pleatedjeans:

sara-meow:

Cat vs. The Paper Army

[video]

Reblogging this for a certain kitty =V

(via mrpandragon)

darkoverord:

Tagged by abstractpumpkin for the show your desktop thingiemebob. I did admittedly have to cycle though a couple of NSFW desktops I MEAN.
Art is by Franpaccio/gotpineapple (NSFW link though, you can see the sketch for it in his BG though!) who I hope doesn’t get weirded out now because I have this pic in my desktop rotation ‘cus it’s adorbs.
I GUESS I TAG LIKE, crimjims, rojack-vanato AND UH. bluetailfox



I suppose I should get round to reblogging this! This could have gone so much worse, so, so many of my desktops are NSFW =V
Artist is Ada Oz.
And I tag uhh coffeecollie

darkoverord:

Tagged by abstractpumpkin for the show your desktop thingiemebob. I did admittedly have to cycle though a couple of NSFW desktops I MEAN.

Art is by Franpaccio/gotpineapple (NSFW link though, you can see the sketch for it in his BG though!) who I hope doesn’t get weirded out now because I have this pic in my desktop rotation ‘cus it’s adorbs.

I GUESS I TAG LIKE, crimjims, rojack-vanato AND UH. bluetailfox

I suppose I should get round to reblogging this! This could have gone so much worse, so, so many of my desktops are NSFW =V

Artist is Ada Oz.

And I tag uhh coffeecollie

lucinater:

i love pokemon shaming omg

lucinater:

i love pokemon shaming omg

(via hydroxianchaos)

asker

just-a-kobold-bard asked: Pssst... The "widowbird" you show there is actually a male Paradise Whydah, family Viduidae. Widowbirds are members of the family Ploceidae. You can tell because widowbirds have red on their shoulders while Paradise Whydahs have red on their chest and yellow on the back of their head. Same concept you talk about applies to these guys, but cool thing about whydahs is that they are obligate brood parasites and mimic the song and nestling mouth patterns of their host!

backinasex:

just-a-kobold-bard:

koryos:

WHOOPS

Clearly I don’t have much of a background in ornithology, haha. Thanks for the heads-up!

Here’s an an actual male widowbird (I’ll edit the post as well):

image

EDIT: Also, the bit about them being brood parasites is super interesting in the context of sexual selection! In the absence of the females needing to invest much parental care for their young one would think they could afford to be less choosy (then again producing eggs is still much more of an investment than producing sperm). 

I KNOW RIGHT?!?

The Viduidae are an AWESOME family of birds… half of them are the indigobirds, which all essentially look alike with only slight variations in plumage and beak/feet color (like, look this species is black iridescent blue and this other species is black iridescent green, oooh different), but each have different songs that mimic the different host species they parasitize. It has been shown that they have probably speciated because of host-switching. 

And then the other half of the family are those whack-jobs with the stupid tails, whydahs. I actually have a male Eastern Paradise Whydah as a pet, hence how I immediately went “wait, that’s not a widowbird.” He is super-sexy when he is in plumage.

But why do only a portion of the Viduidae have crazy sexual dimorphism? I’d bet something with habitat and ability to broadcast visual versus acoustic displays or somesuch, but I dunno if anyone has really looked at it.

However, my favorite thing that all the Viduidae do is closely mimic the gape (mouth) patterns of their hosts… it is like some crazy arms race where hosts are trying to identify parasites and parasites are trying to mimic hosts. I mean, look at this shit:
image

The big one on the right is the Purple Indigobird (parasite) nestling, the rest are the host species, Jameson’s Firefinch. Here’s a closer look at the mouth patterns, which are pretty damn complex:
image

Definitely some awesome evolution going on there.

Pictures are from here. More information on indigobirds can be found here. Sadly, not as much has been done with the whydahs… maybe that’s what I’ll do for my post-doc. :)

my favorite part of sexual selection is how fucking random it can be. we evo biologists often try to look for fitness correlates, and sure, there is something to be said for a widowbird surviving with that utterly ridiculous tail (i.e., sexual selection is only kept in check by natural selection), and yeah, carotenoid content (which accounts for a lot of red/orange/yellow coloration, which is a relatively common sexually selected trait in birds) can actually be a direct indicator of fitness in some taxa.

but then you have like the female mandrills sitting around like yeah, you’re cute and all, but you know what would be /really/ sexy? if your ass and your nose matched.

image

and if you could have them match using a weirdly cheerful blue color, that’d be great. come back in like three generations.

fractal-edge:

tonyabbot:

scary-monsters-and-davesprite:

lonelyinsomniac:

samsaranmusing:

image

Orbital path of asteroid near miss in 2002. Yah, that’s how close we came to nuclear winter and possible total destruction.

