Everything Blog

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Top Ten Arts Research Tools

The resources listed below are a good starting point for research in the arts.

Art Abstracts
Provides abstracting and indexing for 313 leading international visual art serial publications, including periodicals, yearbooks, and museum bulletins. Offers broad coverage of art topics, including advertising, archaeology, crafts, folk art, graphic arts, interior design, video, film, architecture, and art history. 1929 to the present.

ArtBibliographies Modern
Covers all aspects of modern and contemporary art, including performance art and installation works, video art, computer and electronic art, body art, graffiti, artists' books, theater arts, crafts, jewelry, illustration, and more, as well as the traditional fine arts of painting, printmaking, sculpture, and drawing. Abstracts of journal articles, books, essays, exhibition catalogs, dissertations, and exhibition reviews.

ARTstor is a continually expanding image database covering architecture, painting, photography, sculpture, decorative arts and design, as well as archeological and anthropological objects. ARTstor's software tools allow the viewing and analyzing images through features such as zooming and panning, saving groups of images online for personal or shared uses, and creating and delivering both online and offline presentations. ARTstor draws from such collections as The Museum of Modern Art Architecture and Design, The Mellon International Dunhuang Archive, The Huntington Archive of Asian Art, The Carnegie Arts of the United States, The Illustrated Bartsch and The Image Gallery.

Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals
The most comprehensive index to architecture maintained by the staff of the Avery Architectural Library at Columbia University. Late 1800's to the present.

Biography Resource Center
Biographical information on more than 165,000 people from throughout history, around the world, and across all subject areas.

Design & Applied Arts Index
References from more than 500 design and craft journals published 1973 to the present, and data on over 50,000 designers, craftspeople, studios, workshops, and firms. All areas of design and craft are covered, including industrial design, vehicle design, architecture, interior design, environmental design, computer aided design, furniture design, ceramics, glass, jewelry, metalsmithing, silversmithing, goldsmithing, fashion design, textile design, embroidery, graphic design, typography, multimedia design, illustration, book design, photography, advertising, marketing, retail design, packaging, exhibition design, theatre design, design and craft history, design and craft theory, ergonomics, design for disability, design for the elderly, design and craft education and design management.

Dictionary of Art
Provides extensive worldwide coverage of art, art styles, subjects, and media in addition to biographies of both Western and Non-Western artists, patrons, critics, and collections. Includes over 41,000 signed articles that provide bibliographic data and are usually illustrated.

Quick Multi-Database Search @ OhioLINK searches selected multiple databases simultaneously.

ProQuest dissertations & theses
Includes citations for dissertations ranging from 1861 to those accepted last semester; those published from 1980 forward include 350-word abstracts. Citations for master's theses from 1988 forward include 150-word abstracts. Titles represent authors from North America and Europe, with over a million titles in full text.

Research Library
Indexes more than 2,500 general interest and academic periodicals in all fields, and provides full text access to many of them. Indexing begins about 1970.

Scopus is an abstract and citation database of research literature and quality web sources in the social and natural sciences. It includes over 15,000 peer-reviewed titles from more than 4,000 international publishers, including coverage of: 500 open access journals, 700 conference proceedings, 600 trade publications, and 125 book series. Scopus also covers 200 million quality web sources, including 12.7 million patents.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

How to make a snowflake into 10 steps

We make Christmas Snowflake without leaving the house or the office.
We only need: scissors, glue, paper, stepler and detailed instruction further (10 photos below)

Christmas Snowflake











Now we have a perfect Christmas gift!

source here

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Creation Myths vs. Evolutionary Stories

Blake’s vision vs. “Newton’s sleep,” or ... Would William Blake and Albert Einstein have been pals had they had a chance to meet?
By Joseph Smigelski

“I know of no other Christianity and of no other Gospel than the liberty both of body and mind to exercise the Divine Arts of Imagination.”
-- William Blake

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
-- Albert Einstein

There is a great divide in this country where none should be. I’m talking about the perceived rift between science and religion. Many people believe that you are either on one side or the other. But it’s a misconception that sides even exist. There’s no real conflict, just one manufactured by manipulative ideologues who have a stake in perpetuating the division. Science and religion could peacefully coexist if people would try to understand both more fully.

George W. Bush, for instance, caters to Evangelical Christians and consistently misuses scientific data because he is afraid of losing support from the fundamentalist Religious Right. It fits his agenda to perpetuate an artificial split between science and religion.

