please read the article

here we all were celebrating exo winning awards and then they do this? honestly I’m disappointed and ashamed to even stan them, how could they do this to their fans?

So, just checking - was I the only fool who assumed Facebook notifications popped up at random? Or, well, not at random, but, you know - more or less automatically? Like, I just thought - 3.15 pm, I post an adorable kitten video, 3.20 pm, Susan likes it, 3.21 pm, I get a notification that she liked it. Instead, this is what happens - 

The techniques these companies use are not always generic: they can be algorithmically tailored to each person. An internal Facebook report leaked this year, for example, revealed that the company can identify when teens feel “insecure”, “worthless” and “need a confidence boost”. Such granular information, Harris adds, is “a perfect model of what buttons you can push in a particular person”.

Tech companies can exploit such vulnerabilities to keep people hooked; manipulating, for example, when people receive “likes” for their posts, ensuring they arrive when an individual is likely to feel vulnerable, or in need of approval, or maybe just bored. And the very same techniques can be sold to the highest bidder. [source]

I think I’ll just go lie down for a sec.

10

I found this on my Soompi App and I found it really hilarious when some members of VIXX trolls around each other again on N’s birthday. I don’t know, but are they pulling a prank or what?!

“At the Billboard Awards in 2013 Swift accepted her award, saying “To the fans who come to the shows, who buy the albums, I just want you to know this one thing - you are the longest and best relationship I have ever had.” It appears that this time around, after more than a decade of trying her best to curry favor in the industry and in the process letting the media walk all over her, Taylor Swift is taking a stand and using her fans and their reception of her music as a measure of success rather than critical praise or industry awards. If that’s the case, this last week and a half proves that she is indeed an industry leader, as her fans are eager to prove. You don’t have to like her music. You don’t have to agree with her choices. But Zero Fucks Swift™️ is rising, and she is a force to be reckoned with, with a diverse and dedicated army of Swifties out for blood. Because Swift might not give a fuck what you think of her, but she does care about them, and that genuine love is stronger than any petty feud or industry snub. Taylor Swift will not back down, not in court, not in life, and not in her music. Never again.”

From: The Taylor Swift Article You DIDN’T See on Major Media But Should Have (x)

My friend, who’s always known I follow and love the boys, but never once in 2 years has cared enough to bring them up, has just sent me a link on WA to the article that the Guardian wrote about the Observer interview, saying “is this your Louis?! Because damn he looks so cool in these pics”, and then 3 minutes later, very probably spent staring at said pics, “I RECTIFY HE’S HOT AS HELL WHAT HAPPENED”. And then 11 minutes later, after - I suppose- he read the article or parts of it, “also a pretty decent guy, am very moved, going to keep an eye on him 👍🏻”.

It’s literally this easy when you can be bothered enough to move your ass and organize a good pice of promo. Even easier when luck’s smiling to you and your client is someone like Louis. Just this easy. Don’t you dare stop this trend.

anonymous asked:

This is going to sound like a stupid question, but it seems like most of your campsites are literally just in the middle of no where, not like at a legit camping ground. Is that necessarily legal? Asking because I'm real inspired to try something like this myself

This is not a dumb question at all - and perfectly relevant to our current fight to protect our public lands.  I can legally camp in the middle of nowhere because I do so on public lands - lands owned by all American Citizens.  This is land set aside for public use - be it camping, hunting, fishing, biking, climbing, hiking, etc…  Public Lands are owned and supported by tax payers and also sometimes referred to as Federal Land (most research shows public land costs about $4 dollars per tax payer a year).  Restrictions depend on the agency that manages the area - most BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land has very few restrictions and allows for camping almost anywhere (without the need for a campground).  However, I strongly encourage Leave No Trace ethics when camping in wilderness and if you are going to camp on our public lands please go to the following link and read the 7 Leave No Trace Principles:

 https://lnt.org/learn/7-principles 

I prefer to camp in the wild - to leave the city behind and experience the outdoors as a refuge from human impact - and in order to continue to experience it as such we need to keep it looking as if we were never there.  I am a climber, a hunter, a mountaineer, a fisher, a hiker, a biker, and most importantly I was lucky enough to be born in the USA which gives me access to public wilderness as if I had the money to own a cabin in the mountains.  However, I don’t have the money to own a cabin and so when the weekend rolls around I throw a few things in the back of the Land Cruiser and head for public lands… I find a spot that is my own, that feels as if I am one of the few lucky enough to sit on this rock and watch the sun go down - and I am lucky.  

