classified

🔥 | Latest

classified: jesssssSS my2k reminder: this woman leaked proof that Russians hacked into voting machine software, and they put her in jail The Vancouver Sun@VancouverSun Why do millennials keep leaking government secrets? ebx.sh/2ragGeK simonalkenmayer: memor-somnis: weavemama: fuggles: weavemama: she should have been rewarded. Y'all got sources? yeah so more information about this woman who leaked important information pertaining russia’s involvement in the election:  Her name is “Reality Leigh Winner” and she was a NSA Contractor. She passed a top secret NSA document to a news source (an article from The Intercept) that contains information about a Russian cyber-attack with one voting machine DAYS before the 2016 presidential election. This is considered the most detailed piece of proof regarding Russia’s interference with the elections to date.  Here’s how the NSA document described how the Russians did the hacking:  “As described by the classified NSA report, the Russian plan was simple: pose as an e-voting vendor and trick local government employees into opening Microsoft Word documents invisibly tainted with potent malware that could give hackers full control over the infected computers. But in order to dupe the local officials, the hackers needed access to an election software vendor’s internal systems to put together a convincing disguise. So on August 24, 2016, the Russian hackers sent spoofed emails purporting to be from Google to employees of an unnamed U.S. election software company, according to the NSA report. Although the document does not directly identify the company in question, it contains references to a product made by VR Systems, a Florida-based vendor of electronic voting services and equipment whose products are used in eight states. The spear-phishing email contained a link directing the employees to a malicious, faux-Google website that would request their login credentials and then hand them over to the hackers. The NSA identified seven “potential victims” at the company. While malicious emails targeting three of the potential victims were rejected by an email server, at least one of the employee accounts was likely compromised, the agency concluded. The NSA notes in its report that it is “unknown whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised all the intended victims, and what potential data from the victim could have been exfiltrated.” So instead of having Trump and his entire party removed, they gon throw home girl in jail and try to act like none of this happened. Her name, Reality Winner, is ironic in this context.
classified: jesssssSS my2k reminder: this woman leaked proof that Russians hacked into voting machine software, and they put her in jail The Vancouver Sun@VancouverSun Why do millennials keep leaking government secrets? ebx.sh/2ragGeK simonalkenmayer: memor-somnis: weavemama: fuggles: weavemama: she should have been rewarded. Y'all got sources? yeah so more information about this woman who leaked important information pertaining russia’s involvement in the election:  Her name is “Reality Leigh Winner” and she was a NSA Contractor. She passed a top secret NSA document to a news source (an article from The Intercept) that contains information about a Russian cyber-attack with one voting machine DAYS before the 2016 presidential election. This is considered the most detailed piece of proof regarding Russia’s interference with the elections to date.  Here’s how the NSA document described how the Russians did the hacking:  “As described by the classified NSA report, the Russian plan was simple: pose as an e-voting vendor and trick local government employees into opening Microsoft Word documents invisibly tainted with potent malware that could give hackers full control over the infected computers. But in order to dupe the local officials, the hackers needed access to an election software vendor’s internal systems to put together a convincing disguise. So on August 24, 2016, the Russian hackers sent spoofed emails purporting to be from Google to employees of an unnamed U.S. election software company, according to the NSA report. Although the document does not directly identify the company in question, it contains references to a product made by VR Systems, a Florida-based vendor of electronic voting services and equipment whose products are used in eight states. The spear-phishing email contained a link directing the employees to a malicious, faux-Google website that would request their login credentials and then hand them over to the hackers. The NSA identified seven “potential victims” at the company. While malicious emails targeting three of the potential victims were rejected by an email server, at least one of the employee accounts was likely compromised, the agency concluded. The NSA notes in its report that it is “unknown whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised all the intended victims, and what potential data from the victim could have been exfiltrated.” So instead of having Trump and his entire party removed, they gon throw home girl in jail and try to act like none of this happened. Her name, Reality Winner, is ironic in this context.