But the Book of Genesis can coexist with the Big Bang Theory. Religious ideas often affect the scientific mind and vice versa. The famous French paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Catholic priest. Albert Einstein was a philosopher, as well as a scientist, who based much of his thinking on the premise that God would not “play dice with the universe.”

In the Beginning

The origin of the universe has been of keen interest to mankind since time immemorial. Who hasn’t gazed up at the night sky and wondered at the innumerable shining specks in the immense blackness? Where did it all come from? And how did we human beings come to be?

The author(s) of the Book of Genesis pondered these questions, and the answer postulated was that “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” It was a simple and, for its time, a reasonable and satisfying explanation. Even today, it probably stands as the most comprehensible answer for most people. How many of us can approach a real understanding of the theories of modern cosmogony such as vacuum genesis and quantum genesis? Even for many scientists, the question of the origin of the universe is too much to take on. The astronomer Allan Sandage said in 1985,

If there was a creation event, it had to have had a cause. This was Aquinas’s whole question, one of the five ways he established the existence of God. If you can find the first effect, you have at least come close to the first cause, and if you find the first cause, that to him was God. What do astronomers say? As astronomers you can’t say anything except that here is a miracle, what seems almost supernatural, an event which has come across the horizon into science, through the big bang. Can you go the other way, back outside the barrier and finally find the answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing? No, you cannot, not within science. But it still remains an incredible mystery: Why is there something instead of nothing?

Can we figure out the origin of the universe? According to Sandage, not within science. This is where William Blake comes in. “Did he who made the Lamb make thee?” Can man’s power of reason answer that question? Blake doubted it. He saw reason as a limitation on the mind--“Newton’s sleep.” Truth lies in the imagination, the power of vision; and the imagination comes up with a Creator. As Voltaire once said, “If God didn’t exist, Man would have to invent Him.”

Reason vs. Imagination

Reason vs. Imagination, head vs. heart, body vs. mind, flesh vs. soul: why the dichotomies? Why the separation of the temporal from the ethereal? Blake thought that such division was wrong. The body and the mind are not separate entities, but a complex gestalt of neurological impulses and sensory reactions all brought to life perhaps by the breath of God. Blake calls this marvelous phenomenon “the Human Form Divine.” Because the senses are as divine in nature as is the soul, they are not to be thwarted by reason. When we impede the senses through an exaggerated “reasonable” emphasis on abstinence, for instance, the result is frustration, anger, and turmoil.

According to Blake, the universe defined by reason is bleak, mechanical, “divided and measured,” burdened with iron laws. On the other hand, the universe created by the imagination is human in aspect. By depending too much on reason, at the expense of emotion and imagination, mankind binds itself in “the Net of Religion”:

And their children wept, and built
Tombs in the desolate places,
And formed laws of prudence, and called them
The eternal laws of God.

Laws of prudence. We know what Blake thought of prudence from reading his Proverbs of Hell: “Prudence is a rich ugly old maid courted by Incapacity.” Man forges his own chains when he creates his law-giving God. To melt those chains, man must look within himself, into the fires burning in his own divine body and soul. By trying to understand God with our intellect, with our reason, we separate the concept of God from the concept of man: we limit our chances of discovering God within ourselves.

Creation vs. Evolution

The question of the relationship between God and man is entwined with the questions surrounding man’s origin. Even today, 79 years after Clarence Darrow battled William Jennings Bryan in the famous Monkey Trial, a seemingly never ending debate rages in our courts and in our schools over whether we should believe the Book of Genesis or Charles Darwin.

Did God create man, or did man create God in order to explain the unexplainable? Or are both of these ideas correct? Many of us seem to need the concept of an ultimate Creator to shield us from the mind-boggling conundrum of our existence. In an essay titled “The Creation Myths of Cooperstown,” the renowned scientist Stephen Jay Gould wrote,

Stories about beginnings come in only two basic modes. An entity either has an explicit point of origin, a specific time and place of creation, or else it evolves and has no definable moment of entry into the world. Baseball provides an interesting example of this contrast because we know the answer and can judge received wisdom by the two chief criteria, often opposed, of external fact and internal hope. Baseball evolved from a plethora of previous stick-and-ball games. It has no true Cooperstown and no Doubleday. Yet we seem to prefer the alternative model of origin by a moment of creation [my emphasis].... Scientists often lament that so few people understand Darwin and the principles of biological evolution. But the problem goes deeper. Too few people are comfortable with evolutionary modes of explanation in any form.... One reason must reside in our social and psychic attraction to creation myths in preference to evolutionary stories—for creation myths ... identify heroes and sacred places, while evolutionary stories provide no palpable, particular thing as a symbol for reverence, worship, or patriotism.

