Note to mods: He meant Bush.

You're really stretching the definition of "kind of" there, bub.

Right, because nothing screams extreme sexual exhaustion like going to a nerd site to declare your loyalty to the 'clit mouse'.

... for those who don't scroll much.

Work is about the only place I'd want to have these, anyway. No more privacy issues and that's exactly the place where pop-up information is handy. All I ask is they make these things big and ugly to discourage wearing them out in the public.

The Slashdot ad-counter spins when flame wars rage.

Yes, that's possible, and yes that's basically how it works.

The law, specifically the one he violated.

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.

The law.

When it is not against the law.

I was explaining why, in context, the law matters. Not explaining why he was charged.

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.

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.

Really? Shooting your gun when you're not supposed to isn't reckless endangerment?