### The Penguin Formally Known as Tux ::Drawspace.com

learn to draw this and many more cool website
https://goo.gl/0R9b72

# The Penguin Formally Known as Tux

Use hatching graduations to create the three-dimensional forms of an adorable penguin

Resource: Module 3.1 Introduction to Shading
Supplies: paper, pencils (2H, HB, 2B, 4B, and 6B), ruler, sandpaper block, sharpener, erasers

### This tutorial has three sections:

• Put Proportions on Paper
• Turn a Sketch into a Contour Drawing

### Tip!

Setting up accurate proportions is the foundation of drawing. If your subject's proportions are wrong, neither perfect shading or fancy pencil marks can save your drawing.

## Put Proportions on Paper

The size of your drawing space determines the size of your penguin. The penguin in this lesson is drawn inside a 4 by 6 in (10.2 by 15.2 cm) drawing space with 2 in (5.1 cm) squares. If you prefer a larger drawing, 6 by 9 in (15.2 by 22.9 cm) with 3 in (7.6 cm) squares works equally well.

### 2. Lightly sketch an oval slightly toward the left of your drawing space (Figure 1).

This oval represents the penguin's body. Make sure you leave room to add the head, tail, and feet.
When using a grid, sketch the contents of only one square at a time.

### 4. Sketch the feet and add a curved line in the lower right to mark the location of his tail feathers.

Note that the foot on the right appears to be much larger than the other. This foot overlaps the other and therefore needs to be drawn larger than the one behind it.

### 5. Refine the shape of the head by making it smaller, rounder on the upper right, and less round on the left, bottom, and lower right (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3 shows the upper two grid squares. Keep in mind that the penguin's face is turned slightly toward the left.

### 9. Erase the tiny section of the outline of his head that was inside the shape of the beak.

Constantly double-check the proportions of your sketch by visually measuring the shapes of the positive and negative spaces.

### Tip!

Penguin bills come in various shapes and sizes, depending on the type of penguin. Feel free to make the beak larger, smaller, thicker, or thinner!

### 13. Give the penguin a smaller belly by modifying the lower-left section of his tummy (Figure 7).

Note that the chest stays the same size to give him a proud posture and a more sophisticated appearance.

### Tip!

If you draw lines in the wrong grid square, simply erase and redraw the lines correctly.

### Caution!

Don't press too hard with your pencils when neatly outlining the penguin! No matter how careful you are, accidents can still happen and you may need to erase some lines.

## Turn a Sketch into a Contour Drawing

### 23. Redraw the penguin's head, neck, shoulders, and facial features with a sharp pencil (Figure 9).

Note the double lines around each eye. In addition, the eye on the left is slightly smaller than the one on the right. This eye is farther away from the viewer because of the angle of the head.

### 24. Redraw the penguin's body slowly and carefully, using a sharp pencil (Figure 10).

Note the double lines on the fronts of the wings, which indicate their thickness.

### 26. Outline his feet, toes, and heels.

The hatching lines used to draw feathers are ragged and uneven, with mostly short lines of different lengths and thicknesses.
Before you begin shading Tux, practice your hatching skills. Remember to use different grades of pencils from 2H to 6B and vary the:
• density of the lines.
• pressure used on your pencils.

### 27. Hatch a light, medium, and dark raggedy-textured graduation of values (Figure 11).

Shade these graduation from light at the top to dark at the bottom. Choose different grades of pencils based on the range of values needed for each section.

### 28. Hatch another three graduations in reverse with the darker values at the top and the lighter values at the bottom (Figure 12).

Remember, light affects the placement and value of every section of shading. Keep in mind that a full range of values gives contrast between the light areas and shadow areas.
The light source originates from the upper left in this drawing, so the shading will be a little darker on the lower right.

Closely examine the directions in which the hatching lines curve.

### 35. Use medium values for the irises and the circular rims around each eye.

Note that the darkest section is close to his body under the upper section of his wing (Figure 16).

