Cool rings

There was a UK TV series called the secret life of machines, and the presenter Tim Hunkin makes the most excellent machines... like this "Digital Clock".

The juggling machines reminded me of the show but also like kinetic sculptures such as Strandbeest or Koenig's sphere (although it's no longer a kinetic sculpture, the mechanism was destroyed when buildings and aeroplanes fell on it), hence the question.In reply to this comment by Lann:
That was cool!

Sorry for the delay in responding but the only kinetic things I have made was a balancing piece (sort of like a weather vane) and magnetic jewelry. Actually my very first rings had magnets, foam and/or felt in them (each "bubble" had a magnet)

That was cool!

Sorry for the delay in responding but the only kinetic things I have made was a balancing piece (sort of like a weather vane) and magnetic jewelry. Actually my very first rings had magnets, foam and/or felt in them (each "bubble" had a magnet)

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
See what you think of this one about juggling machines. One is an old fashioned automata (it really cheats using wires rather than juggling), and the other does bounce juggling.

http://videosift.com/video/Claude-Shannon-juggling-machines

Have you made, or considered making, kinetic sculpture?

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner said: "What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?"
Salary is a reasonable measure of societal contribution, but it's not a perfect measure, so there are of course exceptions to the rule. That being said, all lines of evidence point to that teaching in underprivileged neighborhoods is an ineffective form of philanthropy, even though it's heart-warming.

@NetRunner said: "And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people."
One of the best things we can do for society is to argue against the flaws in the zeitgeist. If those flaws predictably create poverty, showing people there's another path that their opinion leaders and teachers have strangely never exposed them to should be a high priority.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.
That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?
>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?
And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.



Can you please describe the other path you speak of? So far all I've identified from the OWS message is a general upset with wealth disparity, but no coherent or unified solution. It'd be great to hear what they are advocating for. It's the required next step from rallying against something, or this will all go either no where, or somewhere much worse.

@NetRunner said: "What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?"

Salary is a reasonable measure of societal contribution, but it's not a perfect measure, so there are of course exceptions to the rule. That being said, all lines of evidence point to that teaching in underprivileged neighborhoods is an ineffective form of philanthropy, even though it's heart-warming.



@NetRunner said: "And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people."

One of the best things we can do for society is to argue against the flaws in the zeitgeist. If those flaws predictably create poverty, showing people there's another path that their opinion leaders and teachers have strangely never exposed them to should be a high priority.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.
That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?
>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.
Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?
And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.

>> ^chilaxe:

The 'jobless economic recovery' we've experienced means all those people who don't like to read weren't contributing much to the economy.

That sounds like nonsense to me. Are you saying that the only reason why unemployment ever was low in the first place was because corporations hired people whose labor they couldn't profit from out of charity? What changed in 2007-2008 that made them all stop being charitable simultaneously?

>> ^chilaxe:
Netrunner said: "Also, it's not really healthy to define your self-worth and the worthiness of others solely on the basis of their salary. I doubt your "friends" would care much for you referring to them as mediocre or lazy, either."
1. Salary is a reasonable measure of how much we're contributing to humankind. If society values something, it will be willing to pay for it.
2. Advocating careerism is humanistic and good for the world.

Ahh, so you do think markets are perfectly moral systems. What about the needs of people who have no money? Is helping them literally worthless? Are you a better servant of humanity if you make diamond jewelry than you are if you work for a public school in an underprivileged neighborhood?

And "advocating careerism" isn't particularly useful if what you really mean is you like to yell "get a job" at homeless people.

This episode was brought to you by
Tiffany's jewelry

OKAY. Time to make a comment that ISN'T related to SB and his attention-hogging not-sure-if-trolling inanity.

I have a friend who has been sharing via facebook how her laptop has been "possessed" and detailing her ongoing and futile attempts to solve the problem. Well, today someone finally fixed her computer for her... by suggesting that she take off her magnetic bracelet while using the machine. Apparently magnets and computers don't get along very well kids, so keep that in mind while trying to fix all of your health problems with jewelry AND post funny cat videos at the same time.

Or, maybe JEEZUS was mad at her for using her EVIL MAGIC and used his WORLD CREATING and REALITY BENDING not-magic-because-jesus-does-it POWERS to punish her by making her laptop a little wonky.
...damnit SB sucked me in.

Big deal, 1st graders make batteries out of freaking potatoes. You don't know what it was used for or what specific purpose it was created for. That does not mean that it was a battery in the sense that you mean it.

You're stretching the "computer" a little bit, while technically the object in question "might have" been a computer, so is an abacus, and we don't get all up in arms over those.

What then? A drawing that looks like a helicopter? Give me a break, one drawing that looks like something does not a theory make.

Those gold items of jewelry? You saw quite clearly in the history channel video that the "model" the guy built was, speaking in terms of aeronautics, totally different. The cylinder that ran the whole length of the piece of jewelry needed to be thinned out on the flying model until it was just a twig where it met the tail. Again, speaking in terms of aeronautics, that's WAAAAY different. Don't you think it might be a more acceptable theory to say that it's a piece of jewelry that merely resembles a modern airplane? Wait, what am I saying, it's not a theory, because the fact that two pieces of jewelry that happen to look like something else does not make a theory.

Either way, science is full of anomalies, that's because science can't explain everything. Because rational people don't expect it to. Don't apply the omniscient, omnipotent aspects of god to science, because they don't make any rational sense there either.

Shit, I just have to say that watching this terrible video with this annoying used car salesmen was one of the hardest things I've done all week. And it proves nothing. This guy is just cherry picking from ideas that his poor warped brain does not have the ability to comprehend.

I'm not avoiding science because I don't accept this guy's premise. This guy is avoiding science by proposing it.

*promote new jewelry

I think a lot of you are missing the point. This is not an issue about what the burka stands for. This is about whether or not government should be allowed to tell you what to wear. If they were trying to ban the yarmulke or wearing jewelry of the crucifiction there would be no question as to the absurdity of that law. Just because you don't like it does not mean you should be able to tell other people they can't practice it. It's about governmental power, not how you feel about Muslims and burkas. They are trying to tell a specific group of people what they are allowed or not allowed to wear in public. That is repulsive. Again, it's not about what the burka represents, it's about government control.

I thought about Asian school uniforms in relation to government dictating what people can wear but, that's what they have to wear to school. Their government isn't telling them what to wear outside of that institution so, I don't think it's the same.

Fuck bridal jewelry.

EDIT: I mean....Thank you!
In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
Fuck yeah! Congrats on your diamond! The one on your finger

The only moral here is, "Leave your jewelry at home."

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*isdupe
>> ^jonny:

dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Old-Lady-Foils-Robbery-at-Jewellers

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Handbag-Heroine-Takes-On-Armed-Robbers-Attempting-To-Raid-A-Jewellery-Store-In-Northampton/Article/2011021159
25491

Includes footage of the shopkeepers in the jewelry store.

The woman is quoted as saying --
"My red coat has now been packed away for the winter and my red hair is being dyed green. And my black shopping bag is having a rest today, to give it time to recover from its bruises!"