A rant.  Or two.  Or more.

1.  The news is always full of "man shot by a white gunman", but you never hear about someone being shot by a black gunman.  Oh no.  They'll use the words assailant or suspected shooter, but never use the words gunman and black in conjecture to each other.  What the hell?

2.  And then there's Latino v White v African American.  Why are blacks African American, while Hispanics are Latino instead of Mexican American?  Why isn't the news talking about European Americans?  Do they naturally presume that all people with black colored skin come from Africa?  What about native Australians?  Haitians?  

3.  Black Pride Month (whoops, I mean African American Pride Month).  Hispanic Pride Month.  Furry Gay Hamsters who want to be known as Petrosexuals Pride Month.  But no White Pride Month, hell no.  It's perfectly fine for every ethnic group, religious group, or persuasion to have their time in the sun, their marches and picnics, but try to organize a white pride day, and rest assured you'll be tossed in jail faster then you can say hypocrite.

4.  Free the Nipple.  It's a movement which brings awareness to the fact that men can go topless, even big fat ass nasty guys like me (with my perky A cups), but women can't.  I'm for this.  I'm also for breastfeeding in public.  Yes, I'm a guy, and yes, I'm a perv, but I know how to keep things in check, and I am perfectly and honestly fine with this.  The one thing I do have an issue with are going to be all the feminists who cry that they should be able to go topless in public, in every day society, but gawd forbid there's an image of a nude woman in a movie.  That's just wrong and exploitative.  As long as we're talking about breasts...

5.  Women and their breasts in general.  They go around wearing shirts with collars that go down to their sternum, then push their breasts into a bra which shoves the cleavage up under their chins.  Usually these shirts have some sort of decorative pattern or something that frames the cleavage, almost like looking at a framed painting.  But... don't... look.  Hell to the no.  They don't want to be treated as an object, to be seen as anything other than a professional or whatever... they don't dress that way to be gawked at or stared at or lusted after.  Really?  Then put them away.  How'd they like it is we guys wore assless chaps, but backward?

I've a question about video games, and nudity in particular.

By now, we've all played Saints Row. In that game, you can play with your character nude, but fortunately for the viewer, any sexual organs are covered by pixels. Thank goodness for that! I mean, sure, you can increase the breast size to ridiculous proportions, or make a penis that beyond most human understanding (yes, that's right, most), but who really wants to see naked game boobs or cock, even though your character is clothed?

In a game full of sexual innuendos, leather clad gimps and slaves, and (at least, in the DLC content) a giant rubber purple penis sword that wiggles about as you walk, it is wonderful to know that we are not allowed to see naked body parts.

I mean, it's amazing that the likes of God of War managed to get it past development, or how Dragon Age and Mass Effect can have sex scenes. I'm shocked and stunned by such perverse behavior.

...

Okay, but seriously? C'mon. I understand that the pixels are probably there for "humor", just like it's funnier to hear words bleeped out than actually spoken, but it's just a bit much. When will games treat adult gamers like adults? All sexuality aside, I support breast feeding in public. I support a woman's right to go topless just as men are allowed to. I can see a breast and not think of it as a sexual object. But in games, especially in those that cover the themes that Saints covers? With the vulgarity and innuendos scattered throughout, the addition of pixels to a character, for added humor or not, irritates me.

I'm half tempted... okay, more than half tempted, to go out and buy Catherine just so I can play an adult game.

Yep, okay, there we go. That's what I'm more irritated about, even made mention of it already: when will game developers make an adult game for adults? Or rather, if a game is going to have this that and the other thing, why not make it so that it is geared for adults? We wouldn't want our kids to be playing certain games (which is why there's a rating system and parents should be more involved with their kid's gaming habits), so then why are games like SR, which have the M rating, treating it's players like children?

Don't think it's so much the game developers as it is society in general... rather OUR society. I think game devs try to push the same bounds as every other media in this back-ass twisted country, much in the same way as TV depicts things of a sexual nature. As an example, two TV characters are going to have sex, so they fondle, kiss, and the screen fades to black to a little George Michael playing quietly on a radio of camera....

Not sure of the complete rundown, but how many other countries are allowed to keep those lights on during their prime time TV shows? People say it's just that we're so...um.... stuck-up? Prissy? What's the word I'm looking for? Anyway, I think it's all about the lawsuit. We've become a society of idiots hellbent on suing for the slightest offensive smear, so every form of media has to cover their asses (even the Saints covering their asses with pixels). We can't offend the women who have fought for womens' liberation, so cover those jiggly bits! Straight dudes seeing dicks waving around is gay, so it's offensive, so cover those jiggly bits! Can't offend those mormons so let's have some other religious fanatic be a freak in this episode! Can't offend people of skin color , so let's have at least two of every color in this episode, and make sure the killer is a color we've never used before! (yes I'm kindof opinionating on both of the last two posts here)

I have a funny feeling if corporate bigwigs wouldn't be so afraid of the lawsuit, the Saints devs probably would have taken it farther. They seem to be freakish like that. I'm not defending how the Saints devs handled your jiggly bits, but I don't think they were given full artistic license... cuz yes, I believe the complete parody of the last 30 years of popular culture in a game setting is pure fucking art.