### 37. Add medium graduated values to the lighter sections of his wing on the right.

Take your time and carefully note the different directions in which the hatching lines curve.
Curved lines help create the illusion of three dimensional forms.

# Scientists Discover Possible First Proof of Parallel Universes

Tarantula nebula. Credit: Pixabay.
A new study about one of the most inexplicable places in the cosmos may offer the first proof that we are living in a multiverse
The idea of a “multiverse” proposes that an infinite amount of universes, including the one we are living in, exist in parallel to each other. These universes differ in a variety of physical properties, featuring multiple Big Bangs, space bubbles and maybe even an alternate version of you who is reading this article in a world run by slugs. The “multiverse” hypothesis has been so far been impossible to test but has supporters among such scientists as Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Leonard Susskind.
The study by British astronomers focuses on what’s known as the “Cold Spot” - an especially cold area of space that has been observed in the microwave background radiation coming from the early Universe 13 billion years ago. Usually temperatures of the radiation vary throughout the universe, but this area of coolness is much larger than others (about 0.00015 degrees Celsius colder than its surroundings).
The map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) sky produced by the Planck satellite. Red represents slightly warmer regions, and blue slightly cooler regions. Credit: ESA and Durham University.
The Cold Spot, first found by NASA in 2004, is a strange place 1.8 billion light years across that doesn’t comfortably gel with existing cosmological models. One explanation is that it simply doesn’t exist, being just an illusion created by the expansion of the universe. Spaces with lower amount of galaxies or “voids” form as the expansion accelerates. With 10,000 fewer galaxies, the Cold Spot would be a “supervoid”
But the study, published in UK’s Royal Astronomical Society, claims to prove that the supervoid is not a valid solution to the Cold Spot's mystery. The researchers think that instead of one giant emptiness in that area, there are galaxy clusters gathered around smaller bubble-like voids. And, significantly, these would be too small to be responsible for lowering the temperature in the Cold Spot.
In fact, other answers must be sought. The scientists, led by postgraduate student Ruari Mackenzie and Professor Tom Shanks in Durham University's think one possible hypothesis is that the Cold Spot resulted from a collision between our universe during its early days and another universe. The energy release of such an impact would have created the Cold Spot.
"We can't entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard model. But if that isn't the answer, then there are more exotic explanations. Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe. If further, more detailed, analysis of CMB [Cosmic Microwave Background] data proves this to be the case then the Cold Spot might be taken as the first evidence for the multiverse – and billions of other universes may exist like our own,” said Professor Tom Shanks.
The multiverse, while an exciting idea, has its detractors. Some physicists feel since it’s not something observable or provable, then a discussion of it is pointless or even unscientific. But when more ordinary solutions come up empty, the doors of science open wider.
Check out this video by Michio Kaku for more ideas on multiverses:

