Slashdot Mirror
A Floating Home For Tech Start-ups
JoeMerchant writes "Max Marty, founder of Blueseed, thinks immigration laws in the U.S. make it too difficult for entrepreneurs from other countries to come to the U.S. and develop new technologies. In order to solve this, he's trying to buy a large ship he can anchor off the coast of California, in international waters, which he can then turn into a start-up incubator, fostering a 'year-long hack-a-thon.' From the article: 'With a B-1 visa, visitors can freely travel to the United States for meetings, conferences, and even training seminars. B-1 visas are relatively easy to get, and can be valid for as long as 10 years. Blueseed plans to provide regular ferry service between the ship to the United States. While Blueseed residents would need to do their actual work—such as writing code—on the ship, Marty envisions them making regular trips to Silicon Valley to meet with clients, investors, and business partners. With the ship only 12 miles offshore, it should be practical to make a day trip to the mainland and return in the evening. A B-1 visa also permits overnight stays.'"
Have gnu, will travel.
FTA: "Some of the Silicon Valley's most important companies, including Intel, Google, and Yahoo, were cofounded by immigrants."
Intel wasn't.
"Yet America's creaky immigration system makes it difficult for talented young people born outside of the United States to come to the Bay Area"
Riiiight, that's where there aren't any young people born outside of the United States in the Bay Area. Sure.
Well when you were promised a job in IT - they didn't mention exactly what sort of IT position it was. Now pedal faster, we need more CPU cycles dammit!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Parking 12 nautical miles away from the coast still leaves the ship in the EEZ, so the US can easily regulate it (in fact, there are probably laws already in force that would apply to this).
you can come to America and live on a floating prison. I'm not sure what sort of abject misery you'd have to be coming from to make living/working on a prison ship seem like a good idea.
I've been on boats around the bay and off the coast and I can tell you that about 30% of the time there won't be any work getting done because everyone will be hanging over the rails puking their guts out.
It sounds like this would be an irresistible target for someone with a boat or a plane packed with explosives. Sadly, that's the type of world we live in. You would need anti-aircraft turrets and security boat patrols. Actually, that sounds kind of cool.
Why would this be a more attractive target than say, Apple or Google headquarters? A truck (or even motorcycle) filled with explosives driving into the corporate cafeteria at lunchtime would do much more economic damage and garner much more news coverage than taking out some unknown up-and-coming startup executives on a ship. It would take more than a cessna filled with explosives to take out a sturdy oceangoing vessel. Likewise, a small boat filled with explosives will only take out a watertight compartment or two on the large ship, presumably on the less desirable lower decks where you won't find the high valued targets doing deals up on the lido deck.
If the terrorists could procure a torpedo, then they might have a chance at sinking the vessel.
I love the people who seem to think international waters means "You can do whatever you want." No, not really. You can declare yourself to be your own country or whatever but that doesn't matter. There are only two real ways to be an independent country:
1) Get recognized as such by one or more major international bodies like the UN, NATO, etc. When the big boys say "Yup, you are independent," then you are. This is more or less how it goes for countries like Iceland, that have effectively no military.
2) Have enough guns that nobody can challenge your independence. That's how it works for countries like the US or China. Doesn't really matter what anyone wants to think, they are independent by virtue of nobody has the ability to invade them.
Neither of that would be the case for this little offshore platform. The US could screw them over real simply by just refusing to allow sea or air traffic to or from the platform. If there was any real problem, they could send in the Coast Guard. In the event the people on the platform fired on the USCG, well that is that as per US law that's an act of war and then the Navy can get involved.
Alternatively they could flag themselves under some nation, but then they are subject to that nations laws, and of course that nation will have treaties with the US and so on.
... worker rights would most likely be squashed on daily basis.
So it'd be like the US, but with less make-believe?
Or you mean really bad, like all the places the US buys all its cheap manufactured shit from?
Horrors! If it's right offshore, it might be close enough we'd have to stop ignoring it!