LikeDislike

Yeah... I'm not looking for full on hard core porn, but I think that we, as the freaking generation that has never been without a gaming system (being raised with Atari and Intellivision), that we as the electronic gaming generation that now has disposable income, should be treated as such.

Heavy Rain, I think, came close, but not close enough. The likes of Saints Row and GTA also come close, but from a different direction. Granted, one doesn't want to play a 'real world' game in order to escape from the real world, but I definitely think that when an M rating is slapped on a game, by gawd, it should deal with adult themes.

Give me a game where there is nudity, where there is violence and crime and things in the game that make one question why you're playing it, that makes you put down the controller and step away.

Maybe it isn't the inclusion of adult themes I'm looking for... perhaps it's all in a genre? We have comedy, family / kid, action / adventures, sci-fi, crime, simulators... but no drama, with the exception of Heavy Rain. Maybe that's what I want more of, something that kids will either not want to play, or will be bored if they do, but something that will make an adult go back to.

...

Our society is backwards when it comes to what is and what isn't socially acceptable, and so hypocritical. Political correctness has got to go, so does society's over-sensitivity on hell, everything.

The buck stops here

If a guy were to get a woman pregnant, that man has no say-so whatsoever when it comes to abortion, adoption, or if the woman decides to keep the baby.  It's not the man's body, he has no say, has no legal say or opinion.  So, throughout the entire pregnancy, it is, in fact, the woman's choice to keep the child, or to do away with it.  Completely and utterly.  The woman wants to give birth, it's her choice.  She wants the baby, it's her choice.

Some of you reading this are assuming that the guy is staying with the woman.  Oh no, for the sake of this argument, for whatever reason, the guy isn't around.  Doesn't matter why... they could have been teens in love and broken up a month later, without the boy ever knowing she was pregnant.  Could have been a drunken one night stand, picked up at some bar, where names were never known.  What does matter is that, for the entire nine months, it is the woman that thinks / decides / desires to keep the child.

So then, how the hell is it that the guy is then responsible to support the child for the next 18 years?  To provide either a percentage or fixed dollar amount on a weekly basis, as well as insurance costs?  How is it he is responsible to pay for hospital costs?  Even if he never knew that she was pregnant in the first place, he is financially responsible.  Why?

Listen... I don't care for child support, don't like it in the slightest.  If there's a guy out there that truly wants to support his kids, fine, it should be his choice.  Either give the money directly, or better yet, set up a bank account so the ex or mother or whatever can't get at it.  It is entirely bullshit to believe even for a second that child support goes to the kids.  No it doesn't.  You want it to go to the kids?  Put it away so they have it when they are older.

Or what of the wife who wants and seeks a divorce, who had fallen in love with another person?  Why is the original father still financially responsible, or hell, why is the one who is giving out money still paying when there is no financial loss?

And that's just the good dads.  What about the bad, the ones that want nothing to do with the kids?  He's still stuck paying, still supporting or caring or whatever... and he never wanted that in the first place.  He faces fines, penalties, jail time, all for not wanting to pay into something that he never wanted in the first place (almost like healthcare, huh?).

But now... now that you've read all that... don't for once think that this is a rant about child support.  I may not like it, but that is not what this is about.  Rather, this goes back to the opening paragraph, about how a guy has no say in a woman's pregnancy.

My question is simple: if a man is stuck paying out tens of thousands (at least!) of dollars over 18 years... more if the kid decides to go to college... if you look at this in any length of term (short or long), as an investment "for the child", then why the hell does the dad have no freaking say in the pregnancy?!  If he faces the potential of having to pay over $100,000, should he not have some activity in the decision making?  And what if he says no from the very start?  What if he knows he'd make a crappy father?  

"Well if he knows he'll make a crappy father then he should never have gotten her pregnant in the first place."  Really?  Women don't know how they get pregnant?  The pregnancy is entirely the male's fault?  If that woman is that retarded, then she really shouldn't be having kids in the first place. People can't use ignorance as an excuse anymore.

So either do away with child support, or allow the man a say in the pregnancy process.

Disproving the multiverse

Proving the existence of a multiverse should be simple: imagine a universe in which a scientist... YOU... develops a device to allow travel through different universes, and upon arrival, gives the other yous a blueprint to develop their / your own multiverse traveling device, with explicit instructions to go forth and meet the other yous. The scientist you is doing this so s/he can compile a study, to catalog the differing paths of life (what better way than to see all the directions you could have gone, right?). Within the next, ohh, we'll say by the end of this month, within this allotted time frame, you'll be face to face with another you, who will give you the ability to travel to different universes.

All sounds feasible enough. In a multiverse where anything and everything can happen, this could happen. If it doesn't, then I guess we're stuck with just one universe, right?

Heaven or Hell?