Watch the video link below:  4 minute bipartisan history of how the USA came to have so much public federal land, specifically in the west.  This video educated me on how almost all federal land has always been federal land - and is not land that was taken from the states:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC_mnRu-4gA

It is my opinion that there is falsehood in state legislator’s desire to want public lands to be taken from the federal government and given to the state for the resident’s interests and stats seem to support this.  Federal land is held in a trust for the use of the American people -  and that’s it, that’s all, it is there for our future generations - so that I can teach my kid to ethically hunt and camp in the mountains just as my grandfather and father taught me.  Some states do a great job with land they manage for public access, but the problem is that the land is no longer explicitly a trust and if the wrong individuals become elected, or are already are elected, that land can now be sold to private entities and will no longer be accessible to the public. In FACT 156 MILLION acres of Federal Public Land has been transferred to states and of that land 70% has been sold to private entities - that is 110 MILLION acres that we don’t have shared access to use anymore.  I would rather not risk the possibility of my land being sold off so that I can not use it.  Historically this has occurred when a state’s budget isn’t balanced because it is pretty easy to sell of a chunk of land to compensate for debt. 

Please read the Field and Stream article in the Link below it is easy and incredibly informative:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/keep-public-lands-in-public-hands#page-3

Please vote to protect our public lands! 

Public lands for our use and what agency manages them can be seen in the map below: 


Fear Toxin For Dummies!?

Scarecrow hates this guy! As our expert divulges the top 10 ingredients that supposedly are in Fear toxin and how you can literally make it in Walmart.

WTF is wrong with some people on this site? Motherfuckers are actually defending Kevin Spacey. Has anyone even read the whole article? The article has pics of young Anthony Rapp through out the article. You can clearly see he was underage at the time. So you miss me with that he looks older excuse. Anthony played a filmmaker in his 20s for 20 years on Rent. The guy always had a youthful appearance. The “he was drunk” excuse is total bullshit too. Spacey knew exactly what the Hell he was doing. He waited until they were alone. Also Spacey not only invited Anthony to a party at home, he also took him to a CLUB. He took a 14 year old boy to A fucking CLUB. I don’t know about blaming the parents. Personally as a parent, I would never let my child hang out with adults alone. Also this was a different time period. As a child of the 80s, things were much more freer than it is now. Anthony doesn’t blame his mother, so who am I to judge. That’s how these sick bastards got away with it for so long. THIS IS NOT A ONE TIME INCIDENT. Anthony Rapp is just the first of many. Just like Weinstein, Cosby, and others, there will be more. There have been rumors and stories about Spacey for years chasing younger men and boys. While he was filming House of Cards. Just Google Kevin Spacey blind items. For those to say “aw, Spacey didn’t force him. He was able to get away.” HE PICKED HIM UP AND MADE SEXUAL ADVANCES TO A 14 YEAR OLD. Y'all kill me with the bullshit. I commend Anthony Rapp for speaking out. He lived with this haunting him for over 30 years. Reading the article, you can feel all the anger and pain he still feels to this day. He’s so scared, at the age of 45, he’s still afraid to be alone with this man. So Kevin Spacey can keep his weak ass apology. Now his ass wants to come out after ducking and dodging the press for all these years. Plus to come out in this way just to deflect your wrong doings is just horrible. FUCK KEVIN SPACEY!!! PLEASE READ THE DAMN ARTICLE.

anonymous asked:

can you please explain what does the new tmz article mean? is it what we already knew or is it new information? :/

This is exactly what happens in a case, just as I said. Nothing is new in there except TMZ wanting a headline (and it’s effective based on my inbox, because everyone is losing their effing minds). The prosecutor will decide whether to charge him. That’s not up to the police, it was never up to the police. The police gather the evidence and make the arrest and present it to the prosecutor. OF COURSE the police will give the evidence to the prosecutor even after seeing a video (which video? when? who? we have no idea - please read the article critically; 99% of the time THEY HAVE NO DETAILED SOURCE OF INFORMATION). If they didn’t, then they’d be admitting to wrongful arrest. The prosecutor decides whether they want to spend their resources pursuing a case where the video like that would be presented to a jury. Police don’t have to think about that; all they care about is justifying their arrest.

Also, Louis has a very high-powered effective attorney. Us worrying about this (or trying to do anything to help – please stop that, it’s interfering and unnecessary and childish) and getting hysterical every time there’s an article we don’t like helps no one. Reacting dramatically to articles about normal court procedures is the exact thing anyone who is trying to smear Louis’ name would want.

newt-fruit-main  asked:

Hey! I am very pro-AZA facilities, but I am a little bit concerned about your recent comment on sanctuary breeding. Sanctuaries and rescues are NOT receiving genetically valuable animals, usually they come with no genetic history, and are inbred for color morphs or mixed species (i.e. tigers)! This wouldn't be smart breeding for conservation like the SSPs! (1/?)