.. this particular assumption is wrong.
I am based out of Canada at the moment and I work in a big IT company. We had our annual conference in Chicago, I applied for a B1 and was refused. The grounds were that i apparently could not prove "strong ties to my home country" . I am originally from India, and my job requires me to travel a lot. This situation ( having stayed in Canada for 6 months only ) was the criteria for them to reject my entry. And i had a perfectly valid reason to visit the US.
This is not a rant. I hope the backers of the venture understand that there are many more visa issues than what they are aware off.
Presumably, this would not be subject to any laws protecting employment, civil rights, etc.. Your employment and life would be subject to the whims of whoever runs the place. Even contracts need courts and laws to make them effective.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Legalities aside, that can be a pretty nasty hunk of ocean. There will be considerable periods of time when that ship will either be maneuvering to ride out a storm, or going someplace else to avoid a storm. A big share of the year it will need to underway just to provide a reasonable amount of stability.
It sounds like someone read the last half of Snow Crash and thought that this was somehow a good idea. Either that, or the Wikipedia article on L. Ron Hubbard, and figured he could get a lot of underage girls that way.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/05/04/20/2251203/offshoring-to-a-ship-in-international-waters
This is a very attractive idea, and people have been attracted to it a few times before!
This article isn't exactly a dup, but as Mark Twain said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes"
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Since they are hacking US immigration law, I can see the Coast Guard taking a dim view on rescuing such people.
My Coast Guard friends would take that as quite an insult. These people risk their lives to help others on a regular basis--they don't deserve to have such petty motives attributed to them.
The proposed location is 12 miles off Maverick's Beach in Half Moon Bay, one of the world's great surfing spots.
12 miles is well within the US's EEZ (which is 200 miles I believe), so the Coast Guard would absolutely take a dim view of anyone using violence within that zone. And the CG I'm sure doesn't give a rat's ass about someone doing an end-run around immigration laws, especially if there's someone in US waters using weapons against any vessels. Again, these are not international waters. Try going fishing out there in violation of US fishing regulations and see what the CG does to you.
I think not. Again they'd have two choices:
1) Flag under a country, as any other ship does. Do that, and you are subject to the laws of that country.
2) Don't flag. In that case any nation can board your ship, just for not being flagged. You can bet the US would do just that.
Basically if they want to set up a little fake island for fun, the US won't care, and would probably even help save them when the seas get rough. If they want to set it up to try and evade US law, that isn't going to fly.
I suppose the first technology they're going to work on is how to get a constant stream of electricity out there?
Apparently it will come as a surprise to you, but we have had large ships traveling the oceans for quite a while, which even have electricity.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
http://www.blueseed.co/
Now let's see if we can flood it :-)
Because it is in international waters, which means the US is not obligated to take care of them. Since they are hacking US immigration law, I can see the Coast Guard taking a dim view on rescuing such people.
They aren't hacking US immigration law, they are working within the law. The USA wouldn't care one way or another if 100 rich entrepreneurs want to take up residence in a cruise ship 15 miles off the coast as long as they follow their visa restrictions.
The USCG is going to rescue them no matter what. Do you really think that the USA will turn a blind eye while pirates attack a ship off our shores? The bad publicity alone would make that politically impossible. Can you imagine news helicopters circling around the sinking ship, filming passengers crying out for help, while a coast guard cutter floats nearby, only there to mop up any oil leaks and pick up debris before it hits the US coast?
You can fill software positions. I guess if you're an insecure boss who only wants to hire people H1B so you can pay them less, treat them like crap, and they're almost forced to stay with the same company; then this will work out for you. Oh and software developers from India don't really want to come over to the US as much as they used to.
