Moar Granules de la Solar

A Secondary Blog

0 notes

Attempt at star wars dark side baby blanket motivation for pathfinderisbestpony

They claimed that they alone, those noble Jedi, could balance the Force. Like primitives they supposed that their narrow philosophy could serve all, and so they sought to eradicate us.

No, our forebears were not blameless, but where must we look fur ultimate fault? Again. I say, to the Jedi. Had they not poisoned the mind of Vader in his youth then his retaliation would not have been in their totalitarian style. Since they did he set in motion a pendulum of destruction that ultimately scythed all wisdom from the galaxy.

New Jedi arose after that time, believing themselves masters of the Force, but never did they truly understand it. To them it was religion, it was faith, as revealed in their self denial. They never recognised that the Force, a fundamental aspect of the universe, was one with its very form. It was this oversight that brought all to the edge of destruction.

The Force must, indeed, be balanced. In its use it must be as though it were unused, a net neutrality must result. The universe itself relies upon this, that the zero energy state be maintained and the universal topology be even.

When either side of the Force is neglected, that used by the Sith our the Jedi, it is then that imbalance creeps in. During the period of Jedi dominance, through their puritanical conservatism, the Force distorted. The very curvature of space and time deformed and curved in upon itself. Eventually the result must be cataclysm.

But, by good fortune, we survive and return. The Sith, who understand the Force in all its terrifying splendour, employ this power without pretence at divinity. We must balance the Force now, for it is the energy of the universe. Without us, all that is would collapse upon itself.

So teach the young, let them grow under the blanket of truth and not the hood of ignorance. Embrace the dark, lest the light burn us all.

Filed under star wars writing i'm not very familiar with star wars sorry this is crap

215,045 notes

darwinslittledemon:

d20coture:

priest-of-rage:

bedquest:

dear fucking tumblr

this is a fucking bumblebee

image

this is a fucking bee

image

this is a fucking hornet

image

this is a fucking wasp

image

as you can fucking see the longer their legs are and the less fuzzy they are is equivalent to how fucking evil they fucking are

I feel like I just watched a step by step pokemon evolution

Yeah, if Pokémon became evil…

Proof that only fuzzy things are good.

That’s one of those fucking scary American wasps, isn’t it?

(Source: leatherh0ff, via d4rke57mund)

94 notes

theolduvaigorge:

hyggehaven:

alphacaeli:

theolduvaigorge:

Human ‘missing link’ fossils may be jumble of species
by Colin Barras
“One of our closest long-lost relatives may never have existed. The fossils of Australopithecus sediba, which promised to rewrite the story of human evolution, may actually be the remains of two species jumbled together.
The first fossils of A. sediba were found at Malapa, South Africa, in 2008. At 2 million years old, they show a mix of features, some similar to the ape-like australopithecines, others more like our genus, Homo. To its discoverers, this hotchpotch means A. sediba was becoming human, and that the Homo genus first evolved in South Africa, not east Africa as is generally thought.
But a new analysis suggests A. sediba didn’t exist. “I think there are two different hominin genera represented at Malapa,” says Ella Been at Tel Aviv University in Israel. One is an Australopithecus and one an early Homo. We can’t yet tell if the australopithecine remains are distinct enough to call them a new species, Been says.
Been studies the spinal columns of ancient hominins, so she was curious when a paper was published last year focusing on the spine of A. sediba (Science, doi.org/r7k). There are fragments from two skeletons at Malapa, a juvenile male and an adult female. Looking at photographs of the vertebrae, she noticed familiar features on the young male. “I realised they looked a lot like the vertebrae of the Nariokotome Boy,” she says. Also known as Turkana Boy, this is a 1.5-million-year-old skeleton of Homo erectus, a widespread species that may be our direct ancestor. Its vertebrae, like ours, are much wider than they are tall.
In contrast, the adult female’s vertebrae are taller, says Been, a classic Australopithecus feature. She concludes that the spines belong to two different species. When Been shared her findings with Yoel Rak, also at Tel Aviv University, she found an ally. “He sees the same in the [lower jawbone]: an australopithecine and an early Homo,” says Been. But here the species are switched: a notch in the young male jaw looks like Australopithecus, while the same notch in the adult female jaw looks human. The pair conclude that there are not two but four individuals in the remains from Malapa: an adult and a juvenile of both Homo and Australopithecus. They presented their findings at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in Calgary, Canada, this week.
Unsurprisingly, A. sediba’s discoverer, Lee Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa, doesn’t agree. For one thing, he says the positioning of the adult skeleton’s bones in the ground makes it likely they came from a single individual. Berger admits that the vertebrae of the young A. sediba look like those of H. erectus, but he says vertebrae grow taller throughout childhood. If the young A. sediba had grown up, his vertebrae may have become more Australopithecus-like. Been isn’t convinced. Fossils of other australopithecine children had tall vertebrae, she says.
Regardless, Berger says that Been and Rak’s observations make sense if A. sediba really was a transitional species between Australopithecus and Homo. “A central tenet of evolutionary theory is that variation within taxa becomes variation between taxa as species diverge,” he says. With anatomy in flux, it is possible that one A. sediba had an Australopithecus-like spine and Homo-like jaw, while another had a Homo-like spine and Australopithecus-like jaw. There are other features of the A. sediba vertebrae that might explain the differences Been found. Berger’s latest work hints that the young male’s vertebrae may show signs of disease. If so, they are not representative of the species.
***It took ~10 minutes for Berger to respond on facebook. It took New Scientist ~5 minutes to post Berger’s response. I don’t have facebook, so I’d reblog if someone would post his response if it differs from what was recounted here. Cheers.
(Source: New Scientist; image: Heritage Daily)

