Liberty to cause a nuisance is not a good thing. Most of America's problems comes down to not realising that liberty is not an absolute.

So you still have no evidence for your claim falsifiability s a necessary part of science. Let's face it, you know full well your claim was wrong.

That's Karl Popper's angle. Which does precisely zero to make it a part of the scientific method.

It;s clearly different from yours. But one could describe yours as being backwards just as easily as mine. It's simply a matter of perspective.

What the hell is the matter with you, asking a question, and then assuming an answer. A WRONG answer.

No, I never said "every" anything. I said drones. Period.

Drones come into the category of the tragedy of the commons. Deli slicers don't. That being said for different reasons, there are plenty of regulations applying to deli slicers.

Personally I'd say they were flying model aircraft not drones.

As to the distinction between private use and commercial use, this distinction applies in other areas too, such as using a car to take people where they ask. If you are doing it for free, or nothing more than fuel cost split, no problem. If you are doing it commercially then you tend to require a permit.

That's not "above your property".

You seem to believe you own the airspace over your land.

The government has control of the airspace above your property "above minimal safe altitudes of flight". So by definition, if a drone can safely fly there, it's in the government's control, not yours.

What's the risk of a box of electronics, possibly with cargo, falling out of the sky?

Just? Will the system scale? And in what way will it stop faulty drones from falling out of the sky?

A drone carrying cargo is not like a baseball, and no amount of regulation will make it so.

Yes, it was a dream or an idea. It was never a reality, never. It was simply a tale told by rich people to poor people to make them believe that their position as their own fault, rather than the exploitation it really was. A tale to get them to work hard for promise of rewards in the future which rarely transpire, rather than rewards now. A myth that the people with the money got it by working hard.

There was no logic in that statement whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure the "regulation is good" crowd are only talking about good regulations. They are not an equal and opposite side to the libertarians who are not simply against bad regulations but all regulations. (Except for the ones that they feel protect them personally.)

Your assertion doesn't appear to be true.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/04/...

This is the way it SHOULD happen. An overall prohibition on drones then specific exceptions for uses where the benefits to society are seen to outweigh the costs.

Drones are air traffic.

For sure there's a safety angle to drone regulation. A toy drone probably weighs a few ounces, but commercial uses of drones will include much heavier vehicles. There's Amazon's plans, plus the existing illegal use by smugglers that show the way that's going to go.

But there's also the intrusiveness aspect. Sunbathers may not want their gardens overflying, nobody wants a drone hovering outside their bedroom window.

Drones are certainly not something that some be free from regulations.

Why? You go on to promote commercial drone use, so it seems unlikely that banning of hobby use would satisfy you.

A distinction can be drawn and so there's no reason not to. Hobby use is likely to remain low, with a small number of people perhaps flying for an hour or two a week. Commercial use on the other hand is likely to be far more pervasive and intrusive. Better to assume they are not allowed and grant specific permissions for uses where the gain to society is seen to outweigh the costs.

Nope, I never said anything of the kind.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence that falsifiability is a necessary part of science, and not just a proposal by the philosopher Karl Popper.

You can't of course.

You're wasting your time with youtube links by the way. I'm not going to waste the time it takes to watch them. You're not worth it.

You're the one doing the asserting that a falsifiable statement *is* required for science. I'm not required to prove a negative.

It is not and never has been a requirement for science. It's a belief of the philosopher Karl Popper, and nothing more.

The first smartphone was the Nokia Communicator. 1996.