5 ms·

Yeah but this is _always_ the reason that any industry gives for criminalizing competition. There's never any justification for the entirety of the thing being

Yeah but this is _always_ the reason that any industry gives for criminalizing competition. There's never any justification for the entirety of the thing being done, just a list of the most egregious problems (as you have listed here) and then everything else just gets lumped in and hand-waved away with "you can ask for an exception and/or pay money in fees".

madrox 8y ago
An engineer wants to push some code live to a large, production software project worked on by hundreds of engineers. It hasn't been peer reviewed, tested or evaluated in any way except by the engineer. It isn't a mission critical update, but he doesn't seem to think it'll be a problem. "No way!" you say, without hesitation, because it's a rightly stupid thing to do. It's a pointless risk. That's always how bad stories start. The engineer points out the bad stories are just a list of the most egregious problems. You wouldn't even let the engineer ask for an exception or pay a fee to do it. He then says the only reason you're doing this is to hold back his career. And that's just for software where a mistake doesn't mean someone dies. Tell me again how this is about "criminalizing competition" because that rings a little hollow.
- myrryr 8y ago
  This is a bad example. 825,000 drones were sold in the U.S. in 2016 alone. If you had 825,000 developers, who on many days did commits and didn't have any real issues, you may think differently. I again, am pro regulation, but this is a _terrible_ argument.
  - madrox 8y ago
    > didn't have any real issues Citation needed. If you want better arguments, you merely need read the rest of this thread. I wasn't arguing pro regulation. I was arguing how silly it sounds when someone calls this a move to "criminalize competition."
    - leetcrew 8y ago
      i'd say it's a pretty reasonable inference from the article, which mentions two interested parties: the The Commercial Drone Alliance (commercial advocate), which supports the repeal, and the Academy of Model Aeronautics (hobbyist organization), which opposes it. now why is it that these two orgs which are both interested in drones have such different stances?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- philipodonnell 8y ago
  This is not a good analogy. You just pointed out a real problem and then said we should prevent it. I said these real problems are used to justify drastic expansions of those rules to protect incumbents via the legal process. The situation does not require an analogy to understand. A group of people who represent the status quo (large drone makers and currently operating commercial drone operators) are attempting to erect barriers to entry (licenses/exceptions) that will attach civil and potentially criminal penalties to the same behavior they engaged in (license/exception-free operation) to become successful. That is literally the definition of "criminalizing competition". If you would like another example of this exact behavior without needing an analogy, see the fact that it is currently illegal in many US states to be a hairstylist without applying for a license (with a fee) and meeting minimum education requirements (with a fee)... _to cut hair_.
syshum 8y ago
Yep, we have gone from a society that values freedom first, and government must present a case to have that freedom limited in a vary narrow band To Wholesale regulations of all activity where by you have to seek "permission" from the regulators to do anything, and hope they will grant you a coveted "exception" to their prohibition. it is sad that people still call that freedom
- quasse 8y ago
  My experience in America is that the "freedom" is usually a word people use for being able to endanger others, pollute, or otherwise cause external harm without repercussion. In short, it's code for "I don't want to take responsibility for the negative externalities of my actions".
  - syshum 8y ago
    Then you must have very limited experience. Most of the time "regulators" like the FAA are mainly there to limit the liability of commercial industries, as well as raise barriers to entry ensuring limited competition for those corporations Why do you think major corporations advocate FOR government regulations of their industries Why do you think Facebook WANTS the government to regulate them Why do you think Amazon now WANTS the government to raise minimum wage Government works for Large Corporations it does not work for the People. People like me, hobbyist that just want to be left in peace to enjoy our lives have are freedom oppressed under the thin guise of "safety" when in reality it is about money... People like you are naive enough to believe the rhetoric, it is sad people are so willing to give up liberty for the promise safety never understanding that doing so means they lose both
anon4lol 8y ago
You can request a waiver from the FAA, right now. It is free and good for 90 days. Here is a list of granted waivers: https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/waivers_granted/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/waivers_granted/

madrox 8y ago

An engineer wants to push some code live to a large, production software project worked on by hundreds of engineers. It hasn't been peer reviewed, tested or evaluated in any way except by the engineer. It isn't a mission critical update, but he doesn't seem to think it'll be a problem. "No way!" you say, without hesitation, because it's a rightly stupid thing to do. It's a pointless risk. That's always how bad stories start. The engineer points out the bad stories are just a list of the most egregious problems. You wouldn't even let the engineer ask for an exception or pay a fee to do it. He then says the only reason you're doing this is to hold back his career. And that's just for software where a mistake doesn't mean someone dies. Tell me again how this is about "criminalizing competition" because that rings a little hollow.

myrryr 8y ago
This is a bad example. 825,000 drones were sold in the U.S. in 2016 alone. If you had 825,000 developers, who on many days did commits and didn't have any real issues, you may think differently. I again, am pro regulation, but this is a _terrible_ argument.
- madrox 8y ago
  > didn't have any real issues Citation needed. If you want better arguments, you merely need read the rest of this thread. I wasn't arguing pro regulation. I was arguing how silly it sounds when someone calls this a move to "criminalize competition."
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    i'd say it's a pretty reasonable inference from the article, which mentions two interested parties: the The Commercial Drone Alliance (commercial advocate), which supports the repeal, and the Academy of Model Aeronautics (hobbyist organization), which opposes it. now why is it that these two orgs which are both interested in drones have such different stances?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
philipodonnell 8y ago
This is not a good analogy. You just pointed out a real problem and then said we should prevent it. I said these real problems are used to justify drastic expansions of those rules to protect incumbents via the legal process. The situation does not require an analogy to understand. A group of people who represent the status quo (large drone makers and currently operating commercial drone operators) are attempting to erect barriers to entry (licenses/exceptions) that will attach civil and potentially criminal penalties to the same behavior they engaged in (license/exception-free operation) to become successful. That is literally the definition of "criminalizing competition". If you would like another example of this exact behavior without needing an analogy, see the fact that it is currently illegal in many US states to be a hairstylist without applying for a license (with a fee) and meeting minimum education requirements (with a fee)... _to cut hair_.

syshum 8y ago

Yep, we have gone from a society that values freedom first, and government must present a case to have that freedom limited in a vary narrow band To Wholesale regulations of all activity where by you have to seek "permission" from the regulators to do anything, and hope they will grant you a coveted "exception" to their prohibition. it is sad that people still call that freedom

quasse 8y ago
My experience in America is that the "freedom" is usually a word people use for being able to endanger others, pollute, or otherwise cause external harm without repercussion. In short, it's code for "I don't want to take responsibility for the negative externalities of my actions".
- syshum 8y ago
  Then you must have very limited experience. Most of the time "regulators" like the FAA are mainly there to limit the liability of commercial industries, as well as raise barriers to entry ensuring limited competition for those corporations Why do you think major corporations advocate FOR government regulations of their industries Why do you think Facebook WANTS the government to regulate them Why do you think Amazon now WANTS the government to raise minimum wage Government works for Large Corporations it does not work for the People. People like me, hobbyist that just want to be left in peace to enjoy our lives have are freedom oppressed under the thin guise of "safety" when in reality it is about money... People like you are naive enough to believe the rhetoric, it is sad people are so willing to give up liberty for the promise safety never understanding that doing so means they lose both

anon4lol 8y ago

You can request a waiver from the FAA, right now. It is free and good for 90 days. Here is a list of granted waivers: https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/waivers_granted/ https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/waivers_granted/