Lee says:

So this is fascinating. As most of you know, MH-1 is a juvenile, partially articulated skeleton that includes the cranium, it is found in a single mostly in-situ layer and has no repeating elements. MH-2 is an adult female skeleton that is articulated - I repeat - articulated, and this fact has been published in a Ph.D. thesis by Aurore Val. This skeleton is in anatomical position, with the vertebrae actually attaching to the sacrum and the sacrum to the pelvis and the upper limb laying alongside this and the mandible laying, almost in anatomical position against the complete shoulder girdle. I would like to state again - MH-2 is an articulated skeleton in a curled death position in situ in hard matrix.



However, in these talks, Rak and Been argue that based on two single characters (one in the mandible and one in the vertebrae), that not only do these skeletons represent two different Genera, but that within them they are mixed. In short, the mandible and skull of MH-1 is Homo, the juvenile vertebrae associated with this skeleton are australopith; in MH-2 the mandible is ‘clearly’ australopith and the vertebrae are Homo! but the skeleton is articulated!
To me, Rak and Been’s argument is sort of the “saw the lady in half” cheap Magicians trick. Yes we can all see that the Magician has cut a lady that was perfectly in one piece in half and separated it, but we know that its just an illusion - Been and Rak have taken an articulated, anatomically correctly positioned skeleton (MH-2) and like the Magician just sliced it in half to fool us because of - yes - one character in two un-diagnostic areas of anatomy. Now that’s a trick. So now, every time an articulated skeleton doesn’t agree with our pre-existing strong ‘statistical methods’ (based on mere fragments and figments from the fossil record mind you), then we just cut them up rather than acknowledge the reality of what the fossil record is showing us. Science at its finest methinks - or not.



Lee sounds salty: is he the one with his name attached to the initial discovery?

Alphacaeli to the rescue. And yes, Berger is the one attached to the discovery.

theolduvaigorge:

hyggehaven:

alphacaeli:

theolduvaigorge:

Human ‘missing link’ fossils may be jumble of species

  • by Colin Barras

“One of our closest long-lost relatives may never have existed. The fossils of Australopithecus sediba, which promised to rewrite the story of human evolution, may actually be the remains of two species jumbled together.

The first fossils of A. sediba were found at Malapa, South Africa, in 2008. At 2 million years old, they show a mix of features, some similar to the ape-like australopithecines, others more like our genus, Homo. To its discoverers, this hotchpotch means A. sediba was becoming human, and that the Homo genus first evolved in South Africa, not east Africa as is generally thought.