The animals they receive should essentially be considered like the excess domestic dog/cat populations in the US (only big and dangerous), because there truly are more than there are available suitable homes for. The argument of breeding for conservation in captivity has to be done in line with responsible breeding that’s part of a larger networked plan, because roadside zoos breed all kinds of animals irresponsibly (filling up the sanctuaries) and claim conservation.

Most of what you’re saying is true, and what you’re most concerned about re: the SSP mention is going to be an issue in the future. However, there are a couple things I want to respond to because they’re going to be super important for people who care about big cats to understand in the near future, in regards to conservation and the sanctuary industry and animal rights interactions. I’m gonna break those down below, but it’s not intended as a smackdown - you just gave me a great opening to talk about something I’ve been realizing I need to write about. To give you some context: I’ve spent the last couple months digging into the histories of sanctuaries and rescues as an industry and studying a lot of the exotic animal legislation that has been proposed/passed in the last couple decades. That means I’ve been researching the evolution of legislation and how animals move (both around the US, and between types of placement) in response to it, and what legal actions or public petitions influence those movements. The holistic picture is… interesting. 

First, though, I want to talk about a couple of the statements you made - because they’re super common in sanctuary messaging right now and, most importantly, have started showing up in legislation and lobbying regarding big cats recently. 

The lack of known lineage for big cats coming into sanctuaries and rescues was really only accurate in the 90s and potentially early 2000s, and from what I can really was at latest an issue up until 2007. The 90s was the period when the big cat population in private ownership in the US was out of control and rescue began to be a big deal - hence the formation of the current major big cat sanctuary organizations. The last large number of big cats of “unknown origin or lineage” left private hands and went into sanctuaries between 2004-2007, as people prepared for the full enforcement of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (which, among other things, prohibited moving cats across state lines). After that point in time, the need for rescue - by which I mean hoarder situations or animals that truly were not receiving appropriate care, not exotic pet politics framed as abusive - dropped off sharply because anyone who hadn’t given up their big cats prior to 2007 was very aware that the CWSA meant that they were responsible for keeping those animals for life because they could no longer be easily transported to a new owner or another facility. So, a decade after that, animals coming into rescue are generally coming from either pet situations or are confiscations from private facilities. The people who are currently breeding big cats outside of AZA accreditation - regardless of what else you think about them or their practices - are smart enough to understand that inbreeding can occur and that tracking bloodlines is important. All of the exotic pet communities are pretty small and tight-knit in the US, so I can’t believe that there’s no known lineage for the animals currently ending up in sanctuaries. It might not go back more than a couple generations, or might not be something the sanctuaries are given, but it’s got to exist. 

I’m also really skeptical about the whole “there are more big cats than there are suitable homes for” messaging that’s omnipresent in the rescue and sanctuary industry right now, for two reasons. One, there’s no agreement on what a “suitable home” for a big cat is: the Animal Welfare Act is the federal set of requirements for appropriate care, but sanctuaries and animal rights groups consistently condemn places that meet that criteria, and only AZA likes the idea of AZA standards being a requirement for a suitable home, since most facilities don’t have the funding and mission to become part of the AZA. This means there’s no other set of standards that sanctuaries and rescues can point to to back up a claim about a situation for a big cat being ‘not good enough’. Since sanctuaries continue exist because they house confiscated animals, in the absence of data or concrete standards used to quantify a bad situation, any statement they make about big cat quality of care is inherently embroiled in politics. 

Two, the current numbers for captive big cats in the US just do not make sense. They’re all over the place and appear to be estimations because there aren’t primary source citations in any document - legislative or media - that I’ve found past 2003, and even that’s iffy. 

