Pastel Nerd

Nerdy, Girly

6,324 notes

kemendraugh:

This is my little brother, reading my Hawkeye issue #19. He is hearing impaired and is currently using/learning sign language as his primary means of communication. He spent his entire lunchtime pouring over this comic, so excited about his language being in one of my books! And a superhero book!

mattfractionblog, thank you for this. 

(We have the entire Signing Time series too, and our lives would be poorer without it! Such a blessing.)

(via saranoh)

Filed under comic books hawkeye disability representation

81,293 notes

Years ago I learned a very cool thing about Robin Williams, and I couldn’t watch a movie of his afterward without thinking of it. I never actually booked Robin Williams for an event, but I came close enough that his office sent over his rider. For those outside of the entertainment industry, a rider lists out an artist’s specific personal and technical needs for hosting them for an event, anything from bottled water and their green room to sound and lighting requirements. You can learn a lot about a person from their rider. This is where rocks bands list their requirement for green M&Ms (which is actually a surprisingly smart thing to do). This is also where a famous environmentalist requires a large gas-guzzling private jet to fly to the event city, but then requires an electric or hybrid car to take said environmentalist to the event venue when in view of the public.
When I got Robin Williams’ rider, I was very surprised by what I found. He actually had a requirement that for every single event or film he did, the company hiring him also had to hire a certain number of homeless people and put them to work. I never watched a Robin Williams movie the same way after that. I’m sure that on his own time and with his own money, he was working with these people in need, but he’d also decided to use his clout as an entertainer to make sure that production companies and event planners also learned the value of giving people a chance to work their way back. I wonder how many production companies continued the practice into their next non-Robin Williams project, as well as how many people got a chance at a job and the pride of earning an income, even temporarily, from his actions. He was a great multiplier of his impact. Let’s hope that impact lives on without him. Thanks, Robin Williams- not just for laughs, but also for a cool example.
Brian Lord.org (via tariella)

(Source: gypsy-hip, via hellotailor)

Filed under robin williams

31,969 notes

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police’s armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.

In America, by contrast, it is hardly surprising that cops resort to their weapons more frequently. In 2013, 30 cops were shot and killed—just a fraction of the 9,000 or so murders using guns that happen each year. Add to that a hyper-militarised police culture and a deep history of racial strife and you have the reason why so many civilians are shot by police officers. Unless America can either reduce its colossal gun ownership rates or fix its deep social problems, shootings of civilians by police—justified or not—seem sure to continue.
Armed police: Trigger happy | The Economist (via kenyatta)

(via fishingboatproceeds)

Filed under gun control politics

2,496 notes

kellysue:

demons:

WACs at Camp Shanks, New York in Feb 1945 shortly before being shipped out to Europe. They would be the first all-black WAC unit to go overseas to aid in the war effort. 
From left to right are, kneeling: Pvt. Rose Stone; Pvt. Virginia Blake; and Pfc. Marie B. Gillisspie. Second row: Pvt. Genevieve Marshall; T/5 Fanny L. Talbert; and Cpl. Callie K. Smith. Third row: Pvt. Gladys Schuster Carter; T/4 Evelyn C. Martin; and Pfc. Theodora Palmer.

kellysue:

demons:

WACs at Camp Shanks, New York in Feb 1945 shortly before being shipped out to Europe. They would be the first all-black WAC unit to go overseas to aid in the war effort.


From left to right are, kneeling: Pvt. Rose Stone; Pvt. Virginia Blake; and Pfc. Marie B. Gillisspie. Second row: Pvt. Genevieve Marshall; T/5 Fanny L. Talbert; and Cpl. Callie K. Smith. Third row: Pvt. Gladys Schuster Carter; T/4 Evelyn C. Martin; and Pfc. Theodora Palmer.

(via flatbear)

Filed under History awesome ladies

152 notes

sheamus-mcwong asked: Why do jet airplanes get better fuel efficiency at high altitudes?

scishow:

Because there’s less air! OK, so there are two reasons airplanes have to expend fuel. First, to keep themselves off the ground and second to keep themselves moving forward.

Lots of air around helps planes get lift, but planes can generate more lift in other ways…by having larger wings or traveling more quickly, and more quickly is what we want…so let’s just do that! Energy expended to move the plane forward is only limited by the amount of drag on the plane and the only way to reduce that is to make the plane more aerodynamic (which we’ve done pretty much everything we can to achieve) and by making it fly through thinner air. There are far fewer air molecules at 30,000 feet than at sea level, so the plane is literally running into fewer molecules and thus it can travel more efficiently.

Of course, at a certain height, planes have to have such large wings or travel so fast to generate lift that this efficiency gain is no longer productive. The engineers have done the math and found the optimal height for efficient travel and designed planes to operate best at that height. Yay engineers!

-Hank

Filed under science engineering airplanes