simonalkenmayer: memor-somnis: weavemama: fuggles: weavemama: she should have been rewarded. Y'all got sources? yeah so more info...

classified: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
classified: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate...

classified: (Ja)ded @thefathippy 20h maooo000 Judy Harris Yesterday at 5:04 PM. 0+ Why the zoo charge us to look at animals they stole? this ain't even yall shit Sharon @MySharona1987 Replying to @thefathippy To be fair, they are doing a lot to help pandas screw. 4:56 AM- 11 Jul 2018 mysharona1987: little-butch-crouton: severelynerdysheep: somehavegonemissing: spookyboyfelix: princess-nakamoto: mysharona1987: No, seriously: I do think zoos do a *lot* of good. Much of the time. It’s not necessarily a Seaworld situation. Yeah a lot of animals don’t even have habitats anymore anyway. So zoos are just giving them a home. Even if people come to see them nearly everyday, its better then being kicked out of their habitat eventually by man. The funds from zoos are often used to feed the animals anyway (most zoos are non profit they cant use that money for people) if you pay to go to the zoo you are paying to keep those animals alive Zoos also educate people about animals, allowing for people to fall in love with the weird and wonderful. They help promote habitat preservation and putting a stop to poaching. Please don’t dismiss zoos, they’re not the same places as they used to be in the 1800s, or even the mid 1900s. So while Zoos are absolutely miles better than they were historical, there are still many serious issues. In terms of education, while I totally get why most people believe that zoos teach people (children especially) about how to protect animals and their habitats and are great places of education, this is not actually the case. In reality viewing captive animals in zoos only teaches people how animals react to boredom, depression, and stress in captive situations. The most effective methods of education in zoos come via presenting videos, documentaries, interactive modules, graphic displays, and computer simulations. which all show animals in their natural environments and do not require any animals to actually be kept in zoos. In terms of the work Zoos to in regards to species conservation and habitat preservation, zoos really are not effective, especially compared to other conservation and preservation work. While there are zoos that do good conservation work, most of the significant conservation work is not from zoos but other organizations that work with wildlife and natural habitats. Most animals in captivity are not even classified as endangered, with the priority of Zoos being in getting hold of animals popular with visitors, rather than those who face extinction. When it comes to breeding programs (and breeding animals in captivity aren’t the best way to help in conservation)   zoos do spend plenty of money on these programs however half of the animals being bred by Zoos are not classed as endangered in the wild and 25% are not threatened species but ones popular with visitors. It’s also actually massively more expensive to keep animals captive in zoos than to protect equivalent numbers of them in the wild! When it comes to the research, few Zoos actually support meaningful scientific research (with fewer employing scientists with full-time research jobs) and of those that do employ scientists its common for these scientists to study free-living animals rather than those within the zoo. Due to the nature of any research that does take place in zoos, the results of this research also generates little information about how to best conserve species in the wild as studies of captive animals have limited benefits to animals in the wild and animals brought up in captivity are less likely to survive in the wild if reintroduced as they often don’t have the natural behaviors needed for survival in the wild. More effective methods of habitat preservation and species conservations would be a multipronged approach tackling habitat loss and climate change, investing in conservation programs in the wild, education, working with local communities, seriously addressing poaching etc. and also to move away from the Zoo model towards more ethical and effective models of species conservation.  Just a few of the other ethical issues with Zoos include surplus animals, who, when grow older, and are less attractive to patrons, will often be sold or killed. Animals who breed frequently also are sometimes sold to game farms and ranches where hunters pay to kill them and other surplus animals are sometimes sold to roadside zoos,, private individuals, animal dealers, or to laboratories for experimentation purposes. The animals not sold often end up being fed to other zoo animals. In terms of the health of these captive animals, many develop health conditions and mental health problems such as Zoochosis. Of course, a major problem with zoos as well is that the animals who live there are kept in enclosures that don’t allow them to live their lives in a natural way and don’t compare with the natural habitat the animals were meant to be in. Zoo animals have to spend day after day, week after week, year after year in the exact same enclosure. This makes their lives very monotonous. Take elephants, for example, elephants in the wild, are used to traveling many miles a day in herds of about ten related adults and their offspring but in zoos are usually kept in pairs or even isolated in incredibly small enclosures compared to what they are used to in the wild. Elephants kept in zoos often show many signs of being mental distress and the average lifespan of elephants in zoos is around 16-18 years, instead of the 50-70 years they can live in the wild. I’m just going to copy paste your response when people ask me what I’m going to school for. I’m very pro zoo and I want animals in their natural habitat just as much. This is genuinely quite an interesting discussion.