The concept of evolution is both challenging and disturbing. Could the origin of our universe possibly be the result of a long series of events that were chaotic or governed by chance? Many people find such an idea shocking. It’s much more pleasant and reassuring to believe that God handled the entire job in six days. Yet the concept of evolution is infinitely richer and more expansive. It is much more wondrous to view the vast complex array of all that exists in the universe as a continually developing marvel which began eons ago as an infinitely simpler system than to bind oneself to the belief that God simply snapped his fingers and, presto, here we are.

The creation myth is limiting because, through it, man views himself as a creature subservient to God, instead of realizing that God is within the breast of man and is the life force that infuses all of existence. Nietzsche had to say that God was dead in order to impel us to realize the true depth of our humanity. Blake illustrates the emotional contrasts born of the two profoundly different concepts of origin in The Book of Urizen. (“Urizen” can be read and interpreted as “your reason.”)

The creation myth:

Lo, a shadow of horror is risen
In Eternity! Unknown, unprolific!
Self-closed, all-repelling: what Demon
Hath formed this abominable void,
This soul-shuddering vacuum?—Some said
“It is Urizen,” but unknown, abstracted
Brooding secret, the dark power hid.
Times on times he divided, and measured
Space by space in his ninefold darkness
Unseen, unknown! Changes appeared
In his desolate mountains rifted furious
By the black winds of perturbation.

Urizen divides creation, categorizes it, tries to contain the energy in perfect circles, as Blake depicts in his painting The Ancient of Days (see the image at the top of this article). But to categorize something is to put limits on it. If something is strictly defined, it can be nothing beyond the boundaries of that definition:

One command, one joy, one desire,
One curse, one weight, one measure,
One King, one God, one Law.

Evolution is messier, but infinitely more expansive, and endlessly full of potential for growth:

The serpent grew, casting its scales,
With sharp pangs the hissings began
To change to a grating cry.
Many sorrows and dismal throes,
Many forms of fish, bird, and beast
Brought forth an Infant form
Where was a worm before.

One can interpret Blake as an early champion of the theory of evolution!

Blake a Harbinger of Relativity

He can also be viewed as a harbinger of the other great scientific principle of our age, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. The following lines from Blake’s Jerusalem certainly surprised me the first time I saw them:

If Perceptive Organs vary, Objects of Perception seem to vary:
If the Perceptive Organs close, their Objects seem to close also.

Blake questioned the possibility of true objectivity. Modern scientists agree with him; they know that the very act of observing something influences the thing observed.

In a letter to his friend Thomas Butts, Blake included a poem that ended with these lines:

Now I a fourfold vision see,
And a fourfold vision is given to me.
Tis fourfold in my supreme delight
And threefold in soft Beulah’s night
And twofold Always. May God us keep
From Single vision and Newton’s sleep.

“Newton’s sleep” has been defined as “the preference of a mechanical view of the universe over a spiritual view.” But I have to be fair to Sir Isaac. He was aware that his scientific ideas might not have been all encompassing. He once wrote,

To myself I seem to have been only a little boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a smoother shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

It seems also that Newton was not completely the hard and fast, nuts and bolts rationalist that we often imagine. Some years ago, very interesting and shocking material was found in a trunk full of Newton’s papers. According to author Timothy Ferris, the trunk contained “notes on alchemy, biblical prophesy, and the reconstruction from Hebraic texts of the floor plan of the temple of Jerusalem,” which Newton considered “an emblem of the system of the world.” This discovery compelled John Maynard Keynes to say, “Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians.”

We really got our feet wet (scientifically) in the “great ocean of truth” when Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, seventy-eight years after the death of Blake. However, Blake’s “fourfold vision” could be interpreted as a prophetic notion of a multi-dimensional universe. In our limited, plain, everyday three-dimensional world, Newton’s laws of motion (which gave rise to the Deists’ conception of a clockwork universe) still stand as valid. His laws begin to fail to explain things when we delve into either the realm of the very small (sub-atomic particles) or the very large (the vast dimensions of outer space, traveling at speeds approaching that of light, etc.).

