Topic: If you do not own a Rolex™...
McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6 started this discussion 8 years ago #67,757
...then you have failed at life. Thanks.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #827,922
my phone keeps better time than a Rolex and is reminiscent of a pocket watch which is, in fact, fancier than Rolexae.
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6 (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #827,924
Anonymous B replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #827,926
@previous (McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6)
That self-winding perpetual-movement monstrosity strapped to your forearm is accurate across a hemisphere's worth of time zones. But no matter how extravagantly handcrafted or precisely engineered your Rolex is, it'll never be as accurate as a cheap digital gas station watch. Here's why.
The earliest known pocket watch was devised by German locksmith Peter Henlein around 1505. These small, globe-shaped mechanical brass clocks, known as "taschenuhr," were worn as accessories and trinkets by the upper class, much as Chihuahuas are employed today. Besides acting as Plague-era bling, these wearable clocks marked the first use of spiral mainsprings, metal torsion ribbons that store the potential energy that drives a timepiece. The energy stores in a mainspring keep a watch ticking, but they're not limitless. Eventually, they get used up countering oscillation-impeding inertia and friction. And therein lies the problem.
See, mechanical clocks rely on an oscillator—the watch's inner movement, or a grandfather clock's pendulum, say—to control the system's frequency, which is how the clock maintains accurate time. But friction robs this oscillator of a tiny bit of energy on every stroke. Minute by minute, that adds up; as the oscillations slow, the timepiece's can lose a few seconds of accuracy a day. A mainspring's purpose is to counterbalance that effect, continually adding stored energy to the system to keep things on track. Winding a clock, either with the watch crown or a key, adds to the mainspring's potential energy. And you need to do it every 40 hours or so to stay current.
In addition, the mechanical watch's reliance on minute, delicate, fail-prone parts that are easily affected by temperature fluctuations and magnetism demands regular and often costly readjustments, making analog watches more expensive and less accurate than their digital successors.
Then there's electronic movement, or crystal oscillation, which leverages a vibrating hunk of piezoelectric quartz to generate an electrical signal with a specific frequency, rather than rely on a series of gears and pendulums. Piezoelectric materials create electrical currents when stressed—in this case, the material is expanded and contracted. Conversely, the same piezoelectric material will vibrate when exposed to an outside current. The crystal's size and shape determine the frequency it produces—known as the resonant frequency—typically in the kilohertz to hundred megahertz range. Early devices relied on naturally occurring quartz; however, the use of synthetic quartz is nearly universal these days.
High-stability frequency crystal oscillators—those suitable for clocks—were developed in 1928 by Warren Marrison of Bell Telephone Laboratories and have since become the most widely-used means of telling time in the world. Losing just one lost second every 30 years, quartz movement is orders of magnitude more accurate than mechanical designs. As such, more than two billion quartz oscillators are manufactured annually for use in personal timepieces, electronic circuits, and radio transceivers.
While crystal oscillators are susceptible to temperature, humidity, pressure, and vibration fluctuations, even inexpensive watches are designed to minimize these environmental detractors. The oscillator is shaped like a tuning fork and designed to vibrate at exactly 32,768 Hz (that's 2^15 cycles per second, from which a steady, second-counting 1Hz signal is derived). In addition, many watches feature inhibition compensation. That is, they're intentionally built to run fast, and programmed to a set number of crystal oscillation cycles at a regular interval. This allows the manufacturer to measure and store the timing information in non-volatile memory on the chip, rather than expend the cost of cutting the crystal precisely.
So, just as mechanical clocks overtook the sun dials and water clocks before them, they too have been eclipsed by a more accurate method of counting seconds. And who knows? Digital watches giving way to something even more precise can only be a matter of time.
That self-winding perpetual-movement monstrosity strapped to your forearm is accurate across a hemisphere's worth of time zones. But no matter how extravagantly handcrafted or precisely engineered your Rolex is, it'll never be as accurate as a cheap digital gas station watch. Here's why.