# There Are 2 Dimensions of Time, Theoretical Physicist States

A giant clock. Getty Images.
You can’t really enter into “another dimension” as science fiction would have you believe. Instead, dimensions are how we experience the world. But some aspects actually suggest to one expert, not one but two dimensions of time. If it were true, the theory could actually heal the most glaring rift in physics—between quantum mechanics and general relativity.
That’s according to Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. The normal three dimensions including up-down, left-right, forward-back, and space-time. In Bars’s theory, time isn’t linear, but a 2D plane in curvature interwoven throughout these dimensions and more.
Dr. Bars has been crafting “two time physics” for over a decade now. It all started when he began questioning the role time plays in relation to gravity and other forces. Though the idea of more dimensions sounds bizarre, more and more physicists are considering the idea, because it could allow for the coveted unified theory of physics or "theory of everything" to take shape. This would bring together all the fundamental forces of the universe into one clean, mathematical equation.
Itzhak Bars. USC Press Room. University of Southern California.
Two-dimensions of time would make time travel possible. Instead of being linear, at some point time loops back on itself. In this way, you could travel back or forward in time. It also raises the specter of the “grandfather paradox.” This is killing your maternal grandfather, accidentally, before your mother is born, negating your own birth.
So if there are all these extra dimensions, how come we don’t experience them? In two time theory, they’re so infinitesimally small, we can’t see them. In this view, we move through these tiny, balled up dimensions all of the time, but never notice them.
If we were to fashion technology on the subatomic level, we might be able to detect these additional dimensions, Bars claims. Another aspect, the electrical charges associated with certain particles may in fact exist, due to their interaction with these other dimensions of space.
M-theory, first posited in 1995, has turned physics on its head. According to celebrity physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, this is a superstring theory, the only one which can heal the puzzling gulf now inhabiting physics. M-theory contains 10 dimensions of space and one of time, all told.
Bars’s theory allows for time travel. JMortonPhoto.com & OtoGodfrey.com. Wikimedia Commons
M-theory stands for “membrane theory.” Some call it the “mother of all theories.” This is a unified theory where the universe is made up of different membranes. With string theory, quarks—the tiniest particles in the universe, are actually made up of vibrating strings of energy. Each vibrate at a certain pitch, much like the strings on a harp.
Each vibration corresponds to a certain particle, a proton, an electron, and so forth. They also account for the four natural forces of the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and the stronger and weaker nuclear forces. There are five possible string theories, and m-theory fits them all together.
Previous to this, physicists were working with a theory of super-gravity. In this model, the universe operates not as a series of strings but of membranes or “branes.” Mm…branes. M-theory adopted this as well. Today, we think of all of these as different aspects of a single framework, the superstructure of the universe. Basically, m-theory states that string and super-gravity theory can fit together mathematically.
Overall, the details of m-theory remain blurred. “Nobody has yet told us what the fundamental form of m-theory is,” Bars said. A smattering of clues is all that he and colleagues have to go on. The work of current and future physicists is likely to elucidate more. It was m-theory that got Bars thinking about an extra dimension of time. With his two dimensions of time and the 10 dimensions already in m-theory, that would mean that we inhabit a 13 dimension universe.
Experiments at CERN may prove Bars theory correct. Getty Images.
In two time theory, the four dimensions we are familiar with are just a “shadow” of the six we actually encounter. If this proves true, all of physics will need to be reexamined. Heisenberg’s principle states that you can measure a particle for momentum or position, but not both simultaneously. Why has been a mystery. Perhaps they’re in different times.
According to Bars, the position and momentum behind a particle are indistinguishable in any particular instant. By interchanging momentum for position, the physics remains the same. Look at a wooden box. Whether you look at its right or left side, it’s symmetrical. Here, the same type of symmetry holds true.
To figure out velocity, we divide distance by time. But if we can swap position and momentum interchangeably that means that each may be given their own unique dimension of time. In this way, the universe may be hiding an extra dimension of time from us.
Bars insists that two time theory is more than just a mathematical sleight of hand. He told the New Scientist, "These extra dimensions are out there, as real as the three dimensions of space and one of time we experience directly." If proven true, it may even help us find out why, after an exhaustive search, we have failed to find axions—the supposed building blocks of dark matter. Bars believes experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva, Switzerland, may ultimately prove his theory correct.

