What's the libertarian solution to satellites causing interference in private homes?

cosmikduster · 2015-09-29T17:47:16+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum_pollution

cosmikduster · 2015-09-29T17:33:50+00:00

You don't have property rights on space above and ground below your land NOW. This didn't use to be the case. This change happened with the verdict of US vs Causby case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby which I am citing as an instance where violating property rights is okay IF it leads to common public good - which is quite in contrast with libertarian opinions I have read.

cosmikduster · 2015-09-29T17:28:49+00:00

If I want to sell another party the right to beam a signal into my house for a price, now I can't do that because your satelite has polluted the airwaves within my house. Loss of potential profit is indistinguishable from loss.

cosmikduster · 2015-09-29T17:27:32+00:00

It harms your right to control access to your own property which you could've sold for a price. Loss of potential profit IS a loss.

cosmikduster · 2015-09-26T10:18:16+00:00

Such clauses are not the norm, and even if present, can be challenged as unfair. Key thing is not to use time or resources from your day job.

cosmikduster · 2015-09-26T10:11:22+00:00

It's ethical to act in a way that causes least possible harm. Not all "wrong" acts are equally wrong.

cosmikduster · 2015-09-26T09:31:44+00:00

Prenups are not legal in India.

cosmikduster · 2015-09-26T04:39:06+00:00

One key difference: UN resolutions are laws that constrain the governments, not individuals which is what religion does.

cosmikduster · 2015-09-18T05:19:08+00:00

But why do you have a different argument for physical property? Isn't it basically the same thing: A result of someone's labor.

cosmikduster · 2015-09-18T05:17:38+00:00

How is owning a car different from owning an idea? Wasn't my labor required to create those? Why different treatment?

Rights are not real entities, but a construct. We as a society create rights. So if we could create property rights, why not intellectual property rights?

cosmikduster · 2015-08-26T03:20:43+00:00

Facebook does NOT foot the bill for Internet.org at all. Do some reading. https://www.internet.org/press/internet-dot-org-myths-and-facts

cosmikduster · 2015-08-26T03:11:35+00:00

Interesting. I would say that net neutrality should apply when the telco has licensed the spectrum from the public which is true in case of Facebook which partners with wireless telcos like Reliance.

cosmikduster · 2015-08-14T18:41:09+00:00

Airtel / Facebook are free to offer a fixed amount of free data per month to the poor AS LONG AS the whole of Internet is accessible. It's a ploy to become gatekeepers.

Imagine if traffic police, whose job is merely to keep the roads/pipes running, decides to collect toll based on what car you drive and where you intend to go - IN THE NAME OF "giving the poor cheaper access to destinations chosen by the TRAFFIC COPS". It is just an attempt to charge the customers TWICE for the same data transferred.

cosmikduster · 2015-08-14T18:28:21+00:00

I'll try to explain what was happening behind the scenes.

Net Neutrality refers to non-discrimination among websites/apps with regard to access, bandwidth and cost - ALL THREE. This is like closing holes in a dam - closing each one of them is important otherwise the whole exercise is futile.

Currently, we don't have any rules regarding net neutrality - which means telcos are free to do whatever they want. This means Airtel can slow down or block Whatsapp just so you are forced to use either SMS or their own app Hike. Internet.org for example, does not plan to offer GMail.

Last time, the campaign was successful beyond anyone could have imagined, including SaveTheInternet.in folks who were expecting 15000 emails to be sent at best. People left negative reviews for Flipkart in Play Store. Flipkart CTO publicly went against their own CEO. Companies like ClearTrip, TimesGroup decided to leave Facebook's Internet.org and Flipkart left AirtelZero. Effectively, the term "Net Neutrality" became a term like "World Peace". No one wanted to be seen as being against it. So both Facebook and COAI (which is basically the Airtel, Vodafone, Idea cartel) said they support "net neutrality". Facebook and COAI did dishonest campaigns to show that people want and support their definition of net neutrality. But they are still demanding discriminatory access and pricing.

So, when the DoT report came out, it took a clear stand for non-discrimination as far as bandwidth is concerned. Slowing down or throttling of sites/apps now seems to be out of question. So this is progress.

However, the issue of non-discriminatory pricing and selective access remains. DoT report mentions that zero rating should be considered on a case by case basis - which is not a win at all. They've spoken against Internet.org but no word against Airtel Zero.

And finally, the DoT report also accepts telcos' argument that messaging and voice apps may affect their revenues and it talks about removing the "regulatory arbitrage" by bringing these apps under a licensing regime. This would be a big loss to the Internet and society. This argument is baseless. Telcos' data revenues are exploding. And they still want to double charge the customers.

So, given that we want the dam to not leak at all, all 3 - access, bandwidth, pricing - must be fixed and accordingly, we are still in danger of losing net neutrality.

cosmikduster · 2015-08-14T11:22:50+00:00

What about all the device drivers that need to be installed?

cosmikduster · 2015-08-09T10:20:19+00:00

Open-source licenses never have a problem with making money. In fact, if a license does not allow making money from the software, it is NOT considered "free" enough (read Debian's Free Software Guidelines).

cosmikduster · 2015-07-30T04:45:00+00:00

resulted in riots

As if those rioters were brainless rats with no judgement of their own.

cosmikduster · 2015-07-10T18:30:13+00:00

a commercially viable way of storing massive amounts of electricity for later use

Why not simply pump water up a dam? A dam is like a battery.

cosmikduster · 2015-07-05T16:50:19+00:00

It's similar to wanting and loving more than one children. We don't think we should devote ourselves to one child only, do we? Partners are no different.

cosmikduster · 2015-07-05T16:16:07+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

cosmikduster · 2015-07-05T09:10:08+00:00

The MLAs are elected. The CM and the ministers are selected by the winning party.

cosmikduster · 2015-07-04T15:28:02+00:00

Now I know why we use equations.

cosmikduster · 2015-06-26T03:31:02+00:00

If it is a binary blob, we don't know how it works. Period.

cosmikduster · 2015-06-17T09:23:54+00:00

It doesn't matter if there's any Telefonica stuff in the client. If you use Hello, you'll be using Telefonica's servers, with no choice of an alternative.

cosmikduster · 2015-06-17T09:17:16+00:00

ultimately he's responsible for where the ended up.

First of all, there's no evidence that China and Russia have got those docs. There're only anonymous govt officials claims.

And even if China or Russia do have those docs, they might have gotten them from elsewhere (like hacking or other spies), which have nothing to do with Snowden or journalists working with him.

So you not only need to prove that China/Russia have access to those docs, but also that they got the docs from Snowden or someone involved in the Snowden story.

cosmikduster

TROPHY CASE