4 ms·

This is a great example of how the reversal test is fundamentally question-begging -- you propose an idealistic version of the future (ignoring the reality of d

This is a great example of how the reversal test is fundamentally question-begging -- you propose an idealistic version of the future (ignoring the reality of drones falling out of the sky and injuring people, preventing firefighting efforts, and invading people's privacy by hovering outside their apartments with cameras), and assert that it's desirable. Of course it's desirable, you made it up to support your point!

chroma 11y ago
My point is that the current and proposed rules are centered around preserving general aviation. Nobody is seriously proposing restricting general aviation to the benefit of drones, despite the fact that it would almost certainly be better for the vast majority of people. Because of CYA syndrome, it's generally easier to pass new laws that to repeal them. If drones actually start causing the problems you suggest, it makes sense to restrict them in specific ways. But preventative legislation kills countless beneficial uses.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Drones are already doing/have already done the things dogecoinbase listed in his parenthetical. He's not fear-mongering some possible future state, but referencing issues that have already happened with drones.
  - chroma 11y ago
    Drones would have to be much more troublesome than they currently are to justify the current or proposed restrictions. Every time a drone causes a problem, there's a story about it. Could you imagine if the same were true for private aircraft? Or cars? Newspapers would have to be much thicker. Every day in the US, 100 people die from cars. 15 are pedestrians. I'm flabbergasted that people worry about drones falling on them, then they go outside and think little of walking next to giant metal boxes zooming by. Can't they see how mistaken their priorities are?
tomswartz07 11y ago
I see your point, and I admit that incidents have occurred where they have prevented firefighting efforts and have fallen, injuring people. I'm not going to comment on the 'invasion of privacy' part, as it's a strawman; there are no cameras that are easily available on these devices that can 'hover outside someones apartment' and spy on them any more reliably than a cell phone on a stick. However, and this is a very important distinction; these are the small majority of all RC flights by all amateur pilots. I agree that there should be stiff fines for those that break the regulations. I do not agree, however, that everyone should be subject to some crazy ill-advised extra regulations.

chroma 11y ago

My point is that the current and proposed rules are centered around preserving general aviation. Nobody is seriously proposing restricting general aviation to the benefit of drones, despite the fact that it would almost certainly be better for the vast majority of people. Because of CYA syndrome, it's generally easier to pass new laws that to repeal them. If drones actually start causing the problems you suggest, it makes sense to restrict them in specific ways. But preventative legislation kills countless beneficial uses.

sokoloff 11y ago
Drones are already doing/have already done the things dogecoinbase listed in his parenthetical. He's not fear-mongering some possible future state, but referencing issues that have already happened with drones.
- chroma 11y ago
  Drones would have to be much more troublesome than they currently are to justify the current or proposed restrictions. Every time a drone causes a problem, there's a story about it. Could you imagine if the same were true for private aircraft? Or cars? Newspapers would have to be much thicker. Every day in the US, 100 people die from cars. 15 are pedestrians. I'm flabbergasted that people worry about drones falling on them, then they go outside and think little of walking next to giant metal boxes zooming by. Can't they see how mistaken their priorities are?

tomswartz07 11y ago

I see your point, and I admit that incidents have occurred where they have prevented firefighting efforts and have fallen, injuring people. I'm not going to comment on the 'invasion of privacy' part, as it's a strawman; there are no cameras that are easily available on these devices that can 'hover outside someones apartment' and spy on them any more reliably than a cell phone on a stick. However, and this is a very important distinction; these are the small majority of all RC flights by all amateur pilots. I agree that there should be stiff fines for those that break the regulations. I do not agree, however, that everyone should be subject to some crazy ill-advised extra regulations.