## TRANSCRIPT http://bigthink.com/videos/joscha-bach-why-the-universe-is-probably-a-computer-program

Joscha Bach: Could we be living in a simulation? I think that is related first of all to the question of what we mean by a simulation. If the question is, “Could we be living inside of a computer program?” then my answer would be: of course, yes.
Because the only thing that we get with some certainty from the outside world is information. And the only thing that we find with certainty in this information is regularity. And for a system to produce regularity in information—that is, discernible differences that change in a way that is somewhat not random and somewhat predictable—for this, it needs to compute. So it’s necessary and sufficient for the universe—whatever else it does—that it computes. And we cannot really know what else it does.
So in my view it’s necessary and sufficient that the universe is some kind of computer in a pretty literal sense, by the way we define computers and computer science. It doesn’t mean that we know what kind of computational class this system is in and there is, I think, a lot of contest and ideas in physics about what kind of computational class the universe really is and what capabilities it has. What it can compute and what it cannot compute. But still, it’s computational in some sense.
The question of whether we are living in a simulation is more related to something more narrow, that is: is this computer program that we’re living in intentionally created, or is it just a natural occurrence? And of course we cannot really know this because no feature in the world clearly points at this thing being a simulation in this sense. I don’t see anything that would convince me that we are in a simulation. But if it is one, I don’t think it’s for our benefit. I don’t think that all these galaxies and stars and all the intricate elementary particle structures that we can observe in some sense—they are not necessary for our experience as primates on the planetary surface. It would be needed to be painted on the telescopes and microscopes by the simulator. So I don’t think that these are smokes and mirrors when we look into the sky and we see these bazillions of galaxies.
I do think that if this is a simulation then they would be an important feature of the simulation, which means the simulation is not there to create us. The simulation is probably there to explore some aspects of hypothetical physics, and we are just a random side effect or an artifact of the fact that evolution is possible in this universe, so we could emerge in it.
I think it’s very unlikely that we are in a simulation, because if I would build a simulation of a universe I would make the computer that it runs on “irreversible”. What that means is that the operations that happen in that universe can delete bits. It means that a state that you observe in the universe can have multiple possible states that it comes from. And if you look at what we know empirically in physics, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Our universe seems to be reversible. And this means we cannot really delete bits. If you cannot delete bits it means that everything that we like is irreversible. You stabilize your body temperature, you forget yesterday’s body temperature in your body. It means that you have to delete bits in some sense. All those things that we are interested in—life, planets, stars, computers, organisms, minds—are irreversible in some sense. They all need to delete bits to keep their structures stable against the onslaught of the substrate, which has its different logic and its different direction that it wants to go into. So in some sense you get waste bits. You need to throw these bits out of your system, and this is what we as observers perceive as increasing entropy, these waste bits.
And if you would be living in a simulation like Minecraft, in Minecraft you can build perpetual mobiles. That’s because you don’t have entropies in Minecraft. Minecraft can delete bits. It can forget its previous state. This universe apparently cannot. So the reason why we cannot have nice things in this universe, why we cannot have perpetual mobiles, why entropy is always accumulating and is always going to get us in the end, why we will always have to die as living beings. That’s why life is always temporary. Every self-stabilizing system will only have a finite lifespan in this universe. That would not be a feature I would put into a simulation.
So there is this argument that, for instance, Elon Musk made, that we can build game consoles that create virtual worlds that look a lot like simulations to us of this universe. They can be so realistic that we cannot really distinguish them. And this argument is to mean that every civilization that has sufficient technical capabilities is going to build many of these game consoles, so the probability that when you look around and you find yourself in a pretty realistic looking world that you’re actually in a simulation is much higher than the probability that you are in base reality.
But I think what this doesn’t take into account is the level of detail that you’re going to achieve in such a simulation. It seems that our universe has an amazing amount of detail and to get this amount of detail in a subset of this computer, it’s very hard because if you build a computer here on this planet it means you cannot simulate a big universe in it. You can only simulate a very, very, very small slow universe in it. So every universe that you stack into another universe is going to have many orders of magnitude less detail.
So I think if you find yourself in a very detailed universe that has many, many galaxies and much more detail than you need to have intelligent life and civilizations in it and so on, it’s unlikely going to be a simulated universe created by a civilization. It’s more likely that it’s base reality.

