Slashdot Mirror


Sealand Put Up For Sale

antic writes "The Principality of Sealand is up for sale. The 550 square meter steel platform boasts "uninterrupted sea views", complete privacy and has been mentioned on Slashdot in the past for its offers of hosting outside the jurisdiction of (some) traditional laws."

290 comments

  1. If only I could afford such a thing by Vengeance · · Score: 5, Funny

    Then I could hunt the most dangerous game of all...

    --
    It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
    1. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by ccarson · · Score: 0, Funny

      Four years later, Dutch and German businessmen on Sealand to discuss a business deal kidnapped Roy's son but were overpowered and held as prisoners of war before eventually being released.

      What?!?! That's crazy!

    2. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by theMerovingian · · Score: 3, Funny


      You're going to hunt women in a jungle?

      --
      "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    3. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does sealand really have that many hobos?

    4. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Zookeeper?

    5. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by Dorceon · · Score: 1

      I was going to say sharks (and it probably would have been a good place for that), but I can't beat a Futurama reference.

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
    6. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by BLBK · · Score: 1

      ...lawyers?

    7. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by gavinpquinn · · Score: 1

      Here is the tagged location: http://grapheety.com/?story=273&zoom=11

    8. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      No.... Snakes a on a sea plane!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    9. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      For somebody willing to do the work, such a thing could actually PAY FOR ITSELF. It would make a great battery manufacturing and charging center- just surround it with Wave power generation bouys and charge, ship, and sell the "green power" renewable batteries.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    10. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      Dang, I thought you meant http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094834/

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    11. Re:If only I could afford such a thing by Tombstone-f · · Score: 1

      Sealand, underneath the water, Sealand, at the bottom of the sea.

      Sealand: A show about the inner workings of an underwater research lab in the year 2020.

      Sealand 2021: Sealand's comedic counterpart. Taking place in the year 2021, after a year under the sea the crew of sealand has slowly begun to go insane...hilarity ensues.

      Or is that Sealab...

  2. Yeah, but... by celardore · · Score: 5, Funny

    You should know that the commute is a bitch.

    1. Re:Yeah, but... by BlasphemerGimli · · Score: 1

      What do you expect? Anytime you want a place that has a decent view, of the natural variety, you are going to need to commute.

      In NYC, if you chose the East End (of Long Island) you can either sit in traffic until your next birthday, or fork over the cash (unknown amount) and take a quick helicopter ride to your mansion. I, being more financially disabled, get to hear the beginning and end of weekend buzz as these wealthier commuters fly in said helicopters to skip the dreaded drive.

      Of course, if you feel staring at a bunch of glass and cement from a great height is scenic, you could avoid the commute, but you'd still need to out of the financially disabled category to live at such an altitude.

      Oh, what a couple of billion dollars, or maybe Euros since the dollar seems to be sucking wind these days, couldn't buy me!!!!

  3. How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by skurk · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Buy Sealand on credit, you can get a loan anywhere these days.
    2. Apply for your own TLD.
    3. Open up for a new domain rush, demand ridicilous prices for certain domains
    4. Release the loan using the income from domain sales.
    5. You own Sealand, you are king.

    --
    www.6502asm.com - Code 6502 assembly or.. DIE!!
    1. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by udderly · · Score: 1

      1. Buy Sealand on credit, you can get a loan anywhere these days.
      2. Apply for your own TLD.
      3. Open up for a new domain rush, demand ridicilous prices for certain domains
      4. Release the loan using the income from domain sales.
      5. You own Sealand, you are king.

      You forgot:
      6. Profit!!

    2. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by pedantic+bore · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, I think that's not all that different from what they did... except step 2 is a little more iffy than you might think.

      Last time there was a slashdot story on them, they had the business model of providing a place where folks could store sensitive data without fear of subpeona -- they wanted to be, for data storage, what Switzerland used to be for bank accounts. Guess it didn't work. They don't really have as much independence as they thought... it's tough to hold your ground when your entire country is one "accident" (or torpedo) from oblivion at worst, or a few weeks of blockade away from starvation at best.

      --
      Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    3. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or:

      1) get together with other geeks
      2) make a joint offer for sealand ownership, each one pays a little share.
      3) get sealand
      4) enact legislation which is impossible anywhere else because of WTO, like: no patent on software, only copyright. No stupid patents on anything. There is something that can be done for censorship, to free scientific research hampered by stupid lawsuits, lots of possibilities.
      5) Open embassies wherever a geek need a safe place to develop his ideas without fears of lawsuits. An embassy is territory of sealand too. SSH provides no data sent to sealand and other embassies violates any international law as it's just encrypted blobs there.
      6) Profit for all humanity.

      What do you think?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    4. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by zlogic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's an easier way:
      1. Buy Sealand on credit, you can get a loan anywhere these days.
      2. You own Sealand, you are king.
      3. Create a law that forbids the King of Sealand to release loans ;-)

    5. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You forgot "4a) Actually get recognised by at least one other country". Best of luck with that.

    6. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing the price tag and it being a tenancy, it's better to buy a platform somewhere in international waters, and declare independence.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    7. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by drewzhrodague · · Score: 5, Funny

      5. You own Sealand, you are king.

      It is good to be the king!

      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    8. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      and 1.1) Neil Stephenson writes FICTION.

    9. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No longer possible. After Sealand, one of the first things that happened was a change of international jurisdiction concerning such renegade actions.

      You don't think countries enjoy the idea of their subjects declaring independence, do you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Good point... just make sure you son't sign any extradition treaties. Or expect to travel anywhere. And learn to swim in case your loan sharks (pun intended) decide to "kneecap" the oil platform.

    11. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by hardburn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That would be considered defaulting on a loan. Countries have a credit rating just like individuals do. The reason the US government can have a multi-trillion doller debt is because it has never defaulted on a loan.

      So sure, you can do that, but it's still going to foobar your credit rating.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    12. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. How much of a credit rating can Sealand have to start with?

      The idea is implausible because no one will give you a loan to do this, but if you actually did, Sealand voiding your loan isn't going to void their credit, because it's obviously a personal loan they're voiding. Call it a 'bankruptcy law' if it makes you feel any better. ;)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    13. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by TheLink · · Score: 1

      King?

      1) Just sail over with a big bunch of armed people
      2) start a revolution (win of course)
      3) execute dicators/kings if necessary
      4) hold elections
      5) establish democracy

      They've pissed off the UK gov, so the UK gov is likely to ignore the extermination of Sealand.

      Hasn't happened yet because someone else could easily do the same thing back to you and it's not worth the trouble for all that.

      --
    14. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      It's easier to profit when you can legally print (or coin) your own currency. :-)

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    15. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      7) Threaten to develop nuclear bombs
      8) Get the US to build you a nuclear reactor that won't produce fissionible material for free.

      You now have all the power you'll ever need for your lan parties, de-salination, and brewing saki.

    16. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot "4a) Actually get recognised by at least one other country". Best of luck with that.

      Simple:
      4a1) Split "Sealand" into 2 separate countries
      4a2) Have each country recognize each other

      And now that means 2 TLDs, so TWICE the profit!!!!

    17. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > 7) Threaten to develop nuclear bombs

      being a geek republic I'd threaten to develop BETTER nuclear bombs :)

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    18. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Last time there was a slashdot story on them, they had the business model of providing a place where folks could store sensitive data without fear of subpeona

      Such confidence would be misplaced.

      Either the platform is British Soveriegn territory or it isn't.

      The most likely case is that the British courts consider the platform to be under UK jurisdiction following the expansion of the teritorial limits. International law does not recognize teritorial claims based on man made structures. Contrary to claims made British court has ever recognized sovereignty claims by any other party over the platform.

      Ergo if the UK courts choose to issue a subpoena the subpoena can be served and enforced. Moreover since the Bates family are the directors of HavenCo and they live in the UK they can be arrested and imprisoned on contempt charges if they refuse to comply regardless of the sovereign status of the platform.

      If the British courts did choose to recognize the sovereignty of the platform they or anyone else can declare war on it and blow the thing to smitherines if they make a nuisance of themselves.

      The main reason that this has not happened to date seems to be that HavenCo does not have any customers worth the trouble.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    19. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by saxoholic · · Score: 1

      6.
      7. Profit

    20. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by mrzaph0d · · Score: 1

      olde sealand sucks!

      when is new sealand getting the who to play?

      --
      this is just a placeholder till i send back my real sig from the future.
    21. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Demanche · · Score: 1

      No you forgot: 7) Join bush and blair and declare support for IRAQ without any real support 8) Profit!!!

      --
      Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
    22. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Its good to be king, if just for a while
      To be there in velvet, yeah, to give em a smile
      Its good to get high, and never come down
      Its good to be king of your own little town

      Yeah the world would swing if I were king
      Can I help it if I still dream time to time

    23. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by bitt3n · · Score: 2, Funny
      2. Apply for your own TLD. 3. Open up for a new domain rush, demand ridicilous prices for certain domains
      I claim rights to goat.sea
    24. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by bunions · · Score: 1

      The trick in that situation is convincing someone that your currency is anything more than a novelty.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    25. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by bigpat · · Score: 1

      No longer possible. After Sealand, one of the first things that happened was a change of international jurisdiction concerning such renegade actions. It isn't like Sealand just declared Independence and everyone just said okay. They had to fight outsiders for it just like every other country. I believe they even took a prisoner when they were invaded. Since nobody was really hurt or died, it seems like it just became part of the colorful history of the place and just played into a British sense of humor. I doubt other countries would have allowed something like that simply on principle, but the British apparently admired such bravado enough as to allow it.

      But really if you think about it, though I would be interested to hear what sort of Treaties were put in place regarding such things, the international jurisdiction is about the same as it has always been. Because outside laws don't matter in such endeavors, the only things that really matter are whether you are strong enough to keep the place and if there is anyone stronger than you that cares enough to take it from you. As for travel and trade relations, if you have so little as for it not even to be worth the paperwork of trading with, then you are out of luck trying to get your travel documents recognized elsewhere. The Prince of Sealand even said that he doesn't travel as much on his Sealand passport since 2001.

    26. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Well direct opposition to the creation of such a "geek republic" is a bad idea. Better not openly fight people who simply want to be free to develop their ideas without influencing the precious WTO dictatorship, the risk is making more people aware of the way big business defeats national and political boundaries.

      A better strategy would be infiltrate that community with paedophiles, software pirates, and anyone who can get advantage of a free infrastructure... "throw enough mud and some will stick", right?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    27. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah... :-)

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    28. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by anaesthetica · · Score: 3, Informative
      An embassy is territory of sealand too.

