Nearly 150 Companies Show Interest in the Tech Love Boat

New submitter dandv writes with a story from VentureBeat about another entry in the race to escape national jurisdiction by offshoring work — literally offshoring, that is : "Blueseed is a Silicon Valley company that plans on launching a cruise ship 30 minutes from the coast of California, housing startup entrepreneurs from around the world. These startuppers won't need to bother with U.S. visas, because the ship will be in international waters. They'll have to pay tax to whatever country they're incorporated in, though. So far, 146 startups said they'd like to come to the ship."

Comments

I fail to see the point

[msobkow]

You can remotely access and program pretty much any system you'd ever work on in an offshoring relationshing. Your physical location has little or nothing to do with the ability to provide the contracted services.

While there is demand for at least some of the offshore service provider's staff to be working on-site with the customer companies, you wouldn't be able to do that with this ship. You still wouldn't have a visa, so you still wouldn't be allowed to "land" from the ship for such meetings.

In order to be in international waters, the ship would be what, 200 miles out from shore? That's a pretty long ride for any landbound customers to take in order to come meet with you on the ship. Customers don't tend to meet at provider sites; they expect the provider to come to them.

That being the case, what is the actual purpose served by working on this ship?

Or is this like the old Sealand failure? A great idea in concept that has no practical purpose and few real backers?

Re:I fail to see the point

[SuricouRaven]

According to wikipedia, they found a loophole: The temporary, easily-obtained B-visa.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading

Re:I fail to see the point

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It seems particularly odd when one considers the fact that you don't need to spend months on a boat 200 miles off California to enjoy the privilege of booking a slightly-eyebrow-raising percentage of your profits through an anodyne corporate PO box in some sunny tax haven. You can do that from the comfort of your own home.

Is there a large market of non-US-citizens who can't secure visas(or who find longterm shipboard stays more comfortable than flying out for a meeting?) but desperately crave physical proximity to silicon valley, possibly along with an internet connection to it that is far suckier than a hardline from virtually anywhere in the not-actively-fighting-a-brutal-meatgrinder-bush-war world?

I understand the appeal of tax dodges; but I don't understand what this boat concept brings to the game.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

That being the case, what is the actual purpose served by working on this ship?

You get to watch the monkey knife fights in person!

Re:I fail to see the point

[vlm]

In order to be in international waters, the ship would be what, 200 miles out from shore?

I've looked into cruising and the myriad of laws. First of all you just described the EEZ limit which controls "traditional money making activities and environmental laws" but expressly does not include loitering. So its a fuzzy zone. The coast guard can order you to not discharge your blackwater tanks, cannot tell you not to just sit/anchor there, can tell you not to fish there, and running an office is somewhat vague.

The contiguous zone is 24 miles and you must follow customs laws presumably including visas. This is a recent "American Empire" turn of the century thing and the whole world used to (still does?) respect only 12 miles. In the REALLY olden days before the previous turn of the century it was defined as a cannon shots length, or so I'm told, like a mile or two.

This is very important to cruisers... more than 200 miles away you can technically tell all authorities other than your flag nation to F-off, but you need to stay at least 24 miles away or else have to go thru customs, and in that range from 24 to 200 miles you sorta have to listen to them. Customs is not necessarily the end of the world, but its nice to not even have to think about it. For example, say you were sailing from California to Alaska, it would be extremely advisable to stay at least 24 miles away from the Canadian shore.

Disclaimer, I've done hundreds of hours of sailing on little craft, mostly inland, but never across an ocean.

30 miles in a 150 knot helicopter for the VCs to visit you is what, 12 minutes of flight? I'm not seeing this as a serious issue. Also I can see a pleasure cruise on a well appointed yacht when making visits rather than flying, if they're in the mood for some fun.

Re:I fail to see the point

[h4rr4r]

How does that loophole protect them from my pirate ship?

Or the tenants from the captain/landlord?

Re:I fail to see the point

[MightyYar]

In order to be in international waters, the ship would be what, 200 miles out from shore?

They said 30 minutes, so they are probably talking about the 12 nautical mile territorial boundary. A cruise ship can probably do 24 knots if it really is going all-out, so while this is a bit of a stretch it is technically correct.

Re:I fail to see the point

[91degrees]

Pirates are seen as a problem by most governments. More so than people skirting tax laws. I suppose the US government would grudgingly deal with your band of scurvy pirates. At least there's a great enough risk that they would as to make it an adequate deterrent.

Does seems a little reprehensible that they'd be taking advantage of US protection and services while paying taxes in some tax haven though.

Re:I fail to see the point

[h4rr4r]

That does not deal with the latter problem.
The minute the captain wants some extra revenue you can pay, or pay the new $10k leaving the boat by other route than the plank fee.

I would hope the US government would at least send them a bill to deal with pirates. If they don't pay just sieze their property.

Re:I fail to see the point

[gumpish]

This is a recent "American Empire" turn of the century thing and the whole world used to (still does?) respect only 12 miles. In the REALLY olden days before the previous turn of the century it was defined as a cannon shots length, or so I'm told, like a mile or two.

Why not use ordinals to fully disambiguate "turn of the century"?

Re:I fail to see the point

[jythie]

Well, their plan is they will not be in international waters so the commute is pretty short. Instead they will fly the flag of some minor country and anchor within US waters, which is a legal grey area that in theory should leave them outside US/CA regulation/taxation yet still be able to commute in for meetings.

But as others have pointed out it has many of the same problems as Sealand did. It is a nice concept in theory and in fiction, but in reality such plans have significant issues and, for their customers, end up with the same basic issues that basing out of a major country has with the added problem of not having a robust legal system. If nothing else, one of their big claims is that they avoid the 'immigration' problem.. by implementing their own immigration system. So you still have to go through an immigration process, just an easier to bribe one.

I am skeptical that many of these startups are expressing real 'I would pay' interest or have really thought about the full legal ramifications of such a setup. Blueseed really seems to be more of a scam to get investor money then anything else.

Re:I fail to see the point

[jythie]

They would be within US waters, so the Coast Guard would still protect them from pirates. The landlord/tenant problem is a big one though since they would need their own police and court system... and we have all seen how well private courts work.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

30 miles in a 150 knot helicopter for the VCs to visit you is what, 12 minutes of flight?

Considering that the bulk of the reason for the venture is the perception that one could 'save money' by hiring cheap workers, it seems to me that helicopter flights every few hours might get expensive. Sure they take oil workers out to the rigs on them, but those people get paid well and there is generally 'full load' of workers going out for months, not a pair of programmers on a day trip for a 'face to face' for a client who traveled to LA.

Re:I fail to see the point

[jythie]

Realisticly it doesn't actually bring much, but it draws on a rather heavy Ayn Rand mythology that they are hoping to capitalize on. The theory is supposed to be that if you take away all those pesky regulations then 'real entrepreneurs '.. some kind of the 'the best rise in power when not being kept down by other people in power, except each other since that is dog eat dog, but because people who already have power are bad we need to stop them, but not new power which should be unchecked'. So beyond just taxes and visas they can suspend things like workers rights, wages, etc... so all those pesky things like stopping child labor, taking sexual advantage of your subordinates, firing injured people, making them work 140 hour weeks but still in debt to the company store, all those things are perfectly legal again... and part of the mythology is whitewashing how badly those went the first time around.

Oh, and of course the ship will probably have its own company store.. so everyone there will have to pay whatever prices the Blueseed charges for things like food, power, internet access, etc.

Which is why sane companies will probably stay away, but gullible startups who have read more fiction then done research might find the place appealing.

Re:I fail to see the point

[h4rr4r]

So they get the protection of these Oppressors(government provided defense forces) that our taxes pay for without them paying a dime?

How typical.

Re:I fail to see the point

[91degrees]

No, I agree there. Ultimately you're replacing one government with another. I think you;re end up with something approximating a plutocracy (i.e. money rules), which appeals to a certain type that sees itself as capable of making a lot of money.

Re:I fail to see the point

[jythie]

Yep. That is the idea. Reap the benefits they want directly want, get the advantages of benefits that effect them indirectly (like the education system), but not have to pay for any of it and claim with a strait face that they are dong the capitalist thing of paying only for services they use.

Re:I fail to see the point

[TheMathemagician]

I must have missed the "great concept" part of Sealand. This project has a clear practical purpose: create a working environment for people of multiple nationalities in one physical space, while avoiding red-tape about visas and work permits. Of course you can question the utility of such a space, or the practicalities of it, but their objective seems pretty clear.

Re:I fail to see the point

[crazyjj]

That's one of the problems with libertarian dreamers. They crave a dog-eat-dog world, but they all think THEY'RE going to be one of the top dogs. They watch Firefly and think they're going to be Malcolm Reynolds. It never occurs to them that the vast, vast, vast majority of citizens in a truly libertarian system would basically be dirt-poor slaves to a handful of top dogs, and the odds of you being one of those top dogs (unless you're *already* very wealthy and powerful) is slim to none.

Re:I fail to see the point

[jythie]

*nods* it dovetails into the idea that somehow the people who do have power do not deserve it or got it illegitimately. Though it also depends heavily on the idea that states and companies are fundamentally different and that unless one has a police force then they can not exert control of other people's lives... thus they do not see the power of non-government entities as 'real'... thus anyone who is a 'dirty poor slave' is simply lazy or immoral since nothing is stopping them from being rich.

Re:I fail to see the point

[DerekLyons]

This is very important to cruisers... more than 200 miles away you can technically tell all authorities other than your flag nation to F-off

This is mostly true, and can bite them in the butt.
 
