very into charts about naps

where is the part about 4 hour naps

This is a very important question.

There are some serious problems with this infographic. Several of the descriptions create absolutes out of concepts that are more correctly stated with qualifications like “up to” and “as little as”, to say nothing of “depending on the individual and the circumstances”.

The “proven by scientists” 26 minute “NASA Nap” is kind enough to drop enough names and numbers that it’s possible to identify the study it’s completely misrepresenting. The study (reported in NASA Technical Memorandum 108839 and subsequently summarized in the December 1995 issue of the Journal of Sleep Research) made no determinations about nap length; the benefits described are not for 26 minute naps in particular but simply for “had a nap” vs “did not have a nap”. Participants in the Rest Group were allowed to take naps of whatever length felt comfortable, up to a maximum of 40 minutes; 26 minutes is only the average length of the naps they happened to take. (It was also noted that they took an average of approximately 6 minutes to fall asleep, another factor neglected by the version of this legend which advises you to set a timer for exactly 26 minutes when you put your head down.)

The description for the 30 minute “Bad Nap” is less accommodating, so I don’t know specifically how it’s misrepresenting its source, and can only note that I’m entirely certain the source didn’t say anything about a bad nap being 30 minutes exactly. My guess would be that it was something about avoiding being woken during the REM sleep phase, which is one of those situations that calls for an “as little as” as well as a “depending on the individual and the circumstances”.

(Source: itsaisha5hah)

(Reblogged from qthewetsprocket)


Soooooo… Twelve’s completely all-consuming loathing for anyone who, for any reason, at any time in their lives was employed in a military organization of any kind…


I think there’s something to be said for the theory that this incarnation’s overreaction against soldiers is fundamentally a rejection of a part of himself that he doesn’t like.

Which is not to deny that it can be irritating, nor that on the Doylist level there’s a good chance that Moffat started at “need a reason for the Doctor to dislike Danny Pink” and worked backward from there.

Also, it’s kind of weird how much trouble the Doctor had in this week’s episode wrapping his head around the concept of “was a soldier, now teaches maths”, considering.

(Reblogged from loremipsumfandom)



The Doctor’s line in the first panel seems to be one of my favorite things I’ve ever written.

That is a good line in the first panel.

I feel it’s also worth saying that I’ve read this cartoon every time it’s been reprinted and the last panel still makes me laugh.

(Reblogged from heroofthreefaces)
(Reblogged from popsonnet)

piepeloe said: I've only just started reading comics and mainly follow the SHIELD characters around, both because I like them and because they pop up everywhere which means I get introduced to a bunch of series and characters. Because of this, I have noticed that the same character can be in one place in one book and another in a different one, at the same time. Is this me being nit-picky and does no one else care or is the comic-timeline different from release dates or...? Thanks :)



Sometimes a character will be in two different places in two separate books that come out on the same day — but they’re not necessarily in two different places at the same time.

The Marvel writers and editors try to set it up so that at least within the 616, things stay more or less linear; sometimes two books, even if they come out on the same day, are a few days or weeks apart in-universe, to accommodate this issue.

And sometimes they eff it up. :D There was a recent issue of the New Warriors where Iron Man, Cap, and Thor have to deal with the New Warriors moving Wundagore Mountain into the middle of New York’s harbor. Well and good, except I don’t think Steve and Tony can be in the same room without wanting to murder each other right now, and there they are, chattin’ away. (Being fair, they could have kissed and made up, I’m a few issues behind, but I don’t think that’s the case, and anyway it’s just an example.)

Now, probably the New Warriors issue is set back in time a little; possibly it’s set forward in time a bit. But one explanation is that the script didn’t work with someone else standing in for either Cap or Tony, or it had already been drawn before someone caught it, or something similar.

At any rate, readers are expected to ignore little discontinuities like that, given the sprawling universe Marvel has running. It’s a bit like how we’re supposed to pretend that “now” is perpetually “about ten years” after the Fantastic Four became heroes; how Peter Parker’s been in his late twenties for like ten years, Dani Cage may never actually learn to walk, and Franklin and Valeria only get to undergo puberty in time-travel AUs. The actual passage of time is beginning to stretch credulity on Howard Stark and Steve Rogers originally being contemporaries, given Tony is thirty-mumble in 616, but you have to either sacrifice temporal accuracy or sacrifice style-and-history, and when it comes to accuracy versus style, I think we all know what comic books will choose. 

There’s an issue starring the Thing in a storyline where he experiences (de)compressed life, getting older and watching the people around him get older as well.  Franklin becomes a member of the FF and Valeria has become a rebellious teenager, dating a boy who turns out to the the Purple Man.  I can’t remember much more than that, but it was an interesting commentary on how old the characters should be if things were taking place in real time.

