You don't need to jailbreak it. There are all sorts of flight controllers (even open source ones) that are available. You simply replace it.
My understanding is that this is not the first time DJI has added a no-fly zone in its flight controller. You also can't fly over the forbidden city with the Naza flight controller (by DJI). In fact, they have a whole list of no fly-zones preprogrammed into their FCs:
A sad thing is that the people that did kill thousands of Americans suffered less than the people the CIA tortured. Heck, even if the hijackers had survived (say they did it by installing remote control autopilot or something), and had been caught, they would have had a trial, been convicted, and been sentenced to either life in prison (solitary confinement being likely) or sentenced to death. Sure, dead is dead, but torture is pain. Every one of the victims of the CIA's torture probably wished for death at some point. Some tried to get there by starving themselves.
There are people and animals suffering and dying in the world, and real human rights issues in certain countries, and this is what you take issue with? Someone showing and commenting on pictures that are nearly two decades old? I think there are greater causes to champion with the limited time and energy we are given on this Earth.
What I like most about SoundCloud's statement is that they automatically consider users and rights holders separate and distinct entities. Up until now, I thought the assumption was supposed to be that their uploading users were the rights holders. This shows how SoundCloud feels about its users.
SoundCloud better hope UMG doesn't use that statement to show in some court that SoundCloud has always intended uploaders to not upload their own content.
without prejudice to future adjustments based on new information
Unfortunately for her, new information has just been obtained. It has recently come to light that she prevailed in a case against the DHS. If we allow that to continue to happen, the DHS will become weaker, allowing terrorists to bomb us fortnightly. Therefore, she is a threat to our national security and is hereby placed on the no-fly list.
It's truth. It's not retributional at all. We even signed a promise to that, but we can't let you see it for security reasons.
As the father of two single-digit-aged girls, I would gladly vote for any politician who ran on a platform of banning glitter. It does not matter how often you clean up, that stuff shows up in weird places years later.
The telcos are happy to hand over data to the NSA for lots of reasons, one of which is they get paid to do it. I'm sure they also do it either to keep getting the boondoggles I mentioned previously, or to keep those boondoggles from being spoken about too much in Congress.
I'd wager that a sizable portion of the telcos revenue doesn't come from actual customers, but from defrauding the government and the government spying on its citizens.
I agree that Alexander's two positions are opposed to each other. He seems to have preferred the NSA one over the cyber security one. Would he suggest city walls are bad since they make it more difficult to see all angles of where the enemy might be coming from?
Wow, you didn't get my comment at all. Perhaps you should spend some more time reading and thinking.
The key word is independently. If some Amazonian tribal guy with no education to speak of wrote a book about how he independently discovered some new mathematical model that is really just calculus as we understand it, nobody would care, even though he would need the same mental genius as Newton. In fact, this happened. See Leibniz. We don't judge people for how smart they are. We judge them by how novel they are. Newton did it first, therefore he is a genius. Some guy does it second, but independently, and we don't care.
Mental geniuses from centuries ago had a level of genius to make a leap to understand things we take for granted now. Nobody needs to make these leaps anymore, but that doesn't mean nobody could. Many people are making further leaps, but their leaps are in such specialized fields that we, as a society, can't even begin to appreciate it because understanding those leaps is beyond us.
Or you know, everyone is dumb nowadays. Except you of course.
And all those mental giants got the low hanging fruit. If someone today independently came up with Newton's laws, we would ignore them completely rather than praising them for their understanding. We have mental giants today who are getting the next lowest level of fruit, but they are harder to recognize because their fields are necessarily more specialized.
I've been thinking about doing the same thing with Steamboat Willie. Unfortunately, I don't have the money. I wonder where the GMTY people are getting their funds. Wherever they're getting it, I hope it doesn't run out. That will probably be Warner/Chappell's biggest tactic.
You have it backwards. If he can show his phone being somewhere else, then the DoJ now has to show that he didn't have his phone. The guy's not been convicted yet. The government has to show that beyond a reasonable doubt he was there committing a crime. If he shows that his phone wasn't there, and that it was involved in making phone calls, that makes the government's job harder.
The guy could be guilty. He could also be telling the truth that he wasn't there. Let's let due process do it's thing. If he's guilty and walks, that sucks. But that's better, IMO, than him being innocent while not being able to show some exculpatory evidence because the NSA would prefer to keep their secret surveillance secret for longer.
Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Let due process work. Make the prosecution do it's job of proving guilt. Let the defendant show his evidence.
There are all sorts of things that affect only a small portion of the population, and most people just don't care. That doesn't make it right.
A law that bans all Welsh immigrants to the US from ever being granted a small business license would be "important only to a small number of [Welsh entrepeneur]-weenies, while nearly everyone else doesn't worry about it". That hypothetical law would still be wrong.
You're also wrong that they are looking for evidence. The position is solid without anecdotes. What they are looking for is human stories that make it more understandable for congresspersons. That's completely different. Taking the example above, I don't need to know a single Welsh entrepeneur to know that a law barring them from starting businesses is wrong. But if I had an actual example of it harming someone that would make it easier to overturn that hypothetical law.