classified: (Ja)ded @thefathippy 20h maooo000 Judy Harris Yesterday at 5:04 PM. 0+ Why the zoo charge us to look at animals they stole? this ain't even yall shit Sharon @MySharona1987 Replying to @thefathippy To be fair, they are doing a lot to help pandas screw. 4:56 AM- 11 Jul 2018 mysharona1987: little-butch-crouton: severelynerdysheep: somehavegonemissing: spookyboyfelix: princess-nakamoto: mysharona1987: No, seriously: I do think zoos do a *lot* of good. Much of the time. It’s not necessarily a Seaworld situation. Yeah a lot of animals don’t even have habitats anymore anyway. So zoos are just giving them a home. Even if people come to see them nearly everyday, its better then being kicked out of their habitat eventually by man. The funds from zoos are often used to feed the animals anyway (most zoos are non profit they cant use that money for people) if you pay to go to the zoo you are paying to keep those animals alive Zoos also educate people about animals, allowing for people to fall in love with the weird and wonderful. They help promote habitat preservation and putting a stop to poaching. Please don’t dismiss zoos, they’re not the same places as they used to be in the 1800s, or even the mid 1900s. So while Zoos are absolutely miles better than they were historical, there are still many serious issues. In terms of education, while I totally get why most people believe that zoos teach people (children especially) about how to protect animals and their habitats and are great places of education, this is not actually the case. In reality viewing captive animals in zoos only teaches people how animals react to boredom, depression, and stress in captive situations. The most effective methods of education in zoos come via presenting videos, documentaries, interactive modules, graphic displays, and computer simulations. which all show animals in their natural environments and do not require any animals to actually be kept in zoos. In terms of the work Zoos to in regards to species conservation and habitat preservation, zoos really are not effective, especially compared to other conservation and preservation work. While there are zoos that do good conservation work, most of the significant conservation work is not from zoos but other organizations that work with wildlife and natural habitats. Most animals in captivity are not even classified as endangered, with the priority of Zoos being in getting hold of animals popular with visitors, rather than those who face extinction. When it comes to breeding programs (and breeding animals in captivity aren’t the best way to help in conservation)   zoos do spend plenty of money on these programs however half of the animals being bred by Zoos are not classed as endangered in the wild and 25% are not threatened species but ones popular with visitors. It’s also actually massively more expensive to keep animals captive in zoos than to protect equivalent numbers of them in the wild! When it comes to the research, few Zoos actually support meaningful scientific research (with fewer employing scientists with full-time research jobs) and of those that do employ scientists its common for these scientists to study free-living animals rather than those within the zoo. Due to the nature of any research that does take place in zoos, the results of this research also generates little information about how to best conserve species in the wild as studies of captive animals have limited benefits to animals in the wild and animals brought up in captivity are less likely to survive in the wild if reintroduced as they often don’t have the natural behaviors needed for survival in the wild. More effective methods of habitat preservation and species conservations would be a multipronged approach tackling habitat loss and climate change, investing in conservation programs in the wild, education, working with local communities, seriously addressing poaching etc. and also to move away from the Zoo model towards more ethical and effective models of species conservation.  Just a few of the other ethical issues with Zoos include surplus animals, who, when grow older, and are less attractive to patrons, will often be sold or killed. Animals who breed frequently also are sometimes sold to game farms and ranches where hunters pay to kill them and other surplus animals are sometimes sold to roadside zoos,, private individuals, animal dealers, or to laboratories for experimentation purposes. The animals not sold often end up being fed to other zoo animals. In terms of the health of these captive animals, many develop health conditions and mental health problems such as Zoochosis. Of course, a major problem with zoos as well is that the animals who live there are kept in enclosures that don’t allow them to live their lives in a natural way and don’t compare with the natural habitat the animals were meant to be in. Zoo animals have to spend day after day, week after week, year after year in the exact same enclosure. This makes their lives very monotonous. Take elephants, for example, elephants in the wild, are used to traveling many miles a day in herds of about ten related adults and their offspring but in zoos are usually kept in pairs or even isolated in incredibly small enclosures compared to what they are used to in the wild. Elephants kept in zoos often show many signs of being mental distress and the average lifespan of elephants in zoos is around 16-18 years, instead of the 50-70 years they can live in the wild. I’m just going to copy paste your response when people ask me what I’m going to school for. I’m very pro zoo and I want animals in their natural habitat just as much. This is genuinely quite an interesting discussion.

