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.

>> ^catbutt:

Reasons it looks funny to me:
1. Michel shuffles his feet before the tablecloth pull, as if he is getting in place and getting ready.
2. Michel pre-blocks with his arms. Not natural.
3. Michel scrambles backwards into the shelves without using his arms to catch himself, seeming to propel himself. That's the impression I get, maybe he was slipping on the tablecloth at that point?
4. Sven's hand trajectory during the pull seems purposefully targeted.
Reasons I don't think they planned for the whole shelf to come down:
1. That thing in the top left is a full aquarium - oops
2. The TV appears to be real - and really heavy.
3. Sven's "GTFO" reaction seems very sincere.
Initially staged, but unintended consequences?


no, probably just staged.

Reasons it looks funny to me:
1. Michel shuffles his feet before the tablecloth pull, as if he is getting in place and getting ready.
2. Michel pre-blocks with his arms. Not natural.
3. Michel scrambles backwards into the shelves without using his arms to catch himself, seeming to propel himself. That's the impression I get, maybe he was slipping on the tablecloth at that point?
4. Sven's hand trajectory during the pull seems purposefully targeted.

Reasons I don't think they planned for the whole shelf to come down:
1. That thing in the top left is a full aquarium - oops
2. The TV appears to be real - and really heavy.
3. Sven's "GTFO" reaction seems very sincere.

Initially staged, but unintended consequences?

^I'll second that.

ButI was wondering about the guy filming him the whole time. I mean, he seemed to be keeping his eye's on the other guy rather than his own trajectory.

This is the sort of thought process that needs to be discouraged because when enforced you have people that begin seeing it as justified. "See, they can handle it, we can just fuck them over some more! They've already accepted it!" The reason the other classes are struggling is because of policies and business strategies put in place by the upper-class. They fucked our economy, they fuck our pockets, consequently fucking our overall health, liberty & "pursuit of happiness" just so they can keep immense profits for themselves.

Never compare the USA to Africa - Africa is so full of injustice, genocide and cruelty it is just unbelievable. Although, America is covert with their militaristic corruption supposedly as a nation we are peaceful with liberties & freedoms. America is better than our current trajectory but by giving up on the "niceties" of the lower & middle classes & not supporting real living wages you may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of even more injustice & cruelty in the US of A. The war in America is of the mind - when they get you thinking the way they want they will be able to exploit everything under the sun... sort of like what they've already done & luck plays no part of their agenda.

>> ^robbersdog49:

JiggaJonson, while your life may be harder than that of others around you it's a whole world apart from the poor of Africa. How far do you and your kids have to walk each day to collect enough contaminated water to survive? What? You get clean water piped right to your house? Yeah. Poor. I see.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be helping those less fortunate than ourselves in our own societies, but I also think those people should appreciate quite how lucky they were to be born where they were born...

I'll have to agree with him.

Emma Stone is on a similar trajectory as Julia Roberts...the difference being that I can stand to look at Emma Stone.

>> ^bareboards2:

World class athletes are amazing -- they have computers in their heads calculating trajectories, I swear.


Or they're all just incredibly lucky.

World class athletes are amazing -- they have computers in their heads calculating trajectories, I swear.

Did I just upvote a comment by Bob Knight? I hope your sentiment is bipartison.

The "debt ceiling crisis" was a self inflicted wound. This vote, which has been routine and generally unpolitical, was indeed used, badly I might add, as a political hostage. The many republicans, who in banana republic style advocated a US default on our legitamate active debts are directly responsible for the credit downgrade by S&P. Lest we forget who they are, from TPM:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), May 17, 2011: "You want to make sure that the bondholder has confidence that the government's going to be able to pay them.... That's what I'm hearing from most people, which is if a bondholder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four what is more important that you're putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on."

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), May 18, 2011: "What I think is that the markets are looking to see credible progress on changing the fiscal trajectory in Washington. The markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for the collapse. I think the markets are looking to see that there is real reform."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), May 19, 2011: "The government is not to be trusted with more of your money, so I will refuse to allow them to borrow more. Now is it a good idea to default? No! But this is a false claim being promoted by big-government advocates. We can simply spend what we take in!"

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), June 24, 2011 on administration warnings of "catastrophic consequences" of not raising debt limit: "I don't believe them, it's not true."

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), May 18, 2011: "This problem is so urgent that there is -- an alternative school of thought has emerged recently," Toomey said. "The most high-profile advocate for this was Stanley Druckenmiller ... one of the world's most successful hedge-fund managers, extraordinarily wealthy from his knowledge of the markets, a big money manager now, and a big holder of Treasury securities -- and he has said that he would actually accept even a delay in interest payments on the Treasuries that he holds. And he would prefer that if it meant that the Congress would right this ship."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), July 13, 2011: "To get a balanced budget amendment in this environment...we'd have to make the serious, credible, earnest threat that if you want to raise [the debt ceiling] and you want to have any Republicans voting for raising it, you're going to have to assist us: You give us 20 votes to adopt the balanced budget amendment in the Senate and we'll make sure you get the votes you need to raise the debt limit."