### Can You Spot a Liar—or a Lover—by How They Look?

Not long ago, most people would probably judge how trustworthy you were based entirely on your physical appearance. More specifically, the pseudoscience of physiognomy claimed that a person's facial expressions could tell you a lot about their personality: were they honest, would you get along with them, are they good at their job, etc. Today, we know that kind of thinking is a dangerous pseudoscience. We also know that looks do play a big role in how we evaluate people, and that these evaluations are often based on cultural stereotypes. Psychology professor Alexander Todorov explains how our biases affect the way we treat people, and by extension, how we think of ourselves in relation to them.

ALEXANDER TODOROV: So physiognomy, or the so-called pseudoscience of reading character from faces, has a very, very long history. The first historical document dates all the way back to the time of Aristotle, but it really got extremely, extremely popular in the 18th and 19th century.

And for a while there were quite a few studies in the beginning of the 20th century—we're talking the '20s, in the '30s—by psychologists finding very, very little evidence for the accuracy of physiognomic inferences.

And recently there was, for example, a computer science paper claiming that presumably you can guess whether a person is a criminal or not based on their facial image. And actually the history of identifying the criminal has a very, very long history in physiognomy.

There's lots of studies showing effects of appearance across different domains. In my own lab more than ten years ago we showed that you can predict electoral success based on judgment from the appearance of politicians. Then there have been many other studies in the legal domains. For example, recent studies show that prisoners who are sentenced to death for the same crime as those we were sentence to a life-sentence without parole, the main difference was the prisoners who were sentenced to death looked less “trustworthy.”

There's been a lot of evidence in economic games. So for example, economists love the sort of economic game where we have interactions and if I don't know anything about you I have a risky choice whether to invest in you or not.

But if I invest and you're trustworthy, then we are both better off, but if you're untrustworthy you can take away my money and run away. So it creates this risky situation and many studies suggest that in fact if we think the appearance of the other person is untrustworthy, we tend not to invest in these people.

Interestingly there was a study that was done in Germany and Switzerland when in fact people played anonymously, and they also did different measurements of their faces, it turns out that these measurements that are supposed to predict untrustworthiness or aggressiveness didn't predict at all how people will behave in this kind of an anonymous economic game.

The interesting part is that these participants, they were incentivized for accurate responsiveness. And so for every accurate response they were essentially trying to predict what the person did in the situation, they ended up losing money because they were relying on these kinds of appearance.

But you can see how in a real life situation you can have all kinds of self-fulfilling prophecies.

So we come and play with you in a game, I decided for some reason that you're untrustworthy so my first move is not a cooperative move. Well, you reciprocate in a similar way. I don't trust you, so why would you trust me? And that kind of leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So you can create these kinds of dynamic inconsistency in the situation, where in fact the people could be perfectly trustworthy and might cooperate, but the appearance cues can get into the way.

Now, to the extent that we agree on these impressions an important empirical question is: well, where is this agreement coming from? And so in the past decade we have built mathematical models and other groups have built their own models that essentially are trying to discover the cues that people are using when they form these impressions.

So what kinds of cues can you observe? Well, when you're deciding whether somebody is trustworthy or not one of the most important inputs is emotional expressions.

So often in psychology we talk about that there's emotionally neutral faces and there's faces expressing different emotions, but the fact of the matter is that an emotional neutral face is a fiction, is a psychological fiction. You could be emotionally neutral, but if you haven't been sleep deprived you would look better, if you have a nice day you will look better even if you're not smiling. So although the expressions might not to be explicit or exaggerated the way they are typically studied in studies of emotional expressions, they're subtle expressions on our faces.

So these expressions are a very important input to impressions. Notice they might be accurate, these impressions, at that particular moment here and now, but they would be very lousy as a guide to what the person is in general across time and situations.

To get back to trustworthiness, faces that look like they're smiling, they have positive expressions, they're perceived more positively. Faces that look disgruntled they're perceived more negatively. What are the other inputs?

Many of the other inputs come from stereotypes.

For example, feminine faces are perceived as more trustworthy than masculine faces, on the other hand masculine faces are perceived as more dominant. So there are lots of cues and they are cues that are actually completely idiosyncratic to others.