But a new analysis suggests A. sediba didn’t exist. “I think there are two different hominin genera represented at Malapa,” says Ella Been at Tel Aviv University in Israel. One is an Australopithecus and one an early Homo. We can’t yet tell if the australopithecine remains are distinct enough to call them a new species, Been says.

Been studies the spinal columns of ancient hominins, so she was curious when a paper was published last year focusing on the spine of A. sediba (Science, doi.org/r7k). There are fragments from two skeletons at Malapa, a juvenile male and an adult female. Looking at photographs of the vertebrae, she noticed familiar features on the young male. “I realised they looked a lot like the vertebrae of the Nariokotome Boy,” she says. Also known as Turkana Boy, this is a 1.5-million-year-old skeleton of Homo erectus, a widespread species that may be our direct ancestor. Its vertebrae, like ours, are much wider than they are tall.

In contrast, the adult female’s vertebrae are taller, says Been, a classic Australopithecus feature. She concludes that the spines belong to two different species. When Been shared her findings with Yoel Rak, also at Tel Aviv University, she found an ally. “He sees the same in the [lower jawbone]: an australopithecine and an early Homo,” says Been. But here the species are switched: a notch in the young male jaw looks like Australopithecus, while the same notch in the adult female jaw looks human. The pair conclude that there are not two but four individuals in the remains from Malapa: an adult and a juvenile of both Homo and Australopithecus. They presented their findings at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in Calgary, Canada, this week.

Unsurprisingly, A. sediba’s discoverer, Lee Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa, doesn’t agree. For one thing, he says the positioning of the adult skeleton’s bones in the ground makes it likely they came from a single individual. Berger admits that the vertebrae of the young A. sediba look like those of H. erectus, but he says vertebrae grow taller throughout childhood. If the young A. sediba had grown up, his vertebrae may have become more Australopithecus-like. Been isn’t convinced. Fossils of other australopithecine children had tall vertebrae, she says.

Regardless, Berger says that Been and Rak’s observations make sense if A. sediba really was a transitional species between Australopithecus and Homo. “A central tenet of evolutionary theory is that variation within taxa becomes variation between taxa as species diverge,” he says. With anatomy in flux, it is possible that one A. sediba had an Australopithecus-like spine and Homo-like jaw, while another had a Homo-like spine and Australopithecus-like jaw. There are other features of the A. sediba vertebrae that might explain the differences Been found. Berger’s latest work hints that the young male’s vertebrae may show signs of disease. If so, they are not representative of the species.

***It took ~10 minutes for Berger to respond on facebook. It took New Scientist ~5 minutes to post Berger’s response. I don’t have facebook, so I’d reblog if someone would post his response if it differs from what was recounted here. Cheers.

(Source: New Scientist; image: Heritage Daily)

Lee says:

So this is fascinating. As most of you know, MH-1 is a juvenile, partially articulated skeleton that includes the cranium, it is found in a single mostly in-situ layer and has no repeating elements. MH-2 is an adult female skeleton that is articulated - I repeat - articulated, and this fact has been published in a Ph.D. thesis by Aurore Val. This skeleton is in anatomical position, with the vertebrae actually attaching to the sacrum and the sacrum to the pelvis and the upper limb laying alongside this and the mandible laying, almost in anatomical position against the complete shoulder girdle. I would like to state again - MH-2 is an articulated skeleton in a curled death position in situ in hard matrix.

However, in these talks, Rak and Been argue that based on two single characters (one in the mandible and one in the vertebrae), that not only do these skeletons represent two different Genera, but that within them they are mixed. In short, the mandible and skull of MH-1 is Homo, the juvenile vertebrae associated with this skeleton are australopith; in MH-2 the mandible is ‘clearly’ australopith and the vertebrae are Homo! but the skeleton is articulated!

To me, Rak and Been’s argument is sort of the “saw the lady in half” cheap Magicians trick. Yes we can all see that the Magician has cut a lady that was perfectly in one piece in half and separated it, but we know that its just an illusion - Been and Rak have taken an articulated, anatomically correctly positioned skeleton (MH-2) and like the Magician just sliced it in half to fool us because of - yes - one character in two un-diagnostic areas of anatomy. Now that’s a trick. So now, every time an articulated skeleton doesn’t agree with our pre-existing strong ‘statistical methods’ (based on mere fragments and figments from the fossil record mind you), then we just cut them up rather than acknowledge the reality of what the fossil record is showing us. Science at its finest methinks - or not.

