That would be AWESOME if he was. But in actuality---because of the tail rotor still spinning and then how the main rotor blades droop as they slow down (at just about the right height-with no visual profile end o- to chop someone driving a semi or a bus in half)---the entire helicopter is a rotating engine of death until everything comes to a halt...
Thus, the duck and run of people getting out from a chopper. And not duck and run towards the tail rotor specifically.

http://techdrake.com/2016/06/overwatchs-anti-cheat-proves-too-much-for-cheaters/

http://us.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/20744844365

https://scrap.tf/raffles/N4F7RG

Overwatch does monitor for cheating. Blizzard also issues permanent bans. Battle.net in and of itself is fairly resistant, read the last link on how much harder it was to even create an aimbot hack for Overwatch than for any game using VAC.

Bethesda and Id, on the other hand, don't seem nearly as concerned or proactive. Which is bad, because you can have the most fun game in the universe and lose playerbase because of the cheating. They could take steps, very simple ones, such as enabling a spectator mode so that you could take video from the view of the cheating player. They could enable dedicated servers so that there could be admins in place to ban cheaters from those servers. They could even act on the multiple reports sent to them of obvious cheaters and ban them.

They chose to do none of that. Instead they chose to release a 15 dollar DLC that many say (including me) is hardly worth that amount. You get 3 new maps that you have to play in rotation mode, one new armor skin, some goofy rainbow spectrum colors, a few new post match taunts, and an extremely underwhelming new weapon/demon.

So, tldr mode, Blizzard does bust their ass to prevent hacking via software and bans, while Bethesda/Id does neither and releases new cash grab DLC. One of those methods is successful with an estimated 15m players and one has about 2k players on average. I'll let you figure out which is which and which will still be around in a month or two.

Wikipedia
"The combat side stroke is a relaxing and very efficient swim stroke that is an updated version of the traditional sidestroke. The CSS is a mix of sidestroke, freestyle and breaststroke. The combat side stroke allows the swimmer to swim more efficiently and reduce the body's profile in the water in order to be less likely to be seen during combat operations if surface swimming is required. The concept of CSS has been that it can be used with or without wearing swim fins (flippers), the only difference being that when wearing swim fins the swimmer's legs will always be kicking in the regular flutter kick motion without the scissor kick. This stroke is one of the strokes that can be used for prospective SEAL candidates in the SEAL physical screening test (PST), which includes a 500-yard swim in 12 minutes 30 seconds to determine if the candidate is suitable to go to the Basic Underwater Demolitions/SEAL school.

Basics

The combat side stroke utilizes the three main fundamentals of swimming:

Balance: There are two things that affect your balance in the water - the head and lungs. Most people when swimming, especially when using breaststroke, will swim with their head up[citation needed] which forces their hips to sink down which is like they are swimming uphill and is a sign of being less comfortable. However, if the body is flat/horizontal or more parallel to the water-line it is far more effective and will allow the swimmer to feel more comfortable in the water.
Length: The taller the person is, the faster the speed through the water. As a result, it is important that the swimmer is fully stretched horizontally in the water, as this will reduce the body's drag through the water and allow a higher speed.
Rotation: In most sports, such as baseball, when the batter swings the baseball bat they will rotate the hips to increase the power of the swing. The same principle is applied to swimming. If the swimmer engages the hips and uses the body's core muscles it will increase power."

You rather nailed it.

The S has a biodefense mode option. The cabin becomes somewhat airtight if you activate it. Also, the battery pack is sealed vs leaks or water.

Musk tweeted in response: We *def* don't recommended this, but Model S floats well enough to turn it into a boat for short periods of time. Thrust via wheel rotation.

I think I see part of the problem. The other option you wondered at is you are comparing(literally) apples to grains.

If your lucky enough to live in a climate that can support orchards and vegetables that's an entirely different story. Grain farming is a different beast and you can't farm canola and wheat the same way you'd farm apples or tomatoes.

As for out here on the prairies, the average family owned and operated farm is on the 1k acre mark. Of the 20k farms in my province, more then 90% of them will be under 2k acres and virtually none of them hire more than 2 people outside their immediate sons and daughters to work there.

As for over production, the grain vs vegetables thing still hits. Crop rotation matters with grains, over production simply doesn't. Most of the land here has been passed down from parent to child for 100 years and they've always been quick to pick up on the latest innovations from new equipment to man-made fertilizers to round-up ready crops. The only consistent theme has been greater(and more consistent) yields per acre each year and correspondingly better profits for the farmer. Your gloom and doom scenario just isn't the reality for current grain farming techniques.

This should be easier to balance in reality because you can feel the rate of fall changing and hear the rotation speed of the blades changing. Doing this with instruments is probably an order of magnitude more difficult.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen a snack get caught leaning against the rack and the glass. How does rotating the coils more help in that situation? Answer: IT DOESN'T! The machines are never taking over the world. They'd be forever awkwardly falling all over themselves trying.

I really wanted him to rotate the camera to the right, so I could see what was downstream.

Your video, The Satellite and the YoYo: Controlling Rotation With A YoYo, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's a bit of a false advertisement that the fonts upside down are not symmetrical in relation to when they are right side up. The small loops on the 8 are at the top before and after they flip it. This is a clear, yet subliminal "tell" to try to trick the viewer. If they really wanted to do this they would not have swapped the fonts when rotating.

Nice idea, but I want to see how he's doing it. What's he using to keep his phone in the right position without flipping over or rotating?

@newtboy ah finally see what you mean. And yes you are right a Coke can would be stable and it could rotate. It is no longer considered a spinning top I think, so that is why the contestants didn't make it that way but for sure it would work.

If the can rotates I think the torque (force due to rotation) is in the same direction as gravity. (Where in the normal spinning top case gravity pulls the cg off center and torque back on.) In the can case both would move the cg back to equilibrium, Ie on center. there would be no precession at all. Every time some small Bump would make the cg move of the center axis it would be pulled back instantly.

I think it would work, and that it would take away the challenge ;-)

I think you still misunderstand. I don't mean it would hang from above, it would balance on it's contact point. In that way, it would 'hang', but the point of contact would be pointing down in contact with the top of the 2cm cylinder and the bulk of the mass in a ring hanging below that point. To exaggerate for clarity, think of a soda can with the top cut off, turned upside down, and balanced on a pin touching the exact center of the inner can 'bottom'...then spin it.
My idea is a top EXACTLY as they made it, except the weighted ring is much lower, so the CG is below the point. Then, when set on the pedestal, it would be stable when stationary (when set on a counter, the point would not touch). I can't see why that would change when spun as long as the CG stays below the point and balanced/centered.
It would balance when stationary, no question. My only question is what might happen when you spin it, would the rotation make the CG 'want' to be above the contact point for some reason, or would nothing happen. I don't have a lathe to make one myself to try, so I thought someone well versed in rotational physics might know.