(by babykins.)

(by babykins.)

(via -kokoro)







(via yiqie)


bpod-mrc:

25 July 2014
The X File
This deceptively simple image revolutionised molecular biology. It also represents one of the most notorious controversies in science. ‘Photo 51’ was taken by Rosalind Franklin, who was born on this day in 1920. It is an x-ray crystallography image of DNA, created by bombarding a tiny DNA sample with x-rays for more than 60 hours. To most of us, this striped cross might not mean much, but to a few scientists in 1953 it held the secret to the structure of DNA. The controversy surrounds the instant Maurice Wilkins, who worked in Franklin’s lab, showed the photo to Francis Crick, a molecular biologist at Cambridge University, without Franklin’s knowledge. Crick published a paper with his colleague James Watson describing DNA’s double-helix structure. Wilkins, Crick and Watson shared the Nobel Prize in 1962. Franklin, whose peers never accepted her, died of cancer four years earlier, and couldn’t receive the prize posthumously.
Written by Nick Kennedy
—
Image by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond GoslinCopyright held by Oregon State University Libraries
—
You can also follow BPoD on Twitter and Facebook

bpod-mrc:

25 July 2014

The X File

This deceptively simple image revolutionised molecular biology. It also represents one of the most notorious controversies in science. ‘Photo 51’ was taken by Rosalind Franklin, who was born on this day in 1920. It is an x-ray crystallography image of DNA, created by bombarding a tiny DNA sample with x-rays for more than 60 hours. To most of us, this striped cross might not mean much, but to a few scientists in 1953 it held the secret to the structure of DNA. The controversy surrounds the instant Maurice Wilkins, who worked in Franklin’s lab, showed the photo to Francis Crick, a molecular biologist at Cambridge University, without Franklin’s knowledge. Crick published a paper with his colleague James Watson describing DNA’s double-helix structure. Wilkins, Crick and Watson shared the Nobel Prize in 1962. Franklin, whose peers never accepted her, died of cancer four years earlier, and couldn’t receive the prize posthumously.

Written by Nick Kennedy

Image by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Goslin
Copyright held by Oregon State University Libraries

You can also follow BPoD on Twitter and Facebook


Q
I need to ask: why do you have such a superiority complex? What gives you the right to judge others so harshly? Because I thought it may have been a person trying to start shit, but you are completely arrogant and caustic.
A

muscleluvr2:

purnpkin-spicelatte:

emylase:

because i’m above you. every single fucking one of you. none of you have any idea what you’re speaking about and you use ad-hominems to no end.

i’ve been put in gifted classes my entire life, never failed a single subject, and have an IQ of 143. you’re all fucking jokes to me. all of you.

when i go on this blog i don’t do it for the attention, i do it to amuse myself with such simple-minded idiots.  

Listen boo. I’ve got an IQ of about 157. Thats about 3 less than albert eisntien and 14 more points than you. Now do you see my punk ass going around calling people stupid. Im graduating high school at 16. I taught myself physics, Quantum Physics, Mech. Engineering, and im currently in the process of teaching myself Neuroscience. I dont go around calling people fucking jokes. Compared to me you’re a simply minded idiot, but do i tell you? (Except in this instance) No. You need a reality check sweetie, because you are far from the smartest on this website, and that “gifted classes” shit is stupid. Being put into gifted courses does not mean you’re smart, it means you’re good at advancing through a specified school system through redundancy and memory. I skipped 3 grades. You honestly need to back the fuck up, and stay in your lane. Catch yaself boo.

Listen up both of you.. i have an iq of roughly 225, rounded up .3333…. (it’s 224.666666….) Ive been called, “genius”, “brilliant”, “intelligent”, “quite smart”.. you name it. Ive had my dick sucked by stephen hawking, a reknowned sapio sexual, and by many other sapiosexuals who are now unable to get turned on without my presence as my intelligence was simply to potent. at 9 year old i had already taught myself, among other things.. A big robot building. all the symbols in Neon Genesis Evangelion. designed a real life crash bandicoot more iontelligent than most humans. Ive cut open a brain and eaten pieces to learn there intelligence. so shut the fuck up. compared to me the both of you may as well be the stupid shit on the road, the “smelliest turds in the toilet” so to speak. yet i keep silent because although i am the intelligentest on this site.. i am humble and dont create hate with others. im currently 15 years old and have just graduated my third ph.d. Shut the fuck up.. and show some respect for me..


Goodnight Moon does two things right away: It sets up a world and then it subverts its own rules even as it follows them. It works like a sonata of sorts, but, like a good version of the form, it does not follow a wholly predictable structure. Many children’s books do, particularly for this age, as kids love repetition and the books supply it. They often end as we expect, with a circling back to the start, and a fun twist. This is satisfying but it can be forgettable. Kids — people — also love depth and surprise, and “Goodnight Moon” offers both. Here’s what I think it does that is so radical and illuminating for writers of all kinds, poets and fiction writers and more.
In a wonderful essay from NYT’s Draft series, Aimee Bender considers what writers can learn from the beloved 1947 children’s book Goodnight Moon. Pair with what editors and mentors can learn from the great Ursula Nordstrom, the legendary children’s book editor responsible for Goodnight Moon as well as other children’s classics like Where the Wild Things Are, Charlotte’s Web, and The Giving Tree. (via explore-blog)