The man makes a convincing argument!>> ^therealblankman:

It might sound odd, but I'm very passionate about shaving. I have tried everything that comes on the market, Fusion, Mach3 or whatever and they all suck donkey balls next to my single blade, double edge safety-razor, badger brush and good shaving soap. For those men who shave, especially black guys, wet-shaving simply can not be beat.
I've worn out 2 bristle brushes in 25 years of shaving. When the last needed to be replaced I treated myself to a really nice Badger hair brush- it was about $50, and is totally worth it. I'm allowed to have nice things. A five dollar bristle brush works just as well, but doesn't feel nearly as nice, nor does it make as nice a lather.
For soap Proraso Ultra-Sensitive is my current favorite. It's pretty inexpensive- a ten dollar tub lasts almost a year, and it is nicely moisturizing. Doesn't have a pretty scent, but that's okay. Not that it doesn't smell nice- it does, just not all pretty-like. I also use the standard Proraso green- it's loaded with Menthol and Eucalyptus so is really cooling on the skin- in the summer on a hot day if you use that stuff and cool water it feels like you're shaving with ice. There are some expensive luxury soaps and creams available and they are absolutely fantastic- An ex once gave me a cake of Geo F. Trumpers Limes, and I cherished that stuff for years- used it only on special occasions. You can also buy the old-standard "Mug" brand shaving soap for about one or two dollars at most drug stores- it works pretty good as well but is a little drying to the face- I keep a bar around and take it camping and backpacking.
The handle I use is a classic vintage "Improved" Gillette 3-piece screw-together safety razor dating from the 1930s, which makes it nearly 80 years old! How's that for economical? New handles are also available at specialty stores and online. The Merkur brand handles are particularly nice- I have one of those even though I still prefer the vintage Gillette. The old Gillette is also gold plated which does nothing to make the shave better but it looks cool.
As for blades, about three or four years ago I bought 400 Derby brand safety blades on Ebay for $50! I use fewer than 2 blades/week which means I've got a lot left, more than a hundred. I've also given away many packages to friends who wanted to try wet-shaving and none of them have gone back to their old (new?) ways.
Two passes gives me a clean and super-close shave, no nicks, no ingrown hairs, no burning, no bumps. Skin feels fantastic and I do very well with the ladies. Speaking of the ladies, most every woman I've been with has been very curious about the whole thing- the morning ritual with the brush, the special soaps etc. Some have even asked if they could try- which can lead to a lot of fun! Think that'll ever come about with your cheap spray-can of nasty foam or gel?
Men-do yourself a favour and throw away those over-priced mediocre multi-blade set-ups and chemical-laden skin-drying cans of shitty foam and shave like a real man. This is one thing your grandfather had right.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/688684
5/ns/today-today_weekend_edition/t/how-get-perfect-shave/#.T1aPd_Wt2nA

It might sound odd, but I'm very passionate about shaving. I have tried everything that comes on the market, Fusion, Mach3 or whatever and they all suck donkey balls next to my single blade, double edge safety-razor, badger brush and good shaving soap. For those men who shave, especially black guys, wet-shaving simply can not be beat.

I've worn out 2 bristle brushes in 25 years of shaving. When the last needed to be replaced I treated myself to a really nice Badger hair brush- it was about $50, and is totally worth it. I'm allowed to have nice things. A five dollar bristle brush works just as well, but doesn't feel nearly as nice, nor does it make as nice a lather.

For soap Proraso Ultra-Sensitive is my current favorite. It's pretty inexpensive- a ten dollar tub lasts almost a year, and it is nicely moisturizing. Doesn't have a pretty scent, but that's okay. Not that it doesn't smell nice- it does, just not all pretty-like. I also use the standard Proraso green- it's loaded with Menthol and Eucalyptus so is really cooling on the skin- in the summer on a hot day if you use that stuff and cool water it feels like you're shaving with ice. There are some expensive luxury soaps and creams available and they are absolutely fantastic- An ex once gave me a cake of Geo F. Trumpers Limes, and I cherished that stuff for years- used it only on special occasions. You can also buy the old-standard "Mug" brand shaving soap for about one or two dollars at most drug stores- it works pretty good as well but is a little drying to the face- I keep a bar around and take it camping and backpacking.

The handle I use is a classic vintage "Improved" Gillette 3-piece screw-together safety razor dating from the 1930s, which makes it nearly 80 years old! How's that for economical? New handles are also available at specialty stores and online. The Merkur brand handles are particularly nice- I have one of those even though I still prefer the vintage Gillette. The old Gillette is also gold plated which does nothing to make the shave better but it looks cool.

As for blades, about three or four years ago I bought 400 Derby brand safety blades on Ebay for $50! I use fewer than 2 blades/week which means I've got a lot left, more than a hundred. I've also given away many packages to friends who wanted to try wet-shaving and none of them have gone back to their old (new?) ways.

Two passes gives me a clean and super-close shave, no nicks, no ingrown hairs, no burning, no bumps. Skin feels fantastic and I do very well with the ladies. Speaking of the ladies, most every woman I've been with has been very curious about the whole thing- the morning ritual with the brush, the special soaps etc. Some have even asked if they could try- which can lead to a lot of fun! Think that'll ever come about with your cheap spray-can of nasty foam or gel?

Men-do yourself a favour and throw away those over-priced mediocre multi-blade set-ups and chemical-laden skin-drying cans of shitty foam and shave like a real man. This is one thing your grandfather had right.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/6886845/ns/today-today_weekend_edition/t/how-get-perfect-shave/#.T1aPd_Wt2nA

sheesh the invisible guy in the sky does a little manscaping and everyone has to bitch about the shaving foam. Just be happy it was not old spice.

I live here guys! Well, just down the road from here (to the left as you face the sea)

It's been a really really stormy christmas. You sometimes get a bit of this foam on the beach in places when the wind whips up a bit, but this was seriously bizzare, not seen it in my lifetime. I'd recommend not playing with/in it.

Looks like one of those foam oblongs fell on the accelerator. Or pushed it on purpose! Filthy foam terrorists insinuating their way into our lives with their softness and ability to be moulded into a variety of shapes!

How dare they!

There have been a few possible theories, a more like a strong hypothesis, that has alternate ideas for the presence of Dark Matter. One of which is simply more a misunderstanding by us of the nature of what is happening at a fundamental level concerning the internal structure and spin of galaxies; their part and full presentation into the full dynamics--the true inner workings--isn't fully realized yet, but they assert a new reason for the discrepancy in how the galaxy spins at different radii in that galaxy and in fact kill off the need for Dark matter. Secondly, it's our mathematics involved that have created this absolute need for Dark Matter to even exist, which is explained in the last part about this subject below. Lastly, a few findings like the outer arms, the large gas/ice/dust/etc... volumes (nebulae and plasma lit regions) and the stars (and their systems)--their movement rate on the outside edge of their respective galaxies, which if like "normal physics" (I quote that because if we made a mistake, the fault will always be ours and not the Universes ) would seem to show that the inside should rotate faster than the outside edges, which is not what happens at all--they rotate at the SAME speed. The actual math involved to solve this little mystery shows that there HAS TO be a large chunk of the Universe missing to get the mathematics to finally spit out numbers that work out. They have provided their own set of new cosmological equations that describe the motion within a galaxy; as of this writing they have tried the new math equations on four different galaxies that are known well. The reason this one has most likely been called a theory as of late is due to their new equations completely and correctly describing the motion of those galaxies, from origin, even until their virtual deaths--that makes this small theory the strongest front-runner for getting rid of Dark Matter altogether. This was a large paragraph, I made it small to make it a tad more readable.

But, Dark Matter is a very well-held theory for the scientific community though and it still has quite a bit of evidence for it's case as well. It has much more proof than this smaller theory does, but it's good to keep an open mind and let your mind run free with new ideas every so often as it may give you a new idea as well. Due to an idea I heard from a physicist: Lawrence Krauss, I was thinking about the Universe and some implications concerning Quantum Mechanics with possible larger scale events that are occurring with cosmologists looking for ways to explain things, but they are basically on the run--the fresh ideas are gone. Because, of the little creative idea above that explains away Dark Matter it triggered a provocative idea, one that I'm not qualified to answer or really even guess at (beyond it's initial qualities)--so I will send the idea off and see if they can maybe visualize what I'm implying just a little more clearly. I'm not entirely sure there will be a correct way to view this idea due to it's near "virtual"-like impact on our Universe, one that may be unprovable except for three possible ways I can think of. Two of which are beyond are capability right now, but we will have the ability later and the last using Quantum Foam experiments to look for certain types of superposition maybe even using entanglement (it would need to be a semi-radical setup that is "one-sided" in nature and using information concerning Dark Energy, as I'll finish here at the end of the sentence) that may relate to information that might be probable to gain through later scientific gathering, like the expansion rate or if it's nature is confined merely to space-time or if it actually occurs eventually all the way down to the subatomic.