For example, faces that resemble people that you already like you would tend to like, not knowing anything about these people. And the other way around faces that resemble people that you dislike you will tend not to like, barring no other information about these people.

# 5 Methods for Hack Any Trial Software To Use it Forever

## Hack Software & Run a Trial Program Forever

Guys! Today I am going to tell you about How to Hack Trail software easily for the lifetime. Many of the times you might be using any applications on your PC. Some of Those are trial software. It means you can use this software for 30 days trial period. I will explain you all possible ways about how to remove trial period from software. After that, you have to pay the application for the license of the software. Then it depends on how much the application costs for the license key or how to buy the application? Today I am going to tell you about the application in which I will tell you how can you hack that software.In Below Steps, I will be telling you 5 methods which you can try. Then you can easily patch this application.

Hack Trail Software for Lifetime Now, whenever you install any applications on your computer. Then there is a registry file available in the application which is saved in your registry files. That this application has been installed at so and so date and the time. Now when the date of the application will be complete for example software is 30 days trial. Then you will get a pop-up about the application. It is now not working and you have to buy the license key of the software.I will also explain you about how to remove trial version software from registry in easy way.
If you don’t want to buy the software then you can simply follow those below 5 methods. Then you will be able to do those settings. There are some applications that will clear the application registry files. Clearing the registry files is good. If you don’t want to clear those registry files then you can simply edit the registry files by a simple software easily. Get Complete info on how to remove trial period from software, now from below with 5 easy methods.

### #1 – Hack Software By Using RunAsDate Application. Now, the software is called as RunAsDate.

Runasdate is the software which will help you out to run the trail software for the next given time. The software is easy and simple. Run as date is having the best interface and really simple a lot. You can also make any software as trail version for some more days easily with the help of this application. You have to time stopper software free download from below, and use in your PC. This application is running in almost all windows 7, windows 8 and windows 8.1 and windows 10. This application is also running absolutely fine in Windows XP and vista. You can also call it time stopper software, checkout more about this now from below.

#### Requirements for Use RunasDate

• Application which you want to Hack
• Remember the date in which you have to Hack the software

#### How To Hack The Trail Software for Lifetime using RunAsDate

• Firstly install the software on your computer in the same way you install any application in computer
• Now, open the application and click on the Browse
• Now, you need to browse for the application which you want to Hack.
• Most of the times you save the files in your C:/ drive/program files.
• Now, you will see the .exe file of the application you want to Hack.
• After that click on the date and select the date at which you have installed the software on your device.
• Now, simply click on Create a shortcut and name the shortcut and you are done.
• This was the simple method to Hack any trial software easily with the help of this software.

#### #2 – Hack Software By Using Time Stopper Application.

Time stopper is the application which helps you to use the trial software forever. This application stops the time of the software so that it will show the same date and time every time so that software will think time is stopped. You can use the trial software forever with the help of this application. It is really a good application which you can give a try. If the application trial period is already stopped, then you cannot run this application on your Android device. For know more about how to use trial software again, simply follow the easy steps now from below.
• Now, open the application and install it they way you did for RunAsDate
• Now, open the applications and browse the .exe files of the software
• Set the date of tomorrow if the date is today 29 so select date 30.
• Now, create a shortcut and named it by your name and you can open the application from the given name shortcut only.
• Now, you have stopped the time of the application and you can enjoy the application forever. This application won’t expire.

#### #3 – Hack the software Using Absolute Uninstaller

Absolute uninstaller is the application which will uninstall the application from your computer. This will clear all the files available on your PC and then you will be able to install the apps easily. Because the registry is clear from the application. Let’s check out the example which you can try. For how to use trial version software forever without expiration, you can use uninstaller method which is mentioned below.

Suppose you have installed IDM in your computer and now your application is asking for the key. Just because it has been expired. In this situation, you can try uninstalling the application. It will clear all the registry files which say this application was installed in so and so time and date. Then you can easily install the application on your computer.