.
ZThemes

wired:


Using clever algorithm processing, the app makes it easy to use your phone to create tracking shots and fast, time-lapse videos that look as if they’re shot by Scorsese or Michael Mann. What was once only possible with a Steadicam or a $15,000 tracking rig is now possible on your iPhone, for free. 

[MORE: Hyperlapse, Instagram’s New App, Is Like a $15,000 Video Setup in Your Hand]

wired:

Using clever algorithm processing, the app makes it easy to use your phone to create tracking shots and fast, time-lapse videos that look as if they’re shot by Scorsese or Michael Mann. What was once only possible with a Steadicam or a $15,000 tracking rig is now possible on your iPhone, for free. 

[MORE: Hyperlapse, Instagram’s New App, Is Like a $15,000 Video Setup in Your Hand]

(Source: Wired)

princeburrito:

date people you see yourself walking down Main Street of Disneyland with. 

[F]or the first several years the SAT was offered, males scored higher than females on the Math section but females achieved higher scores on the Verbal section. ETS policy-makers determined that the Verbal test needed to be “balanced” more in favor of males, and added questions pertaining to politics, business and sports to the Verbal portion. Since that time, males have outscored females on both the Math and Verbal sections. Dwyer notes that no similar effort has been made to “balance” the Math section, and concludes that, “It could be done, but it has not been, and I believe that probably an unconscious form of sexism underlies this pattern. When females show the superior performance, ‘balancing’ is required; when males show the superior performance, no adjustments are necessary.”

“Gender Bias in College Admissions Tests”, FairTest.org

And then people urge me everything is fine, of course it is, when you’re ignoring statistics that is.

(via cwnl)

Fun fact: SAT tests predict college performance pretty well for men, but they strongly underpredict college performance for women. http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/20/1948550612469038.abstract

HMMMM

(via brute-reason)

I think I’ve reblogged this before, but that study needs to be shared.

(via conjecturesandconversations)

(Source: aaabbbbbbiiieee)

curlicuecal:

Games with English: insert the word “only” anywhere into the above sentence and consider how the placement changes meaning.

curlicuecal:

Games with English: insert the word “only” anywhere into the above sentence and consider how the placement changes meaning.

Anonymous:
what about Gaza and Ferguson John? do they not deserve your respect? you're such a hypocrite, i's disgusting

fishingboatproceeds:

I think this is a deeply flawed way of looking at the world.

Now, I have talked about Ferguson, and I’ve talked about Gaza. (In fact, I’ve been writing and talking about Israel and Palestine for more than a decade.) But there are many important problems facing the world that I haven’t talked about: I haven’t talked much about the civil war in South Sudan, or the epidemic of suicide among American military personnel, or the persecution of Muslim Rohingya people in Myanmar.

Is that okay? Is it okay for me to talk about, say, racism in football and lowering infant mortality in Ethiopia? Or must we all agree to discuss only  whatever is currently the ascendant news story? Is it disrespectful to Ferguson protesters to talk about continued political oppression in Egypt now that we are no longer reblogging images of the protests in Tahrir Square? I think this is a false choice: If you are talking about Ferguson and I am talking about Ethiopian health care, neither of us is hurting the other.

I think the challenge for activists and philanthropists online is in paying sustained attention, not over days or weeks but over years and decades. And I worry that when we turn our attention constantly from one outrage to another we end up not investing the time and work to facilitate actual change. We say “THE WORLD IS WATCHING,” and it is…until it isn’t. We’ve seen this again and again in Gaza and the West Bank. We’re seeing it in Iran. We’re seeing it in South Sudan. And we’re seeing it in the U.S., from net neutrality to Katrina recovery.

The truth is, these problems are complicated, and when the outrage passes we’re left with big and tangled and nuanced problems. I feel that too often that’s when we stop paying attention, because it gets really hard and there’s always a shiny new problem somewhere else that’s merely outrageous. I hope you’re paying attention to Ferguson in five years, anon, and I hope I am, too. I also hope I’m paying attention to child death in Ethiopia. I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive.

I really don’t want to minimize the effectiveness of online activism, because I know that it works: To use a personal example, I’ve learned a TON from the LGBT+ and sexual assault survivor communities in recent years online. People on tumblr make fun of me for apologizing all the time, but I apologize all the time because I am learning all the time, and every day I’m like, “Oh, man, Current Me has realized that Previous Me was so wrong about this!”

But we can only learn when we can listen. And when you call me a hypocrite for talking about X instead of talking about Y, it makes it really hard to listen.