Let’s just look at tigers, for instance. In 2003, a paper Nyhus and Tillson estimated that there were anywhere between 5000-12,000 captive tigers in private hands alone in the US. The excuse given for such a huge potential range: the authors think most pet tigers would be kept illegally and not reported. It goes on to say the most likely estimates are between 7000-9000, but following up on those sources simply gives me news articles where the one of the authors is quoted about those numbers - there’s literally no data or study cited to support that. Okay, so, hold on, we’re guesstimating in a scientific paper about the existence of multiple thousands of tigers, multiple times more than exist in the wild, because of an utter absence of data and the determination that people lie? That doesn’t seem right.  But, then, in 2008 a report on tiger trafficking done by Fish and Wildlife said there are “as many as” 5000 tigers in the US - total, including in zoos and sanctuaries as well as private hands. They were using data from a single 2005 study, which estimated 3349 tigers in “private” hands (2120 in USDA licensed facilities that were not considered zoos or sanctuaries and 1129 in non-exhibition situations). That’s a drastic difference from 2003-2005, and only the 2005 citation shows evidence of actually having data backing it. Now, fast forward to the last couple of years. In 2014, the World Wildlife Fund states that of the 5000 tigers it thinks are in the US, 4700 of those tigers are in private hands. In 2015, the founder of the sanctuary group Tigers in America stated that he thinks there are actually upwards of 7000 tigers in the US with no mention of location. Neither of these statements have any sort of citation, and those numbers don’t make sense. It’s been a decade since the last mention I can find of an actual study of the locations of big cats in the US, so does that mean the numbers that are now being used in legislation and advocacy efforts are simply estimates based on how many pet tigers these organizations think people aren’t reporting? Not to mention, the numbers don’t make sense - the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, as well as many pieces of state-and local-level legislation restricting big cat ownership have majorly restricted the ownership, transport, and breeding of big cats. How are the numbers going up as legislation gets more restrictive? If anyone can show me actual data on the number of big cats in captivity in the US post-2005, I’ll happily update this post - until then, I remain pretty skeptical about this supposed surplus of big cats because after months of searching I’ve found no primary data anywhere to support it. 

Next, let’s chat about roadside zoos for a second. If you’re not aware of why I think that appellation is outdated and meaningless to the general public, please take a second to read this article I wrote about the topic. This is especially pertinent to this discussion, as many facilities outside of AZA (frequently referred to as roadside zoos) directly contribute to the success of SSP programs - see Mill Mountain Zoo’s success with Pallas Cats and Red Wolves, and Tanganyika Wildlife Park’s success with Clouded Leopard breeding. Not all non-AZA places are of the same quality - some do still promote breeding color morphs or talk about white tigers as a separate subspecies - but it’s inaccurate to say that all roadside zoos don’t contribute to conservation or just “fill up sanctuaries” with excess animals. 

Okay. Now, on to the SSP and sanctuaries comment. Most of the cats coming into sanctuaries right now are either previous pets or animals confiscated after animals rights investigations, as mentioned above. Right now, AR groups aren’t going after places that participate in SSPs… but that’s not going to last. For years, HSUS has been campaigning to close down every zoo that isn’t AZA. You can see that in their rhetoric, and in the fact that in every single piece of legislation and media they right they directly contrast how AZA does things with the horrors of roadside zoos. As of earlier this month, the CEO of HSUS made a statement indicating that AZA is partnering with them to help police the rest of the zoo industry - and the biggest focus that HSUS wants to see from AZA is help shutting down roadside zoos, according to a representative who spoke on HSUS’ behalf at the 2016 AZA national conference. It’s convenient that there’s no operant definition for “roadside zoo” published anywhere in HSUS literature since 1980, isn’t there? (See the linked article above for that discussion). This leads us to the question of what happens to the big cats in external facilities that participate in SSPs when animal rights organizations start going after facilities they deem “roadside zoos” or those they condemn for simply not being AZA. Somehow I sincerely doubt they’ll deviate from the long-term plan of shutting them all down just because they happen to support a decent big cat conservation program. When HSUS lobbies to have a facility investigated, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF, the legal branch of the AR organizations) get involved with advocating to have animals removed from a facility, there’s always a sanctuary or two ready and willing to take those poor animals -  and they’re all ones that are tightly associated with the animal rights organizations and decry the breeding of their residents. So yes, I do think we’re going to see genetically valued animals “rescued” from facilities where they were part of legitimate, planned breeding programs in the near future and put in sanctuaries where they can no longer contribute to the conservation of their species. 

I also don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the animal rights organizations will eventually start going after AZA, once all the other zoos have been driven out of business or had their animals confiscated. The head of BCR has said publicly that she wants to see all cats removed from zoos and in sanctuaries by 2025 - and that she plans on doing it by first turning the public against roadside zoos, and then by taking in all the big cats the zoos abandon after she convinces the public that they’re fundamentally immoral for having them. That lines up pretty neatly with the current rhetoric coming out of sanctuaries and animal rights organizations about zoos right now, and hey, BCR and HSUS and ALDF are all sponsors of all the recent big cat welfare petitions to the USDA and heavily involved in lobbying for congressional legislation like the Big Cat Public Safety Act. Still not convinced? In the newest iteration of the BCPSA, AZA-accredited facilities are no longer accorded their historical exemption from the proposed regulations. 