Yes, but we never had a globalised information economy before. I can see the argument that getting the best of the non-U.S. citizens in the same place, having them work intensively on startups, and having access to Silicon Valley investors and resources, would potentially work. Think of it as Y Combinator for people who can't get a visa. Their estimated low price point is $1200/person/month; at that price there are investors who would be willing to finance small startup teams in exchange for equity. Let's say total cost is $2k/person/month, that's $18k for 3 people for 3 months, which is equal to the average amount that Y Combinator invests in their "3 month move to California" development program. And for the top graduates from Africa, India, China etc. this would look like a good opportunity given the huge potential rewards at the end.
The real question here, is whether proximity to Silicon Valley offers any real advantage to startups anymore? This place will be competing against startup accelerators in India and elsewhere, so why would a top Indian graduate choose to use this accelerator rather than one based in India?
I suspect the OP meant coding gulag, where you won't own anything you develop, essentially a code sweatshop.
Good luck getting off that boat for the promised visits to the US if the US authorities decide they don't like the
activities going on out there, or simply become suspicious of the place being uses a an industrial espionage platform
with all the trips back and forth to "conferences" etc.
Just because its 12 miles off shore doesn't put it outside of the US Economic Exclusion Zone, which covers far more than fisheries and oil production these days.
Then there is the maintenance issue. A boat is a hole in the water into which you throw money. A big boat is a big hole.
It has to be maintained, generators must run, bilges must be pumped. Laundry, kitchens, telecoms. Its expensive.
A captain and crew must be onboard 24/7 in case of the emergency, storms, or whatever.
Since the developers are cooped up on board 24/7 you would be occasionally entertained, exercised as well. I can't see this being
a fun place to work. The possibility of abuse, is high, and who do you appeal to? How do you get paid?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
What you will get, however, is almost certainly diesel. They may put some of those other things on deck for show.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The US has had a "contiguous zone" extending from 12nm (nautical miles, not nanometers :-) to 24nm since 1999.
The US maintains customs, fiscal, immigration, sanitary laws and regulations out to 24nm, so a floating coding platform within that limit would be subject to not just immigration laws (so B1 visas would not be sufficient, since they do not leave US immigration jurisdiction at any point if they're only 12nm from land), but all tax and related laws as well.
The highly skilled people take jobs Americans want regardless of where in the world they are located. This can't be avoided and is called outsourcing.
I live in South America, and pretty much anyone I know here on the tech industry is taking jobs from American companies.
If America lets the highly skilled people in, at least their money will be spent inside the country, and this will end up generating more jobs in the long run.
Short answer: You need to read about the USS Cole bombing.
Slight longer answer: The ocean water is not calm. Any breach in a ship's hull will be detrimental to the vessel's ability to stay afloat. Your scenario using watertight compartments only serves as a method to delay the vessel's decent long enough for rescue crews to arrive. Depending on the weather conditions this may not be enough. Water filling the watertight compartment will cause the vessel to list towards the breach. This means that the deck is now more susceptible to waves breaking over the rail. Even if the opposite side could be ballasted to level the deck the resulting vessel depth would still make the vessel more susceptible to being swamped by the ocean's waves. This doesn't even take into account the stresses being placed on the vessel in rough seas with a breach and the metal fatigue that comes with the more affordable older vessels.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The navy spent years figuring out how to refuel and transfer high-value parts between two ships at sea. But they don't transfer large cargo containers, which these people would need to do in order to feed 600+ developers, staff and crew.
And then there's the garbage issue. You can't just dump garbage over the side any more. You need to package it up and bring it back to port when you return. Oh. Wait. These people can't dock the ship anywhere, because hardly anyone on board will have a visa. So they need to move a container full of trash across to the resupply ship, too.
This was a dumb idea in 2005, and it's still dumb today.
Don't bother talking to this one. He has like 50 puppet accounts and all he does is say stupid things and call people idiots. Please don't feed the trolls. The only thing you will get from him is utter nonsense and name calling.
"But this one goes to 11!"
If you enter on a tourist visa and do any business, you can and will be banned from entry for the next 5 years.
The real scam is that they'll be able to get Americans to sign up, and try to avoid having to give even the minimum benefits required by law ...