      Nitpick: embassies are not the territory of the foreign country. They are under the jurisdiction of the foreign country. So embassies in the United States are still United States territory, but they are under foreign jurisdiction, not the jurisdiction of the United States.

    29. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      and all the Seawomen and Seamen rejoiced

    30. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by neomunk · · Score: 1

      C'mon mods, just because bitt3n is a horribly sick and disturbed individual to want anything to do with that, it's still funny. The .sea part was clever even. Give this person points.

    31. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't... some english court decided that it is too far away... it is however close enough to be completly destroyed by a couple of rounds from a big gun placed on the english beach...

      Sealand

      sateellite photo

    32. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1
      Get the US to build you a nuclear reactor that won't produce fissionible material for free.
      A nuclear reactor you'll have to live less than 100m away from :)
      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    33. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I think I remember some kind of international agreement that said, every country has to dismantle every artificial island created before it may be abandoned. This was put in place after Roy declared his "independence" to avoid any future incidents like that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > You forgot "4a) Actually get recognised by at least one other country". Best of luck with that.

      Getting recognized is a piece of cake. Just behave as your newly found status of Sealander lets you. Ignore patents.

      The difficult part is not getting defeated.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    35. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      It isn't... some english court decided that it is too far away... it is however close enough to be completly destroyed by a couple of rounds from a big gun placed on the english beach...

      An English court made a rulling that the land on which the tower stands was not British territory at the time of the case. The court did not recognize any counter claim to sovereignty either expressly or implicitly. HMG does not recognize Sealand as a foreign government, under the UK constitution that power can only be exercised by the Privy Council.

      The courts of England and Wales do not exercise jurisdiction over Edinburgh either but that does not mean that they are not UK territory.

      The UK has since extended its territorial claims as permitted by an international treaty. Under the treaty the signatories recognize UK sovereignty over the sea floor on which the tower stands and thus the tower itself.

      One final point, under UK law sovereignty claims do not lapse. The Bates family could claim the salvage rights to the tower as an abandonded vessel but that does not grant sovereignty rights. Since it is undisputed that the tower was occupied by British servicemen first the sovereignty claim was established then and continues. A similar claim is made to Rockall, an atoll in the Irish sea that has only been occupied once and for the period of only six months.

      South Georgia is also unoccupied but it did not stop the UK fighting a war over sovereignty after the Argentine invasion.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    36. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      7) Threaten to develop nuclear bombs
      8) Get the US to build you a nuclear reactor that won't produce fissionible material for free.

      The Mouse That Roared?
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
    37. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Rabbi+T.+White · · Score: 1

      It don't mean butt if it ain't got that jut! Er. *ahem* ... obscure?

      --
      Every cloud has a silver lining, but, then again, so does every cigarette packet.
    38. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by evilviper · · Score: 1
      The UK has since extended its territorial claims as permitted by an international treaty. Under the treaty the signatories recognize UK sovereignty over the sea floor on which the tower stands and thus the tower itself.

      How conflicts should be handled is currently unresolved. Many countries have other island nations within their 12 mile territorial borders, yet none have tried to exercise jurisdiction.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    39. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      5) Open embassies wherever a geek need a safe place to develop his ideas without fears of lawsuits. An embassy is territory of sealand too.

      And oddly enough, they would also be the only real territory of Sealand! (Territory comes from latin "terra", which means "land" in the sense of "ground".)

      --
      So say we all
    40. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by mors · · Score: 1

      But Sealand is NOT an island in any reasonable sense of the word.

    41. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not. But never the less, the fact that the UK has extended it's territorial waters doesn't _necessarily_ mean Sealand now falls under UK rule.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    42. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Linkin99 · · Score: 1

      That's great! I was looking for a way to create my own TLD. I could care less about the stupid platform in the middle of nowhere. But being able to use it to get my own official domain extension.....ahhhhh.

    43. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hail to the King, babe!

    44. Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      How conflicts should be handled is currently unresolved. Many countries have other island nations within their 12 mile territorial borders, yet none have tried to exercise jurisdiction.

      Its not relevant, HMG never recognized Sealand. The US courts have explicitly rejected the claim that 'sealand' is a nation. This decision is not binding on the UK courts but it is a common law jurisdiction and it is almost certain that the UK would apply the same logic.

      More importantly it demonstrates that the US would hold the UK responsible for any actions by 'sealand'. Given the avowed intent to operate as a rogue state it is not at all likely that any other country would be wanting to protect 'sealand' independence.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  4. Bill Gates ? by Rastignac · · Score: 0

    He should buy it. Not very expensive for him.

    --
    -- Rastignac was here.
    1. Re:Bill Gates ? by webax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He doesn't need it. He can already get away with whatever he wants regardless of local laws ;)

    2. Re:Bill Gates ? by CortoMaltese · · Score: 2, Funny

      Besides, he could afford to buy an *actual* country.

  5. I remember Sealand from years ago... by Panaqqa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So it's for sale is it? I seem to recall at the time that their hopes hinged on making it a jurisdiction for legal gambling and other commerce that was heavily regulated in other jurisdictions. So now they want to try their hand at web hosting, do they? Interesting...

    1. Re:I remember Sealand from years ago... by Scarblac · · Score: 1, Informative

      So now they want to try their hand at web hosting, do they?

      They tried their hand at web hosting years ago, during the original dot com boom. As the summary says, that's "in the past". The URL of the company providing it is http://havenco.com. That site used to have pictures of their facilities on Sealand, seems all that's left now is a hosting company, not saying anything about where the physical location of their servers is.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:I remember Sealand from years ago... by ebuck · · Score: 1

      Boats are cheaper. Take it out about 10 miles, and you should be in international waters. Sure, there's a risk involved, and pirates are not a thing of the past, but it's been effective as a gabling workaround wherever there's been a port for many, many years.

    3. Re:I remember Sealand from years ago... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Why bother? There are countries where gambling is legal. Just set up shop there.

      Considering you'd have to fly under someone's flag or risk getting sunk immediately by every country's navy as a pirate vessel, you'd need a country to sail under where gambling was legal anyway. (Which, incidentally, includes the US. Gambling is legal in 'the US', it's just not legal in most states.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    4. Re:I remember Sealand from years ago... by kfg · · Score: 1

      Considering you'd have to fly under someone's flag or risk getting sunk immediately by every country's navy as a pirate vessel. . .

      Tell me about it. The problem with moving outside the law, even legitimately, is that you're, well, outlaw, ain'cha?

      Freedom's a bitch. With Borderline Personality Disorder. And a gun.

      KFG

    5. Re:I remember Sealand from years ago... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Considering you'd have to fly under someone's flag or risk getting sunk immediately by every country's navy as a pirate vessel, you'd need a country to sail under where gambling was legal anyway. (Which, incidentally, includes the US. Gambling is legal in 'the US', it's just not legal in most states.)

      If you're spending eight digits on your boat, you can afford to spend a couple million bucks to buy some SS-N-25 and P-800 surplus russian anti-ship missiles. Anything that's not an aircraft carrier battlegroup will be toast, and even some of those won't want to engage you without significant air support.

      And pirates? Don't make me laugh.
      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    6. Re:I remember Sealand from years ago... by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you're spending eight digits on your boat, you can afford to spend a couple million bucks to buy some SS-N-25 and P-800 surplus russian anti-ship missiles. Anything that's not an aircraft carrier battlegroup will be toast, and even some of those won't want to engage you without significant air support.

      And the second that a US Navy vessel tells you to stand down and be boarded, and you refuse, and they shoot at you, and you fire back with missiles and try to sink their ship, what the fuck do you think is going to happen? They'll laugh and wander off? You'd be lucky to make off your ship alive.

      And I don't know why 'pirate' would make you laugh. They kill people, you know. Navies are allowed to board anyone they suspect of piracy, and operating without a flag is a pretty strong indicator. And in international waters ships without a flag are subject to the jurisdiction of all nations, and thus any vessel operated by any country can demand they allow themselves to be boarded under suspicion of being a pirate vessel, and fire on them if they refuse.

      That actually isn't just some hypothetical situation. Navies actually do board unflagged ships whenever they find them in international waters or their own waters. (And they alert the host country when they find them suspicious in other people's waters.)

      If you're an innocent person in a boat that wasn't intended for international trips, but drifted, you'll usually be fine, and they'll even tow you back to shore. If you refuse to stand down and be boarded, they will attempt to board by force, period. If you attempt to stop them, they will shoot back. You might be able to hold them off, but they will send their military. And, hell, even if you can defeat their entire military, they'll just alert other navies where you are. Navies board and search suspected pirate ships on general principles, you can't just fire at them and they go 'Well, that seems a bit hard, let's just give up'.

      Plus, have fun finding a port that will take a ship without a flag when you need to get repairs.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    7. Re:I remember Sealand from years ago... by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      And the second that a US Navy vessel tells you to stand down and be boarded, and you refuse, and they shoot at you, and you fire back with missiles and try to sink their ship, what the fuck do you think is going to happen? They'll laugh and wander off? You'd be lucky to make off your ship alive.

      Well, it's unlikely to be 'try to sink their ship'. It'd be 'send their ship straight to the bottom without delay', because the P-800 is a supersonic anti-ship cruise missile. Assuming they close to a kilometer to hail and then fire warning shots, your missile is going to go from launch to having sunk them in about one and a half seconds- far too fast for them to respond even if they wanted to. However, it's not a good idea...


      And I don't know why 'pirate' would make you laugh. They kill people, you know. Navies are allowed to board anyone they suspect of piracy, and operating without a flag is a pretty strong indicator. And in international waters ships without a flag are subject to the jurisdiction of all nations, and thus any vessel operated by any country can demand they allow themselves to be boarded under suspicion of being a pirate vessel, and fire on them if they refuse.
      ...Except against pirates. Anyway, I think you severely overrate the capability of most navies. Sure, if you go up against the Americans, British, Chinese, or Russians and sink one of their ships, you're screwed. The first indication most navies will have that somebody's sunk one of their ships is when it doesn't report back to port.


      That actually isn't just some hypothetical situation. Navies actually do board unflagged ships whenever they find them in international waters or their own waters. (And they alert the host country when they find them suspicious in other people's waters.)

      Indeed. And I fly my own flag. Too bad.

      If you're an innocent person in a boat that wasn't intended for international trips, but drifted, you'll usually be fine, and they'll even tow you back to shore. If you refuse to stand down and be boarded, they will attempt to board by force, period. If you attempt to stop them, they will shoot back. You might be able to hold them off, but they will send their military. And, hell, even if you can defeat their entire military, they'll just alert other navies where you are. Navies board and search suspected pirate ships on general principles, you can't just fire at them and they go 'Well, that seems a bit hard, let's just give up'.