Big cat sanctuaries may currently only have cats who aren’t considered valuable to conservation programs, but I don’t think it’ll stay that way. All of the animals who came into the sanctuaries because of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act in 2007 (along with a ton of funding, because pretty faces and sob stories are great for fundraising) are reaching the end of their natural lifespans. If the sanctuaries want to continue to exist, they have to get new animals from somewhere - and you can see them beginning to turn against the zoo industry and demand ownership of their animals. It’s scary, but it’s real, and it looks like it’s starting already - in late 2016, ALDF notified Landry’s Downtown Aquarium (an AZA facility) of their intent to sue for removal of their tigers under the Endangered Species Act if Landry’s did not send the cats to an accredited sanctuary. 

Some of the relevant citations:

dear australia,

i would like to apologize on behalf of my country, and on behalf of the man named donald trump who is now the president of the united states…a fact i find hard to swallow (but will accept, because i believe in democracy and our right to vote and choose our leaders).

i am writing this from the backstage dressing room of a venue in brisbane, australia, where i am about to take the stage.

i’ve been coming to australia to tour and perform almost every year since 2004, and it’s a place i hold near and dear to my heart. i love this land, i love the people and the attitudes towards freedom here, and i love that we both - the americans and the australians - are close cousins in our difficult and entangled struggles in the dark waters of our deeply complicated histories. i believe that in time, we can help each other navigate these waters.

i want you to know that donald trump’s stance on immigration (and specifically this current australian/american refugee deal madness, see below) is not the stance i take, and it doesn’t reflect the stance of about 99% of my american friends and family. i know that, because we talk about it, on and off the internet.

donald trump bellowed at his inauguration that he would put “america first”, and that we are “the greatest country in the world”.

and i want you to know that i don’t believe that, and that my circle of american friends don’t believe that, and that pretty much everybody i know is deeply embarrassed that this man is the face of our nation.

i believe that we cannot, as a human race, leave our most destitute hanging … i believe that we cannot just “take care of our own and fuck everybody else”. i believe we are better than that.

america NOT “first”.

nor australia.

nobody “first”.

or: everybody first. world first.

togetherness first.
and together, we’re going to figure this out.
again…sorry.

please let’s stay friends.

love,
amanda

p.s. it’s been all over the news….but if you don’t know what i’m talking about, please go read this article from the new york times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/united-states-to-australia-get-lost.html

If I read one more whining post about why all the female characters are so ugly in ME:Andromeda I’m going to go on a comments rampage. Quite aside from the fact that the characters are NOT ugly (and it shouldn’t matter even if by your shit subjective pov if they are), suck it up dumbass. Women are not put on earth solely for your dubious pleasures. We had to live with a decidedly off-putting male gaze throughout ME and I sincerely hope they’ve abandoned that this time round.

anonymous asked:

If people like that article please don't just read it on tumblr but click on the link so that article gets traffic!

Also, we kind of piled on that author from RS last night, so why don’t we do the same but in reverse and go show some love to Saskia Postema, who wrote the HuffPo piece. Her twitter handle is @saskiapostema

Sobbing and shaking, Mohamed Abdallah tries to explain why he still wants to risk crossing the Mediterranean Sea in an inflatable boat. He sits in a migrant detention centre in Zawya, Libya, surrounded by hundreds of fellow asylum seekers who nearly died this week at sea.

They survived only after being intercepted, detained and brought back to shore by Libyan coastguards, ending a week in which they went round in circles, starving and utterly lost. But despite their horror stories, Abdallah, 21, says the journey that his fellow inmates barely withstood – and that killed more than 450 others this week – is his only option.

“I cannot go back to my country,” says Abdallah, who is from Darfur, in Sudan. He left for what is now South Sudan in 2006, after he says his village was destroyed in the Darfur war, his father died, and his sisters raped. But in South Sudan, another war later broke out. So he made his way through the Sahara, a journey that he says killed his brother and cousin, to Libya. And there last year, he was witness to his third civil war in a decade – a war that still drags on, its frontline just a few miles from the camp at Zawya.

“There is a war in my country, there’s no security, no equality, no freedom,” Abdallah says. “But if I stay here, it’s just like my country. There is no security, there is violence. When you work, they take your money.”

He worked in a soap shop, and saved up to pay local smugglers for the boat to Europe. But just as he hoped to complete the payment, he was robbed, and then arrested. The recounting of his ordeal brings out first the tears, and then a conclusion: “I need to go to Europe.”

Please read this important article on the plight of African migrants in Libya:  Risking death in the Mediterranean: the least bad option for so many migrants