If they intend to operate out of US ports, and provide anything that even looks remotely like passenger service (I.E. hosting staff for their clients) then they can't exit and re-enter the United States without visiting a "distant foreign port". Back in the day when there was tons of coastwise passenger transport, this protected US firms from foreign competition. Today it mostly means that Alaska cruises have to port at Victoria and Maratimes/East Coast cruises usually in Halifax. For Blueseed this is going to mean visiting Mexico between port visits to the US. (And they *will* either have to visit the US or sail across the Pacific Ocean for servicing - a ship can't stay at sea forever.)
 
Also, pretty much every nation subscribes to SOLAS and even the flag-of-convenience nations have safety requirements. Not to mention, that if they ever port, they'll be subject to safety inspections by the Coast Guard of the nation they're porting in. These are non-trivial to comply with and are deadly serious - the can be at a minimum refused entry, or at worst impounded for failing to comply. On top of these inspections, if they hope to carry insurance, the ship will have to regularly be inspected and certified on a regular basis by a legitimate classification society...
 
These "tech Love Boat" companies all sound to me to have based their plans on urban legends about how the law of the sea and related conventions work, and not on any real world legal and business research.

Re:I fail to see the point

[jythie]

My 'point' is that these experiments have been run on land, I grew up in an area that had them. They produced a lot of wealth but were horrible for most people, most did not 'live freely' because the company ends up essentially owning you since without government intervention you end up with a massive power imbalance.. companies essentially end up behaving like states. Part of the point of learning history is to not repeat it. We see this setups every few decades after memories of previous attempts have faded and the allure of 'unregulated capitalism' calls another generation.

Regardless, I would be very surprised if they actually set up the ship. BlueSeed has been around a while now, and I suspect they are more scam then venture.

As for my 'bullshit'.. child labor required a great deal of outrage to cut down on. It was cheap and thus benefited companies immediately at the cost of long term economic health of a region. Classis game theory actually. The work hours is already a problem in less regulated industries in other countries, most of the 1st world has fairly strict rules about what you can demand of employees without additional compensation. Sex with subordinates.. that is the power imbalance problem. People shouldn't have to choose between their career and a hostile environment, but it happens enough that it is illegal now... and it generaly isn't a case of 'sex with nasty boss or go to another well paying job',.. it is 'sex with nasty boss or loose your job without references and probably be on the street'. Again in less regulated countries it is a significant problem and investors really don't care.. investors rarely care if the employees are miserable or not or if they even have a future after going through the grinder... and injured people... it was not until labor laws that companies had any responsibility to employees who were injured doing their job. Take that away and you can have crappy safty conditions and just replace anyone who roles the dice badly.

The question then becomes, why would people work for such companies? Well, because those companies have the jobs. The job market does not have an unlimited selection of good and bad companies, usually there are few jobs to choose between and unscrupulous companies know how to use this imbalance to their advantage, putting people into bad situations because their options are limited.

Re:I fail to see the point

[ColdWetDog]

Malcolm Reynolds was a top dog?

In that thing he was flying around in? The one with recycled junkyard control boxes?

You're just looking at the women and projecting.

Re:I fail to see the point

[s73v3r]

You can remotely access and program pretty much any system you'd ever work on in an offshoring relationshing. Your physical location has little or nothing to do with the ability to provide the contracted services.

Yes, but physical location does have a good amount to do with your ability to meet with investors. And there are still some customers who don't like the idea of someone all the way around the world providing their services.

Re:I fail to see the point

[s73v3r]

Given the choice of two jobs, one where you must sleep with ugly superiors and one where you can tell them to fuck off, people will generally prefer the non-prostitution job.

Why yes, they probably would. Doesn't mean they'd actually have much choice in the matter, however. You're going to reply with some bullshit about quitting, and then I'm going to remind you that the subordinate in question needs the job in order to keep a roof over their head, and to feed their family. And that jobs are quite scarce.

You are honestly forgetting the entirety of why the labor movement started. Do you honestly think that if it was so easy as to just "quit and find a new job", that the labor movement would still have gone on?

Re:I fail to see the point

[s73v3r]

Regardless, why is it that statists like yourself and others (". May real pirates raid this libertarian haven; ") have such a dick in your mouth over other people living freely?

Because history has shown us that, unless you're on top, most people are NOT going to be "living freely". Why the fuck are you people so against learning from history?

Re:I fail to see the point

[ironjaw33]

If they intend to operate out of US ports, and provide anything that even looks remotely like passenger service (I.E. hosting staff for their clients) then they can't exit and re-enter the United States without visiting a "distant foreign port". Back in the day when there was tons of coastwise passenger transport, this protected US firms from foreign competition. Today it mostly means that Alaska cruises have to port at Victoria and Maratimes/East Coast cruises usually in Halifax. For Blueseed this is going to mean visiting Mexico between port visits to the US. (And they *will* either have to visit the US or sail across the Pacific Ocean for servicing - a ship can't stay at sea forever.

I believe you are talking about cabotage. Most of my understanding of this concept comes from how it applies within the airline industry, but I'm not sure exactly how this would work with the Blueseed concept. If the vessel were registered in the US, then this might sidestep the issue. However, I'm betting the customs and immigration authorities would then require all "passengers" on the ship to obtain US visas since they would be considered to be traveling between two points within the US.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of this is liberatarian? They're specifically trying to avoid some government regulations (although it's not clear to me why there is any advantage in doing so via this scheme). They're definitely not forming anything like a real liberatarian system here.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Your physical location has little or nothing to do with the ability to provide the contracted services.

It has a lot to do with back-room deals between corporations that would otherwise be illegal.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Qzukk]

child labor stopped - answer: we stopped needing them to work to avoid starvation and grownups are generally more productive (productivity which leads to excess, excess which allows for the leisure to learn)

And yet at least one Republican candidate publicly challenges child labor laws and proposes that kids get put to work to replace the adult janitors on the (government) payroll.

X0 hour work weeks - this is debatable but things were trending in a given direction but given the nature of this offshore venture, it may be like an oil rig or crab boat or whathaveyou - lots of hours during work followed by lots of vacation time. In general, "X0 hours per week" we'll be at a sustainable level or the venture will suffer

This being Silicon Valley where "crunch time" and X0 (for X>7) work weeks are quite common, the most likely outcome is honestly not enslavement or floggings or anything ridiculous like that, the most likely outcome will be Indians brought in to work 70-80 hour weeks until the project is done and then sent home and a new set of Indians brought in to work more 80 hour weeks.

sex with subordinates - you're weird. Given the choice of two jobs, one where you must sleep with ugly superiors and one where you can tell them to fuck off, people will generally prefer the non-prostitution job.

First, see my answer above. Then, realize that nobody is retarded enough to tell people that they're going to be hired as sex toys to keep a boatfull of men happy. Sex slave trafficking generally begins with an offer of a real job. It's not until after the woman is illegally in a country where she doesn't speak the language that she's told her employment contract has been unilaterally changed.

firing injured people. Their are three ways this can be dealt with. The employee can buy private insurance. The employer can buy private insurance. Or the government can mandate this insurance.

Or (more likely) be returned to their home country. I doubt that they're going to be doing any significantly risky manual labor. The most likely problem would be the entire ship coming down with Listeria or some other typical cruise-crud.

Re:I fail to see the point

[X0563511]

Why the fuck are you people so against learning from history?

Because they are Better and won't make any mistakes.

(that was sarcasm, by the way)

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you confusing libertarian with a different political association? Liberty vs no corporate controls.. I think you are calling out the wrong group of people

Re:I fail to see the point

[Ed_Pinkley]

firing injured people

"Did it anyway. Ramps are expensive."

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is a large pool of people who can't obtain US work visas but who have 10-year tourist visas. For them being able to meet people in silicon valley and then go back and code for a couple days makes perfect sense (and if you popped open your laptop while in the US, no one will notice)

Even american companies might be interested in some cases, even if you have to pay taxes in the US and income taxes and everything (After a few years you stop being exempt from US income taxes and you have to pay for your US earnings even if living abroad, unless your government has a tax treaty with the USA, and then you usually pay only any excess tax, if you have to pay more in the US than at home)

For example:
- Your worker's work visa just expired and it'll take some time to renew it
- You have a new startup, know some great people in your country of origin but can't secure H-1B visas for them this year. Bring people early and work on things. Once you get it going either do the paperwork or go home with the whole thing.
- You have a "great idea" and want to pitch it and work on it with silicon valley people without paying for large airfare every week (Notice that in their survey many startup owners thought it was important not to have to get visa for themselves)
- During release or crunch time it might be easier to have people in the same time zone (though mexico or any south american country might be cheaper)

Even if you or your team only stays on the ship a couple weeks it might be useful.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic that you would mention 'Ayn Rand methology' while speaking of 'dog eat dog', which doesn't even happen in nature, but only under brutal artificial and coercive conditions. The nature of peaceful cooperation and voluntary exchange is and has been to make even the least capable(in the darwinian dog eat dog sense) viable. Rather than starve in a ditch somewhere, the 'mythology' of non violence has made literally millions(in just the west, the significant liberalization of both China and India are about to make that number billions) of lives safe from scarcity.

Those things you mention like 'workers rights' and 'stopping child labor' have all the historical evidence showing that a peaceful environment where self ownership is generally acknowledged is the means by which we achieve them. In those places where these goals were achieved, historical evidence shows those things being slowly gained by capital saving and investment in tools and infrastructure that multiplied mans labor. Thus, child labor became less required to sustain the family and working conditions rose. The populist myth that unions(the violent kind, this doesn't apply to peaceful collective bargaining) and legislation were responsible for these improvements is false in two ways: first, this claim ignores historical facts that unions and legislation came later in those places where improvement had occurred; child labor had already plummeted and work hours and wages and working conditions had already started improving prior to the involvement from coercive institutions. Second, in those places where capital investment had yet to occur, but the ideas of unionization and legislation were copied from the west(several parts of Asia and much of South America demonstrate this particularly well), the only thing that was achieved was decreased productivity and worsening standards of living.

