Vila's Random Blog! ^w^

dftbyay:

rossroads:

How to Scramble Eggs with Gordon Ramsay

1. he seems like a chill mofo to hang with

2. what the hell have i been eating my entire life

omfg hE MAKES ME WANT TO EAT EGGS I HATE EGGS

(via otaku4life14)

(via toriinn)

jasonlasers:

soshootastar:

ruffysingingadeathballadforfionn:

aerosocks:

bekuh:

harrisonfords:

thediyguy:

The Naco, serves 5-6

Remember in Kim Possible how Ron, Kim, Monique, and Rufus would hang out at Bueno Nacho and Ron would make himself the Naco? It’s the combination of a taco and nachos. To make this easy dish all you will need is:

-20oz ground meat (I used Jennie-O seasoned ground turkey)
-Tortilla chips (preferably triangle shaped)
-Nacho cheese (home made or store bought)
-The largest tortillas you can find at your store
-Chopped lettuce and tomatoes

Take one large tortilla and lightly heat it, do not make it  crispy as it needs to fold up. Add a small layer of nacho cheese as your base. Then pile up the tortilla using the tortilla chips, cheese, ground meat, and lettuce/tomatoes. Then take two corners and fold them up. You can use nacho cheese to paste the two ends together, or sour cream or even guacamole. The other two sides should be gently folded up. Enjoy!

For any questions on this DIY feel free to ask! More DIYs coming your way!

Oh my god.

KAJI PLEASEEEEEE

THIS IS REAL I CAN LIVE ON EARTH AGAIN

OHMYGOD

GOD I WANTED TO DO THIS AFTER THE FIFTH FRAME

(via tentaclemonsterhair)

(via smalldetailstime)

amazingphil:

AmazingPhil and Danisnotonfire show you how to make a Halloween Brownie Graveyard! (I will follow some people who reblog) ^_^ <3

(via otaku4life14)

reaill:

starexorcist:

russian-tupperware:

aetropos:

yeahyeahno:

chicksdigthephoenix:

super-scout:

aetropos:

starexorcist:

tehmostaewsumblogevar:

starexorcist:

ecrusher:

10knotes:

M&Ms Droplets

now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes

The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.

But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.

The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!

Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.

BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.

Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?

Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo? 

So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.

Thank you for your time.

Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.

Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.

And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.

So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.

hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.

I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe

Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.

The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog? 

On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.

Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?

Rather unlikely!

Actually, Mr. Godot!! 

Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…

If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!

Aah… these M&M’s droplets

So colourful… reminds me of the days of my youth!

the red ones remind me of my hemorroids… *cough*

I have found some new evidence though the original image source suggesting this second image has been tampered with!

This image clearly shows candies that correspond to the colours commonly found in M & M s…  The edge of the bowl is visible, as are some ‘M’ symbols, if you look closely.

This suggests the second image in the original is perhaps just a fabrication based off of the second.

Therefore…

It is clearly a fraud!

You shouldn’t jump the “fraud” gun just yet, Wright. If your source is really the corresponding photo to the first, then the “gumball” picture in question might not be at fault. To put it bluntly, it might just be a copycat. 

To put it another way, this could just be a case of a mistaken and mismatched photoset..

With all the evidence provided, I think it’s safe to assume this case could be solved: The candies in the second photograph are not M&Ms, but the photo itself was not exactly tampered with. It was just a completely separate photo of separate candies, possibly just misplaced in this set by the original poster, who was completely unaware of the mismatch!

Hold it right there everyone.

There is..

A PUZZLE HIDDEN IN THAT BOWL OF MISLEADING CANDY.

uhm

guys the reason the photographer had to use M&M’s in one image and gumballs in the other is….

because I ate the gumballs from the ‘original’ image.

sorry

(HOLY FUCK THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING THING I HAVE EVER BEEN A PART OF)

everytime I see this it just gets better

(via may-the-uguu-be-with-you)

sparky-sparkerson:

drawingguitarist:

Photorealism - Unbelievable, but these are no photos, these are super realistic looking oil paintings by the American artist Doug Bloodworth.

I was like “wait what’s so photorealstic about comic books” and then

(via krantastic)

blindbandit5:

sacharrine:

zaruto:

tforge13:

owlmylove:

fedoratheexplorer:

is this real life

is this just fantasy

No way…no way

Wow I just had this yesterday shit

TRIED ThIS JUST NOW IT’S DELICIOUS

EVERYTHING IS RIGHT WITH THE UNIVERSE.

(via sweet-poffin)