>> ^Asmo:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I don't know what you're thinking, but I'm thinking someone placed that metal mesh over the hole so that cars could go over the hole, but the mesh actually got caught in the hole, and levered the car up.

Umm, the video makes it pretty clear.
The front left tyre goes in to the hole, smashes in to the far side and the ass end of the car rises as the front dramatically decelerates...

Nope. Watch the second video (in eric3579's post above) on 720p and you can better see what happens.

The manhole has an off-center metal mesh cover welded to a cylinder that fits down into the manhole (presumably to keep the mesh in place).
The front-left tire clips the side of the mesh cover, presumably just enough to pop it up. That's what catches the undercarriage and vaults the back end up.
The structure of the mesh-cylinder apparatus is more apparent at the end of the video when it settles near the hood of the vehicle.

>> ^EMPIRE:

I don't know what you're thinking, but I'm thinking someone placed that metal mesh over the hole so that cars could go over the hole, but the mesh actually got caught in the hole, and levered the car up.


Umm, the video makes it pretty clear.

The front left tyre goes in to the hole, smashes in to the far side and the ass end of the car rises as the front dramatically decelerates... Same sort of force applied as jamming on the front brakes of a bike and the back of the bike rises.

It would be difficult to see the lack of a dark metal manhole over a dark hole at speed when you aren't distinctly looking for it.

>> ^ant:

>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^ant:
Another dashboard camera recording!

In Europe, drivers are encouraged to have dashcams installed as it gives them massive insurance discounts.

Nice. Too bad USA doesn't encourage it.


Nah, we just have something that plugs directly into your car's computer system that tells them you're speeding or decelerating too fast. The kind of information they need in order to drop your claim.

@Shepppard

That car was speeding. Plain and simple.

Not only is it raining, not only are there crosswalk signs, but there two cars with brake lights on in front of the offending car. Hence the driver's culpability.

You also might wanna train your eagle-eyes on the car braking just as the pedestrians enter the crosswalk. Their attention was probably focused there.
~~~

Imagine you're strolling along having a pleasant conversation.

You enter a crosswalk were two cars are nearly stopped, and a third (dash cam) is decelerating in order for you to pass.

Then, 3/4th of the way to being safely across the street, some asshole driver over takes the slowing car and nearly runs over your heels.

Clearly, it's your bad.
~~~

Got any rape victims or holocaust survivors you wanna hold accountable while you're at it? o_D?

It is true, but it is not just semantics.

Once the ball leaves the hand it will experience constant acceleration (ignoring drag). With just constant acceleration, the accelerometer can't tell us when the ball will reach apogee. Velocity and displacement are not being measured, so whether the ball is moving up or down won't register.

With only an accelerometer to work with, the only practical to way to predict when the ball will be at its highest point is to use the initial upward acceleration and a little bit of math.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^messenger:
Nope. Once the ball leaves your hand, there is one significant acceleration force, which is gravity, downwards. There is no such force as "deceleration", just acceleration in a different direction. If by "deceleration" you mean gravity's acceleration downwards, it is constant enough for our purposes today: 9.8 m/s/s).>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^blackoreb:
Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.


Okay true enough, but now you're arguing semantics when you know full well what I meant.

>> ^messenger:

Nope. Once the ball leaves your hand, there is one significant acceleration force, which is gravity, downwards. There is no such force as "deceleration", just acceleration in a different direction. If by "deceleration" you mean gravity's acceleration downwards, it is constant enough for our purposes today: 9.8 m/s/s).>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^blackoreb:
Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.



Okay true enough, but now you're arguing semantics when you know full well what I meant.

Nope. Once the ball leaves your hand, there is one significant acceleration force, which is gravity, downwards. There is no such force as "deceleration", just acceleration in a different direction. If by "deceleration" you mean gravity's acceleration downwards, it is constant enough for our purposes today: 9.8 m/s/s).>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^blackoreb:
Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.

>> ^blackoreb:

Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.

Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.

The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.

>> ^ForgedReality:

...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

So if you thrust it upwardly whilst holding it, and never let go, simply pull it back down quickly, after a few seconds, it would snap a panorama while it rests in your hands since it doesn't use a gyroscope to tell where it stops accelerating. Right?

This means that if you thrust it upward quickly enough, you could pull it back and hold it there while in amongst a crowd, and when the mechanism reaches the predicted time based upon initial acceleration for predicting its apex, then it will take the photo from within the crowd. Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc).

Cool idea anyhow. I wonder what it would look like to spin it really fast as you toss it.. Neat psychedelic blurring on MOST of the photosphere, but on the axis, it would be less blurred.

blows my mind that something that big can accelerate/decelerate so fast. I didn't slow down...It just STOPPED

I wonder if rapid deceleration would be likely to pitch the car to one side. Maybe it was safer to ease off the throttle?

In the cop's defense, I don't think he planned to hit her nearly as hard as he did.

I know there's been a couple times playing basketball where I'm accelerating and a guy in front of me decelerates (exactly what was happening here), you can end up really rolling someone over. It's much worse if you're bigger, and especially if you're a bit out of shape (and thus can't respond quickly).

I think he thought she was going to run and surged forward to grab her (or shove her forward off balance a bit so she couldn't run - a move you see fairly often in low-level tackle football), and then when she turned he didn't react fast enough. You can see afterward the cop is pretty off balance - if he had intended a painful tackle he would have followed through differently I think.

Anyways, I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong - but I do think it turned out much worse (ie. he hit much harder) than he intended.

I like the way his face changes during takeoff and landing acceleration/deceleration.

>> ^Shepppard:


For instance, if I got a grounder and it looked like the guy would beat me to the base, I'd slide and touch the bag with my foot, sounds silly but almost nobody thinks to slide into first base, and it would get me there a half second before them.


Wow, you must have been some special first basemen.

Did you ever wonder why runners don't slide into first base or that professional players (fielders) never (NEVER) never ever fucking slide into a base? Just ponder it a moment.

It is never faster than running full out. The only reason to slide is to get a part of your body to touch and then stick on the base. Because the runner has to decelerate and stay on the base. That is the only reason.

I good first baseman will run to the base instead of sliding. The only benefit of sliding is to avoid a collision if you were the fielder. But slowing down and decelerating will not get you there any faster.