Careful. There are plenty of people moving to solar and wind power on premises that aren't Amish and can boycott their local electric monopoly quite easily.

Here's the thing that gets me. These idiots in ad agencies think that the end of something is when there are no ads. Tell that to HBO, Netflix and any number of other subscription based content providers that don't use advertisements as a revenue stream to shore up their work. If the content on the web page is good enough to attract people to view it, then it might be good enough to supply on a subscription basis and forgo any ads. Now, I know there are things like news and other live or current events related content that is stupid to paywall off, but there are plenty of prime examples of subscriptions--and not ads--supporting good content without pissing off the community that consumes that content. I have lived without cable or satellite TV for 16 years, relying mostly on subscription content sites like Netflix and I haven't missed the ads one bit. With DVRs, most cable and satellite subscribers are also skipping ads, so to say that ad blocking is sociopathic is to not know what the word sociopathic means or be living in a world that's opposite to reality where society isn't skipping and blocking ads wherever they can.

Actually, otherwise known as NoScript.

Correct. It's an old, old saying, "The only secure computer on the network is the one not on the network." Taken another way, "The only secure computer is the one not powered on!" It's an unfortunate truth that we all must come to grips with. We do our best to make the computer less desirable a target on the network, but the only way to be completely secure is to not be on the network. The CIA knows this, the NSA knows this, and I am sure that intelligence agencies the world over have two computers on their desks; one on the internal/secure network and one on the Internet. We as IT professionals know more about the hazards and pitfalls than the average netizen, but we're no match for a skilled intruder that desparately wants something on one of our systems. We accept that fact and is why we do everything we can to make the intruder's job more difficult, but we also have a schedule of regular backups and a plan to deal with the intrusion after the fact. That's one of the reasons why we're professionals.

Now you're being silly in order to deflect a weak argument shored up with a false equivalency. A Pepsi can in a movie is NOT the same thing as a web page ad (the topic of discussion). If you didn't know that web page ads were what the GP meant, then you're either very slow or purposefully being an ass. I block ads with ABP and NoScript. I rarely--if ever these days--see ads on web pages unless I am browsing somewhere other than my desktop machine.

As an aside, I'd bet there would be good money in developing a piece of software that would block product placements in video automatically. Right now it's done manually. Would require a lot of image recognition training, but could net someone a lot of money.

I take it you've never written cross-platform code for MacOS? There's a lot of things like memory management, for one, that you'd want to use Obj-C for. By the time you've done all the "required proprietary API" changes, you'd have been better off just writing the whole thing in Obj-C. Not only would it save dev time, the end product would be a lot more stable and have better overall performance, but I guess it depends on what trade-offs you're willing to accept.

Thank you! I was scrolling through the comments and took a damn long time before I found someone else that had the same thought I did. All Swift seems to be is a higher-level abstraction of the same animal ... C If that's the case, C, C++ and Obj-C will still be around for a long time on the platform and Swift will just jump in the bus with them.

No, not entirely if you read some more modern research on behavioral science. Behaviors are patterned by multiple input sources and feedback mechanisms, including: genetics (inherited traits), religion, societal norms of their country of residence or their heritage, direct training (e.g., etiquette classes), trauma (e.g., car accident, sexual assault, physical abuse) and social interactions with people from different cultural and experiential backgrounds, among others.

In essence it's our experiences along with inheritance that model our behavior, whether that be at home or not.

So, you think that these rules were created without the FAA's input or consultation? You think that they haven't been revised over the years and the revision dates updated? I started flying model aircraft in 1984, and the basic set of AMA rules was out then, referenced in the instruction manual for the aircraft and your responsibility to look up, not the manufacturer's to publish. FYI, my referenced link was to today's rules as I was not able to find a copy of the rules from 1984.

Check your local laws. You might be allowed to. All but the illegal dumping thing, that is.

Morality and ethics seem to have disappeared as our technological dissemination increases, and I'd have to agree. Just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you should; whether someone complains or not.

No, AC, I'm saying that the AMA and FAA rules were either referenced in the instructions and it was your responsibility to go read them, just as it is today.

From page 25 of the DJI Phantom User's Manual: (emphasis is mine)

Flight Environment Requirements
(1) Do not use the aircraft in severe weather conditions. These include wind speed exceeding category 4, snow, rain and smog.
(2) Fly in open fields as high buildings or steel structures may affect the accuracy of the onboard compass.
(3) Keep the Phantom away from obstacles, crowds, high voltage power lines, trees or bodies of water when in flight.
(4) Reduce the chance of electromagnetic interference by not flying in areas with high levels of electromagnetism, including base stations or radio transmission towers.
(5) The Phantom cannot operate within the polar areas.
(6) Do not fly the aircraft within no-fly zones specified by local laws and regulations.

Item six clearly makes it your responsibility to find out what those laws and regulations are, not DJI's. The RC planes I used to fly referenced the AMA and any FAA rules of flight at the time. So, no, same thing today as thirty years ago.

I bet I could name more than I have fingers and toes, or did you miss the part where I said I had friends that were competitive RC flyers? I went to club gatherings and competitions and got to know A LOT of local people that flew RC planes and choppers. There was an abandoned airport not five miles from my home where competitions were held, and club meetings were every week until the land was sold and a housing development went in. I was, and still am, a very avid aviation fanatic from a very early age.

So, your argument is that if no one sees it, it's ok? Sorry, that just doesn't fly. Pun intended. That's a rather juvenile justification, don't you think?

They do belong to the copyright holder, which in the case of photographs is the person that took them, even if they are a monkey.

tl;dr But most of the comments about how he can't do this aren't wrong. All the others that say he can are more than likely wrong as they are assuming way too much.