The comment is uninteresting and rightly downvoted because (1) it's been discussed to death and has nothing to do with this particular experimental drone model and (2) we already have effective legal apparatuses to deal with liability.
Neither of those are reasons to not discuss this more. We, as a society, prevent all sorts of things from happening without having to just wait for a lawsuit to settle things or whatever.
One has to actually make an argument for the liability system being insufficient. Merely pointing out risks is not enough, especially since no one here has bothered to even do an order-of-magnitude comparison between the risks and the benefits. It's just noise and emoting.
Do you really, like I mean _really_ need your stuff from Amazon same day, hours after ordering it? No, you really don't. Nobody does. It's a convenience, a nice-to-have, but is totally unnecessary.
So, I think the burden of proof lays squarely on Amazon and it's proponents of this type of service, to prove beyond any reasonable doubt the risks can be mitigated to the point where the public accepts them as a trade-off.
Having potentially 50lbs of drone fall on your car while you're driving home from work is probably not going to be acceptable... to name just one risk that will have to be proven to be minimized. Or noise levels will be controlled near neighborhoods etc... Other industries have to prove their new thing is safe and acceptable for the public... why should Amazon be any different?
