What is Digg?67 Comments
- rm999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Digital means it shows digits, which is a discrete output vs a continuous analog watch. It's kind of cool - it reminds you that everything in this world is analog at its core - even computers are created with analog voltages and chemical reactions.
- BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14My watch works fine and I found it on the ground. LOL.
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The analog hands and the digital display both say different times! Best $150,000 you'll ever spend.
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13From TFA:
"The Porsche is the first mechanical watch with a digital display: numbered dials instead of hands to show hours, minutes and seconds passed"
Meaning the mechanism that drives everything is analog, but in addition to having hands output the time in an analog way, there is a window where the output is in digits like you'd see on an old clock radio. It's playing around with the semantics of the word digital. - RyanXP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12OMG give me back my damn watch
- Chapter80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10They both say different times? I thought only one said a different time.
- warrenfalk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10At the quantum level things are both digital and analog at the same time until observed
- breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20@ rm999
I have to disagree, everything is digital at its core. Once you get down to the quantum level, electrons can have only certain energy levels and do not exist in a continuous band of possibilities. But I'm just playing devils advocate because in truth calling something digital or analog is really a synthetic distinction that humans came up with to try to describe the world which never really falls into separate categories the way we'd like. - PhysicsTheory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9to breakneckridge above: Not to be a nit-picker, but since you brought it up... at the quantum level things are VERY much NOT digital. That is acutally the point, and was one of the major problems Einstein had with the whole thing. You can really only describe the location of subatomic particles with probability functions until you directly observe them, collapsing the probability function. Probability functions are continuous by definition, not discrete. Hence analog would be a more apt analogy.
Cheers! - darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8If you pay attention to the artical you will note that the main display (analog) is the time of day while the digital display is a chronograph. In other words - they shouldn't have the same time because they are displaying two different things.
- billmania, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8A watch that's a waste of time
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's a cool looking watch, sure, but $150,000? I wouldn't want to wear the thing because I'd be too afraid to break it. For $150,000 you could buy a Porche 911 and build a small race track and have a ton more fun than a watch.
I get the bit that it's a hand made piece of art, but to make sure that piece of art is admired, you'd have to tell everyone "hey, this watch cost $150,000, isn't that cool?". My opinion, if you want to spend $150,000 on a hand made piece of art, then get a really cool sculpture or painting, or even better a massively expensive (and super awesome) home theatre system - sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Useless Crap. 4 seconds off per day is abhorrent. Not to mention that for that price you could get an Audemars with a better feature set and at least equal durability. Poo.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If the world goes to crap to the point that we have to start hunting and tracking animals I'm pretty sure glancing at the sun once in awhile will be more than satisfactory for all your timekeeping needs.
- pixel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Anybody notice that the wind up knob is a small tire?
- Alathea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I wear a seiko mechanical automatic for the same reason I play acoustic guitar or tend to my 2 year old bamboo shoot/plant in my office-it grounds me in the fact that computer could take a collossal dump, but at least my watch will still work. Not everything it techie and I grew up with parents that taught me to grow food, hunt, sew, chop wood, and read weather and animal tracks. IF and when the world goes to crap Ill at least know how to find shelter and water and food. Its a perspective thing, but 150 large is still way too much for something that is being done just as accurately for a lot less.
- saifatlast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I agree, 4 seconds per day means a minute every 2 weeks. I don't know about you, but I expect my time-telling devices to be within a minute or two of the clock I use to set them by. After all, if I'm one minute late for my bus, I'm 15 minutes late for class.
- iChuckles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5To Spyderx - you are very misinformed. 4 seconds/day is crap. All Rolex watches are COSC (look it up boys) except the cheap AirKings. In general terms COSC means being accurate within +-1/day. The people at PS have their heads full of dung as well. This is no where near the first analog/automatic watch with digital face. And it is worht $150k on because Porsche says so. There is inherent value in watch for their complications, their history, their manufacturer (although the best are hand made), and their materials. But if all you want is a COSC automatic, Omega produces great ones for under $1500. While Rolex is a 2nd tier watch at best, it has the best name recognition. My 1942 Rolex is accurate to +-1/day but you have to learn the fluctuations of your watch. The accuracy changes with how, or if, you wear it.
