*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Wave-Pendulum

I totally don't blame the student. She's not stupid for not realizing how far forward she was moving. The anxiety of the moment and the professor standing right next to you can give you ignorant confidence and just make you less aware of things.

What a stupid asshole prick professor. His only job in this demonstration is to ensure she keeps her head still after the pendulum is released.

She very obviously moved forward by about 6 to 8 inches, and the professor didn't even seem to be concerned enough to look in her direction at all.

I guess I am having difficulty squaring two of the things you've mentioned. If a devout Muslim barber can refuse to serve women and this is not seen as discrimination why can't a devout Christian refuse to participate in a gay wedding and get the same respect from you?

As to the idea that religious rights, or rights of conscience are subservient to rights of physical attributes or genetic predisposition I need more convincing. The Civil Rights Act doesn't favor one over the other. Religion ranks as an equal with race, color, sex and national origin. How are physical rights "more protected?"

An instance comes to mind where someone's religious rights are actually weighed as more important that your physical rights. Members of the Native American Church may legally use peyote. You and I will be arrested.

I see the argument of conscience vs. genetics upside down from where you've landed. So does the State of Oregon. Did you know, that if there is no reconciliation between the bakery and the State then State will move to 'rehabilitate?' Because something must be defective in the bakery owner's mind they need to be 'rehabilitated.' That is chilling. The very idea that your thoughts could be somehow suspect indicates that the State has concluded that thoughts are incredibly important. Because thoughts lead to behavior. Not only do they not want you behaving in a certain manner, they don't even want you thinking it. I reference 1984 and Animal Farm.

I am not sure that people know what they are asking for when they back this kind of intrusion. It might seem right to them at this moment, but when their counterparts are are in charge (because the pendulum swings), it makes one wonder what thoughts will be in the dock then. How will that law be used to root out contrary thinking then? I want to be free to think what I want to think. I want the privilege of being right and the privilege of being wrong. I also want you to have that privilege, as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think these laws are blunt. While I agree that people should not be discriminated against and I practice that in my own life, what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event? How can they refuse since they already cater other events? We have opened the proverbial can of worms

I am guessing that I was one of the first pastors, if not the first, in my community not in opposition to gay marriage. I don't say this with any sense of accomplishment of having wrestled through some sort of epic moral struggle, because I never have opposed gay marriage as sanctioned by the State. I don't believe there is any Constitutional basis for opposing it. . I also see no issue with a business serving the gay community. By default, our family business has happily done so for decades. One of my favorite mottoes is, 'live and let live.' I am confident that people around me, including those gays that call me 'friend' know this about me already. Although I am a part of the Christian community where I live, not one of my gay friends has exited our relationship due to that, nor have I ever been considered a homophobe. My views on marriage are exactly that: conclusions I have come to with the resources at my command. And whether or not I disagree with you, I believe that I have no right whatsoever to impose my view of marriage on anyone. In the same breath, after considering my own failings, I have no right to judge how someone else chooses to live their life. I have concluded that whatever path they choose was never between me and them, but between them and God anyway.

The solutions to this common struggle today (the question of religious conscience living side by side with gender liberty) cannot be solved by enacting more law. Americans are, as always, legislating the soupe du jour. The trouble is, in a society where that kind of 'might makes right,' the pendulum can and does swing the other way to deleterious effect. I think that our common issue can be solved by a simple but powerful idea: a stronger community. Like it or not, we are in this together and only together can overcome the vitriol on either side.

I remember an incident many years ago when my Muslim ex-Uncle showed up at my grandparent's house for dinner. On the menu: pork. In one of the most despicable acts of imposition that I can remember happening in our family, my Grandfather decided that serving pork that day would give him some kind of twisted self satisfaction; a victory, of sorts. He decided that he would attempt to get our Uncle to violate his religious conscience and, if that not be possible, at the very least, offend my Uncle as much as possible within his power. I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't within my Grandfather's rights to serve whatever meal he wanted in his own home. But was it morally right? If he had loved my Uncle, he would have put aside his own rights and made a way to foster community. That is what living together is about.

In the same vein, I don't believe any one of my gay friends would ever ask me to perform their wedding. Even given that right legally, they wouldn't ask because they love me and they would not attempt to get me to violate both my conscience and my own understanding of marriage. While we agree to disagree, we remain friends out of love. Love is what binds. The law divides. The law is a foreigner to community, the enemy of community, when it says, 'we can live together only when you do as I want you to do in order to satisfy me or my sense of offense for another." While laws are necessary in society, they are superfluous when love will do. But we don't want to work that hard. So we make rules. We call people names. We stereotype. We divide, condescend, and foment bitterness toward our neighbors, gay and straight alike.