The earliest known pocket watch was devised by German locksmith Peter Henlein around 1505. These small, globe-shaped mechanical brass clocks, known as "taschenuhr," were worn as accessories and trinkets by the upper class, much as Chihuahuas are employed today. Besides acting as Plague-era bling, these wearable clocks marked the first use of spiral mainsprings, metal torsion ribbons that store the potential energy that drives a timepiece. The energy stores in a mainspring keep a watch ticking, but they're not limitless. Eventually, they get used up countering oscillation-impeding inertia and friction. And therein lies the problem.
See, mechanical clocks rely on an oscillator—the watch's inner movement, or a grandfather clock's pendulum, say—to control the system's frequency, which is how the clock maintains accurate time. But friction robs this oscillator of a tiny bit of energy on every stroke. Minute by minute, that adds up; as the oscillations slow, the timepiece's can lose a few seconds of accuracy a day. A mainspring's purpose is to counterbalance that effect, continually adding stored energy to the system to keep things on track. Winding a clock, either with the watch crown or a key, adds to the mainspring's potential energy. And you need to do it every 40 hours or so to stay current.
In addition, the mechanical watch's reliance on minute, delicate, fail-prone parts that are easily affected by temperature fluctuations and magnetism demands regular and often costly readjustments, making analog watches more expensive and less accurate than their digital successors.
Then there's electronic movement, or crystal oscillation, which leverages a vibrating hunk of piezoelectric quartz to generate an electrical signal with a specific frequency, rather than rely on a series of gears and pendulums. Piezoelectric materials create electrical currents when stressed—in this case, the material is expanded and contracted. Conversely, the same piezoelectric material will vibrate when exposed to an outside current. The crystal's size and shape determine the frequency it produces—known as the resonant frequency—typically in the kilohertz to hundred megahertz range. Early devices relied on naturally occurring quartz; however, the use of synthetic quartz is nearly universal these days.
High-stability frequency crystal oscillators—those suitable for clocks—were developed in 1928 by Warren Marrison of Bell Telephone Laboratories and have since become the most widely-used means of telling time in the world. Losing just one lost second every 30 years, quartz movement is orders of magnitude more accurate than mechanical designs. As such, more than two billion quartz oscillators are manufactured annually for use in personal timepieces, electronic circuits, and radio transceivers.
While crystal oscillators are susceptible to temperature, humidity, pressure, and vibration fluctuations, even inexpensive watches are designed to minimize these environmental detractors. The oscillator is shaped like a tuning fork and designed to vibrate at exactly 32,768 Hz (that's 2^15 cycles per second, from which a steady, second-counting 1Hz signal is derived). In addition, many watches feature inhibition compensation. That is, they're intentionally built to run fast, and programmed to a set number of crystal oscillation cycles at a regular interval. This allows the manufacturer to measure and store the timing information in non-volatile memory on the chip, rather than expend the cost of cutting the crystal precisely.
So, just as mechanical clocks overtook the sun dials and water clocks before them, they too have been eclipsed by a more accurate method of counting seconds. And who knows? Digital watches giving way to something even more precise can only be a matter of time.
McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6 (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 26 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #827,928
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 51 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #827,940
@OPenis
Then, by your own admission, you have, in fact, failed at life. Thanks.
Then, by your own admission, you have, in fact, failed at life. Thanks.
McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6 (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #827,941
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #827,942
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #827,943
@827,941 (McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6)
I find it difficult to believe that you, an unemployed middle aged man with no savings, are able to afford such a timepiece. Thanks.
I find it difficult to believe that you, an unemployed middle aged man with no savings, are able to afford such a timepiece. Thanks.
McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6 (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #827,947
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
I find it difficult to believe, in fact, that you, a seemingly-otherwise-intelligent™ (pronounced as one word) adult man, believe every word that Syntax says as truth.
