THIS is why I’m so excited to be taking an astronomy class this year.
Tumblr keeps recommending I follow fursuit blogs
Hell yeah, I’m designing for AAW this year.
Step 1: Save that date.
Step 2: Pretend this image is a hot potato and share it all over the place.
Whoa. The MLA has officially devised a standard format to cite tweets in an academic paper. Sign of the times.
ebooks, Horse. (horse_ebooks). “Leg Butt” 18 Nov 2011, 12:38 PM. Tweet.
"I work for Reuters. I’m a journalist in the media business.
Back in 2008, I sat in a conference and reviewed some proposals to integrate news sources focused on electronic gaming into our RSS service as niche content providers.
We considered IGN, Gamespot, and a few other syndicated online info feeds.
Now, in order to white label a source as affiliated with Reuters, you need to run through a checklist of ~100 items that are necessary for journalistic integrity. The source and its organization has to score at least a 60 out of 100 for it to be considered fair and unbiased.
These tests are carried out by senior journalists, editors, and investigators.
NONE of the gaming publications scored higher than a 15. For reference, the National Enquirer scored a 38 and the MSNBC blogosphere scored 44.
Some failures included:
- Economic ties with publishers
- Acceptance of favors
- 0% of staff held journalism degree
- Very small percentage worked in other major publications
- No real editing process
- No accountability
tl;dr: Gaming “journalism” is a joke and the laughingstock of reporting media. Continue to read these publications if you want, but assume that everything you read is biased or an outright lie.”❞
Lays on my stomach with my feet in the air, crossing and uncrossing my legs as I watch my computer screen and wait for the Mute roleplayer to come online
Allow me to tell you a story, child.
"Stay awhile and listen!"
Back around the time you were born, the Internet was a toddler too, and very little illustrates this like a game called Elf Bowling. This game from NStorm hit the web in 1998. Like many of the whack-a-mole games of that time, it was very simple and involved physical abuse.
In this case, Santa was bored and decided to go bowling, using his elves as pins while a reindeer watched.
The elves scream in high-pitched synchronized fear every time Santa bowls, and their crushed bodies are swept away into darkness by a giant squeegee.
Also, the game is really boring, like all bowling games.
Because the internet was still in diapers, of course it went completely viral in 1999.
And it kind of destroyed the Internet.
See, back in those days, most email users were using a program like Outlook Express to download messages to their computer.
This was before webmail was a thing. A majority of users at this time were still on dial-up (some were lucky enough to get a steady 56k connection, but many would be stuck at 33.6, or even worse, 18.8) and email systems were built to quickly move tiny text messages back and forth. A huge essay-like email to your mom explaining why you need more money? That’s a kilobyte or two in plain text and an email system blasts that out with no issues.
Elf Bowling is 1.1mb.
With a strong 56k connection, 1.1mb takes at least two and half minutes to download.
Outlook Express 5, which came with Windows 98, had a default server timeout of 60 seconds.
In 1999, everybody emailed it to everyone they know.
I was working as an internet tech support rep at the time, and here’s what happened:
- Elf Bowling would appear in your inbox on the server.
- You would attempt to download new messages.
- Everything before Elf Bowling would download fine.
- The server would time out trying to download the Elf Bowling file.
- The email would not be deleted from the server or marked as downloaded.
- Later on you’d try to get new messages and it would start to download Elf Bowling again, preventing new emails from getting through.
Eventually, it might download, or when you called tech support they had you increase the timeout, but then you’d play the stupid game and try to send it to every person you’ve ever met with an email address.
For the entire holiday season that year, email servers were under assault by this stupid game.
And that was only one half of the story. The file that was being sent around was elfbowling.exe.
People were downloading and running an unknown executable file.
Eventually, a chain email started going around, warning that elf bowling was a virus and it was going to delete all the information on your computer on Dec 25th at midnight, but this was determined to be a hoax.
There are two points here:
First off, fuck you, Elf Bowling
Secondly, kaanekii, marvel at where we have come in just your lifetime. I can watch Doctor Who streaming in HD on my phone, and just 16 years ago, one megabyte of Santa being a jackass almost destroyed the Internet’s email infrastructure.
where did this website’s sudden obsession with skeletons come from
From inside ourselves.
fcugn no first of alll;, you do not come into my house with your bullshit skeleton puns do u wanna fucking fite I could take like 5 shitty skeltons don’t test me
This legitimately upsets me.
… 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?
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.
god i love this site
can’t argue with science. Heretofore, I want my donuts square.
more donut per donut