They want to be outside of US regulations, but still be within a couple hours travel time of San Fran.
Don't they already have that? I thought it was called Vancouver.
Yes, but we never had a globalised information economy before. I can see the argument that getting the best of the non-U.S. citizens in the same place, having them work intensively on startups, and having access to Silicon Valley investors and resources, would potentially work. Think of it as Y Combinator for people who can't get a visa. Their estimated low price point is $1200/person/month; at that price there are investors who would be willing to finance small startup teams in exchange for equity. Let's say total cost is $2k/person/month, that's $18k for 3 people for 3 months, which is equal to the average amount that Y Combinator invests in their "3 month move to California" development program. And for the top graduates from Africa, India, China etc. this would look like a good opportunity given the huge potential rewards at the end.
The real question here, is whether proximity to Silicon Valley offers any real advantage to startups anymore? This place will be competing against startup accelerators in India and elsewhere, so why would a top Indian graduate choose to use this accelerator rather than one based in India?
Yes, but here's the thing I don't get. Nearly the entire set of people who cannot get a B-2 visa (here for business) probably cannot get a B-1 visa either (same base requirements.) That set also includes nearly everyone from India/China/NotEurope who have problems getting any kind of visa. Thus, they'll get to the boat and be stuck there. The entire contention that a B1 visa is easy to get is also false as most of the world can easily be divided into two groups. Those who can easily get visas (and often don't need them in the first place as they are probably from countries who are part of the VWP) and those who cannot get a visa under practically any circumstance that doesn't involve corporate sponsorship or marriage/family.
In short, the very group who would be served by this en devour wouldn't likely be able to ever come ashore. That being the case, what the hell do they do when they have to bring the ship in for one thing or another? Toss everyone over the side or risk mass deportation?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
First of all, you don't just anchor a big ship 24 miles offshore in several thousand feet of water. You have to either keep the ship underway; essentially in a holding pattern... or you dynamically position the ship using thrusters and sea-floor beacons. Neither of these is cheap, requiring 24/7/365 licensed merchant marine officers on the bridge and in the engine room. And if the ship is dynamically positioned you need officers who are qualified to operate this equipment as well. Drill ships use these guys... and they are expensive and expect to work 28 days on and get 28 days off... with pay. So you'll need two crews.
Provisioning... getting food, fuel and other supplies out to the ship... is also not cheap and would probably require a "workboat" of the type drill rigs use. If nothing else, the insurance company (you *are* going to be insured, right?) will require this as a safety measure.
If you flag your ship offshore you cannot move it from one U.S. port to another... you have to touch at another - foreign - port in between. This is why cruise ships from Seattle to Alaska stop in British Columbia. Crew is cheaper but you incur a whole slew of other problems including convincing the USA that you can operate a foreign flag ship in the economic exclusion zone.
Cell phones do not work 24 nm at sea... or even 12 nm offshore... and satellite communication is remarkably expensive. And bandwidth is not all that great over the communications satellites. You can get bandwidth from other sources but the latency is terrible. At least it's cheaper.
Since I am a retired merchant marine officer (who also operated dynamic positioning equipment on several drill rigs) I can tell you that many people get very claustrophobic on a ship. Seven days on a cruise liner is no preparation for a couple of months on a converted whatever.
I'm sure there are other pitfalls but those are just the most obvious ones.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
In 2010, there were 298,187 B1 and B2 visas granted to Indian nationals, 508,968 to Chinese ones, 83k to Philippines etc., for a total of 3.68M B1/B2 visas - http://www.travel.state.gov/xls/FY10NIVDetailTable.xls
Since an individual needs a US visa to get to San Francisco in order to board the Blueseed vessel, they'll be able to come back on shore as long as they spend less than 180 days a year on the mainland.
In case of severe storm or other emergency, the ship can come to shore under force majeure and preserve its jurisdiction, which will be an open registry state like Malta or The Bahamas.