rubiks. .. something went horribly wrong
x
Click to expand

Comments(62):

[ 62 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#31 - astrozombies **User deleted account** (02/19/2013) [-]
something went horribly wrong
#50 to #39 - heyimmalk ONLINE (02/19/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#16 - murrlogic (02/19/2013) [-]
This mother ****** right here solved that damn cube in less than 4 seconds.
<---
User avatar #22 to #16 - zdawg (02/19/2013) [-]
whatever happened to whatever happened to robot jones?
User avatar #27 to #22 - murrlogic (02/19/2013) [-]
That same question can be applied to any good cartoon.
User avatar #35 to #16 - exclamation (02/19/2013) [-]
I distinctly remember that and I've been looking for what the **** that is called!
User avatar #41 to #35 - zramn (02/19/2013) [-]
"Whatever happened to ROBOT JONES?"
#47 to #16 - slashendrix (02/19/2013) [-]
Not only did he solve a cube puzzle, it was ******* 4-by4
#40 - burnheroee (02/19/2013) [-]
i've been repeating this ******* thing like ******* 20 times and i can't figure this out.
User avatar #12 - Rawrer (02/19/2013) [-]
I think the idea for the 20 moves is that if you you repeat the same 20 moves you will end up with completion eventually
User avatar #19 to #12 - daniboi (02/19/2013) [-]
Nope, it's what it says. Scramble it any way out of the 43 quintillion combinations, then if you solve it in the fastest way possible it will never take more than 20 moves.
User avatar #20 to #12 - mrrandomness (02/19/2013) [-]
no... its that every scramble can be solved in 20 moves or less. not every scramble is the same.

-rubixfag
#4 - bluemagebrilly (02/19/2013) [-]
Now, where's my cube?
#13 to #4 - Rascal (02/19/2013) [-]
that was an example you moron.. it may be other solutions under 20 moves on differently configurated cubes..
#14 to #13 - bluemagebrilly (02/19/2013) [-]
I don't even understand what you just said.
#9 to #4 - crazylance (02/19/2013) [-]
I love you for this, exactly what I thought when I entered this post.
I love you for this, exactly what I thought when I entered this post.
User avatar #1 - Mecryte (02/18/2013) [-]
I just throw them at people.
User avatar #2 - swiekim (02/19/2013) [-]
how is it possible that a person can do a rubix cute faster when blindfolded then someone doing it with their feet....
User avatar #5 to #2 - miniwilliam (02/19/2013) [-]
They are allowed to look at it before they start solving it, either until they feel that they know where everything is, or a set amount of time.

For a very skilled person with the cube, a single look is all they need before the know where every little piece is going to be after each turn.

These people are also very good with their hands and fingers, and can easily turn all sides with a small flick of their fingers, and rotate the cube very precisely to where they need it without looking.

The only reason that the record for blindfolded vs non-blindfolded has a 23 second difference is because they do it slower in order to make sure that they don't make a single mistake, since that one mistake literally ruins everything.

The reason it takes so long to do it with your feet is because unlike hands, feet don't have opposable thumbs and are not designed to be able to grip things, and toes lack the ability to do small and precise movements like fingers can, hence actually twisting a side can be very, very complicated.
User avatar #54 to #52 - miniwilliam (02/19/2013) [-]
Ahah, I knew someone would post something along the lines of Rin at some point.

BUT, she is not the average person (not factoring in that she is fictional), she was born without arms and hands, and had to adapt.
#55 to #54 - ahitwo (02/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, I know, and I completely agree with you. I just felt it was obligatory.
User avatar #6 to #5 - miniwilliam (02/19/2013) [-]
I am aware that I made a few spelling mistakes here and there because of typos.

*They, instead of the (right after before) is one.

