Tonight, I did another one just like tonight's MoJF. Cool, huh? I vectorized this the same day as I vectorized another that I drew in pencil on the same day as I drew it on pencil. Are you confused? I am. Well, like I said on tonight's second MoJF, this is the third MoJF tonight. I think it's a good thing. Being able to trace something so quickly is a good trait for a cg artist. This image is funny because the original was slightly tilted. That happens often in pencil. Of course, cg is never tilted unless you want it. It's kinda odd because the cg looks younger than the pencil. Why? Well, a few things. I used her right eye which looks younger than the right eye. That's a small difference. The second reason is that the pencil is grey while the cg is in colors that are bright. Another is that the mouth is larger. Why? Because XFig has several modes of positioning: any, 0.1 in, 0.2 in, etc. So I wasn't able to make the lips any smaller than 0.2 in without going into any position mode which is harder to control. I mean, the lips look decent, but they don't look as old as the original. Also, I mirrored the legs and made them thinner which made them a little sexier. Also, I had a problem with the waist so I had to pull the waist in such a way to make it look like her breasts are quite disproprotionate to her waist. While that isn't a big problem with manga and anime since women are naturally plentifully endowed with gazonga melons implanted into their chest.

So, obviously, you want an interesting rant about something that is outside the box. Well, what do you think I'm gearing you up for? I mean three of the last four pictures have been of women of varing breast size. Prepare for a very outside-the-box lesson by your favorite philosopher, Javantea. You may have noticed the very modest breasts on the previous picture. She was obviously young. You may have also noticed the picture 2 days back. I stressed the breasts, but not in width, but height. What am I trying to do whith these models? Right. Here's some philosophy: women's breasts are important to the physical appearance of women. Check it out, keywords: physical appearance. What am I trying to say by saying physical appearance instead of just saying "women's breasts are important part of women". I'm saying that there is a separation between a woman's physical appearance and the woman as a whole.

In fact, it's nice to disregard physical appearance. But that's the opposite of what we artists do, right? I am disregarding the personality, intelligence, friendliness of the three women I have drawn. Why if I know that I am being callous, am I still drawing instead of typing a conversation between me and these three women? Now that's an interesting thought, isn't it? An artist caring about the person beneath the paper. Well, I am torn between my ability to capture beauty and my love for women's caring nature. I can tell you one thing, beauty can't change you. Women's caring nature can. An amazing thought: something that cannot be captured on paper does something that paper cannot. I don't think that I could capture women's caring nature on paper. I can show people how nice a girl I know is. But can that change someone? Nope. I'm going to say that a movie can't change a person. A song can change a person's mood. But there's something completely different when a person talks to a woman and sees her caring nature.

Wow, slam. It just hits you. I'm mainly writing this for men, but I assume that women can see the same thing. But what of this about women? Why can't men have a caring nature? Well, I haven't seen it myself. Instead of caring, we lust over technology. Right. Why can't women have an uncaring lust for technology? They do! Definately. I've seen quite a few that spend plenty of hours doing similar stuff as I do. That's a good thing. It says that perhaps men could develop a caring nature if they put effort into it and it says that women aren't born with this nature for caring. They develop a caring nature in themselves by putting effort into it. What an amazing idea?

In social situations where I don't know people well, I kinda clam up. Sometimes when I know a person a bit, I can yack for hours if they don't stop me. On and on I'll go about AI, robots, Hack Mars, and philosophy. Some of my recent rants have explained that I think rather than talking. The conversation moves quickly and I become a farmer who is trying to keep up with a train*. But that doesn't mean I'm not listening and understanding. So what does this have to do with caring nature? It means that I have a very limited social ability. It also means that my ability to care is quite limited to thought, listening, and talking technology. Beyond that, I don't care about other people around me. That's not cool. It's not like I don't try. I care quite a bit about people around the world who suffer at the hands of an injust government, but I can't seem to help them. I put my body on the street and I join with people to talk about solutions and problems, but there's a problem that when I cannot help a person, I cannot care. I can spend hours reading, thinking, and writing, but my brain doesn't go further when it comes against a wall.

* Waterhouse became a farmer running after a train when talking to Alan Turing in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. But I digress.

A young anarchist in Chile threw a molotov cocktail at a bus, hitting it perfectly. The pictures are right there. He was celebrating the 30th aniversery of a dictatorship in his country. Another anarchist explained what sentiments were going through his minds:

"A tres décadas nada a cambiado, al parecer la dictadura aún no ha terminado. Nos siguen reprimiendo y encarcelando solo por querer vivir en un mundo en donde existan condiciones igualitarias para tod@s."

You probably don't speak spanish if you're reading this, so here's the babelfish:

"To three decades nothing to changed, apparently the dictatorship not yet has finished. To us they continue repressing and jailing single to want to live in a world in where egalitarian conditions for all exist."

To me, the situation seems quite bad: the US supported the overthrow of a well-liked socialist-leaning president. In his place, they put Pinochet, one of the worst dictators in the history of South America (a very hard title to come by considering all the dictators that the US has supported and those who have replaced them). Chile has been under oppression due to the direct action of USA. Chileans blame capitalism because there is a very clear link between the dictator and capitalism. Of course, his deeds looked far more like fascism than capitalism, but I'm not going to convince any Chileans of that so easily as I will a capitalist or libertarian.

You see, we here in the US are fighting a dictatorship while lighter than the Chilean dictatorship, it's far more virulent and it really likes brainwashing. You won't see anarchists throwing molotov cocktails at police or government here in America. But on the 28th and the 5th, you'll see some people getting together to talk and to march. That's about as radical as we ever get. And we get the shit beaten out of us half the time anyway.

So I guess the end result is: we gotta do our thing. We need fusion power, a better battery, and cost-effective solar power. We need an end to government, we need a foreign policy that doesn't install dictatorships. We need an end to wars. We need sanctions to end immediately. We need to extend peace to our global neighbors as well as our local neighbors. We need to establish trade which benefits both countries involved. We need to do our thing. Let's do our thing.