Posted on

tumblr_lsime4riTa1qm9g76

thatwhoviansynesthete:

emmablackery:

ninalailaa:

jennyashleyboo:

spooky-giichan-who-loves-destiel:

wibblywobbly-timeywimey-johnlock:

sp00kyhomosexual-leafblower:

cindersatmidnight:

eatprayplay:

chloeeatschildren:

You know this song word for word

image

THE DOCTOR’S STUCK IN THA PANDORICA, AMY MIGHT BE DEAD AND RORY’S A ROMAN WITH A GUN INSIDE HIS HAND. SEEMS LIKE THINGS AREN’T GOING AS PLANNED.

RIVER’S IN THE TARDIS, THE TARDIS IS ON FIRE, SHE’S FEELING THE HEAT ON REPEAT SHE’LL REQUIRE, SOMEONE SHE CAN TRUST, SOMEONE WITH A BOW TIE BUT HE’S BEEN LOCKED UP AND LEFT TO DIE

OH MY GOD WHAT WILL THEY DO? THIS SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THROUGH. MY MIND IS BLOWN I BET YOURS IT TOO.  WELL, I GUESS THIS IS DOCTOR WHO.

RORY’S QUITE DISTRESSED AND HE STARTS TO SOB, WHEN THE DOCTOR APPEARS WITH A MOP, GET ME OUT OF THE PANDORICA, BUT YOU AREN’T IN THE PANDORICA, YES I AM, WELL, YES I WAS IT’S COMPLICATED BUT I WON’T EXPLAIN IT NOW BECAUSE, THEN HE DISAPPEARED INTO A HAZY FUZZ, THAT MAN WHO CAN’T EXPLAIN WHY HE DOES THE THINGS HE DOES

OH MY GOD I DON’T HAVE A CLUE THIS PARADOXES ARE HARD TO CONSTRUE, MY MIND IS BLOWN I BET YOURS IS TOO, WELL I GUESS THIS IS DOCTOR WHOOO. IT’S THE BIG BANG 2 AND I NEED TO REVIEW WHAT ON EARTH JUST HAPPENED BEFORE MY EYES, TIME HAS GONE ASKEW THE UNIVERSE HAS TOO, I’LL TRY TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE BIG BANG 2. THE BIG GANG TWO.

THE DOCTOR’S GOT RIVER’S VORTEX MANIPULATOR, WHICH HE’LL USE TO MEET RORY TWO THOUSAND YEARS LATER. WHEN THEY FIND AMY AFTER HER SLEEP IN THE BOX, THEY REALIZE THE SUN IS REALLY THE EXPLODING TARDIS. DOCTOR SAVES RIVER FROM THE IMITATING STAR, WOMAN WATCHES BACK CAN’T HELP BUT POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS…

OH MY GOD HE’S WEARING A FEZ, OH MY GOD HE’S WEARING A FEZ, OH MY GOD HE’S WEARING A FEZ, OHMYGODHE’SWEARINGAFEZ. DALEK POPS UP OUT OF NOWHERE, SHOOTS THE DOCTOR KILLS HIM QUITE UNFAIR, HE JUMPS BACK 12 MINUTES TO THE STAIRS. HE’S DEAD, AND EVERYONE DESPAIRS.

LITTLE DO THEY KNOW THE DOCTOR LIES, HE’S GONE STOPPING THE UNIVERSE’S DEMISE, AMY SAYS HER LAST GOODBYES, THE DOCTOR FLIES UP INTO THE SKIES. THE UNIVERSE IS BACK IT’S TRUE, BUT THE DOCTOR SAID HIS FINAL ADIEU, MAYBE YOU’LL COME BACK IF SHE REMEMBERS YOU

ITS THE BIG BANG TWO AND I NEED TO REVIEW WHAT ON EARTH JUST HAPPENED BEFORE MY EYES, TIME HAS BEEN RENEWED THE UNIVERSE HAS TOO, BUT AMY STILL CAN’T HELP BUT CRY. THERE’S SOMEONE MISSING, THE QUESTION’S WHO?? THEN SHE REMEMBERED SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING BORROWED, SOME THING BLUEEEEEEEEEEEEE AND THATS THE BIG BANG TWOOOOOO

i hope it didn’t confuse YOU.