So, if you wish to speak of mythology, perhaps start with truth rather than your own myths. Here are some citations for my historical claims above: http://mises.org/humanaction/chap29sec2.asp

I think the root of your misunderstanding is in what organizing methods promote better conditions. In absence of central monopoly of violence, you imagine a void in power where others will simply take over. You imagine an entrepreneur offering is the same as a politician forcing. This is a severe conflation of definitions.

Re:I fail to see the point

[h4rr4r]

Heck, down the page we have a nutter suggesting that richer people be allowed to get more votes. This is the sort of sickness we are dealing with here.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Alan R Light]

The exclusive economic zone is 200 miles, but International Waters is only 12 miles out.

The residents can get a business visa to come onshore for business meetings, they just can't perform any actual work in the United States.

It's true that the residents must abide by the whims of the owners, but the owners in this case are businessmen who want to create a good space for business in order to stay in business. That's a lot different from relying on the goodwill of a single eccentric individual.

Re:I fail to see the point

[roman_mir]

You know, the real disadvantages of having the oppressive, income taxing government are much greater than the perceived advantage of having an 'educated' population. The so called education system is in a huge bubble in USA, people are getting gov't guaranteed loans - basically free money, because whatever they don't pay out in 15 years is forgiven, and the maximum amount anybody is going to have to pay monthly is only on top of 2 minimum poverty levels, and then it's only a 10% of that so called 'discretionary spending' , so the poverty level counts at 16,000USD/individual or 33,500 for a family of 4, 2 of these is is 32000 for individual, so if you make 50000, then you have to pay a maximum of 10% from the 18000 a year, or 1800 a year, or 150 a month, and this goes on for maximum of 15 or 20 years, so anything you owe beyond that is forgiven, it's a massive bailout/stimulus/incentive to spend huge globs of 'free' money.

So everybody should go back to college, and they should go to a college that provides the students with everything. Why not buy everybody an expensive car as part of 'education' process? Why not a house and all the furniture, a bunch of expensive clothing, whatever?

A college has all the incentives to waste money, the student has all the incentives to waste money, the colleges and students need to collude under this system and just buy globs of stuff and put it on the gov't backed education loans system. Of-course there is already a huge bubble in education loans, over a trillion USD of debt too.

All this so that anybody can go to college to major in Arts - sociology, why not? A language or literature or whatever passes for 'economics'.

So AFAIC costs of this system far outweigh the benefits, in fact there can be no benefits once gov't gets involved in anything beyond its direct mandate - border protection being one of those, but not healthcare, not education, not housing, not banking, not money, not debt, not insurance, not regulating businesses, not taxing income, not telling people how to live their lives, what to smoke and who to fuck.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Alan R Light]

This isn't about cheap workers. Housing alone will run about $1600 per worker per month (at the low end). This about having the right workers in the right place at the right time.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Please provide a citation for any and all pirate activity occuring off the Barbary Coast in the last 100 years. Don't hurry. We'll be waiting right here on our boat.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Alan R Light]

One of the founders is a specialist in international law.

Re:I fail to see the point

[DerekLyons]

And? That doesn't make him a specialist in maritime or admiralty law.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is a rather substantial market for non-US citizens who cannot secure visas, and for those who simply get tired of waiting years and years to obtain them. Doesn't the headline of the article tell you that? Or did you just not bother to read TFA? BlueSeed was founded by such four such immigrants and the CEO's parents were Cuban refugees who managed to overcome all of those obstacles to obtain U.S. citizenship, and these folks decided from their own experience that there just had to be a better way to do it. They came up with a brilliant strategy to launch a Silicon Valley startup incubator off the western coast of California as a way spare other innovative entrepreneurs from having to endure those kind of hassles.

On top of the out-of-the-box concept of the offshore office, they are also pioneering some radically new internet connectivity technology to make sure their net connection won't be so sucky. You have to bear in mind that a lot of the entrepreneurs who are applying for space on BlueSeed are from rural Africa, Asia and the middle east where high-speed broadband internet connections are rare and expensive. These are people who grew up on dial-up connections in countries where electricity is only available for 8-12 hours a day. Even with less than gigabit/second internet connection speeds, what they will have on BlueSeed will very likely be much better than the network infrasctucture available in their native countries.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly did project when Morena Baccarin was on screen.

Re:I fail to see the point

[triffid_98]

Housing alone will run about $1600 per worker per month (at the low end). This about having the right workers in the right place at the right time.

References? Diesel oil, water filters, rice and curry powder can't cost that much, even if you do have to ship them in. Remember that this isn't Royal Caribbean, there's no ice sculpting classes or world famous gourmet chefs.

That said, non-startups have flexible options bringing in the right workers whenever they need them now, all you need are L-1 visas, which are trivial to get.

Now that doesn't mean that this can't make money, especially when you indenture people to pay for the trip out there and the only place they can buy from is the company store. The question is how many IIT graduates can they get saused up on cheap rum and shanghai.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Blueseed is looking to anchor in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary which extends well beyond 12 miles. I expect there's a bit more involved if they want to be there.
http://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/maps/mbnms1_lg.jpg

Re:I fail to see the point

[Alex Belits]

the 'mythology' of non violence has made literally millions(in just the west, the significant liberalization of both China and India are about to make that number billions) of lives safe from scarcity.

That's great! Now can you and other great Libertarian thinkers postpone your campaigns until China adopts your idea and proves them to be valid once and for all?

Re:I fail to see the point

[Alex Belits]

And there are still some customers who don't like the idea of someone all the way around the world providing their services.

You also need those customers to have no problems with the idea of their services being provided off the slave ship.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Alex Belits]

The residents can get a business visa to come onshore for business meetings, they just can't perform any actual work in the United States.

Despite what it often looks like, business meetings are work.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Eli Gottlieb]

Did any of them ever notice just how damn badly-off Malcolm Reynolds actually was? Broken-down ship, real food to eat was a rare treat, rarely even getting paid while still having to exist outside the law just to work, someone was always trying to kill them... The viewer was supposed to take heed of just how much Captain Reynolds gave up in life to live outside the reach of government.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least we'll all have plenty of mudders milk to drink!

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly think that if it was so easy as to just "quit and find a new job", that the labor movement would still have gone on?

He probably figures that the labor movement thought getting their wives and children shot up and set on fire by the company militia was easier than getting a new job somewhere better.

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to be in international waters, the ship would be what, 200 miles out from shore? That's a pretty long ride for any landbound customers to take in order to come meet with you on the ship.

WRONG. RTFA, dickwad:

the ship will be located 12 miles outside California in international waters

Re:I fail to see the point

[jrumney]

The residents can get a business visa to come onshore for business meetings

From what embassy? If they get enough notice of the meeting, I guess they can send an application by snail mail, but it doesn't sound practical to me.

Re:I fail to see the point

[jythie]

Yeah, but he had 4 sexy women on his ship and under his authority, and I think a lot of people can't see much past that part of the ideal ^_^

Re:I fail to see the point

[Anonymous Coward]

affect*

Insurance ?

[Anonymous Coward]

How much would be the insurance cost of such a thing ?

I'm Andrew Ryan...

[virgnarus]

... and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.'

'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.'

'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

Rapture.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Incidentally, while a good setting for a shooter, an underwater city seems like the least libertarian-friendly habitat one could imagine, at least within earth's gravity well:

Centralized access control, collective dependence on immediately life-critical infrastructure...

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[h4rr4r]

Nice reference, great game, but here in reality the man did not toil alone. He was not able to produce without the poor being kept away from his warehouse at night, he was not able to risk only his investment by nature but by laws governing incorporation, nor was he able to get it to market without roads. I love how those who have never done a day of physical labor like to talk about sweat, blood and tears though.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[h4rr4r]

Name one place without "collective dependence on immediately life-critical infrastructure". Unless you are your own doctor, road builder, mechanic, own your own fields to grow food, have a well for water, and a lab to produce medicines that is the reality of modern life.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[camperdave]

Designing an underwater city collectively dependant on a centralized, life-critical infrastructure is completely stupid. You would need to have multiple independent systems in case of failure.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidentally, while a good setting for a shooter, an underwater city seems like the least libertarian-friendly habitat one could imagine, at least within earth's gravity well: Centralized access control, collective dependence on immediately life-critical infrastructure...

Seems to me like that would be a strong incentive for everyone onboard not to fuck up the infrastructure. TANSTAAFL as a guiding principle worked pretty well in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Or not. Since Boom started quite a few young cobbers have gone out to Asteroids. Hear about some nice places out there, not too crowded. My word, I'm not even a hundred yet.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[rubycodez]

the poor have to right to be in his warehouse at any time. your need does not constitute reason for my giving,

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Certainly; but there is a bit of a timing difference between 'estimated months spent in cabin in the sticks before emergency medical care is required' and 'hours to live once your submarine's pressure hull springs a leak'...

My point was not that other areas are infrastructureless; but that undersea habitats are among the most infrastructure-intensive environments on earth, even if you are willing to forgo basically all conveniences except safety from immediate death.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[Anonymous Coward]

nor was he able to get it to market without roads

Many, if not most, economists agree that free markets, when they work, provide higher quality goods and services at lower prices than the state can and that the state should only do what the free market can't do at all, such as in cases where nonpayers can't be excluded. Unfortunately, a road is a terrible example of a public good. It's very rivalrous, as people sitting in a traffic jam know all to well, and it's also trivial to exclude nonpayers, they are called "toll roads". At the very most, the state should protect individuals from attack and enforce property rights. That would mean police, courts and a military, only to be used for immediate self-defense, nothing more.