      Um, did you read the article about Sealand? That's exactly what the British Navy did.

      Plus, have fun finding a port that will take a ship without a flag when you need to get repairs.

      Who says I won't have a flag? I'll run it up when I need repairs. However, if I'm spending half a billion pounds, I might as well buy myself a helicopter and some mechanics too.

      Anyway, the entire scenario is rediculous, because I don't have half a billion pounds, and I don't go toddling around in my container-ship cum aircraft carrier shooting russian-made supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles at errant naval warships.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    8. Re:I remember Sealand from years ago... by Pentavirate · · Score: 1

      And the second that a US Navy vessel tells you to stand down and be boarded, and you refuse, and they shoot at you, and you fire back with missiles and try to sink their ship, what the fuck do you think is going to happen?

      It worked against the USS Cole.

    9. Re:I remember Sealand from years ago... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Who says I won't have a flag? I'll run it up when I need repairs.

      You're not quite grasping the concept here. It's not whether or not you are literally flying a flag. You are not required to actually hoist a flag at any time, as far as I know, although it's a damn good idea if there's a naval war anywhere near you and you are from a neutral country. You are required to have a flag painted on your hull for many countries, though, and the laws of war require it for warships.

      It's whether or not your ship is registered with a country's ship registry. If it is registered, you are under their law, and they control, legally, what happens on your ship, and other nations cannot mess with you in international waters.(1) Now, as they have no representative there, obviously their rules might not mean much, but neither do countries station policemen in private residences, yet the law applies there too. They can require you to, for example, shut down the gambling operation you are operating, or turn over the servers to them, or execute search warrants on you. (In fact, they can board your board sans a 'warrant' in most countries.)

      If you refuse to bring your ship in, or decide their rules don't apply to you, or just don't register in the first place, you will be where I was talking about when I said 'sailing under no flag'...you will be an outlaw ship, subject to the jurisdiction of anyone who wants to fuck with you, at least in international waters. And they will fuck with you. There's an international organization that tracks ships sightings of ships like that, and you will be reported to some appropriately strong navy and dealt with.

      Notice the second ships 'crime' was apparently just having some RPGs laying around, they were not observed or reported committing piracy. But they were in international waters and they weren't flying under a flag, and having an RPG is not only a violation of international shipping laws but a damn good indication of piracy, so the US Navy captured the boat, as it is legally allowed to do.

      Um, did you read the article about Sealand? That's exactly what the British Navy did.

      Sealand is not, under any legal theory, 'a ship', and thus does not need to be, and legally cannot, be registered as a ship.(2) Lifeboats don't even count as 'ships', Sealand certainly doesn't. Sealand is an island that either is part of England or is its own country, and the fact it 'repelled' an invasion by either foreign invaders or the legitimate government is not really relevant to international marine law.

      Sealand does lie in an interesting legal area, and England certainly hasn't decided, legally, where it is. (And England's, really, the only one that matters.) But that doesn't have anything to do with operating an unflagged ship.

      1) Not just international waters. There is a legal right of free passage through the open seas and thus if you're, for example, sailing from England to Portugal, Spain can't stop you from cutting across their territorial waters, as long as you do not attempt to land and you follow at least some basic right-of-way rules.

      2) To be a ship you actually have to be able to cross ocean distances, or at least to international waters, so at minimum that's three miles. (Some countries claim that short a distance.) A vessel that cannot move that distance is not a ship. Sealand cannot, in fact, move at all. QED. (This footnote is just in case anyone wanted to quibble over the definition of 'ship'.) Legally, it's probably not a 'boat' either, but just in case it should arbitrarily define a port and bow and put lights up. ;)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  6. I should also add by celardore · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not actually for sale, the owners are just offering a tenancy. Which makes it not such a sweet deal.

    1. Re:I should also add by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, but if they're not living there, and you are, you can just declare a coup and that you are now president-for-life, then fight them off when they attempt to come back. I'm sure it would be pretty easy to smuggle weapons onto the platform, considering there's probably not even room for a port authority.

      Considering the traditional way of determining the actual 'government' is 'who is in physical control of the country', you are now the ruler of Sealand. They are the 'government in exile'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    2. Re:I should also add by blowdog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sealand say they are a separate country so which legal system is the tenancy agreement written and what court are they going to take you to if you break it.

    3. Re:I should also add by Yonzie · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which would be pretty incredibly stupid to pay £65mil for, considering what the "Royal Family" did to HavenCo.
      http://havenco.venona.com/

    4. Re:I should also add by modecx · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's not a bad idea. We could have slashdotland, if we raised enough money. It could be like a floating amusement park, where every ride is somehow related to a shock site. We could have the goatse asshole ride, kind of like the tea cup ride a Disney, and we could use the tubgirl shit canon to ward off any potential de-coupers.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    5. Re:I should also add by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Considering the traditional way of determining the actual 'government' is 'who is in physical control of the country', you are now the ruler of Sealand. They are the 'government in exile'.

      So... why put up the money in the first place if you are just planning on keeping it by force.

    6. Re:I should also add by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because, legally, invading another country is illegal under international law, whereas a coup is only illegal under the laws of the country it happens in, which don't matter if the coup succeeds.

      The only reason England hasn't threatened military force is the sole fact that an invasion of what is, under international law, a sovereign nation, is illegal.

      Technically, doing what I suggested is also frowned on, but a rebellion with the support of 100% of the resident population, who don't get to vote, against a non-local king who owns their land and requires them to pay taxes and rent without providing any services...well, we know it's silly, but it sounds a lot better, it sounds almost like a medieval feudal rebellion.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    7. Re:I should also add by bigpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't be too silly. International Law? No country has ever even officially recognized Sealand, it just puts up with it because it is kinda funny and they don't cause much trouble if they are left alone. To the UK it is just a bunch of local squatters in an abandoned sea platform, you have to believe that they would be thrown out if they discovered oil under it or needed to clear it to make way for a sea lane or something. The only reason you couldn't just show up and start fighting over it would be because the UK would finally move in with force and demolish it. Oh just try to open up a luxury casino or something and see if the UK doesn't step in to collect taxes.

      Theories of international law are all well and good, but the only reason indefensible small island nations remain independent is because they usually aren't worth the trouble of taking them over or the cost of supporting them, and not because of any deeply held convictions over international law.

    8. Re:I should also add by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if no country recognizes Sealand. That's not what causes the existence of a country. You can't just choose not to recognize the existence of a country and then invade it.

      The time to dispute Sealand's existence was when it was formed. Someone taking over an 'island' and operating it for 50 years makes it a 'country' for all intents and purposes.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:I should also add by bigpat · · Score: 1

      You can't just choose not to recognize the existence of a country and then invade it. You are right, I can't. But Tony Blair could. If it isn't a country then the UK would just be exercising its sovereignty in its own waters.

      But even if it was a country then as individuals, we wouldn't be "invading" we would be migrating. And if we happen to be the majority then we have a democratic right to overthrow an oppressive regime.

    10. Re:I should also add by Darlantan · · Score: 1

      On the contrary. Being recognized by other countries is a major part of really BEING a country. I could declare that the land I own is a seperate country today, and you know what would happen? Probably not much, until the US government noticed I wasn't paying taxes. Then they'd get ticked off and send someone to arrest me. Assuming I resisted, I'd be taken by force. I could raise all the stink I wanted about my country being invaded, blah blah blah, but no other country would give a crap. Without the recognition of other countries, and the threat of those other countries imposing a penalty on someone attacking Sealand, his claim is utterly worthless when it is finally challenged.

      If you can't defend your claim against all that attack you, then you need other countries to support you. That's the way this works. Nobody from the UN is going to step and and do dick in regards to Sealand. Sealand isn't even an island -- it's a concrete and steel structure that, IIRC, is built up from the seafloor. There is no land there. If it is an island, then every oil platform is as well.

      The _only_ reason that Sealand is still around is because it would be too much of a pain to tear it down. As soon as something happens that actually makes news and paints sealand in a bad light, the UK government will send out a demo team and blow it up just like every other sea platform they built during WW2. Nobody will do crap about it, and the creep who has been sort-of living there will probably pitch a fit and be ignored.

      Personally, I hope somebody does move in and overthrow the guy. From everything I've heard, he's a real jerk anyway.

      --
      Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
    11. Re:I should also add by idontgno · · Score: 1

      But even if it was a country then as individuals, we wouldn't be "invading" we would be migrating. And if we happen to be the majority then we have a democratic right to overthrow an oppressive regime.

      Dang right. Just ask the Texians.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:I should also add by kchrist · · Score: 1
      The only reason England hasn't threatened military force is the sole fact that an invasion of what is, under international law, a sovereign nation, is illegal.

      That didn't stop them getting involved in Iraq. And considering that Sealand has never been recognized as a sovereign nation, by anyone, I don't think they'd hesitate to kick the squatters off if they actually cared.
    13. Re:I should also add by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      The only reason England hasn't threatened military force is the sole fact that an invasion of what is, under international law, a sovereign nation, is illegal.

      Thats utterly untrue. Under International law man made structures do not count for the purposes of sovereignty claims.

      The only reason that the UK has not dealt with the situation is that there is at this point no reason to believe that illegality is taking place there.

      Empirically the illegality of an invasion would not be much of a factor in preventing an invasion. It has not stopped us in the past. You don't create the world's largest empire in history by sticking to the letter of the law.

      Sealand is no more sovereign territory than the 'Justus township' that the Montana tax dodgers set up. The British threshold of tolerance for loonies armed to the teeth is not very high. If they were to make their earlier mistake of pointing a loaded machine gun at a Royal Navy vessel today they might find that post 9-11 rules of engagement permit the threatened vessel to respond immediately with lethal force.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    14. Re:I should also add by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      To the UK it is just a bunch of local squatters in an abandoned sea platform,

      Well, still, when the 'King' of Sealand fired warning shots to an approaching boat (he is a retired navy officier), and this boat complained to an english tribunal, the tribunal said this was out of England's juridiction. This is so far their only recognition.

      Notice also that there was a bigger island made in the same way in the international waters near Italia. It was more or less recognized until the Mafia was suspected to use it. It didn't took long before you could see hundreds of italian policemen on it.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    15. Re:I should also add by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fiji annexed a man-made island in the 70's that was well inside international waters. Nobody cared they essentially robbed the Arizona man who built it with his own money.

