J. Hiatus

I want to make a DIY light up and sound greeting card. I found this on youtube but I cannot find where to purchase this Slider sound module with LED lights attached! Any help? Or do I have to make it myself?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5l_xQ4iCpk

Is this in De Anima or in his Politics?

Freud is often quoted by people as having said,"sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Now, I don't know if he actually said it, but..meh. Anyways, my question is: if you create a mixed CD to give as a gift to someone you care about, can it still just be a CD?

The other day I answered a question asking to provide example of 1+1=0. Among the answers, one person took note of how 1+1 in Leet Speak can be interpreted as "Hi." Now, in addition to this, he noticed that the "=0" can function as an emoticon of a person with there mouth open, as if speaking.

Are there hidden messages in texts? That is, as the logic of western syntax is pushed to its extreme in communication technologies and crafts a new semantic environment, have the primal babels of non corporeal beings begun? Have we succeeded in "outering" ourselves to the point where consciousness as begun to beget a being?

So I just became aware of the unisexual, whiptail lizard. Apparently, they can procreate with only themselves, no males. In fact, no males of this species are known to exist. There is one interesting thing, however. In order for them to reproduce, two females must engage in sexual acts. One female must mount the other female, thereby mimicking the male role. There is no bodily penetration of any kind. The "Y" male chromosome has disappeared from their gene pool.

So, apparently, the human male Y chromosome is currently shrinking, literally, becomes less and less relevant as a gene carrier. (xx = female; xy = male)

For instance:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940...

Now:

When considering the female reproductive system, does it seem that men are on their way to becoming irrelevant, if not extinct? What about women, as they are now, give clue as to how they might evolve into unisexual beings?

Kenneth Burke argues that human beings are "rotten with perfection." We might take Burke to mean that human beings have an appetite for "coherence" or "completeness." We are always attempting to find the "proper name" of any experience. Some of these names are wholly known to us largely through culture, and those names that are unknown to us, though still grounded in cultural knowledge, remain to be "uncovered" by us. Or, said another way, we might enter in to a situation where we will, "know it when we see it." The sense-capacity and expeirence of "knowing-it-when-we-see/feel it," is a symptom being "rotten with perfection." So my question is this. What is to be said of the "proper name" of "love?" If I will I know love "when I see/feel it," can I love someone without spoiling them with my "perfection?" Thoughts?

I'm not sure how many Buffy Fans are on yahoo answers but, I have a question. I'd like to know your theories as to why Spike is suddenly able to hit Buffy without his chip causing him pain, in season 6?

Assuming all is factual, what could be some arguments against this case?

The Earth is 5 Billion years old. That translates to 10 one hundred million year lifetimes, lived 5 times! The last known Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago. Ice ages, argued to be regulated by ocean currents, cycle through every 50,000-130,000 years. We are in a period of "warming."...Now...Humans appeared on Earth 2 million years ago, developing a consciousness that can manipulate the world only 10,000 years ago and a "modern" consciousness only 3000 years ago.

All the toys of humans can be obliterated by a single "tsunami," a relatively normal thing for the earth. The same might be said for volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, earthquakes or hurricanes. When earth/nature/universe does anything, it does so GRAND scale, way beyond human capabilities. ( except perhaps the releasing of every nuclear device on earth simultaneously?)

What are some arguments against this case?

I just need some opinions from women about the noisy types of high heels, or other types of loud women's shoes. Please note: I'm not asking for comments about "the price" of fashion or how all that matters is how well the shoe matches an outfit. Rather, I just want to know, when you wear shoes that make noise (the "Click, Clack" type of noise) does this bother you in the slightest?

I just need to know if it's me, my imagination, or if there is something to this. Women: When you are out among the general public (banks, coffeehouses, grocery stores, malls, or simply walking down the street), and you are not "dress up for going out," do you avert your eye contact when you see a guy that is attractive? Or, if you see a guy that is attractive, do you make eye contact regardless?

I seem to see a number of women avert there eyes away from my direction...is it me or them?

Oh, and please no answers of the "what does it matter, be happy with you" type...I'm not seeking therapeutic responses...i really want to learn something...

For those women who have had experiences with being "picked-up on," or "hit on," and for those women that are especially knowledgeable about so called "PUA's" and "The Game," answer this question with special attention to sincerity and authenticity.

In the initial stages of the moment when you find yourself really getting "in" to a guy, that is, when he is doing everything right for your particular tastes, would it matter to you that he had learned how to "push all the right buttons" through some kind of seduction training? If he never lets on and tells you that he is not a "natural" romantic, would you be able to tell? If so, how? And, does it even matter so long as you are "feelin'" one another?

NOTE: Please try to restrain any compulsion to rant about the morality or immorality of "the game" or "pick up"...save that for the Philosophy section. This question is about experience, not theory.

I'm seeking mostly female perspectives. What do you think? Given that American Culture shuns the "sensitive" male, do you think this makes dealing with a break up more difficult for guys?

Yes, yes, I know. A sensitive male exists. But, as a general rule, guys are thought to be emotionally tough.

Is it possible for a woman to be both attractive and "deep"?

A couple weeks ago I posted this question. The answers I received were interesting. A vague similarity did develop between a few of the answers, a theme if you will.

Some women that answered seem to think that "very attractive" women lack depth of character because they have never grown accustom to having to be "interesting" to "present" themselves.

I once read somewhere that attractive babies grow up with strong self-esteem because they quickly become accustom to people talking, touching, and smiling at them. Thus, they grow up comfortable with social interaction.

Does this mean that most attractive women that "lack depth" were ugly babies?

The other a day a few friends and I were out and about. All of my friends are married. Every time I would point out a very attractive woman, I would hear a collective groan from them. They seem to think that a very attractive woman is also a very shallow, drama filled, and overly complicated woman. Is this really the case? If a woman is very attractive (defined as: she is hit on by guys at least on 2-3times a week min.), then is she also not deep? Is it possible for a woman to be both attractive and have depth of character? Or, do looks determine and influence a person's development of interesting character and depth? Why is it you always hear people say, "well, he/she has a great personality" only when the person talked about is not OBVIOUSLY attractive? Do looks influence the development of depth and character? Can most attractive woman also be interesting, deep, and thoughtful?

In Ernest Becker's book, "The Birth and Death of Meaning," he suggests that human beings have a natural desire to be treated and encountered as "primary objects of value." By this same measure, however, he suggests that such a condition leads to a sense of "guilt," that is , as one is recognized as a primary object of value one becomes open to the risk of "sticking out too much." Social pressures exist for those who would "stick out" too much, and, within our inner world, we are all too aware of the critical presence of others.

Bearing this in mind, I began thinking of very beautiful people, the wildly attractive. Is it possible to be "too attractive," too beautiful? Is it possible for the "beautiful" body to transcend it's objectificaition as a "sex-object" to become "obscene?" Has anyone ever said, felt, or thought the following: "that person is so beautiful it's obscene?" Examples?

In what ways might it be possible to catch a "faulty(diseased)" way of thinking from others even though we may have never communicated with them?

A common sentiment in US culture is the claim that everyone has a right to his/her opinion. Individual beliefs, we are told, are to be respected. What is "fine" for you may not be "fine" for me, and, so long as no one is harmed, we should repect eachother's different beliefs. What is the best argument against this kind of reasoning?