Scientists today speak seriously of parallel universes, shadow matter, supersymmetry, and other concepts that might seem to the layman to belong more in the field of science fiction than science. That Blake intuitively challenged the ultimate validity of Newton’s laws is quite remarkable. (I think that Blake would have gotten along quite nicely with Einstein who, by the way, firmly believed in God and also wrote poetry.)

Blake and Einstein Intuitive

Blake’s intuitiveness is very interesting. He seems to have somehow acquired knowledge from within himself that would have been impossible for him to gather from the world outside himself. To understand this concept, consider the following passage from David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Section II, “Of the Origin of Ideas”), written in 1748:

Nothing, at first view, may seem more unbounded than the thought of man, which not only escapes all human power and authority, but is not even restrained within the limits of nature and reality.... And while the body is confined to one planet, along which it creeps with pain and difficulty, the thought can in an instant transport us into the most distant regions of the universe, or even beyond the universe.

Einstein was intuitive also, as well as being an acute observer of the external world. He did no physical experiments. He arrived at his theories by using his mind, a piece of paper, and a pencil (sometimes chalk and a blackboard). Ideas often sprang into this head as sudden bursts of inspiration. For example, his first insight into what he called “the key to a deeper understanding” of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass occurred in 1907. Einstein later referred to this as “the happiest thought of my life”:

I was sitting in a chair in the patent office at Bern, when all of a sudden a thought occurred to me: “If a person falls freely, he will not feel his own weight.” I was startled. This simple thought made a deep impression on me. It impelled me toward a theory of gravitation.

Blake and Einstein might have liked each other very much. Blake distrusted using reason by itself as a way toward understanding, and said that it is through emotion and imagination in conjunction with reason that we can find truth. Reason has its place, but it should not rule our emotions and our imagination. Instead, emotion and imagination should guide reason because within imagination lies the promise of personal salvation.

Joseph Smigelski teaches English in the California community college system.

Posted Sunday, August 22, 2004

Monday, December 04, 2006

Top 10 Most Expensive Paintings

Hundreds of thousands — even millions — of dollars are spent every year by art patrons eager to own the world's most sought-after paintings. Find out a little more about this shortlist of Picasso's, Van Gogh's and more works from famous artists who still command the highest prices, what makes these paintings so special, and why they're worth so very much...

1. Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer by Gustav Klimt ($135,000,000)

The record-breaking sale - which followed a court order by the Austrian government to return the painting to Bloch-Bauer's heir - was the culmination of a years-long dispute over the painting looted by Nazis during World War II.

Painted by the art nouveau master Gustav Klimt in 1907, the portrait was purchased in 2006 by cosmetics heir Ronald S. Lauder.

2. Garçon à la Pipe by Pablo Picasso ($104,100,000)

Garçon à la Pipe was created during the artist's famous Rose Period, during which Picasso painted with a cheerful orange and pink palatte. The oil on canvas painting, measuring 100 × 81.3 cm (slightly over 39 × 32 inches), depicts a Parisian boy holding a pipe in his left hand.

The record price auction at Sotheby's New York on May 4, 2004 was a bit of a surprise to art buyers, since it was painted in the style not usually associated with the pioneering Cubist artist.

3. Dora Maar with Cat by Pablo Picasso ($95,200,000)

Another big surprise followed in 2006, when this painting near doubled its presale estimate and fetched a record $95,200,000 at auction at Sotheby's on May 3, 2006.

Painted in 1941, Picasso's controversial portrait (one of his last) is sometimes described as an unflattering depiction of his mistress, Dora Maar, who was an artist/photographer and mistress of Picasso whose relationship lasted ten years during the 1930s and 40s.

4. Portrait of Dr. Gachet by Vincent van Gogh ($82,500,000)

This painting by the Dutch Impressionist master Vincent van Gogh suddenly became world-famous when Japanese businessman Ryoei Saito paid $82.5 million for it at auction in Christie's, New York. Saito was so attached to the painting that he wanted it to be cremated with him when he died. Saito died in 1996 ... but the painting was saved.

Vincent van Gogh actually painted two versions of Dr Gachet's portrait. You can view the other version, with a slightly different color scheme, at the Musée d'Orsay in Paris.

5. Bal Au Moulin de la Galette by Pierre-Auguste Renoir ($78,000,000)

Bal au moulin de la Galette, Montmartre was painted by French artist Pierre-Auguste Renoir in 1876. On May 17, 1990, it was sold for $ 78,000,000 at Sotheby's in New York City to Ryoei Saito, who bought it together with the Portrait of Dr Gachet (see above).