I love how those who have never done a day of physical labor like to talk about sweat, blood and tears though.

argumentum ad hominem

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[Thud457]

an underwater city seems like the least libertarian-friendly habitat one could imagine, at least within earth's gravity well:

Centralized access control, collective dependence on immediately life-critical infrastructure...

oh, I get it now, Bioshock was a savage satire of libertarian moonbattery.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[h4rr4r]

So then were will we get all this land to build toll roads?
Often those are regular roads that a toll company gets for a bribe, then fails to maintain, then folds and hands it back to the state. At the very least the state should do those things that it only can. It must also provide for the general welfare.

To point out lack of experience is ad hominem? Since when?

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[s73v3r]

Well, just about anywhere else on dry land has orders of magnitude less collective dependencies on such things than a huge fucking dome with something like 7 miles worth of ocean on top of it.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[s73v3r]

Yes, but every citizen of that underwater city would be collectively dependent on those multiple systems. It's not like you're going to have competing firms offering breathable air.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[s73v3r]

Many, if not most, economists agree that free markets, when they work, provide higher quality goods and services at lower prices than the state can

Except 1). There are many differing definitions of "working" for free markets, and 2). Economists have very little evidence showing this is true.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[Asic Eng]

Are you really missing the point? Having run an enterprise in the US he has benefited from there being a police force available which keeps order. Among other things that has protected his warehouse.

That's why he didn't locate his warehouse in Somalia.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, that was pretty much the point, wasn't it?

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[roman_mir]

I am pretty sure you are a government shill, an astroturfer, given that you've replied to so nearly all of my comments here, I hope they are paying you something above the minimum wage, maybe it's GSA money.

Re:I'm Andrew Ryan...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, anywhere Amish for one.

As its international waters

[Anonymous Coward]

they better have a military ready, iam sure there would be a big return on capturing 146 companies on a ship and hold them hostage

now taking bookings !

Re:As its international waters

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be more concerned about tsunamis myself in a boat parked pretty much directly above the San Andreas faultline.

Re:As its international waters

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

they better have a military ready, iam sure there would be a big return on capturing 146 companies on a ship and hold them hostage

now taking bookings !

I bet the Somali pirates would do it for at least 30% less than you would. I'm just going to subcontract the hijacking to them.

Re:As its international waters

[shadowrat]

You are assuming these companies will have some value to someone.

Re:As its international waters

[DeathToBill]

Tsunami's not an issue except on the shore - it's pretty rare for a tsunami wave to exceed 1ft on the open sea, but that translates into tens of feet when it reaches the shore.

Re:As its international waters

[MacGyver2210]

If they have no value, they're not doing too well as companies then, eh?

Re:As its international waters

[s73v3r]

Given that it's Silicon Valley startups, I'm sure their computer equipment would be worth some fat coin.

Re:As its international waters

[shadowrat]

Yes. That is my prediction.

Re:As its international waters

[X0563511]

It would be amusing to see Somali pirates trying to pass the Panama Canal or the Horn of Africa in their little boats :)

Re:As its international waters

[HornWumpus]

Geography was your worst subject? Still a long fucking way, Indian ocean then pacific. Somali pirates might get a surprise from the Indonesian navy and coast guard (who are also pirates).

Re:As its international waters

[X0563511]

Wow, you're right. I have no idea why I thought they were on the pacific side.

Even still, it would be amusing to see them try to make it that far.

Re:As its international waters

[X0563511]

Gah! I'm a retard! I meant Atlantic. Hurr.

satellite broadband will suck for some thing like

[Joe_Dragon]

satellite broadband will suck for some thing like this. Maybe fixed wifi / RF but even then that is still not as fast.

The US should provide no protection

[bstarrfield]

None. The "Tech Love Boat" exists solely as a tax and immigration dodge, and its founders are proud of it. May real pirates raid this libertarian haven; may real storms smash its bow. Let me hazard a guess that they'll incorporate in Antigua, and pay no taxes, and that they'll import slave labor from India to work in the bowels of the ship.

Blueseed wants the benefits of proximity with Silicon Valley, and none of the costs. Why should we give a damn about them?

I'd also like to know who these "entrepreneurs" are. Let them live in their cabins and bar them from the shore. They don't want to pay for civilization, due to their brilliant and stunning gifts. They choose to leave civilization to live in their Brave New Race to the Bottom, _stay there_.

When a crime occurs on the "Love Boat", who will settle that crime? Blueseed? So they'll be a government, too. Hmm, maybe an invasion sounds good..

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Elfich47]

It will be interesting to see what the ship will do when it has to dock for maintenance. Or are we going to end up with "The Raft" from Snow Crash?

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a really good response.

If you're a nationalist.

Seriously, it's not a tax dodge, though it is an immigration dodge. It's about startups being able to engage with the tech centre of the world without arbitrary red tape blocking them from doing it on the US mainland.

I don't even understand how you can complain about both immigration and tax avoidance in the same post. If they were allowed to immigrate they would be able to pay tax, if they were allowed to pay tax they'd be able to immigrate. You can't bitch and moan about the two in one sentence, the fact they can't immigrate means they can't pay tax. Whining that people for not paying tax in your country whilst simultaneously implying you don't want them in your country is one of the most laughably irrational arguments I've heard on Slashdot in a while, and in recent months the standard hasn't exactly been particularly high.

The fact that your country is horrendously paranoid, and massively afraid of immigration despite having a relatively tiny population density is why these sorts of far fetched schemes arise in the first place. Of course, none of that would be so bad if it weren't for the fact that your entire nation is built off the back of relatively recent mass immigration.

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Yvanhoe]

That was actually my first question : what defensive weapons did they take on-board ? Alternatively, they may negotiate with USA to get protection in exchange of concessions.

There was a thing similar to this that existed once near Italian coasts. It survived for a few years before it was recognized as a mafia operation (I don't know if it started as one, if the mafia took control over it or if it was just an excuse) but the Italian's police (not army) took control of the platform.

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice ship you got there Blueseed, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it.

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not wrong, Andrew Carnegie or John Rockefeller would be so proud of this idea.
If you think that the Corporate world would treat you even as a human being on this ship you are dreaming.

You guys have to realize that anyone advocating this idea has a stake in this slave ship. There is no upside, even shareholders would not have a recourse to criminal activity. Once you boarded the only escape would be to swim.

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably thinking of the Republic of Rose Island.

There was also this illegal gambling operation off the coast of California. That didn't end well. In fact, practically all these libertarian paradise offshore independent micronations haven't ended well. Either they never really became self-sufficient, the people who ran them turned out to be more dictator-like than anyone wanted to deal with, or they were only intended as a joke in the first place. Evidently starting your own micronation ("with blackjack, and hookers") isn't so easy.

There's this interesting historical anomaly in what is now New Hampshire, but that was more of a leftover from unresolved disputes than something newly established.

Re:The US should provide no protection

[MacGyver2210]

Or are we going to end up with "The Raft" from Snow Crash?

Oh boy, I hope so. I think Stephenson's is my favorite future-dystopian society.

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Other questions:

Is it possible to service all key systems while at sea? Possible to refuel? Would the ship need to be dry-docked periodically for maintenance - if so, how would local laws affect it?

What about local law enforcement - will they have their own security force? What about traditional piracy? How would the sea air affect the equipment? How stable would power generation be? Would the ship's motion affect the equipment? and so on.

Re:The US should provide no protection

[kiwimate]

That may be what the founders are looking at, but have a look at those 146 companies (23% of which are American) and what they say is important when considering a move to Blueseed.

The work visa question is "not important for myself or other company founders" for nearly 22% (but "critical" or "very important" for 44%). For "US work visas for my employees", it's not important for over a quarter of them.

What's more important? "Proximity to Silicon Valley's investors" - very important/critical for a whopping 70% of them. How's that going to work with the transfer of large sums of money, if they're playing loose with the legal bits? (Answer: badly, I should imagine.)

Finally, the real reason they want to do this. "Living and working in an awesome startup- and technology-oriented space" - very important or critical to 87% of them. Those who said this factor was not important? Zero point zero percent.

With figures and priorities like that, I'm not sure who's sillier; the Blueseed founders, or the people who think they're going to move there and make a fortune while doing whatever it is one does in an awesome startup- and technology-oriented space (methinks they have visions of Star Trek holodecks).

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Goaway]

("with blackjack, and hookers")

You win the price for the first actually funny application of this line.

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Anonymous Coward]

BlueSeed is not asking for any U.S. "protection." They won't need it. Pirates are a straw man argument, since modern-day pirates don't operate in the Pacific (only off the horn or Africa and the Indian Ocean). You don't have to give a damn about them. BlueSeed is not being built for YOU. If you'd bothered to read the article, you would know that the start-ups who are submitting applications to base their operations on BlueSeed are from all over the world. I doubt you've travelled more than 100 miles beyond your parents' basement in the last decade.

Re:The US should provide no protection

[Eli Gottlieb]

Oh, the "tech center of the world"? You mean where Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and GroupOn are getting made?

Re:The US should provide no protection

[jrumney]

It's about startups being able to engage with the tech centre of the world without arbitrary red tape blocking them from doing it on the US mainland.

What arbitrary red tape? There isn't going to be a US Embassy on this ship to issue visas, so it will only make sense for entrepreneurs who qualify for a WB visa waiver anyway.

I predict another Sealand

[DeathToBill]

The advantage of these ventures is that they're outside national jurisdiction. The problem with these ventures is that they're outside national jurisdiction - and for almost every company out there, they benefit from the protection of a country's laws more than they suffer from them.

Sealand failed because anyone who hosted data there was wide open to the whim of Roy Bates - and if you didn't like his whim, you had no recourse. This will be no different.

A good article on Sealand: http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/28/2909303/sealand-havenco-doomed-data-haven-history

Re:I predict another Sealand

[alphatel]

Would the correct term now be "offshore offshore" ?