    16. Re:I should also add by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Tonga annexed the Minerva Reefs before Fiji spoke up, and Tongan troops have evicted American-Minervans; Fiji only later laid territorial claim to the Minerva Reefs, which are still disputed by Tonga and Fiji (and also allegedly by a Principality of Minerva claiming to succeed the original Republic of Minerva, though no one has even recognized them as a party to the dispute).

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    17. Re:I should also add by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      You could same the same about dozens of "recognized" nations around the world. They exist as sovereign entities as long as they sit quietly in the corner and don't bother the big guys.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    18. Re:I should also add by bigpat · · Score: 1

      And a lot of the small Pacific island nations were taken over by the UK or Spain or France, but they figured out it is much cheaper to let them be sovereign and not be responsible for all their problems directly. They only become strategically important again when the US needs a place to land in an emergency or a place to store some ammo or test a nuclear bomb again.

  7. The Original Haven CO concept there was good by haplo21112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    However its hard to see it working out long term, otherwise it would actually be a decent way around the cyberspace annoyances. However the problem boils down to you have to get the bandwidth from somewhere. Most likely the UK due to its proximity. If you ISP is someplace with draconian IP laws then you always have the potential to be cut off.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  8. Territorial Waters by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sealand exists because in 1967, Britian's territorial waters extended only 3 miles out from the shore.

    Therefore, they could legitimately claim the fort as theirs. If they had tried to do that after 1987... it wouldn't have worked, because the 3-mile limit was changed to 12 miles.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Territorial Waters by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I'm not so how that would work since it was built in the first place by the British Government I would expect that they are still the owners it's just that its not worth them doing anything about the current squatters right now.

    2. Re:Territorial Waters by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It was outside territorial waters at the time, and was occupied by the current owners who then declared it an independent state. When it was abandoned it probably belonged to nobody.

      It's all a bit speculaative. It owes its sort-of-existence as a state to vagueness in international law about what makes a nation a nation.

    3. Re:Territorial Waters by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does that mean it will suffer the same fate as Pluto and become a Minor Nation?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:Territorial Waters by eln · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, the British government abandoned it, so it fell under laws relating to salvaging abandoned vessels in open water (like shipwrecks). These laws basically amount to "finders, keepers."

    5. Re:Territorial Waters by kfg · · Score: 1

      Minor Nation?

      Noid.

      KFG

  9. excellent timing by theMerovingian · · Score: 0


    Sealand could get some rather large offers, due to recent advances in the field of wireless power.

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
  10. Sea people by szembek · · Score: 0

    Eric Cartman unavailable for comment.

    --
    nothing
  11. Uninterrupted sea views? by Myrrlin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sealand is a bit of a running joke for the people of Harwich. I would contest their "uninterrupted sea views" as I'm fairly sure that the very brightly coloured (luminous yellow!) Hotel Continental situated on the cliffs of Harwich can be seen from it, hell... they can probably see it from Holland! It's also probably quite fire damaged at the moment having suffered a fire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5110244.stm last year, and not having its own fire brigade or hospital services had to make use of the British ones.

    1. Re:Uninterrupted sea views? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England is not visible from holland.

    2. Re:Uninterrupted sea views? by Myrrlin · · Score: 1

      Come off it... let me have SOME hyperbole!

    3. Re:Uninterrupted sea views? by thetroll123 · · Score: 1

      >I would contest their "uninterrupted sea views" as I'm fairly sure that the very brightly coloured (luminous yellow!) Hotel Continental situated on the cliffs of Harwich can be seen from it,

      In fairness, that's on the coast, so it doesn't interrupt the sea view - they can see all the sea there is in that direction, then some other stuff beyond.

    4. Re:Uninterrupted sea views? by Myrrlin · · Score: 1

      True enough, but the problem being that as soon as you've glimpsed the hotel, it is so brightly coloured that you are blinded by it and end up with permanently interrupted sea views.

    5. Re:Uninterrupted sea views? by thetroll123 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I see what you mean. That is pretty nasty.

      The web design's a bit questionable too, to put it mildly...

    6. Re:Uninterrupted sea views? by prelelat · · Score: 1

      True but I do believe that according to wikipedia the fire damage had been repaired by November, I'm more curiouse as to where they get the money for all of this stuff was he welthy before taking control of sealand?

    7. Re:Uninterrupted sea views? by TangoCharlie · · Score: 1

      I gather you live in Dovercourt then?!

      I grew up in Dovercourt (Fronks Road)!! I can confirm, the Continental is rather bright!

      --
      return 0; }
    8. Re:Uninterrupted sea views? by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the glow from the luminous yellow Hotel Continental is.

    9. Re:Uninterrupted sea views? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, it might have burned down, but at least it didn't fall over and sink into the swamp^Wsea. At least, not yet. If it did, though, they could always build another one.

  12. sealand is a crock by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    there's no land, it's a floating platform off the UK coast. it's as much a nation as my dingy is. it's squatted on by a bunch of inbreds who claim it's there's only because no one could be bothered with the useless floating hunk of junk. i think the brits are secretly hoping a storm will settle it for them. no doubt the current squatters are attempting to offload it an make a profit while they still can.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:sealand is a crock by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I thought the concrete legs went down to the sea floor, rather than being a floating platform.

  13. Oblig. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hesh wants sex!

    1. Re:Oblig. by ebuck · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add the obligatory, ... or the cute little kitten 'Gets it!'

    2. Re:Oblig. by jalefkowit · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you mean: Hesh wants jalapeno poppers!

    3. Re:Oblig. by fermion · · Score: 1
      you mean Hesh wants married sex!

      The only really good joke in that otherwise forgettable episode.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:Oblig. by jalefkowit · · Score: 1

      The most notable thing about this whole thread is that somebody apparently thinks posting "Hesh wants jalapeno poppers" deserves a +1, Informative (!)...

  14. I'm open to the idea, as long as ... by nastro · · Score: 5, Funny

    As long as the new owners don't change the current statutes on Monkey Knife-fighting, I don't see this as a problem.

    I also hope they clear up the inconsistencies in the human-bovine marriage laws.

  15. item you missed by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Insightful

    starvation? it's called fishing

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:item you missed by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      And water?

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    2. Re:item you missed by KUHurdler · · Score: 1

      ah yes, teach a man to fish... I hope they like saltwater and sushi.

      --
      Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
    3. Re:item you missed by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You never learned how to purify water using solar power?

      Here's the short version:
      Take a large vat full of salt water, place a recepticle in the middle to catch the fresh water, cover over with clear object (preferably concave so the curvature can direct the condensed water toward the fresh water recepticle, and then let the sun do it's work. You periodically remove the fresh water and add more salt water.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    4. Re:item you missed by way2trivial · · Score: 1

      top of my head
      1-rain
      2-electrolysis
      3-dehumidifier
      4-solar still
      5-condensation from exhalation collection

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    5. Re:item you missed by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1
      And water?

      Simple: Stillsuit
    6. Re:item you missed by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      While it is cheap to build and makes a good demonstration, that device is ridiculously inefficient. Far more practical is to have solar panels (or solar thermal hooked up to a steam turbine) and use the electricity to power reverse osmosis filters. As a plus, such a system can work on other sources of energy if the sun isn't shining that day.

    7. Re:item you missed by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      And using powdered limestone in some industries in chemical reactions as a base is ridiculously inefficient, but they do it *because* it's simple, plentiful and cheap.

      Sometimes the answer is not the most efficent solution, but the most expedient one. It all depends on your needs and your resources.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    8. Re:item you missed by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Well, on sealand land is not plentiful by any stretch of the imagination.

    9. Re:item you missed by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      And water? Sealand actually has a freshwater well bored down into the sea bed.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    10. Re:item you missed by Bishop · · Score: 1

      what about the scurvy?

  16. Oops - egg on face dept... by Panaqqa · · Score: 1

    Looks like I commented on the previous /. thread on Sealand - the interview with the HavenCo guy.

    So they want 8 figures do they? $100 million plus seems like a lot for what is basically a 550 m^2 platform. (A square 77 feet on a side would be approximately this size).

    1. Re:Oops - egg on face dept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite. You can buy a much larger s/h cruise ship or car ferry for less, and get a lot more of what "Sealand" has to offer.

    2. Re:Oops - egg on face dept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er.. 8 figures is $10 million-$99 million. Just thought you should know.

    3. Re:Oops - egg on face dept... by toleraen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then you need to figure in sales tax...I hear sales tax'll really get ya at the shops in Sealand. They'll easily get 9 figures after you factor that in.

  17. Headquarters by mulhollandj · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like it would make a great superhero headquarters.

    1. Re:Headquarters by carpe_noctem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...or supervillian headquarters.

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    2. Re:Headquarters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peter Griffin: Just so you know we are out of cream puffs, and cheese-its.
      Superman: (Smirk)
      Peter Griffin: Just putting it out there, like 14 mile drive for me. Like 2 seconds for you.

    3. Re:Headquarters by SuluSulu · · Score: 1

      Good reason for it to be owned be a geek!

    4. Re:Headquarters by chrwei · · Score: 1

      only on slashdot could this be modded insightfull and its parent funny

      --
      - Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
  18. Sealand is all but destroyed by javaDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to Sealand's official website, the platform sustained heavy damage by fire last summer. From the desperate tone of the account, I gather that Sealand might be very close to uninhabitable by now. That might explain the decision to sell it off, more than the old age of the founder.

    --
    -- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
    1. Re:Sealand is all but destroyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Alert Kevin Costner, he may get a chance to film that Waterworld sequel he's been dreaming about

    2. Re:Sealand is all but destroyed by Reziac · · Score: 2, Informative

      My impression from the before and after photos (see http://www.bobleroi.co.uk/ScrapBook/Sealand_Fire/S ealand_Fire.html) is that the entire site was feeling its age and was in rather poor repair all around. It strikes me that the most cost-effective method over the long haul might be to scrape the platform down to the naked deck, and build a new facility from scratch. The existing remainder appears to be a maintenance nightmare in the making.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Sealand is all but destroyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Sealand is all but destroyed by Alioth · · Score: 1

      There's some pictures here http://www.bobleroi.co.uk/ScrapBook/SealandFire_3/ SealandFire_3a.html

      The whole place looks pretty desperate. Even without having been burned, the place would be pretty desperate. It looks like it's starting to suffer from concrete cancer too, and there's a great deal of corrosion.

    5. Re:Sealand is all but destroyed by Ikcor · · Score: 1

      Guess the Sealand fire department isn't what is used to be.