That sounds like the 1998 Fantastic Four Annual, in which Ben Grimm gets knocked on the head (or zapped by a science experiment, or something) and has a maybe-it’s-a-dream-maybe-it-isn’t trip to a timeline where everyone has their original 1960s origin stories plus 37 years of actual character development. (It’s not just that everyone’s older, either; several major events of Marvel history, such as Gwen Stacy’s death, get shown as having had permanent effects in a way that the almighty status quo prevented in the main Marvel universe.) It’s been a while since I read it, but I’m pretty sure I remember the bit about rebellious teenager Valeria and her boyfriend.

(Reblogged from dame-of-dames)
(Reblogged from ritchandspace)


A friend requested I make this, and so here it is, and I offer it to anyone who needs it, with all the authority vested in me by whoever vests these things. Print it out if you need to.

The best art advice ever given to me—ever, ever—was “Don’t be afraid to make bad art.”

You will make a whole lot of crap in your time. Some will be truly awful and some will be merely mediocre. And that is totally normal and totally fine and for the love of little green apples, just keep going, because that’s the only way I know to get to the good stuff eventually.

(I normally feel horribly egotistical mentioning my awards, but I think this counts as using that power for good.)

(Reblogged from ursulavernon)




well shit


Holy crap no

I don’t want to believe it. But this arrangement certainly has definite stylistic similarities to the only other Grainer work I know, the theme for The Prisoner.

Thank the stars for Delia Derbyshire.

There’s a very important qualifying statement on the video’s Youtube page: this is an arrangement of the theme done by Ron Grainer in 1980.

That means it’s almost certainly not quite what Grainer would have done in 1963, even if it’s trying to be — and I frankly have my doubts about that. If somebody came to Grainer after Doctor Who had been running for 15+ years and asked him to do a new arrangement of the theme, it’s just as likely he deliberately went for something that would stand out from the many versions that already existed.

In any case, there was never any point in the original creation of the theme when he could have been seriously considering a conventional instrumental version. It’s a matter of record that the involvement of the Radiophonic Workshop was part of the brief he was given, and he wrote the theme with that in mind; the manuscript he handed in had notations on it calling for sounds that conventional instrumentation couldn’t provide (and which Derbyshire could, and did). The only way that Derbyshire’s marvel wasn’t exactly what was “originally intended” was that it was better than anybody had dared to expect.

(Reblogged from heroofthreefaces)

ensignchekovsgun said: I couldn't tell from your tags, so I'm sorry if you know this already, but there is a Classic Comic Relief sketch where Rowan Atkinson, Richard E Grant, Hugh Grant, and Joanna Lumley all play the Doctor. It's on YouTube. watch?v=Do-wDPoC6GM .


Yeah, I remember that after I hit post (it’s been a loooooong time since I’ve watched it). Well, I remembered Joanna Lumley something something. It still amuses me that Who fandom at that time had nothing else to work with except a Comic Relief sketch and thus there are entire sub-archives of fic based on it.

Other things of note from that site:

90% of the authors are dudes, and they all use their real names. Ah, the late 90s. Were we ever so young?

Still wondering who The Trenchcoat Doctor is?

The Doctor Index is somewhat misleading, though: yes, there was fic in that archive about each of the Comic Relief Doctors, but not actually very much, and most of them were only represented by stories of the kind that have All The Doctors in them. There was considerably more about, say, the Eighth Doctor who was in one TV episode. (And if you’re thinking of saying that of course there was more about him, he was in all those novels too, then you’ve remembered that the Comic Relief special wasn’t exactly the only thing we had to work with in those days.)

I started writing an explanation of Trenchcoat, but then I had the bright idea of seeing if Fanlore had an article about virtual seasons that I could link to and save having to explain what those are… which led to the discovery that Fanlore has an article about Trenchcoat itself, so I’ll just point you to that instead.

(Reblogged from loremipsumfandom)






my favorite tidbit about rome is that in the mid-1800s one of the popes didnt like the statues in rome having dicks so he ordered them knocked off. fast forward to the last decade or so and art historians in conjunction with the vatican are trying to erm. restore. the statues. but the dicks were just. kept in a box. so art historians are going around rome, with a box of dicks, trying to match them up to their owner.

I was lying in bed reading tumblr on my phone this morning (don’t anyone judge me) and I hit this post and before I even saw that you had tagged me with it, Eimear, I thought


So they’ve spotted dicks?

Thus proving the penis mightier than the sword. 

Wait, why did they keep the dicks? ‘I don’t want these statues to have dicks. I must have all the dicks!’

Well, obviously if you don’t want anybody to see the dicks, the only sure way is to keep the dicks yourself somewhere safe so you know nobody else has them.

I mean, you can’t just throw them away: people might find them and stick them back on the statues. Or, worse, find them and keep them for some other doubtless deplorable purpose of their own.

(Reblogged from rocketmouse)