Re:I predict another Sealand

[ahoffer0]

There is wisdom in the parent post. All things being equal, the infrastructure and the populace of nation-state like the US is a bigger boon to business than the constraints imposed by its laws and regulations. If that were not true, Sealand and Somalia would be the greatest economic engines on the planet.

Re:I predict another Sealand

[Githaron]

The advantage of these ventures is that they're outside national jurisdiction. The problem with these ventures is that they're outside national jurisdiction - and for almost every company out there, they benefit from the protection of a country's laws more than they suffer from them.

Sealand failed because anyone who hosted data there was wide open to the whim of Roy Bates - and if you didn't like his whim, you had no recourse. This will be no different.

A good article on Sealand: http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/28/2909303/sealand-havenco-doomed-data-haven-history

If you outright bought the boat, the only whim would be your own. Of course, true pirates could also come back to the high seas.

Re:I predict another Sealand

[X0563511]

Of course, true pirates could also come back to the high seas.

Somalia would like to remind you that they never left.

However, just like Ayn Rand

[Kupfernigk]

All these Randians will expect the US Government to rescue them when their ship goes tits up. Perhaps the best answer is for the US Coastguard to quote them to provide emergency services - 35% of turnover?

Re:However, just like Ayn Rand

[dkf]

All these Randians will expect the US Government to rescue them when their ship goes tits up. Perhaps the best answer is for the US Coastguard to quote them to provide emergency services - 35% of turnover?

The usual procedure is to rescue the people off it, and let the boat sink into the deep ocean. If it's not US registered or in US territorial waters, why would the coastguard have any obligation to do more than that?

Re:However, just like Ayn Rand

[crazyjj]

Oh man, would I love be the one taking that call.

"You want us to save you? Sure thing. $20 billion, in cash, transferred to us before we launch--plus everything of value on the boat, including the boat itself. Don't like the terms? Fine, die."

Re:However, just like Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

As a marine vessel in danger rescuing it automatically entitles you to a % of the salvage.

Re:However, just like Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, no, can't have that, it's a EVIL HYBRID MARKET -- not free, because that would require prior negotiation (which is still allowed) and no guarantee of reward if you rescue it on your own volition (since it's still the owner's property) or else finders=keepers (with a dramatically expanded notion of abandonment) -- and not socialized where everybody who can rescue a vessel must (from each according to his abilities) with no reward above the costs incurred (to each according to his needs), but it's all okay because nobody can own a ship (capital property if I've ever seen it) in the first place. It's a mixture -- BURN IT WITH FIRE FOR ITS IDEOLOGICAL IMPURITY.

Re:However, just like Ayn Rand

[Eli Gottlieb]

No, no, that comes after this tech bubble pops and their valuations go pear-shaped. Then let them pay for being rescued by the state from pirates.

"But this time is different! This time we really are Randian ubermenschen!" Suck it up, you sons of bitches.

Hey, worked for Sealand

[crazyjj]

Why is it that every Libertarian seems to think that they can skirt laws just by taking some boat out to international waters? As if the nearby country is going to be like "Damn, we know you committed the murder, but you were JUST over the line into international waters, so we're going to have to let you go!"

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, this isn't really a "Libertarian" concept. Libertarianism is about like minded people willingly associated based on a mutual appreciation of individual liberty and freedom. Essentially it's what it meant to be a Democrat at the turn of the century before the affiliated political entity became a splintered between Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, etc. This cruise ship idea is simply based on the idea of escaping the United States extremely high corporate tax, while staying close enough that business can be conducted in person.... as well as to secure protection of the Coast Guard and medial help if needed. My guess is that if you should have a major medical issue, a cruise ship run by a random start up company probably isn't the best place to get medical attention.

If you look at what actually happens in international waters it is more or less the wild west. The only reason countries can combat things like pirates and the like is because they are interacting with a vessel of another country, who's government has given permission for the assistance. Otherwise the pirates can actually just ride around with their RPGs and machine guns all they want and no one can "legally" do anything about it. Of course, "legal" is all dependent on the country they originate from, some countries may attack simply based on evidence rather than waiting for them to make the first move. Other countries use the international borders as excuses why they don't need to intervene or be involved. Many examples of this have occurred near Italy/North Africa.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[Anonymous Coward]

"...is going to be like..."?

Jesus. What are you, a fourteen-year-old girl? You sound ridiculous. Speak English.

Interestingly, the average level of conversation on Slashdot is roughly at the level of fourteen-year-old girls in terms of intellectual content and insight. This is particularly ironic given that the majority of people engaging in conversation here are adult males who can't dream of getting any girl, be she 14 or 24 or 34.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[h4rr4r]

This cruise ship idea is simply based on the idea of escaping the United States extremely high corporate tax, while staying close enough that business can be conducted in person.... as well as to secure protection of the Coast Guard and medial help if needed.

So to not pay taxes but to get the benefits that those taxes provide anyway? So they want to be leeches, how wonderful. Typical libertarian behavior.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[MacGyver2210]

What, exactly, is so high about an average of 8% tax rate? Mine is at least three times that for personal income tax. Why do these super-rich fools deserve to pay less of that money, even though they have more?

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[crazyjj]

If you read up on Sealand, my favorite incident is the fire that effectively ended that wackjob dream. Here these are these libertarians screaming that they're an independent country and don't have to pay taxes. But then comes a fire and what's the first thing they do? They start screaming for the British Air Force and Navy to come save them.

Libertarians don't want to pay taxes, but let one of them dial 911 just once and be told "Tough shit. Deal with it yourself" and watch them scream like little girls.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[h4rr4r]

I totally agree, it is simple they are just sociopaths.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[virgnarus]

This is particularly ironic given that the majority of people engaging in conversation here are adult males who can't dream of getting any girl, be she 14 or 24 or 34.

That's just because they're looking at the wrong side of the spectrum. Why, I can see them having much success hooking up with the 64s, 74s, and, yes, sometimes even 84s!

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[GameboyRMH]

Was gonna say the same thing, but actually it's different this time: These guys are all rich.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

But, but, but!!! I totally heard on the radio that the nominal rate is 34% or something if your accountant has only a brain stem and you don't count any of the possible deductions or subsidies! Sharia Communism!

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[GameboyRMH]

Verily, it is of the utmost importance that we parlay in only the most proper English on this esteemed forum. The business conducted here is of the most serious variety.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[GameboyRMH]

s/parlay/parley/g

(bet many of you didn't notice that!)

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[tlhIngan]

Libertarians don't want to pay taxes, but let one of them dial 911 just once and be told "Tough shit. Deal with it yourself" and watch them scream like little girls.

They whine and whine and whine all about it.

See a homeowner refused to pay a $35 monthly fee for fire protection and when their house catches fire, they protested since they protected a neighbour's house (who DID pay the fee).

That's what happens. It was an optional service since they were living in a rural part (the fire service was done by a nearby city who offered the option).

This ship will be similar - the US will rescue them per maritime obligations, but they're also free to detain them as refugees and such. And unless they had the presence of mind to grab their passports, they'd be treated as such.

And if they're US citizens, I bet the IRS would be VERY interested in talking with them - I believe the US has a rule stating that all income earned by a US citizen, even if overseas, must be declared. (And if you're paying less - the US gets the difference from what you paid the host country and what the US would've charged you).

Non-citizens, if they're there because the US won't let them in, deported.

Seems ricky for me - one disaster aboard ship and you can lose your entire workforce because the US will detain and deport them.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. See Warren v. District of Columbia, et al.; calling 911 in the US already leaves you in exactly the situation of "Tough shit. Deal with it yourselves." at the police force's discretion. Yes, there's a certain class of nutjobs who try to live out their libertarian ideals on a boat or platform that is fundamentally incapable of surviving as a self-contained nation, regardless of the political system, and these invariably go belly-up. This doesn't mean libertarianism in general, or libertarians in general (most of whom reject such schemes because no political system can overcome lack of resources) are the assholes you portray them as.

I wonder, do you put down every nation that's suffered a catastrophe (tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.) and received US aid in the same terms -- they didn't want to be a US colony, but now they want our help? In reality, a catastrophe can befall any nation beyond their ability to deal with themselves, and other nations do help them out, whether through "pure" humanitarian motives or just looking for good PR for their military. While micronations (and especially sea-based micronations) are far more susceptible to catastrophe, to the extent that they're frequently just horribly bad ideas to begin with, the fact that they do request foreign aid in those cases doesn't seem at all abnormal or unreasonable.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[s73v3r]

This cruise ship idea is simply based on the idea of escaping the United States extremely high corporate tax

And by "extremely high", you mean one of the lowest in the civilized world, right?

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[Anonymous Coward]

not so relevant read:

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/no-immunity-to-italian-mariners-centre-tells-sc_773921.html

http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/italy-has-no-rights-to-approach-supreme-court-on-kerala-fishermen-killing-says-centre-207507

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[HornWumpus]

The last sentence of you post is particularly ironic. Your post was roughly at the level of a fifteen year old girl until the end, then it dropped fast.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[Anonymous Coward]

If these guys are all super rich, why would they need three years to raise the capital to launch this venture? Anyone who is "super rich" would be able to buy a cruise ship on the open market and be open for business in less than 6 months. If you'd bothered to follow any of the links provided in the article, you'd know that the founders of BlueSeed are not super-rich, but are immigrants from eastern Europe, India and South America who had to struggle for years to obtain their visas and just want to make the road to success a little less difficult for other immigrants. Sociopaths? Your comment reveals a lot more about you than it does about BlueSeed.

Re:Hey, worked for Sealand

[will_die]

As a USA citizen you are required to pay federal taxes no matter where you earned them, IIRC the only country that does this.
You do get an deduction, currently around $93,000, if you spend more than 330(IIRC) days out of 365 outside of the USA and territories. So based on others comments about distances chances are this ship would not qualify as being outside of the USA. Besides you are doing this so you can easily get into the USA to meet with customers.