>> ^Chaucer:

actually, if you want closely, he doesnt kick the bird like he's trying to kill or hurt it. Soccer players will know a move called 'lofting the soccer ball'. Basically, you are trying to get the ball into the air at your location. If he was trying to kill the bird, he would have kicked it and the bird would have just rolled along the ground. Instead the see the owl take a very vertical trajectory. This would jive with his story that he was trying to get the bird in the air to make it fly away.
He still shouldnt have done what he did though because there are to many idiots out there which would misunderstand the situation and make a big deal out of it.
On a side note that you guys also seem to be forgetting is that owls are very dangerous. They have insanely sharp claws and sharp beaks. I wouldnt want to touch an owl that is confused and have it tear my hand off.
The owl likely died from being hit by the soccer ball which was likely moving much faster than his foot.

Horseshit. You don't kick a clearly injured animal unless you want to hurt it more. I can't imagine any circumstance in which I would think "This creature might need my help. I will, therefore, kick it". But then again, I'm not a fucking idiot fucking brainless footballer.

actually, if you want closely, he doesnt kick the bird like he's trying to kill or hurt it. Soccer players will know a move called 'lofting the soccer ball'. Basically, you are trying to get the ball into the air at your location. If he was trying to kill the bird, he would have kicked it and the bird would have just rolled along the ground. Instead the see the owl take a very vertical trajectory. This would jive with his story that he was trying to get the bird in the air to make it fly away.

He still shouldnt have done what he did though because there are to many idiots out there which would misunderstand the situation and make a big deal out of it.

On a side note that you guys also seem to be forgetting is that owls are very dangerous. They have insanely sharp claws and sharp beaks. I wouldnt want to touch an owl that is confused and have it tear my hand off.

The owl likely died from being hit by the soccer ball which was likely moving much faster than his foot.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

That is true about almost every argument you and I have.

>> ^blankfist:
Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.
That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together.

I agree with all of that.

>> ^blankfist:
The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

I'm not so sure they'll always prevail. We'll never have a perfectly egalitarian society, where no man ever rises above another, and I don't think we should. But monarchy and oligarchy should be able to be killed off, or at least sent into long periods of remission. To quote that guy who ran for President in 2008, and then disappeared, no one can stop millions of people calling for change. Just ask Ben Ali, and Hosni Mubarak, maybe even King George III.

My cure for creeping oligarchism is to push for changes in social norms to promote egalitarianism. I want people to realize that nobody's intrinsically superior or inferior to anyone else, that they are their brother's keeper, that we're all in this life together, we're only really different on the outside, etc., etc., etc.

I push for increased deference to basic human dignity and fairness for everyone. When I think I can get away with it, I say we should all love one another, and make sure to forgive people as often as possible.

In terms of politics, this translates into social justice. Not because I have any particular desire to compel people to do things they don't want to, but to at least put forward the notion that it's as wrong to let a homeless man starve as it is to kill someone in cold blood, and that if government can do things to stop the latter, it should also do things to stop the former.

If people would treat people who act purely on self-interest as being morally wrong instead of morally neutral (or even morally virtuous!), then things, big things, would change.

Anyways, I agree with you on protectionism being bad, and I agree all your examples are things that shouldn't be happening. I still don't think eliminating unions does anyone any kind of good, and I think it's antithetical to both of our belief systems, for the reasons I said.

@NetRunner, you have to understand also, I'm completely in favor of people having living wages and benefits. I think too often businesses take advantage of their workers. So we're in agreement. We're just not in agreement how we arrive there.

Unfortunately with the amount of protectionism currently in place so many industries are forcing entrepreneurs out by making it difficult to compete against those companies already rooted in the industry (strict regulations, licensing, permits, taxes, and so on), and as a result competing is too expensive so the number of workers go up while the number of job creators goes down. Soon we'll all be working for Corporations.

That's what people like me want to stop. We won't change this trajectory by going down the same path we've been going down for the last hundred years. We have to face the facts that politicians are more willing to give attention to those with deep pockets than those with barely two nickels to rub together. The rich will always prevail within a human government, and no amount of legislation will change that. It hasn't in the past, and it won't in the future.

Just in case you require examples of protectionism that stifles competition, I have a great many. The recent banking coup is a good place to start. A lot of small and midlevel banks closed after the bailouts (WaMu! Fucking WaMu closed!), so now the big banks no longer have to compete against hundreds of banks. This was by design.

After prohibition the government forced a three tiered system onto the alcohol industry which keeps the two major beer manufacturers on top while the smaller brewers are being edged out. On even smaller levels, a lot of small businesses use government to keep new competitors out by pushing licensing and other expensive requirements onto new businesses. This happens often for hair salons, florists, casket manufacturing, and just about every small business industry in America. NY public transit union recently sought legal injunctions against local businessmen who offer cheap minivan rides throughout the city for much less than what the Metro can offer.

Lastly, look at the film industry. It's a mess. The unions and corporations have made it extremely difficult for independent filmmakers to shoot a film and have it distributed (though the internet is changing things a bit). And the cost of production in Los Angeles is through the roof, because of union fees, permit costs, etc. If you choose to use union actors for a non-union film you could face a pricey lawsuit. And not to mention how difficult it is for those who want to join the unions, with catch 22 rules like, "You must work 200 hours on a union film set to be admitted into the union, but you can't work on a union film shoot unless you're in the union." Funny how people still manage to get in.