Science Cat!

I don’t follow anyone on Twi**er as I don’t have time, and use this site to convey my thoughts. But I found one site that’s almost worth following: Science Cat! Click on the screenshot to go there:

screen-shot-2016-10-20-at-2-18-52-pm

Two of the latest tweets:

16 Comments

  1. Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure what those animals actually are but I did find someone who thinks they’re cats.

    • Luis Servín
      Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

      I’m pretty sure they are coati (Nasua narica).

  2. Derek Freyberg
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    Mongooses (mongeese)?

  3. Paula S
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Although she doesn’t wear glasses my cat does seem to have an advanced degree in Curtain Scratching.

  4. Jenny Haniver
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    For another felid palate cleanser or momentary relief from the ever-increasing insanity of this US election, not to mention all the other things going on in the world, I offer this video of two mountain lions playing cavorting in a vineyard http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/mountain-lions-video-Sonoma-Kenwood-Vineyards-9984360.php. They seem to have nosed upon something that acts on them like catnip.

  5. Posted October 20, 2016 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Step 1:
    Make friends with a bear.
    Step 2:
    Commence with the wolf punching.

  6. Posted October 20, 2016 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    (a) Lemurs?
    (b) Brontosauruses??? You mean Apatosauruses!

    • Kingasaurus
      Posted October 21, 2016 at 4:46 am | Permalink

      Hate to join the nit-picking bandwagon in contradicting Science Cat, but to me they have the Brachiosaur body-type, not the Brontosaur.

      • Posted October 21, 2016 at 9:54 am | Permalink

        I agree with the Brachiosaurus comment, but why are you again using Brontosaurus? The Brontosaurus didn’t exist, as they had the wrong skull on the body, and was renamed Apatosaurus after the mistake was discovered. I prefer the name Brontosaurus, as I also grew up with it and find it easier to say, but it is almost as wrong as Piltdown Man (mismatching bones, but accidental, not a hoax).

        • Kingasaurus
          Posted October 21, 2016 at 10:09 am | Permalink

          I agree with the Bakker school that claims even though Apatosaurus is the original name, Brontosaurus is so much more popular it should get preferential status in the scientific community.

          I know it doesn’t work that way, but that’s my rebel streak.

          There is still some dispute about which specimen should be called what.

  7. Will G
    Posted October 20, 2016 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Not to rain on some funny jpgs and gifs, but this guy appears to be a joke thief. For example Sep 29’s pic of a Great White stubbing its toe on a coral reef appears to have been made earlier that day by one of these two guys, here and here. (And the one about him stepping on a lego brick is funnier).

    • Posted October 22, 2016 at 12:57 am | Permalink

      o.0 That’s not thievery, that’s reposting.

      • Will G
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:38 am | Permalink

        A naive reader will come to this thinking that Science Cat was funny all by him/herself, and never know who made the original joke. Reposting without attribution to the original author is theft.

        • Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

          It can’t be theft because nothing is stolen. The original work is still there. It’s copying, plagiarism. In any case a funny Twitter account is not the sort of thing that is expected to cite sources (although it is nice) and I doubt there are many people who have been online for any length of time that expect such a Twitter feed to be posting original content.

          • Will G
            Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

            Look, I don’t want to get into a semantic battle here, even though I would win. “Plagiarism”, as you admit it is, is the theft of other people’s ideas or their expression.

            Science Cat could have retw**ted one of those earlier expressions of the joke, and it would’ve showed up in the feed just the same. Obviously, at least one of those two was ripping it off of someone else, but at least Science Cat would be being humble, and directing viewers to other creators work, but that’s not their brand. They just take others’ content, stick their signature over it, and present it as theirs.

            I, for one, do expect Tw*tter feeds to either post original content, or otherwise give credit where it’s due. Patton Oswalt wrote about one outrageous Tw*tter thief in A Closed Letter To Myself (See how easy sourcing material is?). Writing about a certain “Sticky-Fingered Youth Pastor of Twitter”:

            The God-loving, Commandment-slinging sky pilot who “just wanted to make people laugh” – and wanted to so badly that he flat-out slapped his name on other people’s Tweets and sent them out as his own? He didn’t even steal a joke from me – just from all of my friends, most of them up-and-coming talents writing jokes on Twitter, trying to make a name for themselves and build a career – only without the followers and thus without the juice to initially bring him down… Oh well. He got a book deal out of it. And paid speaking engagements at, ironically, religious conferences that I’m certain hold the 7th or 8th Commandment (depending on which book of The Bible you’re reading) in high regard. The people whose work he lifted, which brought him the followers which led to the book deal and speaking engagements? Too bad, [shore]birds. Maybe if you’d accepted Christ.

            Would you make excuses for this guy because, hey, those jokes that he ripped off are “still there” on their writers’ feeds?

            I don’t know what Science Cat’s ambitions are, and this may be a mostly harmless example of thievery, but puttng your name on someone else’s work, be it a painting or a novel or even a joke, is wrong.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: