Those aren't marbles... they are certainly much larger.

The way that guys was working his jaw, I would say he was on LSD. Owls are awesome , but hes chew'n marbles @:10. How do tweakers get owls anyways?

Jenna Marbles: Silly, funny, un-bridled hoyden!!

>> ^hpqp:

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?
Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.
And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.
>> ^swedishfriend:
1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.




You're an idiot and a previous poster had the right idea by saying his opinion is worthless cause he's ignorant. You rise to the level of idiot because you seem to think your opinion about this subject matters. Might as well ask you how the fuck NASA should spend it's money.

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?

Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.

And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.

>> ^swedishfriend:

1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.

Videosift should be purged of Jenna Marbles videos and disinfected.

>> ^renatojj:

When I was a kid I played with Construx, anyone remember that? Not legos, I despised legos, they're for babies. Construx had these knots that really hurt your fingers, specially when you had to snap them off. Toys should hurt you, the pain makes you stronger, helps you grow. Or something.
Now legos are everywhere, Construx is nowhere to be found, and you can build your own marble maze out of legos.
What is wrong with the world?


They're both baby toys. All hail the Erector Set!!

The cradle is better than the track because it allows for larger weights, where the track would require a denser material or hollow particles; but the track is easier for measuring incoming and outgoing force because on a steady grade, it’s simply a measure of distance, which is easy to capture roughly, even without a camera.

If momentum = velocity*mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.

A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.>> ^oritteropo:

Thanks <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">
I was actually going to suggest that the first part of the experiment should be fairly easy to replicate, with a track and marbles or ball bearings or similar. Unless you have a constant grade the velocity (and therefore momentum) calculations will be a bit tedious, and it occurs to me that angular momentum may have some effect too, so perhaps a video camera and some marks on the track (or sensors and a microcontroller) to directly measure the velocity just prior to impact would be easier. To confirm or disprove my assertion you want to keep increasing the momentum of impact until it's more than the momentum of a two balls, and see what happens.
There are videos of a Newton's cradle type setup only with different sized balls, I might go looking tonight.
>> ^messenger:
That shoulda been @oritteropo too.

Thanks

I was actually going to suggest that the first part of the experiment should be fairly easy to replicate, with a track and marbles or ball bearings or similar. Unless you have a constant grade the velocity (and therefore momentum) calculations will be a bit tedious, and it occurs to me that angular momentum may have some effect too, so perhaps a video camera and some marks on the track (or sensors and a microcontroller) to directly measure the velocity just prior to impact would be easier. To confirm or disprove my assertion you want to keep increasing the momentum of impact until it's more than the momentum of a two balls, and see what happens.

There are videos of a Newton's cradle type setup only with different sized balls, I might go looking tonight.

p.s. Didn't find that one, but did find a good explanation of the one vs two ball collision issue in Newton's cradle:



Based on that, I wonder if a slowmo of the ball in the original video might've shown that it bounced slightly before coming to rest?
>> ^messenger:

That shoulda been @oritteropo too.

>> ^renatojj:

When I was a kid I played with Construx, anyone remember that? Not legos, I despised legos, they're for babies. Construx had these knots that really hurt your fingers, specially when you had to snap them off. Toys should hurt you, the pain makes you stronger, helps you grow. Or something.
Now legos are everywhere, Construx is nowhere to be found, and you can build your own marble maze out of legos.
What is wrong with the world?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construx

Discontinued in '88, revived and discontinued again in '97. I can't say I'm surprised, either, considering how far Legos have come, what with all the motors, sensors and programmable stuff.

I had a ton of Construx as a kid, enough that at one point I built a "robot" that was roughly my own height. I use the scare quotes because there were no motors or other forms of self-motion. It was articulated, but I had to move it myself.

I had Legos, too, but not as much. I also had Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoy, both inherited from my uncles, so I guess I had a lot of construction toys. I probably spent more time building things in the yard with sticks, rocks and dirt than with any of these toys, though.

You gotta lego of these silly quips; they're not funny anymore.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

A Maze ing

When I was a kid I played with Construx, anyone remember that? Not legos, I despised legos, they're for babies. Construx had these knots that really hurt your fingers, specially when you had to snap them off. Toys should hurt you, the pain makes you stronger, helps you grow. Or something.

Now legos are everywhere, Construx is nowhere to be found, and you can build your own marble maze out of legos.

What is wrong with the world?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

A Maze ing


I see what you did there!

I saw this as an ad while looking for some other video... and forgot what I was looking for. First skippable ad I didn't skip.


I'm a little confused by the guy going all Neo with the swords (on the marble staircase, no less), but hey, who doesn't love a good 1 on 10 sword fight?

>> ^Lann:

I did the same thing with a classmate around 2nd grade. We made "computer games" by drawing on cards and taping them to the "screen" and then trading them. Can't figure out why no one else wanted in on that action. What's so great about kick ball anyway?>> ^ant:
>> ^TheSluiceGate:
I used to make little "pinball" machines at his age, with box-tops, elastics, pencils and marbles. But this kid is an imagination god!

When I was in fourth grade, I made a computer out of cardboard. It was based on my real Apple //c.



I used to sew black ninja-suits for my TMNT figures.