Good parabola at the start (is it parabola.. anyway...) how to describe the levels of privacy. But the point here is, we have the right to choose what is private to us and what is not. That task is not up to security departments, it is done individually. Yes, it is a security risk. No shit sherlock. So are a lot of old social rules that we have honed during the millenias, spanning from cavemen to nerd. There would be NO crime if we would have NO privacy. And still, after tens of thousands of years, we have seemed it appropriate to allow more freedoms with small disadvantage but with a tremendous improvements on personal well being. Not to mention creativity, which often demands privacy. If you knew that someone is watching every draw of line you make, the picture turns out to be average at best, not exciting, dull, predictable. Because at those private moments, we find our selves free to take creative risks. Innovate without reprimand. You take that feeling of freedom away, force people to "behave" when at their own homes and we will live in a stagnated, boring world. We have to be allowed to break away from societal norms when private. The fact is that internet is a tool too for that inner self study.. We ask it daily questions we wont ask from our spouses. It is linked to the most private form of self. And thus, it has tremendous effect on our wellbeing and society as a whole.

I'm no expert on guns, but he does say he's aiming "75-80 yards over the target" (~ 1:30 in the video)

To aim 75 years higher at 1000 yards you need an angle of only 4.2 degrees ( atan(75/1000) ).

I'm not going to calculate the parabola on that, but I'd guess it's around 3 seconds

BTW, my math is really rusty so please correct me if I'm wrong.

This is probably a very minor issue when it comes to spiked ammo, but I think anyone who fires an assault rifle in celebration is getting what's coming to them. Just ask the families of hundreds of Filipinos who are killed or injured each year by "celebratory gunfire". So long as heavily armed idiots don't understand parabolas, I'd be happy if their guns explode.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2013/01/03/filipino-child-dies-from-new-year-eve-shooting/5DPm8tGbjjQ6yvPFv1uSdL/story.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/01/new-year-gunfire-firecrackers-injure-400-in-philippines/

A thrown ball falls in a parabola. Jezus!

[Edit]
Oops! I got schooled.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/secrets.htm

Tags for this video have been changed from 'math, class, doodle, vi hart, dots, parabola, cone, curve' to 'math, class, doodle, vi hart, dots, parabola, cone, curve, angry birds' - edited by messenger

Water Parabolas: Historically difficult refreshment.

This was my guess at first. But their way relies on math, so that's alright.
>> ^rychan:

There's no freely movable parts inside the camera. The website makes it pretty clear:
"Our camera contains an accelerometer which we use to measure launch acceleration. Integration lets us predict rise time to the highest point, where we trigger the exposure."
So while your original post implies that it somehow detects the top of the trajectory as it happens, in fact the camera measures launch acceleration to predict the length of time until the top of the trajectory.
>> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^rychan:
>> ^luxury_pie:
^ I think it will take a photo everytime it stands still after being accelerated upwards. Using the fact that there will be no vertical forces applied to the "ballcamera" the moment it reaches maximum height after a throw.
engineering

Actually, no. The acceleration on the ball is roughly constant through the entire trajectory. So it's somewhat tricky to estimate when you're at the top of the parabola.

They seem to use an accelerometer to predict the time of max height as seen on
their website.
I wasn't referring to the acceleration rather to the forces, being applied while thrown, to a possible freely movable object inside of the camera, using the same principle as the seatbelt mechanism.
My train of thought leaves in a couple of minutes.

I wasn't aware of the explanation on the website while posting my first comment. The first part of my second comment covers that. The second part was to explain what I meant with "vertical forces applied to the ballcamera".
Sorry for the confusion.
Neat concept though, I'd like a bunch of these to create "panorama maps".

In reply to this comment by rychan:
There's no freely movable parts inside the camera. The website makes it pretty clear:
"Our camera contains an accelerometer which we use to measure launch acceleration. Integration lets us predict rise time to the highest point, where we trigger the exposure."

So while your original post implies that it somehow detects the top of the trajectory as it happens, in fact the camera measures launch acceleration to predict the length of time until the top of the trajectory.

>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^rychan:
>> ^luxury_pie:
^ I think it will take a photo everytime it stands still after being accelerated upwards. Using the fact that there will be no vertical forces applied to the "ballcamera" the moment it reaches maximum height after a throw.
engineering

Actually, no. The acceleration on the ball is roughly constant through the entire trajectory. So it's somewhat tricky to estimate when you're at the top of the parabola.

They seem to use an accelerometer to predict the time of max height as seen on
their website.
I wasn't referring to the acceleration rather to the forces, being applied while thrown, to a possible freely movable object inside of the camera, using the same principle as the seatbelt mechanism.
My train of thought leaves in a couple of minutes.

There's no freely movable parts inside the camera. The website makes it pretty clear:
"Our camera contains an accelerometer which we use to measure launch acceleration. Integration lets us predict rise time to the highest point, where we trigger the exposure."

So while your original post implies that it somehow detects the top of the trajectory as it happens, in fact the camera measures launch acceleration to predict the length of time until the top of the trajectory.

>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^rychan:
>> ^luxury_pie:
^ I think it will take a photo everytime it stands still after being accelerated upwards. Using the fact that there will be no vertical forces applied to the "ballcamera" the moment it reaches maximum height after a throw.
engineering

Actually, no. The acceleration on the ball is roughly constant through the entire trajectory. So it's somewhat tricky to estimate when you're at the top of the parabola.

They seem to use an accelerometer to predict the time of max height as seen on
their website.
I wasn't referring to the acceleration rather to the forces, being applied while thrown, to a possible freely movable object inside of the camera, using the same principle as the seatbelt mechanism.
My train of thought leaves in a couple of minutes.

>> ^rychan:

>> ^luxury_pie:
^ I think it will take a photo everytime it stands still after being accelerated upwards. Using the fact that there will be no vertical forces applied to the "ballcamera" the moment it reaches maximum height after a throw.
engineering

Actually, no. The acceleration on the ball is roughly constant through the entire trajectory. So it's somewhat tricky to estimate when you're at the top of the parabola.

They seem to use an accelerometer to predict the time of max height as seen on
their website.
I wasn't referring to the acceleration rather to the forces, being applied while thrown, to a possible freely movable object inside of the camera, using the same principle as the seatbelt mechanism.
My train of thought leaves in a couple of minutes.

>> ^luxury_pie:

^ I think it will take a photo everytime it stands still after being accelerated upwards. Using the fact that there will be no vertical forces applied to the "ballcamera" the moment it reaches maximum height after a throw.
engineering


Actually, no. The acceleration on the ball is roughly constant through the entire trajectory. So it's somewhat tricky to estimate when you're at the top of the parabola.

Nice parabola.

>> ^UsesProzac:

She sure makes it look easy and is easy, on my eyes at least.


Nice gal even though I don't like meYtal.

>> ^choggie:
Hmmm. Lessse dystopiaufrtdy, Pat Condell needs a spot on the BBC's nightly wank. Deek Jackson has his own news channel on YouTube called FKKN News-My vote is for Deek to replace all media news outlets' collective hoo-ha, and for everyone to get Telescreens™ that can't be turned off, only down.
24/7 deprogramming is the only way to undo what has been done to nations of the television addicted-That and bring back hard copys' popularity....The public library needs a revamp-Fettish librarians, BYOBBB, and hooka lounges....and a ventilation chamber for homeless folks.


I sense this is about as close as I get before the choggie parabola swings wide again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Lfl2j7ahE - Very funny, and similarly riding that fine line between the serious and self-parody.

matt's in ur vomit comet

doin parabolas