I had the idea that perhaps Dark Energy could actually be the tell-tale signs of an existing second Big Bang merely hidden under our collective noses due too space-time and it's nature (maybe it's fairly "structurally sound" when it comes to a bubble fight) or it's an active component of the Quantum Mechanical universe, perhaps directly attributed to the Quantum Foam. I'm wondering--and of course I've got no real idea what a Universe "pressing" upon us might do, if this could even happen--if Dark Energy is the pressure wave of perhaps a secondary Universe, probably very much like ours,but the logical, mathematical,constants, and theories have either become slightly different to a lot or the Universe is unlike anything in our book; but I'm assuming it came from the same Quantum Foam that got us here which means it may have more in common with us that we know.

I'm going to try and get some more feedback on this and see if it proves to go elsewhere and opens new doors.

This idea basically stems from the idea and theoretical work relating to "Quantum Foam". It's been called a few other things, but that is the usual name. As far as Quantum Mechanics is concerned this is also some great framework to explain the big-bang; which is actually in a Physics talk on VideoSift somewhere, but I'll have to look it up.

>> ^harlequinn:

Does the water jets it is using make any difference to the wake?

Yes it does, but as it's the only economical (by defense standards anyway) way to get that hulk up to those speeds, the foam of the wake really doesn't factor in. The impressive part is the bow waves though, or lack thereof. The pontoons (I don't believe they have engines, otherwise they'd be nacelles) seem to catch the bow waves, possibly re-using the force to retrieve some lost kinetic energy. That last part might be coming out of my ass though.

>> ^bareboards2:

Midsummer night's dream, anyone?


Or Pinocchio?

Translation I did for the fun of it. The reporters are a bit chaotic and babbling -_-;;

Man: The plane flown by airline Lot, is one which has undergone many modernisations, and even if it is 5, 10 or 12 years old well that is...
Women: (cuts in) The plane is landing, we have footage. It looks like the emergency landing attempt is successful. It landed without the landing gear.
Man : (talking over woman) It looks like it's landing on a cushion of foam.
Woman: (continuing to talk simultaneously) a foam cushion, yes that's right that's what was prepared.
Man: That's also the reason for what's happening behind the plane at this moment it is plumes of vaporised foam or other liquids. Ah it seems it is now scraping the runway with the right engine, because it's sparking.
Woman: (cutting in) Yes but it is after all as the Pawel Frondczak, spokesman for the state fire department said, the runway has been coated with a special foam in preparation, and it seems this was a wise move and plane has now landed, stopped and nothing has happened.
Man: And the most important thing now is the next 20-30 seconds, ladies and gentlemen, you'll see in a moment how quickly the fire trucks will arrive on the scene. These are special modern fire trucks which are capable of accelerating up to 140km/h on this runway, so that they can reach the plane as soon as possible. And in a moment they will probably be dousing it with fire extinguishing foam, in particular, though we cannot see in this shot, the engine on the right side of the plane which scraped the runway will be among the first sections to be doused with foam.

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?

>> ^Sagemind:

Not at all what I expected. I figured it would implode and shrink as all the air is pumped out.
Is the foam retaining, and locking in the air? Is the foam stronger than the applied vacuum?
If the air is truly being pumped out, why would the foam bubbles not be popping and breaking down?


If the foam were introduced into a hard vacuum quickly it would breakdown. Since the air is slowly being pumped out of the bell jar the bubbles in the foam expand slowly. If the pump was faster, or the video was longer, you'd see the foam will breakdown as more air is removed. Eventually you'd end up with a hard vacuum as the liquid boiled off.

Not at all what I expected. I figured it would implode and shrink as all the air is pumped out.
Is the foam retaining, and locking in the air? Is the foam stronger than the applied vacuum?

If the air is truly being pumped out, why would the foam bubbles not be popping and breaking down?