A visitor.

It’s like it’s trying so hard to hit us and it just can’t do it

IT ONLY FUCKING LEFT BECAUSE THE MOON GRAVITATIONAL SLINGSHOTED IT AWAY

Sorry this has been really bugging me since I first saw it. It seemed pretty unlikely we would have had an asteroid that could cause ‘nuclear winter and total destruction’ inside the orbit of the moon without there being so much as a blip in the news.

So I looked closely at this gif and got the designation number off the orbiting ‘asteroid’. J002E3.

So what was J002E3? Well not an asteroid, and certainly not big enough to be a threat that’s for sure:

Given the spectrum analysis done it’s a part of the Apollo moon rockets. Which is pretty nifty in it’s own right given it’s waltzed out of orbit, back in, been slung off by the moon and is expected to come home for a visit around 2040.

(via sendmcnuggetsnotnudes)

asker

Anonymous asked: What is chase-away selection?

koryos:

In preparation for answering this question I dipped my toes back into the cesspool of sexual selection theories and MAN is it just a hot sweaty mess. Utterly fascinating, of course, but just a mess.

Ok, so chase-away selection theory. To understand where it comes from, you’ve got to understand a few basic things about sexual selection itself.

We all know what natural selection is, right? Animals that have genetic traits that mean they live long enough to breed get to pass on those traits to their offspring, thereby creating a population with higher and higher percentages of those high-survival traits. Here’s a chart showing what I mean.

image

(POOR JIM)

Sexual selection is the evolution of the selection of mates. And here’s where it gets really weird. And complicated. Because sometimes what animals find sexy is also what tends to get them killed. Like, check out this male widowbird.

image

You may not have noticed, but this fellow has a rather long tail. This tail actually gets in the way of flying. Which is important, because birds that have trouble flying tend to be… you know… eaten. That makes it difficult to pass on your genes.

image

JIM.

Here’s what the female widowbird looks like, by the way.

image

You may notice a few differences. Ok, so why does the male of the species look so photoshopped when the female doesn’t? You guys probably already know the answer: it’s because the female gets to be the one that chooses the mates in this species, and they choose males with unrealistic-expectation tails.

The real question is why. Why do the females get to do the choosing, why do they choose tails, why would ANYTHING evolve that lowers an animal’s chances of survival?

Read More

bessibels:

neverbat:

mylittledraenei:

blue-author:

addictinginfo:

Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level. 

This is basic economic fact.
A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses. That major multinational corporations can be “successful” while failing to meet a basic operating expense is only possible because We The People pick up their greedy/lazy slack through taxes and charity. 
And yet somehow it’s everybody else who’s a moocher and a looter…
And this corrosive greed is a big part of what’s slowly poisoning the U.S. economy. Money being hoarded at the top and put in “safe” investments and bank accounts is money that does nothing for no one. It’s just an elaborate means of keeping score. Money put into the hands of the workers does what money is meant to do: it circulates. It gets spent. The same dollar will go through dozens of sets of hands, touching dozens of lives, feeding dozens of people and sparking profits for dozens of businesses. The same dollar, in the hands of the rich, will generally do… nothing. It won’t create jobs. It won’t fund innovations. It won’t start businesses.
Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for workers. Less than 3% of the wealthy are actually entrepreneurs (people who risk their money on business ventures that create jobs). 
But 100% of the working class spends their money. That money creates jobs. That money fuels innovations. That money becomes profits. That money keeps the economy ticking.
We have been lied to about who are the parasites and who are the drivers of the economy. We have largely accepted a view of money as a means of keeping score and the economy as something that must have winners and losers, rather than money being a proxy for barter and an economy being a way to divide the labor of society and distribute the load of living

#poverty #classism

"A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses."

"Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for the workers."

bessibels:

neverbat:

mylittledraenei:

blue-author:

addictinginfo:

Minimum wage should be linked to the poverty level. 

This is basic economic fact.

A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses. That major multinational corporations can be “successful” while failing to meet a basic operating expense is only possible because We The People pick up their greedy/lazy slack through taxes and charity. 

