A stupid is as Stupid Does

Ask me shit(:My faceNext pageArchive

littlelimpstiff14u2:





Esao Andrews

 
 



Detail of a work in progress
varietas:

Don Donaghy: Untitled, 1960s
samcannon:

“You can’t control the Universe. You are the water, not the rock.” 
sparklingganymede:

tyleroakley:

entropiaorganizada:

hookteeth:

… Y’see, now, y’see, I’m looking at this, thinking, squares fit together better than circles, so, say, if you wanted a box of donuts, a full box, you could probably fit more square donuts in than circle donuts if the circumference of the circle touched the each of the corners of the square donut.
So you might end up with more donuts.
But then I also think… Does the square or round donut have a greater donut volume? Is the number of donuts better than the entire donut mass as a whole?
Hrm.
HRM.

A round donut with radius R1 occupies the same space as a square donut with side 2R1. If the center circle of a round donut has a radius R2 and the hole of a square donut has a side 2R2, then the area of a round donut is πR12 - πr22. The area of a square donut would be then 4R12 - 4R22. This doesn’t say much, but in general and  throwing numbers, a full box of square donuts has more donut per donut than a full box of round donuts.The interesting thing is knowing exactly how much more donut per donut we have. Assuming first a small center hole (R2 = R1/4) and replacing in the proper expressions, we have a 27,6% more donut in the square one (Round: 15πR12/16 ≃ 2,94R12, square: 15R12/4 = 3,75R12). Now, assuming a large center hole (R2 = 3R1/4) we have a 27,7% more donut in the square one (Round: 7πR12/16 ≃ 1,37R12, square: 7R12/4 = 1,75R12). This tells us that, approximately, we’ll have a 27% bigger donut if it’s square than if it’s round.
tl;dr: Square donuts have a 27% more donut per donut in the same space as a round one.

Thank you donut side of Tumblr.

This is the highest and best use of conic sections I have ever seen.
djshinyshades:

fill’er up
mychemicalimbalance:

deedledumbs:

elinious:

thedoctorsonicedyouand:

darksideofthemoon007:

gottawork-out:

mustangheart:

beerinabox:

spacereblogsthings:

diablosita:

The Best Birth Control In The World Is For Men by Jon Clinkenbeard
If I were going to describe the perfect contraceptive, it would go something like this: no babies, no latex, no daily pill to remember, no hormones to interfere with mood or sex drive, no negative health effects whatsoever, and 100 percent effectiveness. The funny thing is, something like that currently exists.
The procedure called RISUG in India (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance) takes about 15 minutes with a doctor, is effective after about three days, and lasts for 10 or more years…
Oh, and when you do decide you want those babies, it only takes one other injection of water and baking soda to flush out the gel, and within two to three months, you’ve got all your healthy sperm again.
The trouble is, most people don’t even know this exists. And if men only need one super-cheap shot every 10 years or more, that’s not something that gets big pharmaceutical companies all fired up, because they’ll make zero money on it (even if it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV).

signal boost 

DUDE

dude

dude

DUDE

can this replace the normal contraception methods we have pls

I’m just going to keep reblogging this until people start paying attention, because people aren’t.

me, too.

Read the article, there’s a lot of good coming from this. Sign the petition for it too!