At times, online discourse to me feels like we just sit in a circle screaming at each other until people get their feelings hurt and withdraw from the conversation, which leaves us with ever-smaller echo chambers, until finally we’re left only with those who entirely agree with us. I don’t think that’s how the overall worldwide level of suck gets decreased.

I might be wrong, of course. I often am. But I think we have to find ways to embrace nuance and complexity online. It’s hard—very, very hard—to make the most generous, most accepting, most forgiving assumptions about others. But I also really do think it’s the best way forward.

nerdnuggets:

jelliclephantomfaces:

chandraleeschwartz:

six-months-from-never:

*sees broom*

*picks up broom*

"TELL THEM HOW I AM DEFYYYYYYYYYING GRAAAAAVITTYYYY"

*starts sweeping broom sadly*

"There is a castle on a cloud…"

*holds broom horizontally*

"Never need a reason, never need a rhyme. Up on the roof top step in time!"

*sweeps broom angrily*

"IT’S A HARD KNOCK LIFE!"

dragonheartedrabbit:

"Waste of good ammo. It’s my privilege to buy you a replacement box."

"All self-respecting whites have a moral responsibility to support our growing number of martyrs to the failed experiment called diversity."

"I thank all Police, you are the ‘Thin Blue Line’ protecting normal Americans from aggressive and entitled primitive savages. America is surely at the tipping point."

Just a few quotes (in case it’s hard to read) from that collection of donation messages for Darren Wilson.

Does anyone else want to say it’s not about race?

Anonymous:
I'm sorry, you said meat is bad. This isn't 100% true. Studies show that when real meat (meaning meat that hasn't been through some unnatural process, with the extreme being McDonalds) is eaten in the correct proportions then it can be beneficial to our health. Now, that essentially means moderation, and picking the right meats. But truthfully, a general good rule in life is everything in moderation. I just think it's unfair and incorrect to say meat is bad period.

edwardspoonhands:

You’re right, meat isn’t necessarily bad for your health (though, to be clear, there’s no data supporting the idea that McDonald’s meat is better or worse than other meat…except that it’s easier to eat a lot of it very quickly, and there’s a ton of salt…and you generally also consume it with fried potatoes and sugar water.)

But yes, there’s nothing wrong with meat in moderation…though diets high in animal protein have been found to be linked with cancer, heart disease, and premature death in humans.

But, on the whole, whether I live to be 73 or 78 is not so much of a concern to me as the overall impact I have on the world during those years. No one can deny that meat is horrible for the environment. Giving up meat would probably reduce your carbon footprint by more than giving up driving

40% of grain produced in America is fed to livestock animals. That’s enough to feed 800 million people. 30% of the world’s total ice-free land is used to grow crops to fead to livestock. 30% OF THE WHOLE WORLD! Only 10% is used to grow human food crops.

There are ways to raise animals with less significant or even beneficial environmental impact…but we do not raise animals that way. 

I’m not even touching on the cruelty, here. Let’s just worry about the Earth and not individuals for a moment…if we do that, meat is /clearly bad/ and we should all eat less (if we can), which I try very hard to do.

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police’s armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.

In America, by contrast, it is hardly surprising that cops resort to their weapons more frequently. In 2013, 30 cops were shot and killed—just a fraction of the 9,000 or so murders using guns that happen each year. Add to that a hyper-militarised police culture and a deep history of racial strife and you have the reason why so many civilians are shot by police officers. Unless America can either reduce its colossal gun ownership rates or fix its deep social problems, shootings of civilians by police—justified or not—seem sure to continue.

Armed police: Trigger happy | The Economist (via kenyatta)

micdotcom:

Vile photos show the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border no one is talking about

With a spate of huge stories breaking in the past few weeks, you might not have caught the massive environmental crisis in northern Mexico that began earlier in August.

According to the Associated Press, local politicians claim that Grupo Mexico, a private mining company in Sonora with a troubling track record of hazardous waste violations in Mexico and the U.S., was slow to report a disastrous fault in its leaching ponds, which hold industrial acid used in the mining process. The spill released around 10 million gallons of acid into the Bacanuchi and Sonora Rivers.

20,000 people were without water | Follow micdotcom 

thescienceoffandom:

Some more discussion of GMO with a scientist here.

An infographic on the scientific consensus on GMOs, with sources, and a discussion of what a scientific consensus means and what qualifies as a scientific consensus.

More on the research making up the scientific consensus, and a scientific review on the safety of GMOs.