I find it difficult to believe, in fact, that you, a seemingly-otherwise-intelligent™ (pronounced as one word) adult man, believe every word that Syntax says as truth.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #827,948
@previous (McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6)
Post your last three wage slips as proof that you are, in fact, engaged in gainful employment. Thanks.
Post your last three wage slips as proof that you are, in fact, engaged in gainful employment. Thanks.
McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6 (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #827,955
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
> implying I have to prove anything to an obese, neck beard, pedo, Basement-Dwelling™ (pronounced as one word) chan retard. Thanks,.
> implying I have to prove anything to an obese, neck beard, pedo, Basement-Dwelling™ (pronounced as one word) chan retard. Thanks,.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #827,957
If you own a Rolex, Matt. Then I'm sure you didn't purchase it or worked for it. I bet you inherited it.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 7 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,027
The women still don't want your ass ?????????????????????????????? ?
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 12 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,035
@827,957 (E)
He bought it from his inheritance money when his mommy died. How do you think he's surviving? He don't have a job.
He bought it from his inheritance money when his mommy died. How do you think he's surviving? He don't have a job.
Anonymous E replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,040
@previous (G)
This seems typical of Matt. He'll blow his money on fancy things that he believes fits an image of whom he wants to be then he'll be flat broke and have to pawn it all.
This seems typical of Matt. He'll blow his money on fancy things that he believes fits an image of whom he wants to be then he'll be flat broke and have to pawn it all.
Anonymous G replied with this 8 years ago, 28 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,047
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 8 years ago, 11 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,048
Alvin !brap/pFYes joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 36 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,051
Why not own a nice Patek Philippe?
(Edited 7 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,060
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,085
Alvin !brap/pFYes replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,121
@828,060 (I)
But the Rolex is the symbol of the petit bourgeoisie and their status symbols. It's like the equivalent of a BMW 5 series.
But the Rolex is the symbol of the petit bourgeoisie and their status symbols. It's like the equivalent of a BMW 5 series.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 11 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,124
@827,957 (E)
> If you own a Rolex, Matt. Then I'm sure you didn't purchase it or worked for it. I bet you inherited it.
If Matt owned a Rolex, the first thing he would do is flood the Internet with pictures of himself holding it, wearing it, fucking it, using it to detect ghosts, etc. This is a guy who treats the Internet like a personal photo album for every purchase he makes, every meal he cooks, every haircut he gets, every glass of booze he swills, and who wants everyone to know every little opinion he has about everything.
Since this hasn't happened, I think we can safely assume that he doesn't have said watch in his possession.
> If you own a Rolex, Matt. Then I'm sure you didn't purchase it or worked for it. I bet you inherited it.
If Matt owned a Rolex, the first thing he would do is flood the Internet with pictures of himself holding it, wearing it, fucking it, using it to detect ghosts, etc. This is a guy who treats the Internet like a personal photo album for every purchase he makes, every meal he cooks, every haircut he gets, every glass of booze he swills, and who wants everyone to know every little opinion he has about everything.
Since this hasn't happened, I think we can safely assume that he doesn't have said watch in his possession.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 8 years ago, 52 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,133
@previous (D)
This is so very true.
But....... He will come here saying he doesn't have to prove anything to us basement dwelling, obese, Trump supporters.
This is so very true.
But....... He will come here saying he doesn't have to prove anything to us basement dwelling, obese, Trump supporters.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,164
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,165
Post pics
Anonymous K double-posted this 8 years ago, 38 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,166
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 15 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,167
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,169
McTurnip™ !f0eFrsAqV6 (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 30 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,170
Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,176
@OP
Rolex are for materialstic fuckwits like yourself. Sensible people wear Casio digital watches.
Rolex are for materialstic fuckwits like yourself. Sensible people wear Casio digital watches.
Green !BEERiVqJJw double-posted this 8 years ago, 10 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #828,184
I will say that Rolex are smarter than smartwatches though.