And yet somehow it’s everybody else who’s a moocher and a looter…

And this corrosive greed is a big part of what’s slowly poisoning the U.S. economy. Money being hoarded at the top and put in “safe” investments and bank accounts is money that does nothing for no one. It’s just an elaborate means of keeping score. Money put into the hands of the workers does what money is meant to do: it circulates. It gets spent. The same dollar will go through dozens of sets of hands, touching dozens of lives, feeding dozens of people and sparking profits for dozens of businesses. The same dollar, in the hands of the rich, will generally do… nothing. It won’t create jobs. It won’t fund innovations. It won’t start businesses.

Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for workers. Less than 3% of the wealthy are actually entrepreneurs (people who risk their money on business ventures that create jobs). 

But 100% of the working class spends their money. That money creates jobs. That money fuels innovations. That money becomes profits. That money keeps the economy ticking.

We have been lied to about who are the parasites and who are the drivers of the economy. We have largely accepted a view of money as a means of keeping score and the economy as something that must have winners and losers, rather than money being a proxy for barter and an economy being a way to divide the labor of society and distribute the load of living

#poverty #classism

"A business that claims it can’t afford to pay a living wage to its workers is admitting that by definition it fails to meet its basic operating expenses."

"Less than 1% of corporate revenues become wages for the workers."

(via origomg)

darkoverord:

I tried to do things and not sure if I like it but oh well experimentation yay?

ooooooooo!

darkoverord:

I tried to do things and not sure if I like it but oh well experimentation yay?

ooooooooo!

facts-i-just-made-up:

Stalactite supervisor John Sato examines new formations with disappointment.
"A proper stalactite grows downward," said Sato, "But these younger stalactites are rebellious and have little respect for tradition. We’ve caught them growing sideways, diagonally, I saw one just yesterday that grew down at first but then went straight back up again into the rock ceiling."
Numerous theories abound as to why the stalactites are growing more bold. Some blame global warming for chemical shifts in the dripping minerals. Others feel television is to blame. But Sato has another theory:
"Many stalactites today come from modern rock. Classic rock held superior morals and produced straight stalactites. But modern rock, such as hard rock or acidic rock aren’t so solid. To keep stalactites on course, we must examine both the rocks and the role played by the minerals, the substance they communicate downward. Only with a comprehensive study of rock and role will we come to an understanding of the problem, and begin to move toward a solution. Such as an opaline silica solution, or a 50% fluorite solution."
Others feel that blaming rock is a cop-out, and that the problem lies with society’s standard of binary geological roles. Said Peter Saenz of GLAAD (Geological Land Appraisal And Diagnostics), “Who are we to say a stalactite has to be straight and hook up with a stalagmite? Maybe some stalactites are meant to meet other stalactites, maybe some stalactites want to find their own way through the caves. It’s not for us to dictate.”
This viewpoint has proven controversial, with high ranking clergy at the Vatican stating, “The Bible clearly states that speleothems are between one stalactite and one stalagmite, and that it is the stalactite’s role to descend upon the other.”
Peter Saenz retorts that the Vatican needs to mind its own business about what others go down on.

facts-i-just-made-up:

Stalactite supervisor John Sato examines new formations with disappointment.

"A proper stalactite grows downward," said Sato, "But these younger stalactites are rebellious and have little respect for tradition. We’ve caught them growing sideways, diagonally, I saw one just yesterday that grew down at first but then went straight back up again into the rock ceiling."

Numerous theories abound as to why the stalactites are growing more bold. Some blame global warming for chemical shifts in the dripping minerals. Others feel television is to blame. But Sato has another theory:

"Many stalactites today come from modern rock. Classic rock held superior morals and produced straight stalactites. But modern rock, such as hard rock or acidic rock aren’t so solid. To keep stalactites on course, we must examine both the rocks and the role played by the minerals, the substance they communicate downward. Only with a comprehensive study of rock and role will we come to an understanding of the problem, and begin to move toward a solution. Such as an opaline silica solution, or a 50% fluorite solution."

Others feel that blaming rock is a cop-out, and that the problem lies with society’s standard of binary geological roles. Said Peter Saenz of GLAAD (Geological Land Appraisal And Diagnostics), “Who are we to say a stalactite has to be straight and hook up with a stalagmite? Maybe some stalactites are meant to meet other stalactites, maybe some stalactites want to find their own way through the caves. It’s not for us to dictate.”

This viewpoint has proven controversial, with high ranking clergy at the Vatican stating, “The Bible clearly states that speleothems are between one stalactite and one stalagmite, and that it is the stalactite’s role to descend upon the other.”

Peter Saenz retorts that the Vatican needs to mind its own business about what others go down on.

(via procyonvulpecula)