You have kind of a point there, albeit anal. So what do you think about the rest of the question I posed? If competing teams of golf players ran full tilt from hole to hole, tackling each other or blocking tacklers, would you open your sport defining arms to it then?

@quantumushroom This case is an example of why when you pull out comparable crime statistics that say blacks commit the most crimes, I discount it highly. From what I see, the people who are responsible for the arrest and conviction results that underline that data have a strong bias even in the face of hard evidence. And always act on that bias to tilt the scales.

Well, your example doesn't work. The point here is that an IMAGE is moving. If you shine a flashlight into the sky and move it around, the chances of the flashlight image appearing anywhere is almost nil. So there's nothing really to move. Shining a laser on the moon, however, will make an image appear (assuming all other factors being correct, such as lack of clouds, etc). So that image will, in fact, "move" across the surface of the moon. It's no different, really, than shining a flashlight at a wall, and moving it around. The image moves, despite the fact you're doing nothing more than adjusting the tilt of the flashlight.

You're right that a standard flashlight wouldn't be visible from space, let alone another star system. However, if you had a powerful enough beam (or used wavelengths better "suited" for space travel), there are quite a few other stars that are much closer than 100 lightyears. Promixa Centauri, for example, the closest star to our system is only 4.2 lightyears away. So were you to put a sufficiently strong source accurately in that direction, you could even receive a response in your lifetime, were there something (or someone!) there to respond.

Rick Mercer has been tilted camera rants for decades now. I don't think he knows what a tripod is =)

@kymbos, it's not really an outrage, hell it's not really important in any way. That said this windmill needed some tilting. You have to choose to make a stand sometimes, even if there's very little at stake.

Except if a foundation will tilt that floating house will float off it and probably cause more damage than shacking would.

thanks eric

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote

>> ^RFlagg:

Would you even need pumps or motors in this case? We don't see any of them operate long enough to prove they can overcome friction and other forces to keep in motion as we only see them for a very short time.
The train one stuck me as odd, even on first viewing, as it seemed the green line was made to make you think that was the level line, but it seemed to me to be slanted down some, using the grain and a slightly tilted camera to make it look like it was going uphill...
>> ^Mammaltron:
You can't win, you can't break even and you can't quit the game.
You can however troll a whole lot of people with some strategically-placed motors and pumps.



In the "Uphill Train" example you're missing the fact that there are two ramps at play, one steep and one shallow. The shallow ramp is the wooden ramp with the green lines which does indeed run uphill, but the "downhill" ramp is the double-cone "train" itself. Once it reaches the bottom of the hill (the outside tips of the cones) that's the end of the ramp, and the energy is depleted. The mass is not in fact running uphill at all, the net movement is still downhill. Follow?

Would you even need pumps or motors in this case? We don't see any of them operate long enough to prove they can overcome friction and other forces to keep in motion as we only see them for a very short time.
The train one stuck me as odd, even on first viewing, as it seemed the green line was made to make you think that was the level line, but it seemed to me to be slanted down some, using the grain and a slightly tilted camera to make it look like it was going uphill...

>> ^Mammaltron:

You can't win, you can't break even and you can't quit the game.
You can however troll a whole lot of people with some strategically-placed motors and pumps.

This is what I mean, side to side movement can be countered by overcorrecting the tilt. This would explain why the table's apparent movement is so large. >> ^messenger:

If it were above the ship's roll centre, then it would have a lot of side-to-side movement to compensate for which is hard when your range of motion is mostly up and down. It would be easier towards the outside of the ship where there's a lot less side-to-side movement, and more up-and-down, which would merely increase or lessen the gravity on the balls, which is no big deal in a casual game.>> ^Spacedog79:
A mechanical gyro causing the movement would have delay and the balls would roll slightly. Assuming the table is above the ship's roll centre, the table would have to over correct for the ship's movement in order to keep the balls exactly in place. Most likely electronic gyros and good hydraulics with no stiction and powerful enough to not be affected by players putting pressure on the table.

A mechanical gyro causing the movement would have delay and the balls would roll slightly. Assuming the table is above the ship's roll centre, the table would have to over correct for the ship's movement in order to keep the balls exactly in place. Most likely electronic gyros and good hydraulics with no stiction and powerful enough to not be affected by players putting pressure on the table.

>> ^jmd:

>> ^longde:
Not really. Not saying it wouldn't be expensive, but the technology to do this has been around for a while: a few accelerometers, a gyroscope, and lots of actuators. And someone who knows a little control system programming.
Still pretty cool though.>> ^Spacedog79:
To work that precisely must take some serious engineering. I bet they're really expensive!


Actually, and judging by the title it is what it uses, but this can pretty much be done with a pivoting table and a large spinning gyro placed in the table. Much like a top, the spinning gyro would resist movement. There is probably something else that auto corrects the tilt for any time it is off (a gyro resist forces that try and tilt it, but if it finds a new tilt degree forcefully, it will keep it). It is really hard to tell from just seeing this video. Also if you went with the actuator route, something as simple as the actuators and an ipod alone could be used.
the most expensive part would probably still be the pool table, and the act of building the pool table mounted to the auto level device.

>> ^longde:

Not really. Not saying it wouldn't be expensive, but the technology to do this has been around for a while: a few accelerometers, a gyroscope, and lots of actuators. And someone who knows a little control system programming.
Still pretty cool though.>> ^Spacedog79:
To work that precisely must take some serious engineering. I bet they're really expensive!



Actually, and judging by the title it is what it uses, but this can pretty much be done with a pivoting table and a large spinning gyro placed in the table. Much like a top, the spinning gyro would resist movement. There is probably something else that auto corrects the tilt for any time it is off (a gyro resist forces that try and tilt it, but if it finds a new tilt degree forcefully, it will keep it). It is really hard to tell from just seeing this video. Also if you went with the actuator route, something as simple as the actuators and an ipod alone could be used.

the most expensive part would probably still be the pool table, and the act of building the pool table mounted to the auto level device.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^grinter:
neat, and leaning on it doesn't seem to be a problem.
They should have hospital beds like this for seasick passengers.

HOSPITAL?
They should put that kind of bed in every stateroom.


I dunno, after a while I think the sensation of lying perfectly still and level while the walls around you shifted and tilted would freak me out.

Fake.

It's a radio controlled miniature filmed with a tilt-shift type process that makes it look big.

Either that, or the operator is a Jedi.

I had to look up tilt-shift photography, it was a new term to me.

So we've reached the point where photographers are now making fake, fake photos...manipulating real photos to make them look fake. Are we closing the circle now? Definitely gone thru the looking glass, at the very least.