What if I stick a fake crow on my graduation cap?
I should stick a fake crow on my graduation cap.
Bilateral Gynandomorph Cardinal. Gynandromorphy is a genetic aberration that causes an organism to have both male (andro) and female (gyn) parts. Occasionally gynandromorphic animals turn up that appear to be cleaved into separate sexes right down the middle, hence the bilateral modifier.
Photo credit: © Larry Ammann
I wrote a short story for part of my english final and I made it the max 5 pages just to spite her.
A Glasgow nightclub has installed a two-way mirror which allows male revellers in private booths to spy on unsuspecting women as they visit the toilet! With no notification or signage anywhere in the venue many female club goers have been left feeling embarrassed and used. Although they do briefly show the mirrors in a promo video, the club has been quickly deleting comments and posts on their social media from club goers trying to alert others to the situation. This is pretty much illegal and hugley violates privacy. Thank you The Shimmy Club for giving us a shiny, new, creative and cool take on objectification.
i’m never leaving my house again, this world is just too fucked up.
gross gross gross gross gross
Good morning disgusting.
- “No space, leave the place” (fingernail test)
- A two way mirror must be set INTO the wall, not placed on top of it.
- If you rap/knock against the mirror, one installed onto a wall (a normal mirror) will make a dull sound, because there’s something behind it. A two-way will have more reverberation.
- Use the flashlight on your phone to shine on the mirror, if it’s a two-way, you’ll be able to see into the other room.
- You can also shield your eyes and see in if you lean up against the glass.
- The room being viewed will have to be brightly lit (10x brighter than the room looking in), so if you’re in a typical dimly lit club bathroom, you’re ok.
Discovery, Animal Planet, and History Channel exposed for killing animals for profit
These channels are failing the spirit of conservationism and education. They are failing inspiring awe in young people. Failing much needed inspiration in a very confused and conflicted world.
These shows are failing their core values, their main purpose, which is leadership in environmentalism and cultural education. Far worse, they are failing millions of young people - millions - who look up to them.
Please join me in asking Discovery, Animal Planet, and the History Channels to stop, apologize, and correct.
That’s an important read up there, folks. These “reality” shows are feeding an outdated and unscientific view of predator species. These are channels founded on principles of education and conservation (TLC, of course, left the building years ago). Are they willing to sacrifice that for what appears to be gratuitous bloodsport?
Like any media, you can vote with your eyeballs. And if you support any kind of rights for wild animals and natural spaces, you can not support these programs. If the account above is true, shame on these networks.
It speaks to part of a larger issue with nature films. The amazing footage we see in shows like Africa, Planet Earth, and Frozen Planet is rarely the result of serendipity. It involves years of careful research and preparation to maximize the chances of capturing nature’s majesty on camera, and what is captured is highly edited to create story, drama and emotion. These are uniquely human interests, and nature doesn’t include them in her original script.
That’s not to say we are being fleeced all the time. People like Sir David Attenborough take these concerns very seriously, and constantly strive to find the balance between entertainment and true nature in every varying instance. What we watch is real. But is it REAL?
I wonder how many people realize that, for instance, the famous polar bear birth scene from Frozen Planet was filmed in a zoo? Disney’s adorable Chimpanzee movie was not a documentary, but rather spliced together to create an emotional tale of adoption. Jason Goldman put together a great collection of opinions on the matter.
How far can we take allowances to deliver good edutainment before we are delivering bad science? The “reality” shows surely fail the test. But the others? What do you think?
Damn, I mean considering these are the same dudes putting out irrelevant series after another it feels like their purpose is to flood the brains of anyone watching with mindless, pointless bullshit.. this comes to no surprise. Still pretty damn fucked up though.
Most people’s wild beasts live in the TV. What I mean is that, in my experience, most people are highly unlikely to come eyeball-to-eyeball with a large wild animal in their everyday lives, and much of their knowledge of wildlife comes from a screen. If you’re North American or get US-produced satellite TV, you’ve probably learned a lot about wildlife from outlets like the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet and History. You might trust these channels because you’ve seen educational, factually accurate shows on them, unlike the ‘trashy’ material that dominates free-to-air network TV. But not everything on on these ‘factual’ channels might be as ethical or even as accurate as you might think, and the implications for conservation could be profound. —
Bloodthirsty ‘factual’ TV shows demonise wildlife | Adam Welz | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Read the full article for examples of programs on each network that present wild predators as far more of a threat to humans than they really are. The details are gruesome, so I won’t repeat them here.
It is reasonable, even advisable, to maintain a healthy fear of wildlife and use caution when interacting with them. Don’t corner wild animals; don’t try to cuddle them; don’t pick up snakes (especially ones you can’t identify); don’t approach a mother bear with cubs; always keep a safe distance. But the truth is that most wildlife, including apex predators, would prefer to be left alone, and most will leave humans alone if left to their own devices. When wild animals do bother humans, they tend to do so as a manageable nuisance (like property damage or raiding trash cans) rather than as an existential threat like the television programs in question depict. Even the threat to livestock is far less serious and far more manageable than is often portrayed.
During the 20th century, the United States exterminated much of its wild predator populations. Some were killed off deliberately, with bounties for killing wolves, coyotes, eagles, mountain lions, and other beasts. Others were a side-effect of modern industry, such as DDT and other hazards. In the east the loss of wild predators, combined with the decline of hunting, brought an explosion in the white-tailed deer population, with detrimental results for native plant and bird communities. Similar effects have been felt elsewhere in the country.
Even in our more enlightened times, restoring and protecting wild predators remains a constant fight. Fanning irrational fears and reinforcing old myths about wildlife makes that job much harder. It is even worse, as in the examples given, when the fearsome behavior is deliberately provoked by humans, torturing and killing wild animals for ratings and profit. The cable networks in question (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and History) ought to adopt more stringent ethical standards for the treatment of animals in their documentaries and support conservation by presenting accurate programming about wildlife.
I wanted to draw Davesprite with more natural colors, instead of creamsicle orange.
Whoops, I keep drawing Davesprite in boring poses.