I had a friend confess to me once, "My whole family is racist. I was racist. But I'm not racist any more." That didn't happen because of legislation. It happened because he got to know some black people and found out that he had some love in his heart for them. Wouldn't you have liked to have been there when he shook a black man's hand for the first time in his life? Yeah, me too.

Just once, I'd like to see someone brew some iced tea, walk across the street to that gay neighbor or that Christian neighbor and sit down and find some commonality. I read above (can't remember who wrote it) that the Bible's morality is trumped by today's morality. I say that the epitome of morality exists in the words of Jesus when he says, "Love your enemies." That, to me, is the fulfillment of what it means to be human.

In related thoughts, I think the Church needs to tell the State, 'Goodbye. We are not going to act as your agent any longer in arena of legal marriage. We will not sign your documents. You have the legal authority over marriage in our society but the Church has the spiritual authority as the Church sees fit." That leaves room for some congregations to perform gay weddings and others to not as they see fit. It leaves room for live and let live. It leaves room for love.

Check out Dan Osman, he does this at running speed. (or did, he died penduluming years back)
He makes this guy seem timid and cautious.
*related

http://videosift.com/video/Free-climbing-400-feet-in-just-over-4-minutes?showbackup=1973

But it's far from true, he's not the only one...just check the video link I put above of Dan Osman (RIP) who could run circles around this guy (before he pendulumed to his death). Now DAN was the only person in the world who could do what he did that I've ever seen....I remember seeing video of him effortlessly doing 1 pinky pull ups while being interviewed....just wow.

I want a game console, not a multimedia internet device. I already have that, it s called a PC.

And thus the pendulum swings back. The Xbox made me love consoles again...now I'm back to playing mostly PC games again.

People want convergence. With all the cross platform games out there, I hardly matters anymore if you've got an Xbox, Wii, or PS. They only buy specific consoles for the exclusives, but if there are only one or two of them, it's not worth it.

What gamers what is what these companies will never give them: convergance. The ability to play any game on any platform. games need to become platform neutral. or make a single platform that can be loaded on any OS

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by Barseps.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Pendulum-Alter-Ego-demonstration

This video is from 4 years ago, it seems they've used their technology in several games since then.

http://videosift.com/video/Pendulum-Alter-Ego-demonstration

http://www.studiopendulum.com/?page_id=204

Sand says NO, but the pendulum says yes.

I'd been wondering what the puff of smoke was... according to an article in El Reg, quoting robohub.org, it was a flour filled shock absorber breaking.

Interesting idea, obviously clocks have used that form of power for quite a while... I'd have never thought of using it for anything other than a pendulum clock though.

Outrospection (empathy) is nothing without introspection first.

One will have no perspective to offer others is they do not fully understand how they think or feel themselves about the life they live.

I understand the need to be increasingly empathetic. In fact, I applaud it. However, one must not swing the pendulum so far the other way as to lose sight of one's self.

>> ^messenger:

So would two pendulums of the same length hung from the same string (like on the Wikipedia page) be considered in phase, even though they have opposite patterns? What about the Wilberforce pendulum? Is it considered to be in phase?>> ^crotchflame:
You're right: a double pendulum is a coupled oscillator and is a good example. It's a coupled oscillator with multiple normal modes that can give it a complex motion even for small oscillations where it isn't chaotic - some would argue that at larger amplitudes it's no longer a simple oscillator so a lot of the terminology in use here doesn't apply. The point is that it doesn't settle into one coupled mode that is stable against perturbations the way phase locked oscillators would.



The two pendula on a string can be put into motion where they are in phase but they aren't phase locked because they don't have to stay that way. Like the example being shown on the wikipedia entry, they are mode coupling where one oscillates but loses amplitude as the other begins to move - this is the motion it will be in if you start one of them but not the other. If you set them both swinging at the same time from the same height they would be in phase but if you then perturbed them they would go into a more complex modal behavior so you couldn't say they are phase locked.

The Wilberforce is the same - if you just twist the spring, it will be twist back and forth for a while until it loses energy to the pendulum motion; it will eventually stop as the pendulum takes over and then it will start coupling back the other way. You can put the system in phase where the rotations and the swings are aligned in phase but the strong coupling allows them to share energy more rapidly and to take on more complex modal interactions.