All in all this PS article is just typical stupid hype to sell mags. - NiLeS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5AHA! But while you pull out your cell phone, maybe turn it on, and see what time it is, I've already glanced at my writst and gone back to the task at hand!!!!!
....or is that just me? - ssquire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Aw crap, the cat *is* dead.
Nice watch though. - super_duper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I still don't understand how that's a digital display.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I don't see a future for watches, (at least not i their present form). I use a cell phone to keep track of time. Cell phones update their time from the base station, giving everyone who checks their cell the exact same time.
I also agree with snowflake, 100k plus for a watch is ridiculous and only costs that much to impress your rich friends with how much money you have to waste. If you want to impress people try giving your money away to a charitable institution, I'm not sure about the people you consort with, but I'd sure as hell be more impressed. - spyderx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54 seconds is very good for an automatic watch. A Rolex will barely keep that. Nice watch, but I don't think Porsche makes their own watches. IWC made their watches for years. www.iwc.ch If you want to see a REAL complication, check out the IWC Grande Complication. In Platinum its 250k, they only make 50 a year.
If you want a piece of handmade art, you get a real watch. You want super-accurace, get your POS timex digital watch. - Wilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Mine works fine too and it cost $10 at Wal-Mart. It only needs to be re-set for DST as it keeps seemingly perfect time. I'm po', though, so it's not worth me going for anything fancy.
- blahlazer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thanks but my watch works fine for me and it only cost $75.
- villalarios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2150.000 $ ???, jesus, get a REAL top of the line Porsche for that price, people!!! I am sure it comes with somethig that'll tell you the time, on the radio or somewhere. Besides, I bet it is more appealing to the chicks! and here is fact: CASIO = Watches, Porsche = Cars.
- Rhaegal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The thing about watches is that no matter how accurate yours is, everyone else's will be off anyways. I could see spending $150,000 on a system that synchronizes all of the clocks in a 15 mile radius, but even $20 is too much for something that is relative.
- Cyberdactyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2TRULY for those with more money than practical sense
- jammerb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Time is not relative (in one sense)... there is an absolute... well, standard. Been a consumer of WWV (and WWVH) a long time, first with a shortwave radio... but now "atomic" clocks, and watches are common...
makes for a pretty good argument that it's my watch with the coreect time!
(as long as you don't cross ANY space of course at less than the speed of light) - coryberry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I work at an Internet watch retailer ...A watch like this typically is never seen by anyone but the owner and a maybe a few good friends. It's a rich toy for people with too much money on their hands.
...regarding the time keeping, all mechanical watches are going to flow -5 to +5... It's a matter of mechanics. Electronics are much more robust and "accurate".
...and the automatic movement with digital display? That was done in the 70s. Our company acquired a "new old stock" lot of about 100 of them in 1997, and we had trouble selling them for $100 each.. course, they were ugly and heavy. It IS unique to put it in the chronograph and also have an analog display.
I'm not impressed with this watch. It is overpriced and represents much of what's wrong with the Swiss-watch industry pricing. It looks like a watch that should retail for around $4000 and discount down to $2000-$3000 after it's been out a couple years. - trogdor282, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Windows XP, cellphones, newer vcr's, cable boxes, etc, all synch up with timeservers set to the NIST's atomic clocks. Out of curiosity I glanced at my cellphone at one point on new years eve and it was keeping time to the second with Dick Clark's.
As someone who likes to show up at my 8 AM class at 7:59:59, I know time ;) - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Does anyone here think that people who would actually spend $150,000 on a watch should immediately be killed?
Perhaps that is a little harsh.