Living on a boat.

[Plammox]

According to sources near Blueseed, they plan to charter a regular ship, before raising capital for the barge they have concept drawings of. Question 1: Have they ever lived for a prolonged period on board a ship? Not all cabins are presidential suite standards. I suspect cramped compartments with no port holes and the persisting smell of fuel oil will get the better of the inhabitants' productivity. Question 2: Who will enforce (what?) law and order, when a couple of Aussies start to binge drink, plank on the railing and pick a fight with some English, after which they insult a bunch of more conservative-minded Indian IT-workers, causing all hell to break loose. And who says the US of A will tolerate a floating tax haven right off the coast of silicon valley?

Nah. Most of all, this just looks like a anarcho-libertarian's wet dream.

Re:Living on a boat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Question 1: Have they ever lived for a prolonged period on board a ship? Not all cabins are presidential suite standards. I suspect cramped compartments with no port holes and the persisting smell of fuel oil will get the better of the inhabitants' productivity.

Your description applies to a basement, and god knows techies are quite able to live in a basement.

Re:Living on a boat.

[Infernal Device]

There will inevitably be that One Guy who wants to bring his gun collection and may [deity] help the people in the cabins next to him because they will never know a peaceful sleep again.

Re:Living on a boat.

[Nimey]

There will also be One Guy who brings his pet goat aboard for sexual gratification, and another with a suspiciously young-looking "niece", and several with gratuitously loud sound systems. Some of those will be rich enough that their neighbors will have no recourse.

Re:Living on a boat.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you know sources close to BlueSeed, you would probably also know they have all spent a lot of time at sea themselves. They know the marine environment and have contracted with marine engineers to advise them on the feasibility of their designs. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so confident that the venture can succeed. Do you have any idea what kind of financial risks they are taking? They are well aware of how exposed they are, but are willing to take such risks. I'm a sailor myself, and know what kind of conditions they're going to be facing. I'm in awe of them and wish them only the best of luck. Fortune favors the bold, you know.

By the way, how much time have you spent on the open ocean?

Re:Living on a boat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm picturing something like this.

Re:Living on a boat.

[Plammox]

Well, good on you, AC. But I will never admire an enterprise whose sole purpose is tax evasion and whose contribution to the surrounding economy consists of ferrying services and food sales tax. Do you really think a growing startup will go ashore in the US, once it's reached a certain size? I doubt it. Once the client relations are established, you might as well open shop in Bangalore or Shanghai.

Oh, and by the way. I come from a long line of fishermen and sailors, grew up on an island. And financed my engineering education working on board a ship. How about you, AC?

R&D

[lkcl]

i had an idea similar to this, a few years ago - not a single boat but a massive platform, housing and providing the resources for people to carry out public-domain scientific research. if the platform were large enough it would be stable even during large storms. it's therefore very very interesting to hear that someone's actually really going ahead with a small-scale software-based version of that idea.

the only problem that i can forsee however is piracy! not of the software, but *real* piracy. in this case however it wouldn't be the cargo that would be worth stealing, it would be the data on the servers. in the plans that i drew up, the platform had to have its own missile batteries and heavy calibre weaponry: i believe this boat is going to need something similar, because, as it's outside of international waters, it's no longer subject to the protection of any sovereign state - it has to look after itself.

Re:R&D

[MrMickS]

It will be afforded the normal protection due to the ships of the flag carrying nation. It doesn't suddenly become the wild uncontrolled seas once you head out into international waters. I wouldn't be surprised if there are reciprocal aggrements in place that would give say Marshall Islands registered ships some protection from the US Coastguard even though they are in international waters.

Re:R&D

[nozzo]

When I read the summary I did remember someone having an idea of doing this on some kind of sea platform - was that you? I remember the sign-up page had a fair-few names on it already. _Chris

Re:R&D

[crazyjj]

the only problem that i can forsee however is piracy

Come on, why would pirates want to bother with a bunch of super-rich guys on a poorly defended boat?

Re:R&D

[lkcl]

the only problem that i can forsee however is piracy

Come on, why would pirates want to bother with a bunch of super-rich guys on a poorly defended boat?

eh... oh, right, ha ha, sorry, i had to read that twice :)

Re:R&D

[lkcl]

When I read the summary I did remember someone having an idea of doing this on some kind of sea platform - was that you? I remember the sign-up page had a fair-few names on it already.

_Chris

well it was all a bit off-the-wall, about 4 years ago. the original idea was for it to be a 24x7 live televised (internet TV) show as well, where people could actually interact with the scientists if the scientists so chose (irc, skype, chat etc.) - so not just serious research, with all information placed directly into the public domain for the benefit of humanity, but also a 24x7 and i do mean 24x7 reality tv show. yes, no privacy. at all :) that's what would make it much more interesting for the average person :)

Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

It's a great idea, totally worth it if it works out, very good.

It just shows to what extent the governments of the world have pushed the people that they are willing to spend time and money into this, leaving their borders, living uncomfortably on a boat (don't tell me it's very comfortable on a boat, you can't escape the walls, it's going to be tight, it's not a nice living, and obviously it's going to be a sausage-fest).

The entrepreneurial spirit lives on beyond and outside of the thieving governments and bread and circuses masses, it's going to be the boats, eventually the islands, underground, underwater cities, who knows. We need new frontiers, and who is better to push the boundaries but people who are thinking of new business opportunities, new ways to make profit.

If the government hundreds of years ago was what it is today, the USA wouldn't have become anything worth noting. The settlers wouldn't have been able to leave, no insurance, no licenses, whatever rules and regulations and taxes, it would have been impossible safe for the wealthiest few.

This is good news.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[jedidiah]

> living uncomfortably on a boat

There are already ship rats that live on cruise liners because it's cheaper than other alternatives like a nursing home. There are also long term cruises that the lines don't seem to have any trouble selling either.

Compared to living in some overpopulated urban center (NYC,SFO,London,Mumbai,Tokyo) it might not be so bad really.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

People have already done this many times. Every migration has its difficulties and down-sides.

USA was populated with white and other people hundreds of years ago because those people wanted to leave their oppressive governments.

At the time those other governments also wanted to dominate the people who moved onto these new territories, so it's nothing new that the more entrepreneurial folks want to move away and something outside of the boundaries of their respective decadent nations, it's just that there is so little land that is actually unoccupied.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[h4rr4r]

Without the government to ensure contract law, nor protect from pirates this will fail. Your fevered dreams are just that. This is only for the wealthiest few. Without those regulations you hate we would have the age of hundreds of years ago. Rocketing forward economy while those who provide the actual labor are barely above starving to death. Sure the economy will do great, do bad that does not reflect the life of the average man in anyway.

Just remember you will more likely be one who toils for not much more than his daily bread while someone else profits.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[bws111]

So in this magical place there are not going to be any disputes between parties? There will be no crime? There will be no external threats?

There will be no restrictions on who or how many can come on board?

There will be no heath or safety rules?

Seems to me if you have any of those (and many more) problems (and you certainly will) you are going to need a way to resolve them. All you will be doing is creating your own government (something you apparently abhor).

Face it, this is not some escape from some supposedly oppressive government, it is a tax dodge and immigration scam.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

Oh yeah? Like the America failed when it fought against the King? Sure, USA is a continent, not a ship, but we don't have more free continents to occupy around. This will have to do for now, until the technology invented on that ship and other ships like it will allow building bigger ships, islands, underwater cities, who knows.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[h4rr4r]

What does that have to do with anything? The USA had a war for independence. We call it a revolution when it really wasn't. Not much changed for the common man. Check out who could vote in those first elections. Things did improve over time, but the English also have those same conditions now, and they still have a Queen.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

not going to be any disputes between parties?

- straw man.

There will be no crime?

- straw man.

There will be no external threats?

- straw man.

There will be no restrictions on who or how many can come on board?

- obviously you didn't understand what was written - you pay to get onboard.

There will be no heath or safety rules?

- who gives a rats ass?

Do you know what would have happened if any of this nonsense was present during the days Amercan settlers took off to go West?

Taxes, health inspections, licenses, regulations?

USA would never have become anything if gov't in its current form was present then. It would have been catastrophically impossible to do.

Seems to me if you have any of those (and many more) problems

- it's nonsense, those are not problem, they are only problems in your head. What you call problems are freedoms and opportunity.

Face it, this is not some escape from some supposedly oppressive government, it is a tax dodge and immigration scam.

1. It IS to escape the oppressive governments, otherwise most people wouldn't have came to USA either.

2. There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with not wanting to pay taxes, especially the taxes that exist today, absolutely insane taxes - income taxes, taxes on work. Regulations, all that nonsense.

3. Immigration scam? Be happy if anybody ever wilfully sets foot onto US soil again for the purposes of working there. There are now more 'illegal migrants' leaving USA to go back to Mexico than to come to US.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

The USA had a war for independence.

- the point exactly.

Not much changed for the common man

- bullshit. The freest country was formed, under the Constitution. It's not free anymore, but it built the wealthiest creditor nation, producing cheap, high quality goods. 1870-1913 was the time when the actual middle class was created on this planet - small, medium sized businessmen and professionals.

The rising tide lifted all boats. You are so eager to denounce people who are looking for more freedoms today, you have completely forgotten why people were escaping from their perspective governments in the past.

Check out who could vote in those first elections

- well, except for the blacks, who obviously were not freed even under the Constitution (the reason I wouldn't have ratified it with that in it), the people who could vote were people who would have voted under the King as well - land owners, because they were the ones actually participating in the economy, bearing the burden of whatever taxes and decisions by the gov't.

The difference between UK and USA was that in UK only a small elite group of aristocrats owned land, in USA about half of the male population ended up as land owners at the time.

