then you should know mass can be expelled fom a black hole. albeit in ludicrous amounts, but it can be done.

The only way mass escapes from a black hole is, as far as I know, Hawking radiation.
Did you read the NASA article though?

na, but also a black holes life span is finite, they everntually expell their mass in the form of quasars. This is only found in supermassive black holes I believe, however it is still an expulsion of mass.

In other words, it is not the black hole losing mass, it's the black hole gaining it that causes them.

again, fair. I was under the influence they came about at the end of a black holes life.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
See, that's where you're wrong.
From the wiki:

"[...] there is now a scientific consensus that a quasar is a compact region in the center of a massive galaxy surrounding a central supermassive black hole."
They don't expell their mass in the form of quasars.
A quasar's light beam is coming from an active galactic nuclei which is when a shitton of stuff is orbiting around a black hole, becomes dense AROUND the black hole, becomes really hot, ionized and then ejecting a shitload of photons (radio-, micro-, X-rays and that shit), thus loosing kinetic energy and falling further into the black hole (rinse and repeat).

Where do you get these ideas?

well that's fair, although obviously some form of mass must be released. a black hole is finite, maybe not through quasars, but even radiation has mass, however small it may be. I'm not saying this story is real because it obviously isnt, however, I believe there are ways the singularity degrades.

They do according to Stephen Hawking.

The theory behind it is really cool too!
Basically, when a radiation field is high enough in energy, you can make particles out of the energy. This usually comes in the form of electron-positron pairs, as they're very light in mass.
If this happens just around the surface of a black hole (the radius of the surface being slightly bigger than the radius from which light cannot escape it), one of the two newly made particles has the possibility to escape it, if the energy it gets is high enough.
This means that the black hole's field loses energy (since the particle escaped), and the only way that can be is if it loses mass inside the black hole.
This is called "Hawking Radiation", and it's really fucking awesome!

The "field" of which I spoke, came from the black body radiation (fancy way of saying warm things glow), and the black hole spinning around itself.

It's really cool stuff.

yeah, I've looked into hawking radiation before. it's a pretty cool concept, however i thought quasars were the point of critical mass a black hole reached, and it basically ripping apart. I was wrong though

Yup, still though, I'm glad you're open to argumentation.

lol, I like that

If claiming you had sex was an extension of sex, the age at which most people lost their virginity would be much lower.
It's related in theme, I'll give you that, but they are far from the same thing.
It's a social power rather to make people believe in them, and exploit a system designed to aid them/others in order to have their ways.
The fact that sex is the thing they are usually being protected against is only relevant because of how sexual crimes are perceived as excessively heinous (cue Special Victims Unit's "DUN-DUNN!"), and I don't see how claiming your boyfriend hit you (the violence part) is an extension of sex at all, but maybe I'm not kinky enough for that.

Always never understand why people think that that is an effective argument. Straw man fallacies are the worst.

How do you figure? "hotlinking" isn't illegal under copyright law and the source was properly attributed. If a website host doesn't want their images hotlinked, the burden is on them to check the referrer in the HTTP header and serve/not serve accordingly.

You can argue what Huffington did was impolite, but it's not really their fault The Oatmeal's website was improperly configured for his intended policy.

I figure by it being his content and income.
I mean, that's a pretty shitty thing to do when you don't credit the guy who made it in the first place properly.

>you can't read this on this site but you can read it on this one

I would say you could argue the case. While hotlinking in itself is largely minor and irrelevant, it becomes a much bigger problem in this case because the hotlinking is done BY a huffington post writer, in a news story which will have a lot of readers.

This results in a sudden, large spike of traffic to the oatmeal, and hence generates a more noticeable cost.

I highly doubt the cost is anywhere near the full amount of the bill though, but its definitely something

No.
No it wasn't.

oh, i read the article wrong. sorry

No problem, shit happens.