A discussion of some common anti-GMO arguments, and way more GMO safety information here.

neural-entropy:

maybenotboring:

the difference 7 hours makes

FOR FUCKS SAKE

neural-entropy:

maybenotboring:

the difference 7 hours makes

FOR FUCKS SAKE

imbryonykate:

Send me a ‘hi’ and I will put my playlist on shuffle, write down the first line of five songs and give it to you as a poem.

(Source: inboxshenanigans)

lucifersaxon:
This isn't meant to be taking one side or the other, but what are your feelings toward people with severe phobias regarding needles? Is it still wrong to forego vaccination in that situation? Just wondering about your thoughts on that.

alexofeddis:

Good question, lucifersaxon!!!! And a majorly relevant one—I have a relative with exactly that issue. He’s got a deeply ingrained medical phobia. A true phobia (ie, not just “I don’t like it when it hurts”, but “I have a mental response to this that causes debilitating levels of stress”) is a real problem, and I don’t want people with mental conditions to suffer any more than I want people with physical ones to!

In most cases, there’s an easy answer—there’s a nasal mist vaccine that a doctor can administer in lieu of the shot. No needle, just a quick nose spray and you’re safe for the rest of the flu season, and so is everyone around you.

The only problem with this solution is that the nose spray is a live vaccine. A flu shot is a killed vaccine, meaning that a dead virus is introduced to the body. The immune system learns to fight the dead virus and can then use that knowledge against the live version when the human is exposed to it (this is why we all need to start looking a lot more askance at those claiming that a flu shot made them sick—that’s literally not possible. There is no life to infect the body in a flu shot. Far more likely they were exposed beforehand and happened to start showing symptoms after). Dead vaccines, however, don’t work in a nasal spray (I don’t know why—maybe thescienceoffandom would know?). That means that if you get the nasal spray, you get a very mild form of the flu and the immune system learns to fight that. It only lasts a few days and will hardly affect you at all—nothing like getting the actual flu. The only hardcore effect is that you will shed the virus for the next several days, and should stay away from the immunocompromised. While the average population won’t be affected by the mild form of the virus that you’re spreading, someone young, old, sick, or on immunosuppressive drugs (that’s me) could catch the flu from you and get seriously sick.

So in most cases, those with phobias can just get the nasal spray and be careful who they come in contact with for the next several days. Not the best time to have lunch with grandma. They’re vaccinated, no needles have been used, everyone’s safe.

There are exceptions to this, and my relative is one of them—he lives in a house with two heavily immunosuppressed people. If he were to take the live culture, we WOULD get sick, and that would mean a serious case of the flu and potentially a flare of an already threatening condition. It’s been necessary for him to continue getting the shot in order to be able to live in close proximity to us. He uses a lot of different calming techniques on the day of, and we try to make the day work so that he can spend the rest of it relaxing. It’s incredibly brave of him, and we’re all grateful that he’s willing to do that every year.

That’s what works best for our family, but there are other ways to get around it—perhaps someone with a phobia who is in frequent contact with the immunocompromised could take the nasal spray then stay at a friend’s house for a few days.

It comes down to individual cases, really. It’s hardly ever wrong to avoid a situation that could be debilitating in that way. Mental problems such as phobias are just as real as physical problems, and some require just as much work to get over. But if there’s a workaround—such as the nasal spray—it’s in everybody’s best interest to get vaccinated and keep everyone safe.

TL;DR There are alternative methods of vaccination, in the case of the flu a nasal spray, available to those with debilitating phobias! Just be sure to stay away from the immunocompromised for a few days after getting it.

posted Aug.18.14 + 6 notes + reblog

Officers have tanks now. They have drones. They have automatic rifles, and planes, and helicopters, and they go through military-style boot camp training. It’s a constant complaint from what remains of this country’s civil liberties caucus. Just this last June, the ACLU issued a report on how police departments now possess arsenals in need of a use. Few paid attention, as usually happens.
 
The worst part of outfitting our police officers as soldiers has been psychological. Give a man access to drones, tanks, and body armor, and he’ll reasonably think that his job isn’t simply to maintain peace, but to eradicate danger. Instead of protecting and serving, police are searching and destroying.
 
If officers are soldiers, it follows that the neighborhoods they patrol are battlefields. And if they’re working battlefields, it follows that the population is the enemy. And because of correlations, rooted in historical injustice, between crime and income and income and race, the enemy population will consist largely of people of color, and especially of black men. Throughout the country, police officers are capturing, imprisoning, and killing black males at a ridiculous clip, waging a very literal war on people like Michael Brown.

America Is Not For Black People (via wilwheaton)