AFAIC people who aren't paying federal taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote in federal elections. Women weren't participating in the work force at the time, so that was the reason they couldn't vote and it was not wrong, the moment they actually started owning businesses and paying taxes they also basically got their voting rights.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[h4rr4r]

The freest country with slavery and voting for only wealthy white landowners. You could be imprisoned without charges and the first amendment was a joke. Lincoln locked up editors who published cartoons he did not like. There was no golden age you dream of.

In 1870 to 1913 we had the beginnings of the labor movement. A rising tide only lifts the largest boats. The reality is trickle down does not work, and the rich are more than happy to take all the gains.
  I am not denouncing those who want freedom, just those who are leeches and want to become slave drivers.

So only those with money should be allowed to vote? If I lose my job and live off my savings for a year I should not be able to vote?
Why not make a minimum income to vote, maybe a million dollars a year?

You are a disgusting person if that is all you value about people. Women have provided valuable labor since Eve picked an apple. The reason they could not vote is because they were not really considered people, your after the fact justification is disgusting.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[h4rr4r]

If we had those regulations maybe less people would have been victimized, less crime would have occurred and people may not have lived such short brutal lives.

Those freedoms and opportunities, are the freedoms and opportunities to work for less than it costs to live, to become a virtual slave and to die in some accident when your employers refuses to provide for safety in anyway at all.

There is a lot wrong with not paying taxes while still expecting to benefit from the things they provide. People came the USA to make money, not evade taxes or escape oppression. Put the Rand crap down and read some history.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[Elfich47]

All of the questions that you marked up as "Straw man" are the important questions that will arise when the rubber hits the road (or the ship leaves port as it were).
The questions were:
Dispute resolution - The disputes can be as simple as "Who gets to use the bathroom first" and "Who has to wash the dishes" to " He hacked my server" to "assault"
External threats - Who decides what is an external threat? Are there guards? Do the people on the boat have to double as militia in the time of threat?
Entry restriction - Sure you can pay to enter. Will there be health and welfare checks? What happens if someone is carrying hepatitis, smallpox or something nasty? Who is going to say that that person cannot enter?
Health and Safety rules - Yup, I want to work someplace where I can be made to work 60-80 hours a week because I can't leave the ship. Will there be a doctor onboard? How about emergency services?

Other questions:
Food production/import: I don't see any detail on food production. Will it all have to be imported?
Drinking water: Are they going to produce all of their own drinking water?
Waste control and sanitation: Are they going just dump all of their garbage overboard along with their black water? The coast guard may have word with them on that.

These items are very important. Unlike your American dream scenario, the US was self sufficient when it broke away from the UK. Any ship would be dependent upon the mainland for food, water, fuel, parts, health care and defense to maintain its standard of living. All of these things will have to be barged out to the ship.

You can bet anyone coming ashore from that boat will be subject to immigration control and the customs service.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

The freest country with slavery and voting for only wealthy white landowners

- first of all, you are saying it like it was a bad thing that only landowners could vote.

As to blacks, as I said, I would NOT have ratified that Constitution with that language in it, but by 1870 the slavery was no longer the same issue at all.

I am against democracy, unless you are mistaken, I am against democracy, AFAIC democracy is mobocracy, it is the gateway to tyranny, that is my conviction.

OTOH having a representative democracy is fine, where a subgroup of people will vote on issues directly, not the entire population.

In 1870 to 1913 we had the beginnings of the labor movement.

- so? There could be no labour movement before there was labour, could there? When everybody is a subsistence farmer, hunter / gatherer, they don't form unions. But that's not why wealth was created at all. Wealth was created by the businesses, not by unions.

The businesses made people productive, provided management, efficient allocation of land, labour and capital and created the goods that actually were then bought by the very people who were working. That's how the tide lifted the boats.

As the free market capitalism provided the profits and investment capital, this was used to acquire and build better tools, making the workers more efficient and productive, and this is why one person could do much more with the tools than anybody before could without those tools, that's what investment is, and that's how a worker becomes more affluent earners - by being more efficient, by doing more with less time. That's why the working hours could eventually be shorted, that's why there were weekends.

Subsistence farmers don't get to enjoy 8 hour days and 5 working day weeks, they don't have that luxury. Only capitalist free market could create that.

The reality is trickle down does not work, and the rich are more than happy to take all the gains.

- nonsense.

This so called 'trickle down economics' is the ONLY economics that works. The more productive a worker at a factory is building cars, the more efficiently the cars are built, they cheaper they can be sold, so that more people buy them, because more profits are made by selling more cheaper products, not fewer more expensive products.

Originally only the very rich could afford cell phones, computers, plasma TVs. Today everybody has them - that's how productive the capitalists made the workers, that everybody can afford these things.

THAT is trickle down economics, THAT is how wealth is distributed in the free market. Your problem is you think about wealth in terms of money - but the best way to treat money is to have it concentrated in the hands of those, who were the best at organising land, capital and labour to produce that profit, that resulted from all those efficiencies and overproduction, and the market willing to pay for those profits.

You are saying that the wealth isn't being distributed? How many cell phones have you had in your life? Cars? Houses? Pairs of clothes? Shoes? TVs? Computers? Tables? Chairs?

You think wealth is what the rich have and you do not? Wealth is what you can use on daily basis, the rich have the WORK.

You think Steve Jobs having spent under 4% of his entire fortune during his life enjoyed the wealth he created by using it? NO. It was all invested, 96% of his wealth was always invested, so that slobs like you could be lifted in the tide that he was busy creating.

So only those with money should be allowed to vote?

- straw man.

The only people who PAY for the music should be able to order it. Those who pay income taxes to the federal gov't are those who should be allowed to vote, nobody else.

If I lose my job and live off my savings for a year I should not be able to vote?

- CORRECT.

NOT IN THAT YEAR.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

All of the questions that you marked up as "Straw man" are the important questions that will arise when the rubber hits the road (or the ship leaves port as it were).

- they were all straw man arguments, which you constructed and then implied that I made a comment on them, while I didn't.

If you phrase them in form of a question, that's a different comment then, it's not what you did, thus - straw man.

Is anybody forcing YOU to go there onto that boat and figure all those things out? NO? Then it doesn't concern you at all, does it?

They'll figure this out, it's not like you are the first to think of these questions and it's not like the boat operators wouldn't want to set rules - it's their territory after all.

IF the rules are such, that they make MORE SENSE to the population on board, than the rules ashore, then that's all we need to know - it's a comparative advantage.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

If we had those regulations maybe less people would have been victimized, less crime would have occurred and people may not have lived such short brutal lives.

- NO, what would have happened, would have mean less competition, less economic activity, because rules would have put most people out of rich of running their businesses the way gov't prescribes they must.

Can't make an omelette without braking a bunch of eggs, can't have wealth producing society without an intermediate steps of suffering and hard work and brutality. If you believe you can wave a magic wand and create all the wealth to pay for all this nonsense you are espousing, then you are only guilty of wishful thinking and nothing else.

People came the USA to make money

- and why couldn't they do this at home? Because USA was the land of opportunity, but the opportunity based on WHAT? Opportunity based on NON EXISTENT GOVERNMENT.

not evade taxes

- Yeah, right.

or escape oppression

- Oh, wow, now that's ignorant.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

People came the USA to make money, not evade taxes or escape oppression

- by the way, even today USA provides huge opportunities for tax evasion, which is why so much money is still there - foreign money.

The money that is made by foreigners on their investments in USA are not automatically collected for the foreign governments by the IRS. USA is a huge tax haven for foreigners I'll have you know.

People certainly came to USA to avoid the taxes that they were paying back in their own countries, USA had a war with a King over taxes (sure sure, without representation, as if the Federal government is representing you today, or even your State government for that matter. The closest thing that represents you that is sort-of government like is you condominium corporation.)

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[h4rr4r]

You need a history lesson. More likely you will just get to be an egg that is broken.

Who came to escape oppression? The mayflower was full of those who wanted to oppress, they were fleeing the netherlands. They went there to flee oppression in england, but the netherlands would not them allow to oppress others.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[nyctopterus]

Women weren't participating in the work force at the time, so that was the reason they couldn't vote and it was not wrong, the moment they actually started owning businesses and paying taxes they also basically got their voting rights.

You are making a grave mistake in thinking that societies or governments are solely based on, and concerned with, monetary systems. There is more to life than money, and it is dangerous to think that the monetary systems correctly encompass all the things that go into making society tick.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[h4rr4r]

So I am disenfranchised so they can steal more great. Why not just let them buy laws, skip the whole voting middle man. Heck, let them move the tax burdon to the poor. 0% tax on those making more than 250k a year, I am sure you would support that too.

Steve Jobs enjoyed his life, he could have quit at any time, and was such an asshole he refused to plate cars so he could use spots meant for the handicapped. He is not someone anyone should be looking up to.

I am not religious either, but I am not ignorant of shared culture either.

Taxes are not theft, gold is not money and I am done arguing with a fool who thinks atlas shrugged is anything more than fiction.

I will pay for your one way ticket to Somalia though.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[s73v3r]

It just shows to what extent the governments of the world have pushed the people that they are willing to spend time and money into this

Yup, those pesky governments, pushing people away.

Oh shit, pirates!

Governments, can you please come help us?

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[s73v3r]

bullshit. The freest country was formed, under the Constitution.

And daily life for regular people still did not change.

It's not free anymore

Said someone who's never had to live in some place like Saudi Arabia or North Korea.

You are so eager to denounce people who are looking for more freedoms today,

No, we're denouncing people who don't learn from history. If you weren't on top during that time you like to dream about, life was incredibly fucking shitty for you. How'd you like to be paid in Company Dollars, which can only be spent at the Company Store? Oh, don't like it? Tough. There are no other jobs around.

well, except for the blacks, who obviously were not freed even under the Constitution (the reason I wouldn't have ratified it with that in it), the people who could vote were people who would have voted under the King as well - land owners, because they were the ones actually participating in the economy, bearing the burden of whatever taxes and decisions by the gov't.