mysharona1987: little-butch-crouton: severelynerdysheep: somehavegonemissing: spookyboyfelix: princess-nakamoto: mysharona1987: N...

classified: chikaden thinksquad Here is a Science fair project presented by a girt ina secondary school in Sussex. In it she took fitered water and divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to boling in a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to boiling In a microwave. Then ater cooling she used the water to water two identical plants to see if there would be any difterence in the growth between the normal boiled water and the water boiled in a microwave. She was thinking that the structure or energy of the water may be compromised by class mates a number of times and had the same resut It has been known for some years that the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to wory about, it's how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not it. Microwaves don't work different ways on different substances. Whatever you put into the microwave sutfers the same destructive process. Microwaves agitate the molecules to move faster and faster. This movement causes friction which denatures the oniginal make-up of the substance. i results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature So the body wraps it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates it fast. Think of all the Mothers heating up milk in these Safe appliances What about the nurse i Canada that warmed up blood for a transfusion patient and accidentally killed him when the blood went in dead. But the makers say it's safe. But proof is in the pictures of living plants dying NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANTASSWIPES SOME KID'S CLASS PROJECT IS NOT REAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. YOUVE HEARD OF DOUBLE BLIND", RIGHT? CALL ME WHEN IT'S PUBLISHED IN NATURE or energy of the water what the fuck does that even mean you realize that a water molecule is made up of three fucking atoms and if you rearrange it t isn't water anymore and you would fucking notice the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation Here is a handy diagram I drew of all the difterent types of THE ELECTRO/VAGNETİC SPECTRUM CANCER Microwaves l nuclear reactors, so calm your tits ts how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not do you understand what DNA is and how eating works? DNA is a jumble of protein in the middle of each cell and it tells the cells in that particular organism how to make more ceils. Your body does not care about whether your food has any DNA in it or not The chemicals it cares about are things lke vitamins and sugars, as well as inorganic shit like satl (You can denature DNA by heating it or using chemicals like urea. It is ike what happens when you try an egg, which is basically a big glob of protein-the strands break apart and it looks like tiny white strings. Very cooll) I MAJUwaves dyuase uite îINeLuES เบา.IUve lastei diiu idslei I. just. .that is heating something over a flame or in a microwave or using the Sun. The difference is that microwaves mostly affect the water molecules in your food and they don't need to use as much heat Water boils at 100 C, which is just about as hot as water can get before it just turns into steam, but that's like the kwest setting on your oven. Oven-or stove-cooked food tastes different partly because it uses higher temperatures and partly because heat is way This movement causes friction That's not what friction is It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature Let's take these one at a time Vitamins are classified as water-soluble or fat-soluble So cooking things in water will dissolve the water-soluble vitamins (C and all the B's). Just plain heat doesn't do that, s0 Proteins: Breaking the chemical bonds in proteins (denaturing) is a part of any cooking. However, denatured protein is stl nutritious that's why you can meet your protein intake with foods like fried eggs and baked chicken Minerals are just chemical elements, like off the periodic table sodium, iron, potassium. (Vitamins and proteins are very complex combinations of elements) Which brings me to the radiolytic compound" bullshit. When you talk about breaking apart, say, iron-you're talking about breaking down the ron atoms themselves. Which is a whole lot different than breaking the bonds between atoms. It takes hella radiation. You need shit like gamma rays-the O0OH SCARY NUCULAR radiation-which we've already established do not come from your microwave things that are not found in nature What the shit does that even mean? You all know radioactive elements occur in nature, right? In rocks and also in living cells That's right, you have this radioactive kind of carbon INSIDE YOU You get it by eating those delicious plants. We can tell how long Tons of shit that occurs naturaly is hornibly bad for you. And tons of shit that never existed until we cooked it up is great for you- like the chemical compounds in a lot of medications. PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS SHIT ARE WHY CHILDHOOD DISEASES THAT CAUSED SERIOUS ILLNESSES ANDIOR DEATH THAT WE NEARLY ERADICATED WITH VACCINES ARE NOW COMING BACK AND WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIST TWATS ARE ASKING CITY COUNCIL NOT TO FLUORIDATE THE WATER AND WHY GLOBAL WARMING WILL WRECK OUR FUCKING PLANET LERN 2 SCIENCE. Think before you reblog. And microwave your This was incredibly amusing to read. Thank you so much for sciencing achieved I found this somewhere and just had to share