6. Massacre of the Innocents by Peter Paul Rubens ($76,700,000)

This painting by Peter Paul Rubens, painted in 1611, is the only painting in this list which was not painted in the 19th or 20th century. It was sold to Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet for $ 76,700,000 at a 2002 Sotheby's auction.

7. Portrait de l'Artiste sans Barbe by Vincent van Gogh ($71,500,000)

Portrait de l'artiste sans barbe ("Self-portrait without beard") is one of many self-portraits by Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh. He painted this one in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, France in September 1889. The painting is a oil painting on canvas and is 40 cm x 31 cm (16" x 13").

This is an uncommon painting since his other self-portraits show him with a beard. The self-portrait became one of the most expensive paintings of all time when it was sold for $71.5 million in 1998 in New York.

8. Rideau, Cruchon et Compotier by Paul Cézanne ($60,500,000)

This painting by Paul Cézanne, painted in ca. 1893-1894, sold for $60,500,000 at Sotheby's New York on May 10, 1999 to "The Whitneys". Whitney, born into one of America's wealthiest families, was a venture capitalist, publisher, Broadway show and Hollywood film producer, and philanthropist.

9. Femme aux Bras Croisés by Pablo Picasso ($55,000,000)

This work, painted in 1901, was a part of Picasso's famous Blue Period, a dark, sad time in the artist's life. The beautiful & various tones of blue are typical. The painting depicts a woman with her arms crossed staring at the endless nothing.

Femme aux Bras Croisés was sold for $55,000,000 November 8, 2000, at Christie's Rockefeller in New York City.

10. Irises by Vincent Van Gogh ($53,900,000)

Vincent van Gogh painted this at Saint Paul-de-Mausole in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, France in 1889, only one year before his death. In 1987, it became the most expensive painting to date. It was sold for $ 54,000,000 to Alan Bond and later resold to the Getty Museum.

150 Cheap Places To Live

by Rich Karlgaard

We've all heard about the wonders of the broadband Web. You can stream video, surf at lightning speeds, search for God-knows-what, get your e-mail in a blink. Here's what you may not know: It can let you live far richer than you probably live now.

Let me explain: For most of us, our biggest expense is the monthly mortgage payment that buys our house. The median house in America costs $210,000. Let's put in a new kitchen, redo the bathrooms and place the house in a good school district. Bingo, $300,000. For this money, you'll get a 2,300-square-foot house on a quarter-acre.

Does $300,000 sound cheap or expensive to you? Depends entirely on where you live, right? You'd say ridiculously cheap if you happen to live in Boston, New York, Washington, the Florida coasts or anywhere in California.

What if you want to live in a grander fashion? Say a 4,000-square-foot house on an acre.

What would that cost you? In Palo Alto, Calif., Greenwich, Conn., Washington, D.C.'s Georgetown or San Diego's La Jolla, easily $4 million. In just as lovely Bend, Ore., where the sky is blue and dry, the Deschutes River trout jump year round and Mt. Bachelor winter powder is bitchin’, maybe $700,000. You'll get more than an acre, too.

So 20th Century

So why haven't we all moved to Bend? Most of us, I contend, are trapped in old thinking, victims of pre-broadband Web stereotypes. Yes (one's thinking goes) I could "drop out of the rat race" and move to Bend. But the upgrade in lifestyle would cost me in other ways. Limited by the Bend salary rates, I would gain little financially. I might indeed drop my cost of living, but my paycheck would shrink, too. My chance for stimulating work could shrivel, as I find myself out of the professional loop. Worst of all, I’d feel isolated...even bored!

Ah, bunk! This is the 21st century, man! Today you can enjoy the best of both worlds:

1. Live where you want.

2. Get paid like you're in a big city

3. Never be isolated or bored.

Say you're a bright knowledge worker and have spent a decade or more in your industry, sharpening your skills, making the right contacts. You earn a decent salary on the metro coast, but those dollars just don't stretch like they used to. So you decide to shake off the costly coastal infrastructure and relocate to a cheaper rural region. But you maintain your ties to the larger metro area and pull down the same amount of money as you did when you were living in Profligate Corners. In other words, you still harvest your dollars from Silicon Valley, Washington and New York, but now you spend and invest them in Bend or Boise.