  19. Cut price by LordSnooty · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Get in now while it's cheap - it suffered a large fire last year. "Michael Bates, a member of the family which owns the fort, said damage to living accommodation was extensive".

    1. Re:Cut price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's gotta "Flip" that house!

  20. not to let facts get in the way by way2trivial · · Score: 1, Informative

    but sealand is affixed to the sea floor, not floating.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  21. The true value by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

    You are correct. The value in Sealand is being able to create embassies of Sealand. It should be easy to find nations willing to host Sealand embassies: if only to tweak the noses of the "first world".

    Sealand in itself is too dependent on the UK government. But really, the "data centre" or other services can easily be provided at the embassy level.

    The remaining problem is that this approach is expensive -- the embassy hosting nations require investment in infrastructure. Or Sealand would have to own its own satellite...

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  22. Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nations are sovereign only because they have enough firepower to keep other nations from claiming them. What does it matter what the laws of Sealand are, if you own it and you have no army? Is the army included, or do you have to put it together yourself?

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    1. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Cctoide · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, they did open fire on a British vessel at least once. I think it was quite controversial at the time.

      --
      "Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
    2. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I really don't know what people are expecting out of this place. But bear in mind that the only reason that Britain leaves it alone is the fact that it's not worth the hassle. The second the place actually started to make money (or did something really illegal), you can bet that the taxman would be showing up. And he's probably be arriving on a Navy ship with a lot of big guns, just to make his position crystal clear.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Marcus+Green · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes is it only the 450 strong Luxembourg army and their enormous firepower that stops Belgium, France or Germany from relieving them of their soverignty (pick other examples to suit).

    4. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by toganet · · Score: 1

      Thank you for making my point for me. I was ready to reply, as I have had this argument with a friend (usually in the context of Israel vs. Palestine) and he typically throws this definition of sovereignty out, along with a "conquest is ownership" argument as to why it would be ok to invade Mexico or Canada.

      Willful ignorance of international law and diplomacy is frighteningly abundant in the US these days.

    5. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Nations are sovereign only because they have enough firepower to keep other nations from claiming them.


      This is exactly why Sealand needs nuclear weapons.
    6. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Jott42 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if the invading country is big enough, and has enough military and economic power, you are still toast, regardless of what international rights do say. (Example: Tibet). As Zeeland has very few friends, and is not even a member of the UN, an "invasion" from GB will probably go unnoticed. But obviously this does not carry over to Canada: GB will probably have some issues with it getting invaded... And Canada has more friends in the UN.

    7. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Willful ignorance of international law and diplomacy is frighteningly abundant in the US these days.

      You talk about "international law" as though it exists beyond fictional agreements between the big boys with the most guns.

      As for the counterexample of neutral states, they just happen to benefit from those "let's not kill each other" agreements as a side effect; When wars spread across Europe, they have a long history of making relatively safe corridors through which to move troops to the real action.

      As a simple example, tell Belgium how much better international treaties protected it than guns, when Germany invaded it in 1914 - Sure, the UK had an obligation to respond, but had the UK lost, see the GGP's argument about what actually defines "right" and "wrong" on the international scale.

    8. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conquest IS ownership.

      The only reason why the current crop of humans has even a shadow of doubt about this is because economies around the world have become well enough intertwined that the trade sanctions alone would be devestating to a rogue nation.

      But even at that, conquest of a sovereign nations is still a possibility. The US recently invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq. The US presently occupies both countries. Do you believe that US interests don't have a solid hold on both nations? What do you see international law doing about it? Diplomacy?

    9. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by jfengel · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if Luxembourg became a thorn in the side of any of those countries, I suspect they'd find themselves invaded right quick. If Luxembourg were to start hosting child pornography or harboring criminals, its 450-strong army would be little comfort.

      Whenever Sealand comes up on Slashdot, people talk about what a great off-site data center it would make. And it would, as long as its illegal activities didn't piss off the US too much. If the US decided that there was some truly crucial piece of evidence there that it needed that outweighed the international outrage, it would be there.

      I'm pretty sure they'd end up getting permission from the Brits first, or more likely asking the Brits to do it themselves. In the end I suspect the attitude taken by both governments would be, "Look, your little play country was fun, but you've always been part of Britain and your independence was more a matter of being ignored."

    10. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's more of an oversimplification than wrong. Canada could probably disband its entire military without threat from the US because the US has no interest in expanding its borders. In fact, it's conceivable that the US would protect Canada from any other potential invaders for no reason other than the US considering this to be the right thing to do. If South Korea disbanded its army then it would quickly become part of North Korea.

    11. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as a Luxembourgish citizen we make jokes ourselves about it. It is said that during the military parade on our national holiday, the same soldiers have to go around the block several times. (Note: they "extendend" that parade now to firefighters, and all kinds of not-really-military stuff.

    12. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Not really. Didn't stop Germany during World War II, and won't stop them again when the Nazis return to power. They are there for security duties and to back up the police against their own citizens.

    13. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by pipatron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please refrain from using fictional countries in your examples.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    14. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize Luxemburg was a military powerhouse able to withstand foreign invasions... Those 12th century castles must be real bulwarks of defense. Thank you so much for educating me.

      Idiot.

    15. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is exactly why Sealand needs nuclear weapons.


      That's dead on, mate! After all, we hate their freedom.

    16. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Suspended_Reality · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not so certain about that. Then England would be compelled to provide postage service, free health care, etc. Given the inconvenience of the location, it might not be worthwhile.

    17. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      Actually, they don't have an army in the traditional sense, but have seen military action nonetheless. From TFA:

      Although its nation status is disputed, Sealand boasts a military past like any other country, defending its sovereignty from outside threats. Former British army major, Paddy Roy Bates, began occupying the island with his family in 1967, declared it a state in international waters and gave himself the title "prince". Britain's Royal Navy attempted to evict him the following year but were unsuccessful. As they entered territorial waters, Roy of Sealand fired warning shots from the former fort.

    18. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Luxembourg has allies. Sealand doesn't. As such Luxembourg's firepower is roughly equal to that of the EU while Sealand's firepower is roughly equal to that of the average pirate ship.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    19. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Luxembourg has allies that would help them if they were attacked, Sealand has no allies. They annoy Britain and if they were worth more than one torpedo they'd get wiped out in no time.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    20. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by StarvingSE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the US would protect Canada from other potential invaders because if the invaders took over Canada, the only thing between the US and said foreign invader would be the largest non-militarized border in the world. There's no way in hell the US would tolerate anyone other than Canada to be north of use because invasion of the US would be a cakewalk.

      You don't think the US would expend expensive military resources purely to do "the right thing," do you?

      --
      I got nothin'
    21. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      You don't think the US would expend expensive military resources purely to do "the right thing," do you?

      Yes. Just because you don't either means I'm hopelessly naive or you're hopelessly cynical.

    22. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      All the nationals live in England anyway, so England already does.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    23. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Arrawa · · Score: 1

      Well, that is not really true. Nations are sovereign because of international treaties and laws. If the gun was the only thing worth while, you wouldn't have countries like Luxemburg, or Costa Rica, that hasn't even got an army. (see wikipedia's list of armyless countries. Of course, the US has proved to be not really holding up to these treaties (Iraq), but even then did try to convince the UN that it was indeed starting a 'lawful' war overthere.

    24. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by cunina · · Score: 1

      There's no way in hell the US would tolerate anyone other than Canada to be north of use because invasion of the US would be a cakewalk.

      Any time I hear the term "cakewalk" in reference to a military action these days, I automatically write off the speaker as an idiot. Yes, I am lumping you with Bush and Rumsfeld.

    25. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I can defend sealand with only one bomb from any attack.

      1 100 megaton hydrogen bomb will keep all armies way the hell away from bugging you. Hell even if the USA got all pissy about you England would keep them from bothering you.

      yes the blast will kill you, but it will also kill many MANY in england.....

      Mutually assured destruction is a wonderful deterrent.

      Now, if you can afford t hat bomb, you can afford to have fibers ran to 4 other countries along the sea floor to avoid the assholes that want to censor your hosted websites.

      Oh, you also would really want to have silver clothes and shave your head... Oh to play doctor evil for real on your own island.....

      "Who likes meow mix....."

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    26. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      I'm hopelessly cynical of the current (and past) administrations. I agree that the citizens of the United States would want to do the right thing, but that doesn't mean that the government will.

      --
      I got nothin'
    27. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      There's a couple thousand miles of open wilderness along the US-canadian border. You don't think it would be easy to put troops in this country if canada were to turn a hostile nation?

      As an aside, why is it that instead of making a valid counterpoint to my statement, you just call me an idiot? I guess it's just an insight into your intelligence.

      --
      I got nothin'
    28. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Luxembourg is a buffer state. Its own army does not protect it. The mutual threat of armies in France and Germany protect it. Neither Germany nor France would willingly accept the other swallowing up Luxembourg.

    29. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I'm of the opinion that it's possible to do something so reprehensible that nobody with an ounce of common decency - even a politician - would fail to act. Perhaps invading Canada wouldn't be enough, but I think there may be something.

    30. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by dhaines · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing... After they have exhausted all other possibilities."
      --Winston Churchill

    31. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by cunina · · Score: 1

      Merely crossing the border does not constitute a successful invasion. Idiot.

    32. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then as payment for the US military protection services, Canada is annexed into the United States.

    33. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Umm, Belgium actually has the larger vested interest. Belgium and Luxembourg can
      arguably seen as a single country; although most Luxembourgers would be loathe to
      admit it. Predating the E.U. (and a predecessor thereof) are the various BeNeLux
      (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) alliances. Belgium is a kingdom, and Luxembourg
      a dukedom that used the same currency longe before the euro was instated.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    34. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Belgium and the Netherlands are in fact buffer states between England, Germany, and France.

      The reason why England figures so strongly here is that the most natural avenue of invasion into England from continental Europe has almost always been through the "low countries", which is one of the reasons why both world wars ended up going through all three of these countries.

      What is amazing is that these three countries still have a strong political role within the EU, where they continue to play off the three much larger countries against each other for their own mutual advantage.