classified: chikaden thinksquad Here is a Science fair project presented by a girt ina secondary school in Sussex. In it she took fitered water and divided it into two parts. The first part she heated to boling in a pan on the stove, and the second part she heated to boiling In a microwave. Then ater cooling she used the water to water two identical plants to see if there would be any difterence in the growth between the normal boiled water and the water boiled in a microwave. She was thinking that the structure or energy of the water may be compromised by class mates a number of times and had the same resut It has been known for some years that the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation people used to wory about, it's how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not it. Microwaves don't work different ways on different substances. Whatever you put into the microwave sutfers the same destructive process. Microwaves agitate the molecules to move faster and faster. This movement causes friction which denatures the oniginal make-up of the substance. i results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature So the body wraps it in fat cells to protect itself from the dead food or it eliminates it fast. Think of all the Mothers heating up milk in these Safe appliances What about the nurse i Canada that warmed up blood for a transfusion patient and accidentally killed him when the blood went in dead. But the makers say it's safe. But proof is in the pictures of living plants dying NO, YOU PIG-IGNORANTASSWIPES SOME KID'S CLASS PROJECT IS NOT REAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. YOUVE HEARD OF DOUBLE BLIND", RIGHT? CALL ME WHEN IT'S PUBLISHED IN NATURE or energy of the water what the fuck does that even mean you realize that a water molecule is made up of three fucking atoms and if you rearrange it t isn't water anymore and you would fucking notice the problem with microwaved anything is not the radiation Here is a handy diagram I drew of all the difterent types of THE ELECTRO/VAGNETİC SPECTRUM CANCER Microwaves l nuclear reactors, so calm your tits ts how it corrupts the DNA in the food so the body can not do you understand what DNA is and how eating works? DNA is a jumble of protein in the middle of each cell and it tells the cells in that particular organism how to make more ceils. Your body does not care about whether your food has any DNA in it or not The chemicals it cares about are things lke vitamins and sugars, as well as inorganic shit like satl (You can denature DNA by heating it or using chemicals like urea. It is ike what happens when you try an egg, which is basically a big glob of protein-the strands break apart and it looks like tiny white strings. Very cooll) I MAJUwaves dyuase uite îINeLuES เบา.IUve lastei diiu idslei I. just. .that is heating something over a flame or in a microwave or using the Sun. The difference is that microwaves mostly affect the water molecules in your food and they don't need to use as much heat Water boils at 100 C, which is just about as hot as water can get before it just turns into steam, but that's like the kwest setting on your oven. Oven-or stove-cooked food tastes different partly because it uses higher temperatures and partly because heat is way This movement causes friction That's not what friction is It results in destroyed vitamins, minerals, proteins and generates the new stuff called radiolytic compounds, things that are not found in nature Let's take these one at a time Vitamins are classified as water-soluble or fat-soluble So cooking things in water will dissolve the water-soluble vitamins (C and all the B's). Just plain heat doesn't do that, s0 Proteins: Breaking the chemical bonds in proteins (denaturing) is a part of any cooking. However, denatured protein is stl nutritious that's why you can meet your protein intake with foods like fried eggs and baked chicken Minerals are just chemical elements, like off the periodic table sodium, iron, potassium. (Vitamins and proteins are very complex combinations of elements) Which brings me to the radiolytic compound" bullshit. When you talk about breaking apart, say, iron-you're talking about breaking down the ron atoms themselves. Which is a whole lot different than breaking the bonds between atoms. It takes hella radiation. You need shit like gamma rays-the O0OH SCARY NUCULAR radiation-which we've already established do not come from your microwave things that are not found in nature What the shit does that even mean? You all know radioactive elements occur in nature, right? In rocks and also in living cells That's right, you have this radioactive kind of carbon INSIDE YOU You get it by eating those delicious plants. We can tell how long Tons of shit that occurs naturaly is hornibly bad for you. And tons of shit that never existed until we cooked it up is great for you- like the chemical compounds in a lot of medications. PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS SHIT ARE WHY CHILDHOOD DISEASES THAT CAUSED SERIOUS ILLNESSES ANDIOR DEATH THAT WE NEARLY ERADICATED WITH VACCINES ARE NOW COMING BACK AND WHY CONSPIRACY THEORIST TWATS ARE ASKING CITY COUNCIL NOT TO FLUORIDATE THE WATER AND WHY GLOBAL WARMING WILL WRECK OUR FUCKING PLANET LERN 2 SCIENCE. Think before you reblog. And microwave your This was incredibly amusing to read. Thank you so much for sciencing achieved I found this somewhere and just had to share

