Chiappa 1887 T-Model Lever-Action Shotgun
The Hog Leg.
(via deadeyesforever)
If Earth Had Rings
First off, they would be really pretty to look at. They would also dominate the sky in both night and day at exactly the same place as they would never rise nor set. And at night you would see the Earth’s shadow swing across the rings, like in the 4th photo here.
However, life would be very different on Earth if this were the case. Nocturnal animals would have a hard time being nocturnal, as the light reflecting from the rings would illuminate the night.
Because we are closer to the Sun than Saturn is, the rings would be more rocky than ice, making them less bright but still pretty bright. In fact, you would see far less stars at night (living anywhere other than the equator or the arctic circle) because of the light pollution and not to mention ruin most meteor showers because of that.
During the day the rings would block sunlight in certain regions of the planet creating wild weather cycles and effecting plant life as well. So basically, they would be definitely pretty to look at but they would also make a whole lot of things screwy.
Illustrations by Ron Miller // io9
— Click the photos for captions
(via daiarashi)
(Source: grossnational)
Erik Olson
I Fucking Love Space, 2011
oil on panel, 48 x 36 inchesMercury, 2011
oil on panel, 48 x 36 inchesVenus, 2011
oil on panel, 48 x 36 inchesEarth, 2011
oil on canvas, 72 x 84 inchesMars, Fear & Dread, 2011
oil on panel, 48 x 36 inchesJupiter, 2011
oil on panel, 48 x 36 inchesSaturn, 2011
oil on panel, 48 x 36 inchesUranus, 2011
oil on panel, 48 x 36 inchesNeptune, 2011
oil on panel, 48 x 36 inchesThe Gateway (Hubble Deep Field), 2011
oil on canvas, 72 x 84 inches
(via theremina)
"The digital ‘wretched of the earth’ are people, images and data sets which are not even proletarians, but low-lifes, riff-raff and drifters who don’t belong to one specific location."
— Hito Steyerl - In the Junkyard of Wrecked Fictions | Mute (via new-aesthetic)
(via cruisingwithgunhead)
"
Our data has monetary value, Lanier argues; we should all be compensated for it. We’ve been tempted into contributing data and content for free, thereby enabling the development of massive online monopolies with the lure of things like cheap or free music, books, games and/or social interactions, but we don’t see the real motivation for offering these things: “the creation of ultrasecret mega-dossiers about what others are doing, and using this information to concentrate money and power. It doesn’t matter whether the concentration is called a social network, an insurance company, a derivatives fund, a search engine, or an online store. It’s all fundamentally the same.”
“We love our treats,” Lanier concludes, “but will eventually discover we are depleting our own value.
…
Those who are already extracting billions from the information economy are not going down without a fight, and I think Lanier underestimates the fury with which they will try to squash any attempt to deprive them of so much as a nickel. Startups may arise to challenge their hegemony, but it will take a monumental amount of grassroots support to dethrone our current information oligarchs. Nor does it appear that Lanier sees a role for the fourth estate in creating the humanistic information economy, an oversight that strikes me as short-sighted.
"— http://www.theawl.com/2013/05/you-mad-evgeny-morozov-and-the-silly-volume-of-internet-rhetoric (via grinderbot)
