I don’t have to sit there figuring out the mechanisms to synthesize THC

(Source: fruitforthought, via joyyu)

iglizzie:

sirpronjohnathan-ix:

cooltrainercaleb:

theknighttoyourtime:

super-scout:

aetropos:

starexorcist:

tehmostaewsumblogevar:

starexorcist:

ecrusher:

10knotes:

M&Ms Droplets

now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes

The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.

But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.

The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!

Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.

BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.

Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?

Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo? 

So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.

Thank you for your time.

Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.

Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.

And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.

So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.

hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.

I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe

Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.

The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog? 

On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.

Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?

Rather unlikely!

Actually, Mr. Godot!! 

Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…

If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!

Hold on there, pups. You’re all going in completely different directions. Shih-na, if you will?

Lang Zi says: “The truth lies not at the exit, but rather, shines outside the maze itself.”

You need to see past the boundaries given to you in order to figure out the actual purpose and, as much as I’d hate to admit, both Mr. Prosecutor and the crow-girl have some pretty tame ground under their feet with those assumptions.

As said before, it’s logical to assume the photographer is merely depicting the method used in order to get the results shown in the second photo—and it can be just that.

But what if it’s something else entirely?

We’re all wolves who’ve been swindled by the coyote that has stolen our kill. How do we know if the photographer just isn’t using some clever ploy to get us all confused? He could have taken these pictures separately and simply put them together with getting us riled up in mind.

I think we all need to reconsider our options, here.

best thing I’ve seen on Tumblr in months.

Oh my god, the whole thing

This is just too good.

homieeceelii:

sjou:

fuckyeahstephchow:

thehuab:

ambu-lance:

sunelton:

kukulov3:

frenchdictionary:

glorykim:

Not many people seem to understand why I love Stuyvesant so much.

i admit stuy is pretty and all but i will never miss this shithole

oh my god its like the school version of the Waldorf Hotel

ladies and gentlemen my school

So many creys, gonna go back there man when I get back

miss stuy

Not gonna lie, I miss this place so much. I’m sad I’ve never gone back to visit lol fuck. I’m a terrible Stuy alum who claims to love the place. No but really, I do miss this place. High school was awesome for me :)

Damn I miss this school.

so proud to be a Stuyvesant Alum :)

(via nadia11-deactivated20120322)

All I can say is

I wonder what it was like when law enforcement deserved our respect.

It’s imposible today to flip through the TV, browse the web or go to class without hearing tidbits of everything going on in this country right now.  The Occupy movement is fast gaining momentum, with the number of supporters swelling by the day as more and more see the folly behind the illogical policy of trickle down economics.  Support for sensible marijuana legislation is at the highest it has ever been in the United States with a majority of Americans favoring legalization and regulation.  Sustainable energy technologies and clean energy policies are needed more than ever as even the most optimistic projections on how much longer we can depend on fossil fuels puts us only decades away from reaching peak oil reserves before going on a terminal and irreversible decline.

And what has the government done in these troubling times?  Riot police using excessive violence against the protestors, trampling all over first amendment rights.  Increased crackdowns on medical marijuana dispensaries in states that have already legalized its use for years, forcing people who want both pain relief and simple enjoyment from a harmless substance to become criminals.  Huge multi-billion power and oil companies actively funding and suppressing clean energy research and policy.

FDR said that “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group.”  And yet, here we are, with government ever deeper in the pockets of private corporations.  In my mind, Occupy Wall Street stands for more than the socio-economic injustices sweeping the country.  It paints a bigger picture of our country’s backwards policies and agendas.  

I often wonder about how future generations will look back and reflect on this time period.  Will it be remembered as a time the people exercised their constitutional rights and democracy worked as the founding fathers intended it to?  Or will it simply be the final barrier before essentially privatized government?  Regardless of the outcome, the current struggle between the government and the people they represent will undoubtedly shape America’s policies for better or for worse in the years to come.

Our society is at a precipice.  Do we stick with the same time-tested system no matter how corrupt or do we take a risk and pursue sweeping change?  I choose to pursue my freedoms whether the government agrees with them or not.  This is why I support the 99%.