So I was thinking the other day. Jerusalem, the holiest city in the world, also one of the most violent, as three religions fight each other for control. The histories of religions are full of death and murder and sacrifice, of killing the non-believer, of damning the non-repentant. Most religions condemn you to an eternity of torment for screwing up even the most minor or trivial of things. Gods inflict disease and pestilence and horrors upon both believer and non-believer alike, all so that one can measure the strength of their faith... and should those tests fail, you're damned for eternity. Gods place temptation and damn you for being tempted; gods grant free will, and damn you for exercising free will. Gods allow death, disease, murder, poverty, starvation, suffering, destruction.

All in all, religions and gods of good, it seems, cause more harm than good. Only when a person is really bad (ie, going against societal norms) is he considered to be influenced by darker powers... but then again, he's only utilizing his free will and doing what he thinks is right. More wars have been fought over religions and gods than not. There has been more deaths attributed to a god's name than not.

So then, my question to you is this: How is it we are not currently living in hell? Everything we experience, witness, or hear about from the news or our own lives... everything is how the dark powers are supposed to act and behave when they have control, at least according to religious texts. In a world ruled by the forces of good, there's supposed to be peace and prosperity; is there?

I blame the media

Stupid double standards. Everywhere I look, there's a double standard! Take for instance this... Heard on the radio some woman talking about how he business includes a facial, that it's part of the package. How is it a guy can exclaim or ask aloud if anyone wants a facial, and chances are he'll go to jail, but if a woman does it, it's business as usual?

I wonder if I were to walk in to one of these supposed "salons" and ask the lady up front how much a facial would cost, would it be bad manners for me to then turn to the next woman to see how much she would charge?

And now, Mr Bond, you will die

North Korea has decided to dismantle their nuclear program. North Korea has taken steps (literally and figuratively) with South Korea for peace. North Korea has invited Trump to a summit, saying that Trump's actions are working, and that South Korea can come along, too. Maybe even Japan.

North Korea sure has been trying to make nice and be all friendly-like with those whom he (North Korea) has declared and dedicated himself to wiping off the face of the world; all within a short order of time, too... just a couple of months!

Want to know what I think? I think this is a ploy. I think, once the leaders all get together, North Korea is going to find an excuse to leave the room (feigning illness) or will announce he'll be just a couple minutes late, and then BOOM, room explodes. Takes out the head of South Korea, Japan, and the United States. At that same moment, coordinated exactly to the second, missiles fly to strike Japan as the North mobilizes and floods into the South.

Now, a big part of me doesn't see this realistically happening. But the imaginative side of me is going, yeah, I can see that.

Black holes? Heavy, man

Was just thinking... if a black hole is the result of a giant star collapsing upon itself, then how is it that it can become a black hole that sucks in everything nearby?

You're probably thinking, "Duh, a black hole is a giant whirlpool in the cosmos, man. Everything falls in". We've seen the movie, animations, and heard experts repeat this. But I have a question, a thought, that just might change that notion.

Does the giant star that collapsed onto itself gain mass? From my understanding, no it does not. If anything, it's mass is reduced with the collapse because some matter is discharged. Anything in orbit around the star would still remain in orbit around the collapsed star and not be drawn in, because they were in a stable orbit.

...

Now picture if you will the intro to The Black Hole, in particular the part where the funnel is first seen. That would be a visual represent of the area in which the black hole affects, the border between safety (the flat plane) and being drawn in (the funnel); the closer you get to the center, the steeper the funnel (or the greater the pull).



The area that a black hole affects shouldn't be any different than that of the original star; mass hasn't changed, and as such, the gravitational range hasn't changed. The only alteration would be the gravitational pull. How so? Black hole speaker use a trampoline as an analogy, so let's go with that. A fifty pound beach ball will depress the trampoline by x amount, spread over a surface area of n, with x being the depth of the trampoline and n being the surface are where something begins to roll towards the center.

Remove the beach ball and replace it with a fifty pound ping pong ball. Because the same weight is used (ie, mass), the area of effect would be the same; the only change is the pull because you are now using a smaller focal point.

Keeping all this in mind, that the mass is actually reduced when the star first begins to collapse and the area of affect stays constant (actually, it'd be reduced in relation to the amount of matter discharged at the initial collapse), a black hole's gravitational field is the same as the original star (if not lesser). It cannot draw in those objects that were in orbit around it (the star), if the orbiting objects don't leave their orbit and drift away (due to reduced mass or star).

The only way a black hole can draw in objects is if it's mass increases. Perhaps comets or asteroids that would normally "slingshot" around the star would be drawn in (remember, the funnel's pull is now greater) because they don't have the same escape velocity. But in order to make a black hole dangerous, this would take A LOT of comets and asteroids. Even if we were to use all the asteroids within or asteroid belt, the increase of our sun's mass would be negligible; toss in the planets within our system, and our sun's mass would only increase by a fraction.

...

Knowing that there are no original ideas, I went online and saw on a physics site that yes, I'm correct in my assumption (yay!).

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/420403/why-do-black-holes-warp-spacetime-so-much-more-than-stars-that-have-the-same-mas?noredirect=1&lq=1

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/130918/when-a-star-becomes-a-black-hole-does-its-gravitational-field-strength-become-s?noredirect=1&lq=1

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/108526/does-the-mass-of-a-star-change-as-it-collapses-into-a-black-hole