    35. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by tropikietis · · Score: 1

      "Nations are sovereign only because they have enough firepower to keep other nations from claiming them" Please, Mr. Peter Trepan, that is a rather uncivilized approach at the concept of sovereignity! And on top of it, it's not really an accurate statement. Luxembourg's army could hardly instill fear into its European neighbours. Or take Costa Rica, for example. It's a free Republic since 1821 and it voluntarily abolished its army in 1949 - besides a brief incident with Nicaragua in 1955, no army has ever been needed and the country has been able to place its military budget into different priorities (education, welfare, etc). An uninteresting country to invade, you should say? That argument would contradict your own premise (Nations are sovereign ONLY because they have enough firepower to keep other nations from claiming them) - any neighbouring nation would like to extend its boundaries forcefully, according to your rationale. Also, Costa Rica has the highest expat-American citizen population in the whole world - that would make it tempting for the US or other governments to get a hold of it. They don't, however. Goes to prove that sovereignity has to do with more than simply "firepower", wouldn't you say?

    36. Re:Guns are the assembly code of politics. by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      But other nations only have firepower as an aspect of the will of their people.

      And people, like Woodrow Wilson have morals which dictate that they should respect the self determination of a people.

      Not everyone is like the U.S. and will unthinkingly go to war.

  23. Maybe Santa is a potential buyer by ciaohound · · Score: 1
    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
  24. Cheaper to invade. by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe It's empty right now. Sail up there with a paper knife. occupy the terriroty. Kill all zero people who resist. Declare yourself the revolutionary government.

    Of course, the declaration of what makes for statehood is a little arbitrary. So rather than go to the effort, I declare myself King of Antarctica.

    1. Re:Cheaper to invade. by ezzewezza · · Score: 5, Funny

      What the hell?

      I look away for five seconds and someone steals Antarctica from me.

      I'd watch your back if I were you, 91degrees!

    2. Re:Cheaper to invade. by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1

      Is the position for Emperor still available? If not, I'll settle for chancellor.

    3. Re:Cheaper to invade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in your Ozone layer, eating a hole!

    4. Re:Cheaper to invade. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      No, but the position of Emperor of the United States has been open for 127 years today.

    5. Re:Cheaper to invade. by haystor · · Score: 5, Funny

      You'll have a tough time taking it back since it can only be attacked from the north.

      --
      t
    6. Re:Cheaper to invade. by �berhund · · Score: 1
      Of course, the declaration of what makes for statehood is a little arbitrary.

      Have you got a flag? No flag, no country.
      --
      -Uberhund
    7. Re:Cheaper to invade. by nuzak · · Score: 1

      The position is filled -- I take it you haven't read Bush's latest signing statement?

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    8. Re:Cheaper to invade. by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is the position for Emperor still available? If not, I'll settle for chancellor.

      I think you'll have to:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_penguin

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    9. Re:Cheaper to invade. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Actually, Antarctica's owned (on political maps you can actually see which parts by which country) and I imagine whoever has most investment in the Antarctic research bases would be right in there with angry soldiers.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    10. Re:Cheaper to invade. by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      You might want to rethink that 91 degrees.

      If you did a little research, you would see that the current leader of Sealand is an ex military officer - who I am sure has surrounded himself with like-minded and capable folks.

      It should also be noted that a Dutch and German group attacked and took over Sealand - holding the leader's son hostage. He was able to counter-attack and take back the place - and held the attackers as prisoners of war, until diplomats from their respective countries made contact to get them back.

      He has also sent shots across the bow of UK Navy boats that in the early years attempted to take the place back.

      I wouldn't go anywhere near that place unless I had an invitation.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    11. Re:Cheaper to invade. by GWBasic · · Score: 1
      Of course, the declaration of what makes for statehood is a little arbitrary. So rather than go to the effort, I declare myself King of Antarctica.

      I hereby declare myself emporer of the entire Multiverse!

    12. Re:Cheaper to invade. by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      His pattern indicates two dimensional thinking.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
  25. Would the UK buy it back? by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see the UK government laying out the cash to take back Sealand? It'd be a quiet end to what may have been something of an embarassment to them over the years.

    1. Re:Would the UK buy it back? by quarterbrain · · Score: 1

      They aren't really selling the island. As a poster higher up in the thread said, they are selling tenancy. Essentially what you get for several million dollars is the authroity to run the island as it's prime authority. However the owners keep the property, they remain the "Royal Family", you must adhere to the constitution and laws already set, and must continue to run the island as it has been up until this point.

      Essentially they're offering the unique opportunity for you to pay out the ass to do their administrative bullshit for them.

      Rock.

    2. Re:Would the UK buy it back? by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      If the Royal family isn't living on the platform, a way for England to get it back is to send people out there to live, have them 'start a coup', and take over the country, and then request to join England.

      Hey, it worked for Hawaii.

      And, frankly, a popular coup by people leasing and working 'the land' against a royal family that hang out in another country and give orders isn't really that farfetched, and would look a lot better in the history books than England just invading Sealand.

      Technically, instead of asking to join England, they could just dismantle the platform with enough explosives after the coup. I'm not sure, legally, what happens to a country when it stops occuping any surface area, but it would stop annoying England.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:Would the UK buy it back? by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      I think the big concern about Sealand is that it would set some kind of precedent, but the situation that created it seems unlikely to recur and so it can remain as a bizarre curiosity. The British did blow up a similar tower just in case but I don't think it matters enough to them to be worth destroying.

      I saw pictures of it after the fire. It looked like it was a rather prosaic lifestyle aside from the unobstructed ocean views, and those views tend to become a lot less appealing in chilly climates. Also, it looked like about 1/3 of the territory was taken up by electric generators to keep the place going. A necessary correlary would seem to be that living up there would be rather loud and not particularly pleasant.

      Still, what an entertaining curiosity it is! I don't think I'd like to live there - too bloody cold - but I really admire the audacity of the founders in pursuing their dream. I'm sorry to hear they want to sell.

      D

  26. E Peterbus Unum by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

    If I had a little more equity, I'd buy it and rename it Petoria..

    1. Re:E Peterbus Unum by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Or you could just move to Pretoria, become mayor, and have the first "r" removed from its name.

    2. Re:E Peterbus Unum by stile99 · · Score: 1

      PeterLand already taken, you say?

  27. The Mods are on crack by gclef · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Interesting?! Comments on human-bovine marriage laws get modded "Interesting"?! This explains so much about Slashdot.

    1. Re:The Mods are on crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I'm just relieved it wasn't modded "Informative" or "Insightful"

    2. Re:The Mods are on crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your new here right?

      They mod people up something other then funny so they get a karma point for being funny.
      If you just mod someone up as funny they don't get the karma bost and if someone with mod points does not get the joke they do pay a penalty for the mark down.

  28. Why not by Konster · · Score: 1

    Why don't a group of Slashdotters invade this country and take it for themselves?

    1. It would take no more then ten invaders, armed with nothing more than beer and a hamburger.
    2. The person living there just wants to go home anyway.

    Think of the possibilities!

    1. Re:Why not by vidarh · · Score: 3, Informative

      The last time they were "invaded" by armed people, they retook the platform with force and held the "invaders" hostage. They've also in the past shot the the British navy... So I do suspect you might need to be armed with a bit more than beer and a hamburger.

    2. Re:Why not by Konster · · Score: 1

      Ok...add to my list one copy of Ishtar and a photo of Paris Hilton.

    3. Re:Why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we just buy it? Slashdot is a huge group, we can split the cost, hire management, then make it a digital paradise.

    4. Re:Why not by Thalidomide+Pickpock · · Score: 1

      In reply to point 1, the owners have been known to take shots at passing ships. They're probably quite capable of shooting someone that tried to take it over.

  29. Dr. Evil by AnyThingButWindows · · Score: 1

    This would be the perfect layer for Dr. Evil. And it would only cost him... one hundred... million... dollars.

    #2: Dr. Evil. While you were in space, we sighted an island off the coast of...
    Dr. Evil: Is it an Evil Island?
    #2: Yes. Very.
    Dr. Evil: Go on.
    #2: Off the coast of England. And for a small investment of...
    Dr. Evil: Look at mini me, he is exited. Someone get the stick. Come mini me.
    #2: uh uhm.
    Dr. Evil: Go on.
    #2: For a small investment of one hundred million dollars the Island can be ours.
    Dr. Evil: I have a plan, and my evil plan is...
    Dr. Evil: It can be our secret volcanic layer, where we can host porn! And when Austin Powers signs up. We will have his Credit Card number.
    Dr. Evil: Whoooaoaaa, Whooooaaaaaa, HAHAHAHAHA.
    Everyone: Whooaaaa, Whoaoaaa, HAHAHAHA.

    --
    When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
    1. Re:Dr. Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... layer? Oh dear, time to kill yourself.

  30. the human temple by sulfur_lad · · Score: 2, Funny

    Firstly, if they sold it (instead of just offering tennancy) would they have to call it "New Sealand?" Furthermore, is there a state-sanctioned religion? Do they celebrate festivus? I won't bid unless I get to pin the leader.

    Sealand is awesome. It renews my desire to declare myself holy ground to avoid income tax.

    1. Re:the human temple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It renews my desire to declare myself holy ground to avoid income tax. Serious damper on the whole Highlander thing.
  31. Sun? In ENGLAND? by evilandi · · Score: 5, Funny

    bladesjester: the sun do its work

    Off the coast of Essex, England, UK? In the North Sea?

    I'm guessing you've never been to the east coast of England. It is sunny for approximately half an hour in the afternoon only of the third Wednesday after Pentecost.

    A far, far faster method of obtaining fresh water in the North Sea would be to simply open your mouth and tilt your head skywards. It'll fill with fresh rainwater - no desalination required - in about six seconds.

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    1. Re:Sun? In ENGLAND? by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Informative

      On avarage, London has more days of sunshine than Paris.

    2. Re:Sun? In ENGLAND? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, be nice. They're called Parisians.

  32. "Land" is stretching it by shirizaki · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sealand_fortres s.jpg

    More like "Seaplatform". though it doesn't have that ring to it.


    If anyone is interested in it, move along. Not only is it in the middle of nowhere, you face invasion by several post - industrialized nations. You're better off buying an island in the keys. At least then you're lucky to have something called coconuts and White Sandy beaches.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
    1. Re:"Land" is stretching it by serialdogma · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "land" in this context, it does not refer to a block of land, but rather to a country such as Scotland (the country of the Scots).

  33. Cost/benefit ratio by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 1

    In terms of active troops per 1,000 citizens, Luxembourg has a higher percentage of active military than China, India, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, or Canada. Any invading country would face a similar ratio of benefit vs. expenditure. I stand by my claim. You can't have a sovereign country without an appropriately sized army to back it up.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    1. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except (and I am a Luxembourger) that in terms of military power, it's usually the army that is in absolute terms bigger that wins... Our army is a joke, and we know it. From what I'm concerned, they can downsize it all they want.