I found this somewhere and just had to share

classified: If you're pronounced dead when your heart stops beating... Fetal heartbeat 18 days after conception ..why aren't you pronounced alive when your heart starts beating? Be My Voice goandannouce Actually you're not considered dead when your heart stops beating. This is why many medical professionals still try to revive those whose hearts have stopped. Because medicine and science has found that death is not considered when your heart as stopped, but once all brain activity has ceased. Which is why they usually have around six minutes before there is no chance to revive. Because when the heart has stopped, your brain cells are deprived of oxygen and start to die. Fetuses do not have regular brain activity until 25 weeks. At this point in gestation the only time an abortion would be performed is out of medical necessity to save the mother's life, or to spare the fetus from a short and painful life. These only make up 1 % of all abortions. And therefore by this argument, but with the knowledge of what is actually classified as death, a fetus isn't 'alive' until roughly 25 weeks. Far after 99% of abortions are performed Please do actual research before trying to use emotional manipulative photos of babies that are born and NOT fetusesbefore parading it out and believing it as fact, Because you are only seriously misinforming yourself, and many others and furthering contributing to a movement that tries to control women's bodies, when what they do with it does not affect Professional choice
classified: If you're pronounced dead when your heart stops beating... Fetal heartbeat 18 days after conception ..why aren't you pronounced alive when your heart starts beating? Be My Voice goandannouce Actually you're not considered dead when your heart stops beating. This is why many medical professionals still try to revive those whose hearts have stopped. Because medicine and science has found that death is not considered when your heart as stopped, but once all brain activity has ceased. Which is why they usually have around six minutes before there is no chance to revive. Because when the heart has stopped, your brain cells are deprived of oxygen and start to die. Fetuses do not have regular brain activity until 25 weeks. At this point in gestation the only time an abortion would be performed is out of medical necessity to save the mother's life, or to spare the fetus from a short and painful life. These only make up 1 % of all abortions. And therefore by this argument, but with the knowledge of what is actually classified as death, a fetus isn't 'alive' until roughly 25 weeks. Far after 99% of abortions are performed Please do actual research before trying to use emotional manipulative photos of babies that are born and NOT fetusesbefore parading it out and believing it as fact, Because you are only seriously misinforming yourself, and many others and furthering contributing to a movement that tries to control women's bodies, when what they do with it does not affect Professional choice