Lee sounds salty: is he the one with his name attached to the initial discovery?

Alphacaeli to the rescue. And yes, Berger is the one attached to the discovery.

(via anthrocentric)

22,975 notes

gallifreekydeeky:


A new religious statue in the town of Davidson, N.C., is unlike anything you might see in church.
The statue depicts Jesus as a vagrant sleeping on a park bench. St. Alban’s Episcopal Church installed the homeless Jesus statue on its property in the middle of an upscale neighborhood filled with well-kept townhomes.
Jesus is huddled under a blanket with his face and hands obscured; only the crucifixion wounds on his uncovered feet give him away.
The reaction was immediate. Some loved it; some didn’t.
"One woman from the neighborhood actually called police the first time she drove by," says David Boraks, editor of DavidsonNews.net. "She thought it was an actual homeless person."
That’s right. Somebody called the cops on Jesus.

"ooh!  a poor person in need of help!  i better make sure they get arrested!"  to me, that’s the issue that’s most troubling.  Apart from that, the statue, and the idea behind it, is one of the parts of Christianity that even a grouchy atheist like me has to admire…

gallifreekydeeky:

A new religious statue in the town of Davidson, N.C., is unlike anything you might see in church.

The statue depicts Jesus as a vagrant sleeping on a park bench. St. Alban’s Episcopal Church installed the homeless Jesus statue on its property in the middle of an upscale neighborhood filled with well-kept townhomes.

Jesus is huddled under a blanket with his face and hands obscured; only the crucifixion wounds on his uncovered feet give him away.

The reaction was immediate. Some loved it; some didn’t.

"One woman from the neighborhood actually called police the first time she drove by," says David Boraks, editor of DavidsonNews.net. "She thought it was an actual homeless person."

That’s right. Somebody called the cops on Jesus.

"ooh!  a poor person in need of help!  i better make sure they get arrested!"  to me, that’s the issue that’s most troubling.  Apart from that, the statue, and the idea behind it, is one of the parts of Christianity that even a grouchy atheist like me has to admire…

(Source: circuitfry)

937 notes

skepticalavenger:


I wish I’d had this a few weeks ago, when I was telling students how not to present their data. This is a chart illustrating the effects of stand-your-ground-laws on murder in Florida.
I glanced at that and thought, “Whoa, surprise: the stand-your-ground-laws had a pretty dramatic effect in reducing murder. I did not expect that at all.”
And then I was a bit disappointed: “But they really should have set the Y axis at zero. It’s a bit misleading and magnifies the apparent effect, otherwise.”
And then I did a double-take: “They inverted the freaking Y axis!”
That’s right. It doesn’t show a decline, it shows a dramatic spike in murder after the law was passed. The text in the article actually says that clearly, but the chart was actively selling the opposite message. They’ve since added a corrected chart that actually makes the point clearly, instead of obscuring it.

I took away two points. It’s really easy to lie with graphics, and shouldn’t any evidence-based legal system recognize the consequences of passing a bad law and correct itself?

Unfreakinbelievable.

skepticalavenger:

I wish I’d had this a few weeks ago, when I was telling students how not to present their data. This is a chart illustrating the effects of stand-your-ground-laws on murder in Florida.

I glanced at that and thought, “Whoa, surprise: the stand-your-ground-laws had a pretty dramatic effect in reducing murder. I did not expect that at all.”

And then I was a bit disappointed: “But they really should have set the Y axis at zero. It’s a bit misleading and magnifies the apparent effect, otherwise.”

And then I did a double-take: “They inverted the freaking Y axis!”

That’s right. It doesn’t show a decline, it shows a dramatic spike in murder after the law was passed. The text in the article actually says that clearly, but the chart was actively selling the opposite message. They’ve since added a corrected chart that actually makes the point clearly, instead of obscuring it.

betterfloridagundeaths

I took away two points. It’s really easy to lie with graphics, and shouldn’t any evidence-based legal system recognize the consequences of passing a bad law and correct itself?

Unfreakinbelievable.

(via nerdgamery)