sure, you have two views in all directions but how do you stitch a stereoscopic panoball from that???
First you stitch all the left-camera views together. Then, in a separate image, you stitch all the right-camera views together. The trickier part is the math, which I don't really know how to explain here other than to say that it's not significantly different from the pano-mode on modern cellular phones.
How do they solve the issue of capturing the camera's stand/arm? Reflective surfaces will be annoying as well.
Cameras like this have an area of occlusion, caused by the cameras being physically a few centimeters apart, that the stand often sits in. I cannot speak for this particular model but let's just say you've got a diameter of something like a foot where a strategically placed stand would be invisible.
Kentucky man knows buckshot is the wrong load for drone-hunting (there's a reason it's called "buck"-shot).
Unsubstantiated assumption. Honestly you don't really want to go into what Kentuckians do or don't know. If your argument only works if only the best most experienced shooters are the ones that step up and take out drones you're not on a particularly stable foundation.
There is no "reckless endangerment"
Really? Shooting your gun when you're not supposed to isn't reckless endangerment?
The gun is both a critical ingredient to this story and to the point that you specifically responded to. This is not craziness on my part, it is specifically why the man in Kentucky got into trouble.
I never said fire your gun. To a device, I don't think it matters if it is shot or bashed with a bat.
You are talking about discharging a firearm inside your home without thinking about who is in the next room.
This right here neatly sums up the issue I have with using guns to deal with drones: Lack of consideration about the environment you're in when firing a weapon. Everybody is annoyed with drones, and since they have proven to be physically dangerous they are rightfully so, but nobody around here is stopping to think: "Gee, I wonder if I'm really okay with a yokel from Kentucky running outside with his gun every time he sees something hovering?"
He mentioned nothing about shooting it. He just said "harming".
The word 'harming' was used as a substitute for was 'shoot'. Sorry.
Once again, it is so obviously pathetic how people twist arguments to fit some agenda of theirs, such as gun control.
Straw man. Here, I'll show you the bit from the article you're intentionally ignoring: "Merideth was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment."
There's a law there, and there's a damned good reason that law is there. In fact if you read a little further...
It wasn't long before the drone's owners appeared.
"Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.
"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'
Oh lookie at that, a clear example of why that law is in place, all neatly wrapped up in the topic at hand.
I know we'll be close within the next decade or two with drones but a remote controlled flying object with a camera is not human. So to answer your question, "no." Hell I'd shoot it too.
And it starts. A buncha numptie Americans firing their guns in the air. Smart.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I want to ask just one question: Do you think the point I was making was that the executive should have called ahead so the engineer could lose 130lbs during the elevator ride?
MythBuster's is so full of junk science that I feel dumber after watching an episode and find myself wondering things like the will the great ball of fire in the sky rise tomorrow and is the earth flat.
Or did you stop liking it when non-nerds started watching it, forcing you to find other ways to express your nerd-hipsterism.
Why would you want your Google account and your Youtube account to be the same? Personally I don't want Google having a list of all the videos I've searched for.
Slashdot Mirror
The law, specifically the one he violated.
sure, you have two views in all directions but how do you stitch a stereoscopic panoball from that???
First you stitch all the left-camera views together. Then, in a separate image, you stitch all the right-camera views together. The trickier part is the math, which I don't really know how to explain here other than to say that it's not significantly different from the pano-mode on modern cellular phones.
And who said he's not supposed to?
The law.
When exactly is one "supposed" to shoot their gun?
When it is not against the law.
I was explaining why, in context, the law matters. Not explaining why he was charged.
How do they solve the issue of capturing the camera's stand/arm? Reflective surfaces will be annoying as well.
Cameras like this have an area of occlusion, caused by the cameras being physically a few centimeters apart, that the stand often sits in. I cannot speak for this particular model but let's just say you've got a diameter of something like a foot where a strategically placed stand would be invisible.
What does Slashdot charge for such an infraction?
Fair enough. We're fine on that part. I'm not against damaging the drone, though I will say I'm not a fan of an uncontrolled fall.
Kentucky man knows buckshot is the wrong load for drone-hunting (there's a reason it's called "buck"-shot).
Unsubstantiated assumption. Honestly you don't really want to go into what Kentuckians do or don't know. If your argument only works if only the best most experienced shooters are the ones that step up and take out drones you're not on a particularly stable foundation.
There is no "reckless endangerment"
Really? Shooting your gun when you're not supposed to isn't reckless endangerment?
Are you allowed to shoot the camera out of his hand?
The gun is both a critical ingredient to this story and to the point that you specifically responded to. This is not craziness on my part, it is specifically why the man in Kentucky got into trouble.
I never said fire your gun. To a device, I don't think it matters if it is shot or bashed with a bat.
You are talking about discharging a firearm inside your home without thinking about who is in the next room.
This right here neatly sums up the issue I have with using guns to deal with drones: Lack of consideration about the environment you're in when firing a weapon. Everybody is annoyed with drones, and since they have proven to be physically dangerous they are rightfully so, but nobody around here is stopping to think: "Gee, I wonder if I'm really okay with a yokel from Kentucky running outside with his gun every time he sees something hovering?"
Honestly, I expected a lot better from this site.
He mentioned nothing about shooting it. He just said "harming".
The word 'harming' was used as a substitute for was 'shoot'. Sorry.
Once again, it is so obviously pathetic how people twist arguments to fit some agenda of theirs, such as gun control.
Straw man. Here, I'll show you the bit from the article you're intentionally ignoring: "Merideth was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief and first degree wanton endangerment."
There's a law there, and there's a damned good reason that law is there. In fact if you read a little further...
It wasn't long before the drone's owners appeared.
"Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.
"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'
Oh lookie at that, a clear example of why that law is in place, all neatly wrapped up in the topic at hand.
Just wait for little quiet dragonfly drones, which you won't notice, can't hear unless close, and ability to crawl into cracks.
Just wait until drones start evading being shot, causing the frustrated property owner to take more than one carefully aimed shot with this gun.
Sure, it won't be problem... until next week when you get a new reason to go a-shootin'. So long as your buddies agree, right?
Not nearly as dangerous coming down as a 3-5 pound drone that loses control over your property.
That's part II of the problem, thanks for bringing it up.
The next time you find a hidden camera in your bedroom, be sure to keep from harming the poor thing.
Yeah, you should fire your gun in the house, never mind the people nearby. Thanks for bringing the pertinent point into focus.
I know we'll be close within the next decade or two with drones but a remote controlled flying object with a camera is not human. So to answer your question, "no." Hell I'd shoot it too.
And it starts. A buncha numptie Americans firing their guns in the air. Smart.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I want to ask just one question: Do you think the point I was making was that the executive should have called ahead so the engineer could lose 130lbs during the elevator ride?
Why didn't you read the first line? Everyone else, did.
You should re-read my post. What I said and what you read are two different things.
This whole situation makes me sic.
MythBuster's is so full of junk science that I feel dumber after watching an episode and find myself wondering things like the will the great ball of fire in the sky rise tomorrow and is the earth flat.
Or did you stop liking it when non-nerds started watching it, forcing you to find other ways to express your nerd-hipsterism.
Why would you want your Google account and your Youtube account to be the same? Personally I don't want Google having a list of all the videos I've searched for.
No, you can blame Google.
Flamebait? Mitch McConnell has fans..!?!