Professional choice

classified: Physicist Wins Noble Prize For Study On Whether Cats Should Be Classified As Liquids Or Solids
classified: Physicist Wins Noble Prize For Study On Whether Cats Should Be Classified As Liquids Or Solids

Physicist Wins Noble Prize For Study On Whether Cats Should Be Classified As Liquids Or Solids

classified: Physicist Wins Noble Prize For Study On Whether Cats Should Be Classified As Liquids Or Solids via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2ra9zAr
classified: Physicist Wins Noble Prize For Study On Whether Cats Should Be Classified As Liquids Or Solids via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2ra9zAr

Physicist Wins Noble Prize For Study On Whether Cats Should Be Classified As Liquids Or Solids via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2ra9zAr

classified: Fictional characters classified by colour. - By @linda_bouderbala - drawing comic 9gag
classified: Fictional characters classified by colour. - By @linda_bouderbala - drawing comic 9gag

Fictional characters classified by colour. - By @linda_bouderbala - drawing comic 9gag

classified: andiamburdenedwithgloriousfeels Do you ever start bullshitting a paper, and then look over it halfway through and think, "...Wait a minute, I could be onto something here. imguiltyofthis this is the definition of college smurflewis Literally I was writing a paper on Asian salt water crocodiles, like a simple about them paper for a college class, and I started noticing some inconsistencies in the scientific papers I was sourcing and I accidentally discovered that the crocodile has been misdiagnosed as least concerned on the endangered species list when they should be classified as endangered and now my professor is having me write a formal report to the international Red List to have them reclassified and all I wanted to do was write this paper on an animal I thought was cool and now I'm considered an expert on this species.. waluwadjet this is how it works half of esteemed biologists trip and fall into their specialty while pursuing something else. one lecturer i just went to started as a biochemist researching antibiotics and discovered that crocodiles change colors based on environment and now he has 30+ crocs in his yard for research purposes and he's just lik.. wait... i'm a chemist..." Source: andiamburden. 575,821 notes True. I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting Girl Interrupted and Prozac Nation- thinking that I loved both but halfway through I realize I hate Prozac Nation and my professor loved it
classified: andiamburdenedwithgloriousfeels Do you ever start bullshitting a paper, and then look over it halfway through and think, "...Wait a minute, I could be onto something here. imguiltyofthis this is the definition of college smurflewis Literally I was writing a paper on Asian salt water crocodiles, like a simple about them paper for a college class, and I started noticing some inconsistencies in the scientific papers I was sourcing and I accidentally discovered that the crocodile has been misdiagnosed as least concerned on the endangered species list when they should be classified as endangered and now my professor is having me write a formal report to the international Red List to have them reclassified and all I wanted to do was write this paper on an animal I thought was cool and now I'm considered an expert on this species.. waluwadjet this is how it works half of esteemed biologists trip and fall into their specialty while pursuing something else. one lecturer i just went to started as a biochemist researching antibiotics and discovered that crocodiles change colors based on environment and now he has 30+ crocs in his yard for research purposes and he's just lik.. wait... i'm a chemist..." Source: andiamburden. 575,821 notes True. I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting Girl Interrupted and Prozac Nation- thinking that I loved both but halfway through I realize I hate Prozac Nation and my professor loved it

True. I wrote a paper comparing and contrasting Girl Interrupted and Prozac Nation- thinking that I loved both but halfway through I real...