There might be a few punctuation errors here and there too, sorry about that. Hope it's still readable.
#32 - cuntickler (02/19/2013) [-]
i can easily solve one in under 2.30 if i try
User avatar #38 to #32 - thetruepervysage (02/19/2013) [-]
2.3 seconds? ******** . The world record has barely broken 6 seconds.
User avatar #43 to #38 - newsmyrna (02/19/2013) [-]
yea 2.3 seconds he just threw that extra zero there for the ******* fun of it.
User avatar #42 to #38 - golemnardah (02/19/2013) [-]
He most likely meant 2 minutes and 30 seconds, that's about the time it takes me to finish it.
#36 to #32 - bassinastor (02/19/2013) [-]
That's a long time
#28 - frohling (02/19/2013) [-]
so about a year ago i decided i wanted to master the cube. leaned it within an hour by using youtube. took me about 3 minutes every time. then i trained and i got down to about 40 seconds per try. now I don't solve it as much, actually the only time i use it, is when i'm on the crapper.   
over and out   
they call me 			****		 solver
so about a year ago i decided i wanted to master the cube. leaned it within an hour by using youtube. took me about 3 minutes every time. then i trained and i got down to about 40 seconds per try. now I don't solve it as much, actually the only time i use it, is when i'm on the crapper.
over and out
they call me **** solver
User avatar #7 - senortesta (02/19/2013) [-]
The actual world record for a two handed normal solve is 5.66 seconds.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v_Km6cv6DU
heres the proof.
User avatar #8 to #7 - senortesta (02/19/2013) [-]
And the 20 moves or less thing doesn't work. I just tried it about 10 times all from different configurations of the cube and it doesn't work.
User avatar #10 to #8 - MudkipTomislav (02/19/2013) [-]
.... If it's proven mathematically, it's proven mathematically. Doesn't mean everyone will be able to see it instantly, there are longer ways that are easier.
User avatar #11 to #10 - senortesta (02/19/2013) [-]
Well by doing the exact algorithm shown, I was not able to solve it. Can you bring up the mathematical proof so I can look at it because by doing it it isn't working.
#18 to #11 - scodran (02/19/2013) [-]
The example shown is (of course) for that specific cube.
It has been mathematically proven that every combination has it's own set of 20 moves which will be able to solve it.
User avatar #33 to #18 - senortesta (02/19/2013) [-]
Alright I thought it was trying to say that that algorithm would work for any cube. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
#24 to #8 - comehonorfacetwice (02/19/2013) [-]
Each separate orientation of the cube has a very specific 20- move combination that will solve it. The solution shown in the content will only work for that specific orientation of the cube (and do not try to replicate it, as the other three sides CAN be different even if three sides are the same). It is likely impossible to know every single 20- move combination to solve the cube from any orientation, but it is very easy to memorize algorithms that can solve the cube in a few moves from a certain, easily attainable, orientation.
User avatar #34 to #24 - senortesta (02/19/2013) [-]
Ok I was a bit confused by the wording and since it showed that algorithm I was confused.
User avatar #25 - jobby (02/19/2013) [-]
I tried it, didn't solve it.
User avatar #23 - TreesyDoesIt (02/19/2013) [-]
>1/5 of the world's population, same number as JK who sold 350 million
>1/5 of world's population, 350 million

I think somebody ****** up here because 4-5 billion people weren't suddenly born between now and the 80's
#26 to #23 - comehonorfacetwice (02/19/2013) [-]
Yeah, somebody did **** up. You.
>sold to 350 million people, same number as JK who sold 350 million copies
>played with by 1/5 the worlds population

>"Hey Joe, I know you don't own a Rubik's cube, but I'm borrowing Stacey's right now, if you want to try to solve it. You won't actually own it, so it won't count for sales, but you'll get to play with it, so it'll count towards that."
User avatar #57 - misfitsftw (02/19/2013) [-]
if only this much effort and attention hd been put into something worthwhile, mankind could have actually achieved something, instead of spending nearly 40 thinking about a cube.... ¬_¬
User avatar #56 - nucularwar (02/19/2013) [-]
I'm from Knoxville and last time I passed the spot the giant cube wasn't there anymore
#51 - chaossniper (02/19/2013) [-]
i am 24 and i never had the chance to touch a rubiks cube
[ 62 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)