINDINGS, AND A NEW AGE FOR PLUTO. AN AGE OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION. AND ALLOW ME TO CLOSE THIS -somewhat aggressive-PRESENTATION OF OPINION WITH THE MOTTO OF THE PLUTO APOLOGISTS: VIVA LA PLUTO!

The revolution has begun

It was reclassified because of its orbit, not its size
thesmexyslender:

tennants-hair:


VIVA LA PLUTO MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

DO YOU SEE THIS? DO YOU? ALL OF YOU WHO HAD WRITTEN OFF PLUTO, WHO HAD CROSSED IT OFF YOUR PLANET LIST? REMEMBER HOW IT WAS ‘TOO SMALL” TO BE A PLANET? HOW NASA, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION REMOVED ITS PLANETARY STATUS AND  CHANGED ITS NAME TO 134340? HOW EVERYONE THEN CONSIDERED THERE TO BE EIGHT PLANETS, NOT NINE?
BUT SOME OF US REMAINED LOYAL TO PLUTO. IT WAS NEVER FORGOTTEN. AND NOW HERE WE ARE, AND JUSTICE IS UPON US AFTER 8 YEARS.
BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? PLUTO HAS AT LEAST FIVE MOONS, A PRETTY BIG NUMBER FOR A ”DWARF-PLANET”, HUH? ESPECIALLY WHEN EARTH, QUITE BIGGER THAN PLUTO AND AN OFFICIAL PLANET ONLY HAS ONE. AND GUESS WHAT ELSE? ERIS, THE PLANET WHICH EVERYONE THOUGHT TO BE BIGGER THAN PLUTO, MAY NOT BE BIGGER AFTER ALL. AND THE BEST PART IS THAT PLUTO HAS AN ATMOSHPERE. THAT’S RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, A SUPPOSEDLY NON-PLANET HAS AN ATMOSPHERE. AGAIN, ISN’T THAT IMPRESSIVE?
SO LOOK AT THIS. NEW FINDINGS, AND A NEW AGE FOR PLUTO. AN AGE OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION. AND ALLOW ME TO CLOSE THIS -somewhat aggressive-PRESENTATION OF OPINION WITH THE MOTTO OF THE PLUTO APOLOGISTS: VIVA LA PLUTO!

The revolution has begun

It was reclassified because of its orbit, not its size

thesmexyslender:

tennants-hair:

VIVA LA PLUTO MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

DO YOU SEE THIS? DO YOU? ALL OF YOU WHO HAD WRITTEN OFF PLUTO, WHO HAD CROSSED IT OFF YOUR PLANET LIST? REMEMBER HOW IT WAS ‘TOO SMALL” TO BE A PLANET? HOW NASA, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION REMOVED ITS PLANETARY STATUS AND  CHANGED ITS NAME TO 134340? HOW EVERYONE THEN CONSIDERED THERE TO BE EIGHT PLANETS, NOT NINE?

BUT SOME OF US REMAINED LOYAL TO PLUTO. IT WAS NEVER FORGOTTEN. AND NOW HERE WE ARE, AND JUSTICE IS UPON US AFTER 8 YEARS.

BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? PLUTO HAS AT LEAST FIVE MOONS, A PRETTY BIG NUMBER FOR A ”DWARF-PLANET”, HUH? ESPECIALLY WHEN EARTH, QUITE BIGGER THAN PLUTO AND AN OFFICIAL PLANET ONLY HAS ONE. AND GUESS WHAT ELSE? ERIS, THE PLANET WHICH EVERYONE THOUGHT TO BE BIGGER THAN PLUTO, MAY NOT BE BIGGER AFTER ALL. AND THE BEST PART IS THAT PLUTO HAS AN ATMOSHPERE. THAT’S RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, A SUPPOSEDLY NON-PLANET HAS AN ATMOSPHERE. AGAIN, ISN’T THAT IMPRESSIVE?

SO LOOK AT THIS. NEW FINDINGS, AND A NEW AGE FOR PLUTO. AN AGE OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION. AND ALLOW ME TO CLOSE THIS -somewhat aggressive-PRESENTATION OF OPINION WITH THE MOTTO OF THE PLUTO APOLOGISTS: VIVA LA PLUTO!

The revolution has begun

It was reclassified because of its orbit, not its size

diligentlydreamingaboutspace:

I don’t know what I’m doing with my life, but I know Star Trek is involved.