Posted on

Rose is open, honest, heartfelt, to the point of being selfish, wonderfully selfish. Martha is clever, calm, but rarely says what she’s really thinking. Donna is blunt, precise, unfiltered, but with a big heart beneath all the banter.

But we come back to what I was saying ages ago about turning characters.

If Rose can be selfish, then her finest moments will come when she’s selfless. If Martha keeps quiet, then her moments of revelation – like her goodbye to the Doctor in Last of the Time Lords, or stuck with Milo and Cheen in Gridlock – make her fly. Donna is magnificently self-centered – not selfish, but she pivots everything around herself, as we all do – so when she opens up and hears the Ood song, or begs for Caecilius’ family to be saved, then she’s wonderful.

Russell T. Davies (The Writer’s Tale)

#remember when Doctor Who was about character development? #I’ll never stop loving this quote #HE GETS IT

Posted on

potter-merlin:

longnightsandterriblefights:

siriuslysalvatore:

are you ever just reading a book and you come across word that you don’t know how to pronounce so you just go afkjhjdsfsjkdhs in your head

when it’s someone’s name and you have to keep doing that for the rest of the book

And then if that book gets turned into a movie, they will pronounce the characters name and you just sit there in the cinemas like the fuck just happened to me

I had this problem when I read Around the World in 80 days when I was a little kid. I couldn’t pronounce Passepartout. French is hard when you’re seven.

Posted on

PRISM in the 18th century

jkottke:

Paul Revere network

There’s been a lot of discussion recently about government programs like PRISM and how, according to defenders of such surveillance, they “only” collect metadata related to communications and not the content of the communication. In a clever article, Kieran Healy uses only the membership lists of various Boston-area organizations in the late 1770s to find out quite a lot about who might be the leaders of the nascent revolutionary cell. Even with this simple analysis, Paul Revere’s name pops out of the data.

The analytical engine has arranged everyone neatly, picking out clusters of individuals and also showing both peripheral individuals and-more intriguingly-people who seem to bridge various groups in ways that might perhaps be relevant to national security. Look at that person right in the middle there. Zoom in if you wish. He seems to bridge several groups in an unusual (though perhaps not unique) way. His name is Paul Revere.

Once again, I remind you that I know nothing of Mr Revere, or his conversations, or his habits or beliefs, his writings (if he has any) or his personal life. All I know is this bit of metadata, based on membership in some organizations. And yet my analytical engine, on the basis of absolutely the most elementary of operations in Social Networke Analysis, seems to have picked him out of our 254 names as being of unusual interest.

Now, the Crown may have suspected Revere of anti-Royalist leanings without this analysis. But with the analysis, they all but know. Get Revere and a few other highly connected nodes into jail on some trumped-up charges and, voila, maybe the American Revolution never happens or is quickly quashed. Revere and the American Revolution is an extreme example of what Moxie Marlinspike is getting at in We Should All Have Something To Hide: that breaking the law is sometimes how society moves forward.

Over the past year, there have been a number of headline-grabbing legal changes in the US, such as the legalization of marijuana in CO and WA, as well as the legalization of same-sex marriage in a growing number of US states.

As a majority of people in these states apparently favor these changes, advocates for the US democratic process cite these legal victories as examples of how the system can provide real freedoms to those who engage with it through lawful means. And it’s true, the bills did pass.

What’s often overlooked, however, is that these legal victories would probably not have been possible without the ability to break the law.

The state of Minnesota, for instance, legalized same-sex marriage this year, but sodomy laws had effectively made homosexuality itself completely illegal in that state until 2001. Likewise, before the recent changes making marijuana legal for personal use in WA and CO, it was obviously not legal for personal use.

Imagine if there were an alternate dystopian reality where law enforcement was 100% effective, such that any potential law offenders knew they would be immediately identified, apprehended, and jailed. If perfect law enforcement had been a reality in MN, CO, and WA since their founding in the 1850s, it seems quite unlikely that these recent changes would have ever come to pass. How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it? How could states decide that same sex marriage should be permitted, if nobody had ever seen or participated in a same sex relationship?