Maybe they should merely be bludgeoned to within inches of their life, and then offered the same free medical care that is so readily available to working people all over this 'former democracy' (guess which one...)
I mean, can a person be any blinder to the reality of the world around us?
"Thieves" are always willing to piss away money, since they didn't have to work for it!
Corrupt laws allow them to refer to what they STEAL from people who actually work, as 'their own money.'
;-)
PIGS!
I need to read some less stupid articles. Shall I check out /. or Fark?
Perhaps 'overeardinnewyork.com, to lighten things up a bit, on this, the night of the 'feast of saint Barf' (the day after 'St. Patrick's day')
...by the way, the description is exactly the same way mecanical watches and clocks have always worked. Just a few extra gears to show remaining spring life. And the auto-wind feature has always been a pain in the ass....since it came out in the sixties. - MadModdr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oops! Just dropped mine in the toilet.....
- dukeinlondon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Patek Philippe (complicated watches for men) is getting new competition it seems...
- speel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I sure hope it comes with insurance.
- sniper6121, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DUPE!
http://digg.com/technology/The_$150,000_Watch - abbtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WOW amazing watch. I would love to own something this nice but i would be afraid to wear it thinking that I would accidental damage it... Well I guess if you can afford a watch like this getting it damaged probably wouldn't be on your mind anyway. I still prefer this one though http://hackedgadgets.com/2006/01/29/200000-cabestan-watch/
- tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1who cares ?
isnt this exactly how my moon watch works ?
or the day of the month
or hell any counter cept they are usually cylinders. - BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess you'll be the ones trying invade Germany this time then. =P
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is why I tend to shy away from Jewelery, nice clothes, etc, except when it would be out of place of me not to. It is true that whipping out my phone takes a few seconds (depending on how tight my pants are) I doubt that most people check the time frequently enough that a second here or there would make a discernible difference.
- Karkian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haha, agreed, and to TopherT. But I'm English. There is not enough of Britain for 60 million+ people to all be trying to hunt anything but Burberry caps and Nike TN trainers. This country is comparatively TINY and most of what edible native wildlife there is I think we've already built a car park on top of.
- bejitunksu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14 seconds a day?! That's ludicris! I'll stick with my off by 2 minutes a year $20.00 digital watch, thank you very much.
- Orangutan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if anybody actually read the article in the real paper magazine(as opposed to online), it was much more detailed and had a bunch of nice diagrams. somebody should post an access code or something.
- saifatlast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sure they're relative, but if I know the bus always comes at 8:43 on my alarm clock (when it's supposed to come at 8:45) I know when I need to be out at the bus stop. Who cares that my 8:45 is different than the bus's?
As an aside, Digg's captcha is way too ***** hard to read. - iChuckles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To EtherGnat - they probably meant BPM = beats per minute. If you look at mechanical watches they "click" or beat around the dial. Some will have 2-5 stops inbetween each second. So the faster BPM, the smoother the action.
- sn0wflake, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6What's really sad is that many people struggle just to keep alive in the world and yet products like this are being bought. Kind of selfish to buy a 150.000$ watch when you could buy a very good watch for less than the tenth of the price. But that's human nature I guess.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Off topic but maybe somebody can clear this up for me. A few years ago I saw an ad for a watch with the "fastest full sweep second hand in the world." I don't know about you but I think I'd rather have a "slow" second hand that takes 60 seconds to go around. ;)
What the heck were they talking about? - doyadigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But then since time can not be divided down to nothing (according to a crazy professor I had), everything is continuous. So even discrete signals are really analog. It's all weird. Even in digital systems, things like sampling and propagation delay come into play which always makes me think of continuous time.
- AngryPenguin47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1my spongebob squarepants watch from burger king a year ago keeps better time than that!
silly krauts. - brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1um...I can think of many things to spend my 150,000 dollars on. Never too fond of inaccurate, ugly, half pound watches.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is