      Also, it used to be that you needed a military training to get access to certain well paid jobs. I think you still do, but not anymore for the most famous one: Postman... Government jobs (or para-government jobs like Postman) here are much better paid than jobs in the private sector. I used to be a teacher (and hated it) and now earn a good 12K€ less per year because I went back to IT in the private sector.

    2. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by Raumkraut · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You can't have a sovereign country without an appropriately sized army to back it up.

      List of countries without armed forces
    3. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by TheLink · · Score: 1

      If I were the Luxembourg Gov, I'd try to get my citizens to all have passports of other friendly countries.

      IMO the best defense for you guys in event of a "conventional war" (ala WWII) is to all leave your country, hide somewhere else and then when convenient take the fight to the attacking country (why screw up your own country?).

      If that's not possible and a lot have to stay behind then it's Mr Sniper/Saboteur time...

      Problem is you'd probably be called terrorists ;).

      I guess the other option is you could just leave and not come back. Bah.

      --
    4. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      I'd go the saboteur route.... As most of my countrymen, I guess. In WWII, the Germans weren't exactly popular. Funny fact: the Germans opened a pub in the "palace" of the Grand Duke. (I still think that's insanely funny, but that's probably disrespectful to my own country)

      As for getting passport of other countries: only just recently Luxembourg allows double nationality. I lost my original nationality when I became a Luxembourger a few years ago. (Mainly because of trying to enhancing my chance to get a state job, which I then dropped because I hated it)

    5. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by mspohr · · Score: 1
      Costa Rica seems to get along just fine... some would argue that they are much better off without an army.

      https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos /cs.html#Military

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    6. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By all standards the Vatican has the best trained guards in the world. It might not be a military by name but neither is S.W.A.T. I hate to use this quote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", if they carry automatic weapons than they might as well be military. I would also venture to say that most of the country's on that list that there local police forces carry substantial fire power.

    7. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by oliderid · · Score: 1

      They had a better idea. They joined the European community at the beginning and bound the whole Europe into an economic community. What matters is wealth, this is where we all find our interest. I'm want to be rich and you want it too. Once you trade, once you share, once you make projects together, there is no point to attack your source of wealth: your customers. This how Rome secured its vast empire for 500 years by the way, threats were external not internal. Once you trade, you begin to know each other, the "foreigner" becomes a partner and sometimes a friend.

      If you see that you are going to lose a fortune in a war, because you are attacking a major business partner (in this case: you attack a major centre of European private banks...Where rich people are hiding their own treasure)you will probably think twice before doing it and you will have a hard time finding allies (typical answer: don't rob my bank you idiot).

      Anyway Thank God these imperial/cynical policies have been vanished from Western Europe after we commited two mass suicides during the previous century (WWI and WWII). I guess we learnt our lesson, some may consider us as "from Venus" but I certainly don't want to live what my grand parents did (and told me).

      Concerning your idea: it is a bad one.

      In a typical modern European war:
      We do not recognize you as true soldier. Your government surrendered weeks ago. Surrender. They didn't surrender and leave the country? we just settle a puppet government and force them to sign a treaty. This treaty stipulate that you must surrender or you will be considered as irregular force (ie terrorist). You refuse?

      A significant part of the population have been kept hostages. One by one each hostage are going to receive a bullet in the head or starved slowy to death while being raped and tortured until you "terrorists, saboteurs, whatever" show up. Do you recognize your teacher? Well say good bye, he has just been murdered.

      You attack our invading soldier? 10 hostages of your fellow countrymen will be murdered hanged on town main street and leave there for a week...Or a month. Thanks to some tortures we have been able to locate your family. 4 of them. Your wife is amongst them and your father too. We kept your children for another time.

      We still cannot find you, the so called resistants? We will put all your fellow villagers (children included) in a church and burn them alive. We will destroy the whole village and move on. A good example for other rebellious region. Still feeling heroic? Others are not, they are called collaborateurs and they will do whatever they can to find you to avoid this nightmare. You will be catch by your own countrymen, funny isn't it?

      This is what a modern European war looks like.

      This process will happen hundred of times in your whole country. There will be hundred of thousands of victims. Unidentified corpses that we will hide deep in remote fields. Not because we are ashamed of...Because they start to stink and I don't want my soldier to be sick.

      Extremely effective, main tools of the various succesful European invasions. The last one was done in the Balkans and almost succeded. We have used them for centuries and it still works. There are other masters around the world such as the mongols (pyramid of heads) across Eurasia or Muslims in India (killing peaceful hindouist for the fun).

      You can't win against such a brute force and if you aren't ready to apply such a brute force sooner or later your unwelcome invasion will fail because there is no nation of cowards and most will fight to protect their liberty and their territory.

      War is not a video game. War is hell.

    8. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by TheLink · · Score: 1

      But the main idea is not to attack the invading soldier. Like I said, run away, and attack the invader's _country_ when it is convenient.

      There are only 500K people in Luxembourg. Too easy to wipe out if they stay.

      So disperse and run away. When the time is right, some trained ones can sneak into THEIR country, and screw it up. 50K terrorists messing up your country = no joke. The rest of the 450k can continue living wherever they ran to.

      A modern European/Western country has lots of external dependencies - oil, food, gas, trade (shipping containers etc). Even if it can be somewhat self sufficient for a few years, if it totally closes its borders to prevent such "terrorists" from infiltrating it, it will be very badly damaged.

      And I suggest the damage will be more than the benefits of taking over Luxembourg.

      The BIG problem is if your citizens are trained "terrorists" is that a bunch of them might decide not to bother voting in elections and decide to take over your country instead.

      And THAT's why my idea is a bad one :).

      --
    9. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Costa Rica has its protection "guarenteed" by the USA. Or to put it more plain, if somebody else besides the USA tried to move into Costa Rica, you had better believe that a division or two of U.S. Marines and soldiers would appear nearly overnight inside of that country.

      And unlike many other places around the world that the U.S. military is currently working at, the lines of supply trying to get personnel and logistical support into Costa Rica would be trivial in comparison, and a rather lengthy line of supply for anybody else who wants to engage in such a suicidal action.

      Frankly, it sounds to me like a very smart idea for countries in Central America to follow a similar sort of policy for much of the very same reasons. Besides, without a significant military to muck things up, Costa Ricians also enjoy the comfort of knowing that a coup is highly unlikely, which seems to be the most common usage for a large military force in Latin America in general.

    10. Re:Cost/benefit ratio by mspohr · · Score: 1
      Good point about "no military = no coup". Unfortunately, the military in most countries is used to keep the domestic population under control.

      I'm not sure that US protection is guaranteed, however. It probably depends on who is doing the threatening. If Costa Rica had a left wing government (such as Venezuela) and was invaded by a right wing country, the US might just ignore the situation to ensure that a more friendly government was installed.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  34. Stating the obvious. by mumblestheclown · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For far less than 65m you can build your own damn platform and anchor it in the channel or north sea.

    1. Re:Stating the obvious. by szembek · · Score: 1

      This seams quite true. And not a bad idea!

      --
      nothing
    2. Re:Stating the obvious. by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Not to mention you could probably move it elsewhere... near a country that would be more open to this type of thing than the UK

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Stating the obvious. by Cauchy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that in 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea changed international law so that no new artificial platform could claim nation status. While no country explicitly recognizes Sealand, since its claims to independence predates 1982, it is exempt from this convention.

    4. Re:Stating the obvious. by lakeland · · Score: 1

      You don't get a country out of it. The curiosity of Seeland is that at over 3 miles off the cost it was not part of British waters. Since then Britain has extended their waters to 12 miles but Seeland (arguably) gets away due to a grandfathering clause. If you were to build a new platform it would have to be at least twelve miles off the cost, which makes commuting a pain.

    5. Re:Stating the obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a cite for that? article 60 deals with artificial platforms within the 12 mile zone, and article 80 extends it to the continental shelf, but I don't see a blanket prohibition on new artificial islands claiming soveriegn status.

    6. Re:Stating the obvious. by Cauchy · · Score: 1

      Ok, fair enough. If someone constructs an artificial island that is not within 12 nm of a sovereign state and not on the continental shelf, my statement would not apply---put how much would such a beast cost?

    7. Re:Stating the obvious. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      That's great, but the United Nations does not in fact own the oceans. Any object placed far enough out into international (read: neutral) waters could technically get away with it, and get recognised by enough non-member nations to be considered too much effort to quell.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    8. Re:Stating the obvious. by Timbotronic · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder if that was in response to the nuts who created the Republic of Minerva.

      Always loved this one. In 1971, some crazy bastard from Vegas with more dollars than sense rolls up at a partially submerged atoll in the Pacific with several barge loads of sand, creates a small island and declares independence. Various Pacific nations find this a bit of a worry and about 6 months later, they get conquered and annexed by Tonga. Apparently the Tongan King himself came along with a few troops and a brass band!

      Anyway, the "government in exile" is still trying to get the joint back. My guess is that UN Convention was drafted to prevent more "nations" popping up like this.

      --

      One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

    9. Re:Stating the obvious. by Cauchy · · Score: 1

      152 countries have ratified it, and an additional 26 countries have signed but not yet ratified it. At some point, we might say this convention has been fairly broadly recognized, I would think.

  35. I wonder if... by Kris_B_04 · · Score: 1

    Mr. Roarke and Tattoo are saving up to start a whole new Fantasy "Island" ;)

    --
    Remember when Windows were washed, mice were trapped and UNIX guarded the harem?
  36. Re:If I was Mr. Burns, and he was real by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

    ....I'd buy it to dump nuclear waste. I doubt it has the strictest waste regulations in the world.

    No, but as it only has room for about 3 barrels you're unlikely to make a great deal of money either.

    Here's some pictures of your new "nation" :

    http://www.bobleroi.co.uk/ScrapBook/SealandTwo/Rou ghsSealand.html

  37. I was at H2K2 when the folks from havenco spoke by cybrthng · · Score: 1

    And they made it sound like life was rough out there but they were making bucks. At least i got a free perl book out of the conference :)

  38. Whoever modded parent a troll is fucking high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or maybe just retarded. Come on. That was clearly supposed to be humor or a misguided attempt at insight (in which case the parent is an idiot) but modding him/her a troll is not called for.

  39. AllOfMp3.com New Headquaters... Found! by Stormx2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With all the money they apparently make, AllOfMp3 should move to Sealand! It would stop all the copyright disputes!!

  40. Although it's a bit damaged at the present... by clickety6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the architect's design for the refurbishment is quite nice:

    http://shatterhand007.com/Formula/FORMULAAtlantis. jpg

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  41. I know who's gonna buy it by Aaron+Isotton · · Score: 1

    Say hi to the principality of GoldenPalace.com.