Congratulations! You are a true 21st century man or woman! You are a Geographic Arbitrageur! Thanks to computers, Fed-Ex, cell phones, but mostly the broadband Web, you can do this.

The Secrets Of The GeoArb

Not everyone is cut out to be a Geographic Arbitrageur, of course. It takes buckets of moxie and self-motivation to work hours (or even time zones) away from the big-dollar centers. It takes a certain knowledge and sophistication about how the big-dollar centers operate.

I have seen some professionals play the GeoArb game without ever having lived in the economic powerhouses, but it's rare. It helps enormously to have lived on the metro coasts, put in a few years, met people in your field face-to-face and established a professional reputation and a contact list.

In this century of high metro real estate prices and flattening paychecks, GeoArb could become a way of life for millions of knowledge workers. Suppose you lost your high-paying white-collar job in a big city. What would you do? File for unemployment? Probably not. Show up a bogus "jobs retraining" program and be taught by a social worker who knows little about the way business really works? No. In all likelihood you'd set up a home office and try your hand as a consultant. That's what some 300,000 Americans have done since 2000.

Here's the catch. Surviving as a freelance knowledge worker--where you sell your time--is extremely tough in high-priced joints like New York, California or Washington, especially if you are the sole family breadwinner. It is cruelly difficult to generate enough income to make your $4,000 per month mortgage payments, keep the cars and professional wardrobes up, take clients to dinner, maybe send the kids to private schools and try to save money.

Most competent freelancers past the age of 30 with big-city connections in fields such as product design, public relations, software and sales and marketing can make $100,000 per year if they put their minds to it. Trust me, it's not that hard to do if you're a pro and you're pulling those bucks from California or New York. What's hard for any freelancer to do anywhere on the planet is earn the second $100,000. Yet that second $100,000 is what your household needs to swing a comfortable middle-class family lifestyle in the metro coastal areas.

But $100,000 per year, or even $75,000, buys a nice life in smaller communities. Presto: Geographic Arbitrage.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

What programmers do when space button does not work




Delphi Programmer:

C++ Programmer:


Perl Programmer:
print join("\x20",unpack("A1A2A7A3A6A2A*","Isaythespacebuttondoesnotwork"));

VB Programmer:

HTML Coder:

PHP Programmer:

.NET Programmer:
class space()
public void notneeded()

thank for idea to Sivka

Friday, December 01, 2006

Top Ten Reasons Why a Vibrator Is Better Than a Man

1. It keeps going, and going, and going.
A vibrator can keep going as long as it takes to satisfy you. All it needs is a power supply, and batteries are a lot cheaper and easier to get than Viagra.

2. You don’t have to worry where else it’s been.
Unless you picked it up at a yard sale, you won’t have to give a second thought to who else might have used your vibrator before you. And you won’t have to worry about your vibrator jumping in another woman’s pants when you’re gone, unless if you have a freaky roommate.

3. Vibrators can have more than one speed.
Most guys have two settings: full speed and off. Vibrators have variable controls and let you pick the pace and intensity.

4. A vibrator won’t ask you if it’s bigger than all other vibrators you’ve had.
Vibrators aren’t insecure about their size or ability, and don’t keep asking for reassurance. Big or small, they just get the job done.

5. A vibrator doesn’t roll over and snore.
A vibrator won’t finish before you and fall asleep. When you’re done with it, just shut it off and tuck it in your night stand drawer, then get a peaceful night’s rest with the bed to yourself.

6. It’s ready when you are, and only when you are.
With a flick of a switch, your vibrator is ready to give you pleasure. On the other hand, when you’re tired or have a headache, you won’t get in bed and find your vibrator turned on.

7. Vibrators are designed for your pleasure.
A penis is designed for procreation and male sexual pleasure, not to stimulate the clitoris and bring a woman to orgasm. A vibrator, on the other hand, was created with women in mind. Use the right tool for the job.

8. No germs and no sperm.
A vibrator can’t get you pregnant or give you an STD. You’ll never have to worry about birth control, condoms, or safe sex. If you like the feel of latex, slap a condom on for easy cleaning.

9. Vibrators don’t expect you to swallow.
You will never have to give your vibrator a blow job, much less swallow its cum or be made to feel guilty if you don’t.

10. Vibrators are easy to replace.
If your vibrator breaks, wears out, or is defective, it’s easy enough to buy another one. Of course, a guy is easy to replace, too, but you can’t order one online and get home delivery.

Honestly, I think that is a lesbians provocation