    1. Re:I know who's gonna buy it by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      What's more likely is "Google Government" a "wholly owned subsidiary of Google, Inc" located on "a secluded technology haven off the coast of Great Britain"

      Followed closely by "Google Hosted Government Beta", a service allowing your country to outsource it's government to Google, but with absolutely no tech support during the beta period, and "free continued service to approved beta customers"

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  42. Interesting! by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 1

    I suspect that most of those countries have agreements with nations that do have militaries, but that's an interesting rebuttal. Especially in the case of Vatican City, which may only be protected from foreign invasion by the threat of international Catholic outrage.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    1. Re:Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Which may only be protected from foreign invasion by the threat of international Catholic outrage.
      That, and the fact that there's only one country that could invade them without either first invading or violating the airspace of a country that does have a military. They basically have de facto protection from the Italian government since it's practically impossible to attack them without taking some hostile action against Italy.
    2. Re:Interesting! by afabbro · · Score: 1
      Especially in the case of Vatican City, which may only be protected from foreign invasion by the threat of international Catholic outrage.


      And the Lateran Treaties with Italy.

      You should be googling now.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
  43. PARENT IS WEBSITE SPAM by schweinhund · · Score: 1

    who cares about your lyrics site anyway!

  44. Raft by bozojoe · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a great place to live and rape and use Reason ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(weapon_system ) )

    --
    lick the cancle button (at least thats what our Chinese QA says)
  45. Not going to happen by gzunk · · Score: 1

    The UK really doesn't care that much about it.

  46. what a dump by shellacked · · Score: 1

    That place looks like a prison I think I'll hold out for something better

  47. AllofMP3.SL by fatnicky · · Score: 1

    RIAA and MPAA should be buying it. How long before .SL creeps along and guys like us start profiting?

    I call dibs on goatse.SL!

    --
    Free childcare classifieds: www.carebrite.com
  48. Wow by SeePage87 · · Score: 3, Funny

    One of my teachers in high school taught us about Sealand because his son was one of the co-founders. Didn't think I'd see it come up on slashdot. Funny story about the country: after it was founded, many of the world's nations extended their borders into sea from (I think about) 5 miles to 10 miles. Sealand viewed this as an aggressive action by the UK since Sealand was now entirely within UK borders and was considered by the British to be UK soil. Sealands response was to extend their borders to 10 miles as well and claim the respective British coastal areas as Sealand soil.

    1. Re:Wow by seniorcoder · · Score: 1

      Your facts are incorrect.
      I quote from the sealand website (www.sealandgov.com):

      Extension of Territorial Waters

      On 1 October, 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles. The previous day, Prince Roy declared the extension of Sealand's territorial waters to be a like 12 nautical miles, so that right of way from the open sea to Sealand would not be blocked by British claimed waters. No treaty has been signed between Britain and Sealand to divide up the overlapping areas, but a general policy of dividing the area between the two countries down the middle can be assumed. International law does not allow the claim of new land during the extension of sea rights, so Sealand's sovereignty was safely "grandfathered" in. Britain has no more right to Sealand's territory than Sealand has to the territory of the British coastline that falls within its claimed 12 nautical mile arc.

    2. Re:Wow by SeePage87 · · Score: 1

      Apologies for having the numbers wrong, I was citing Mr. Hastings (father of co-founder Sean Hastings) lecture from 5 years ago and couldn't remember exactly. But I'd like to note that what they say on their website reflects how things are now, not exactly as they happened. They (according to Mr. Hastings) had some to-do in the process because (although having won their sovereignty in British court) weren't widely recognized as a independent principality, nor was the platform recognized as "land". There wasn't much fallout, however, the UK didn't really care enough.

  49. The Mouse that Roared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think anyone should be having a discussion like this about Sealand without referencing The Mouse that Roared .

  50. And here is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paris is covered in smoke from the burning cars.
    Blasted "youths"

  51. The Pirate Bay (Literally) by j4yx0r · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think that the Piratbyrån should purchase it. I'd donate to the cause. ~j

    --
    ~j
  52. Coup de Nowhere by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, the Principality Army could stay on site to prevent a coup. What? There is no army? Well then, the citizens can form a militia... You say there are no citizens either? So what does "Prince" Michael rule over?

    This notion that an abandoned radar platform has somehow achieved sovereign nation status just because its squatters say it is has always been a bad joke. They've only gotten away with it because nobody gives a shit. They claim to have a legal decision, but what they really have is a court case the the UK crown won't appeal out of bureaucratic inertia. The very first time they'd done something to really piss people off, a platoon of Scotland Yard bobbies would have landed, sent the "Prince" back to his sheep, and that would have been the end of it.

    1. Re:Coup de Nowhere by StikyPad · · Score: 1
      What? There is no army?

      I guess reading TFA would be asking too much, so I'll just post the relevant part...
      Although its nation status is disputed, Sealand boasts a military past like any other country, defending its sovereignty from outside threats.

      Former British army major, Paddy Roy Bates, began occupying the island with his family in 1967, declared it a state in international waters and gave himself the title "prince".

      Britain's Royal Navy attempted to evict him the following year but were unsuccessful.

      As they entered territorial waters, Roy of Sealand fired warning shots from the former fort.

      A judge then ruled in his favour that Sealand was outside British Government control as it was beyond the three-mile limit of the country's waters.
  53. Sovereignty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are sovereign until they either give it up; or someone blows them away. They had a tiff with the british navy back when; and are still there; what more is sovereignty?

    Never know, you may have neighbors who consider themselves sovereign... Best be polite about staying off their yard, or you might learn the lesson the hard way.

  54. Principality? by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

    If Sealand is a principality, who is the prince? (Can I be the prince? Please? Please?)

    1. Re:Principality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more a country...

  55. Is there any oil in the 12 mile terr limit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any oil in that part of the North sea? A 12 mile territorial limit encompasses a lot of land.

    1. Re:Is there any oil in the 12 mile terr limit? by Slithe · · Score: 1

      I think you mean a lot of SEA.

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
  56. Cuckoos Calling? by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

    It's really very strange, because they are not normally sea-birds, but I can quite distinctly hear the call of a cuckoo even though I'm 12,000 miles from Sealand! Very odd indeed!

  57. because it's a rusting steel hulk in the North Sea by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Taking it might be fun but ten minutes later you'd realise you'd paid some dodgy Essex fisherman a huge chunk of money to leave you marooned on a stinky rusting lump of steel ten miles off the British Coast in the North Sea. Not the exotic Caribbean, but a grey old sea full of industrial waste, oil tankers and seagulls that want to poop on you and your new found hulk ^H^H^H empire . Throw in pretty poor weather and lack of basic amenities and the sinking feeling that the dodgy fisherman is going to ask double to take you back to Blighty once you've spent a miserable night huddling in the burnt out remains of the portacabin or whatever's left on the old gunnery platform. There's a reason that these platforms had a high suicide rate amongst troops stationed on them in the Second World War...

  58. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Troll

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  59. sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm ready to leave Mom's basement, but I don't want to be too close to other people yet.....

  60. Yay Plagiarism! by NoTheory · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What a terrible article, the historical facts about Sealand are plagiarized directly from wikipedia.

    Wikipedia:
    In 1978 Dutch and German businessmen, who were on Sealand to discuss a business deal, kidnapped Roy's son. However, they were overpowered, and held as prisoners of war before eventually being released.[2]
    ABCNews Online:
    Four years later, Dutch and German businessmen on Sealand to discuss a business deal kidnapped Roy's son but were overpowered and held as prisoners of war before eventually being released.
    Wikipedia:
    In 1968 Britain's Royal Navy attempted to evict Roy Bates but was unsuccessful.
    ABCNews Online:
    Britain's Royal Navy attempted to evict him the following year but were unsuccessful.


    Someone needs to be fired.
    --
    There are lives at stake here!
  61. Ya Know..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    This would be the ultimate in secure server space. Think about it: -Tax Exempt Status -Free from gambling regulations -You could form your own military, which would give you alot more breathing room in defending secure servers. (Hint: You could use artillery to defend from outside intruders) -No firearm regulations (read: all the toys you could dream of, consequence free) -It is nearly impossible for anyone to invade you or physically compromise secure servers. -Data storage free from regulation -Radio operations free from regulation .....And the top seven reasons why you should buy your own country: 7. You make your tax payment check payable to yourself. 6. You could print as much money as you want. 5. You ARE the law. 4. You ARE the Head Honcho / Big Cheese / Big Kahuna / The Man . 3. The DMCA is nothing more than fuel. 2. The RIAA can't touch you. 1. You can fish without a license. .....On the downside, it could be a potential SPAM haven. .....On the upside of the downside, you know exactly where the SPAM haven is, so you could bomb the hell out of it.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  62. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were to, say, dredge and fill in a nice breakwater and some land, like they are doing in the Middle East(saw it on a TV show - forget which country) - they could make a small, real island. With a platform on it. Then nobody could say they aren't their own country ;)

    But that would take a few billion dollars. Technically, anyone could do this and make their own country, btw. But who has a few billion lying around in spare change?

  63. Is there any place on earth.... by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

    that is truly free that is easily inhabitable? Uninhabitable? Would a libertarian have to go into deep space to be truely happy?

  64. That's what HavenCo does.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    HavenCo does just that. I wonder what the impending sale, sorry, transfer will do to their business, but the numbers that the Spanish estate agent is supposed to ask according to Wikipedia are insane.

    I can't even see Saudi oil dollars go for that other than as some private airfield near the UK.

    Don't forget, this platform is incapable of sustaining itself so isolating it isn't hard unless they started thinking about wave and wind power generation (but that still doesn't cater for the humans on board). It means everything has to be transported in.

    Then again, if you've got the cash to pay for it I guess the upkeep won't be that much to worry about..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  65. And this matters...why? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Seems perfectly within the limits of the GFDL to me.

    That's sort of the point of Wikipedia...anyone can use its content. Besides which, the article's author did change the wording; I'm not even sure I'd call it "plagiarism." It looks more like the sort of thing that would happen after someone read the WP page and then sat down and wrote their own article a few minutes later.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  66. Re:because it's a rusting steel hulk in the North by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lack of amenities? There's internet and (off the top of my head) it's 2ms from the centre of London. What more would you need?

  67. I claim microsoft.sealand & google.sealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the rush for worthless domain names by speculators begin!

    As stated on the pirate bay forum, most people think buying (or conquering) a small island in the name of techie geeks would be a much better idea.