I love it when you reveal your true nature, and show that you're really just all about fucking the poor. Yeah, those people don't deserve to vote anyway! Neither do women!

AFAIC people who aren't paying federal taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote in federal elections.

Because being poor is something that should be punished, right? We should be able to send them off to battle in a draft, but fuck them trying to have a voice in their government.

Denying the right to vote to ANYONE of age because of your idiotic restrictions is WRONG.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[Elfich47]

No, no one is forcing me onto that boat. And I have no intention of getting on it.

The environment on the ship has to be such that it is more attractive than being on shore in San Fransisco. Here are the pros and cons that I see:

Pros:

No oversight from uncle sam
Can hire anyone you want from anywhere in the world.
Cons:

Subject to a local government (ie the ship captain) that is not responsible to the people living on the ship, the local government is responsible to the ship owners.
Complex taxation issues when re-entering the country you are a citizen of.
Contract dispute is based on 1400 century law -"Lex mercatoria". This does not address criminal law or if people want to bring in the lawyers.
All physical goods will cost more aboard ship. That is because all goods have to be imported from shore to ship.
Remote access to physical goods. You can't just run out for material stock if you need something.
Corporate town issues - The company renting you space also owns the barber shop, ferry service, grocery store, and the internet service.
Going ashore means constant scrutiny by customs and immigration.
The assumption the the ship will be allowed to anchor twelve miles offshore is laughable. The US doesn't recognize the twelve mile limit. The coast guard will push them off to the 200 mile limit.
Because of the limited space on the ship you have to live within the society the ship sets up. It's not like you can go to a different cafe if you don't like the mocha-chino.
Observations:
The ship is trying to set up its own miniaturized uptopian society of happy workers while trying to ignore the reality of what people do when they aren't working: Drink, fight, get laid, have babies, make messes, casually destroy property, join clubs, explore behind locked doors, get bored, go for walks, fall in love, pay bills, litter, join crusades, paint the apartment, get sick, etc etc etc.
Start up companies have little no assets or capital. Being a start up on a ship like that is an extravagance I don't see many companies springing for. Why pay extra to be anchored off shore when you can get similar office space on shore?
I don't know about you, but I'm done with the shared dorm room atmosphere. Sharing a room with three other people gets old fast.
Blueseed gets partial ownership of each start-up. For getting the opportunity to be a start up on their ship, they get to own part of you.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[s73v3r]

first of all, you are saying it like it was a bad thing that only landowners could vote.

It was. There is nothing special about owning land that gives you a better insight into government. Saying that poor people shouldn't vote is just begging to return to a class based system, where only those of nobility are considered people.

Only capitalist free market could create that.

After they were forced to by the labor movement. Capitalists would have absolutely no problem working their employees to the bone, as they are expendable.

This so called 'trickle down economics' is the ONLY economics that works.

And that's why everyone is prospering soooooo much right now. Oh wait.

straw man.

No, you personally said it. Only the rich should vote. Whether or not someone pays income tax IS COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

Someone who doesn't pay tax still has a huge interest in how the government works.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[s73v3r]

Seriously, you crying "straw man" to everything just shows that you don't have any way to dispute him.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[s73v3r]

- they were all straw man arguments, which you constructed and then implied that I made a comment on them, while I didn't.

No, they are quite important, as those questions are some of the basis for how society functions. Are you seriously trying to say that it doesn't matter how society functions?

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[Anonymous Coward]

- by the way, even today USA provides huge opportunities for tax evasion, which is why so much money is still there - foreign money.

Yup, huge opportunities to foreigners. It's great. After all, foreigners actually produce and have real wealth. Average Joe Americans have debt, and no production.

That's why you shouldn't vote Ron Paul. Paul might actually give opportunities to the Average Joe. Now why the hell should anybody give Average Joe (who again, has no production and a lot of debt) anything he didn't work for?

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[Elfich47]

Let me know if you need people to help chip in on the cost of that ticket. I'm sure there are people around who would help. - Like me.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's stopping you from starting up something on Kickstarter

Of course, nobody's also stopping roman_mir from giving donations/investment capital into this Tech Love Boat.

Hey, if he likes free market capitalism so much, and he thinks this idea is wonderful, why not putting his money where his mouth is?

Or does he prefer to remain at the same level as me, an Anonymous Coward who just bickers on the Internet?

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

I can dispute anything, for example I can dispute that 'straw man' means that I wasn't making an argument that was claimed I was making.

As to the merits of the questions - I don't consider them to be actual problems.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

Hold your cash, I have already moved somewhere away, where business is much easier to do than in US.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

It's not a mistake. Voting for a government that can modify the tax code while not paying taxes yourself is something not to be desires, it's something to be avoided and it does not impose a judgement on the person who is or is not voting, it only means that a person is voting who is directly responsible for the spending the government is involved in.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

Right, because it's impossible to arm an expensive cruise liner? If they are going to spend tens to hundreds of millions on a ship, they can afford to put in weapons systems.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[tibman]

roman_mir is crazy and you shouldn't argue with him. Unless it makes you feel better, of course : ) Just skip past the comment next time you see his name. Even in the face of facts, I have never seen him change his point or agree that he was wrong.

I just lol'd when he said women weren't working and that's why they couldn't (and shouldn't) vote. Does he think they sat on the couch staring at the walls all day or what? hah

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I agree with the GP that thinking of the government purely in terms of taxes and money spent is a pretty warped view of what it does.

But, more directly, everyone pays taxes unless they are homeless and never buy anything. Even then, laws still affect them, so they should have a say in what those laws are. If you don't own property, then property tax is being passed to you through rent. Even if there's no sales tax where you are, the cost of items you buy is adjusted to match the amount of tax the seller has to pay on the income (or has to pay on wages).

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

since I was very specifically talking about federal income taxes, your argument about other forms of taxes is moot.

As to 'thinking about what government does in terms of what it spends' - it is the only rational way to think about the government. It doesn't produce anything, it takes taxes and hopefully just spends that rather than also counterfeiting money and borrowing more to spend, so it should spend only what it gets.

Gov't is what it spends on, its spending is completely tied to what it does, 100% of it, so yes, gov't is what it spends on.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[s73v3r]

Again, all that shows is that you don't have any way to dispute him. Considering you're always the one advocating for shit like this, you damn well had better have answers to the problems brought up if you wish to convince anyone.

But of course, that would take actual thought, and distract you from your mindless, and often times off topic government bashing.

Re:Wonderful idea, hope it works and takes off

[roman_mir]

Dispute what? Those questions don't mean anything, they are irrelevant. The rules of the owners of the ship will apply and those rules will have to be more tolerable than the rules ashore, I don't run that ship, anything I say will be speculation.

What I know is that if the rules on board makes less sense than the rules ashore, people will not have reasons to board that ship, but those are NOT important questions.

Lastly - 'convincing anybody'? You think I am trying to convince you? Are you on drugs?

what about IP / software piracy? labor laws

[Joe_Dragon]

Will they be able to get away with doing software piracy with NO BSA to get in there way?

company store store like times where you in debt paying for high priced fees at the work site.

24/7 working hours with a big trip home fee if you can't keep up?

very low min wage.

ETC?

Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

When the nearest hospital is over 200 miles away, you'd better have helicopters ready to make the jump. And you'd better have them cleared for permission to enter US air space with no notice (like that's going to happen).

This is just another scam. Another variant of the "company town", where they deduct your room and board and other expenses from your pay, and if at some point you don't like it, you can take a long walk off a short plank.

Re:Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[vlm]

When the nearest hospital is over 200 miles away, you'd better have helicopters ready to make the jump. And you'd better have them cleared for permission to enter US air space with no notice (like that's going to happen).

You've just described the situation of an oil platform in the GoM. I'm completely unimpressed. This kind of stuff was figured out 40 or so years ago.

Re:Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[h4rr4r]

That oil platform makes money hand over fist and is owned and operated by a company the US government has some say over. If you don't want Government restrictions/protections the situation will be very different.

Re:Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[vlm]

The nationality of the platform and helicopter and hospital could all be different. This is old stuff.
The FAA does not run a credit check on you when you file a flightplan.
It is important to note the profound difference in maritime and aviation regulations WRT to normal daily operations vs declared medical emergencies. Generally in emergencies you have to do less/no paperwork before hand and about three times as much afterward.

It might be awkward or expensive... you might find a coastie or air force aircraft escorting you, there are in some cases fines and penalties to be paid.

But, face it, for some lines of work, emergencies are business as usual... This stuff has all been figured out decades ago and you're not going to be captain of a boat or PIC of a helo, or on the other side, a coastie or air traffic controller, without knowing what to do in an emergency situation. Its all procedural and forms to fill out and stuff. Its a known and predictable expense.

Re:Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

Remember - the US has NOT ratified the "Law of the Sea" treaty - UNCLOS. Under existing international law, they still have jurisdiction out to the 200 mile limit, not just the 12 mile territorial water limit, nor the additional 12 mile exclusion zone.

Other nations have the right to "innocent passage". A barge anchored within 200 miles is not engaged in "innocent passage", and as such, does not have the legal rights enjoyed by vessels engaged in "innocent passage."

However, even vessels engaged in "innocent passage" still need to conform to the sovereign states requirements for things like a valid insurance policy for indemnification in the case of bunker oil spills, etc. right out to the 200 mile limit.

Don't expect this idea to float unless there's lots of campaign contributions also floating around.

Re:Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[h4rr4r]

So how are they going to pay for all this and still save money?

My point was this was going to get expensive and cumbersome.

Re:Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

"Awkward and expensive" kind of misses the point - by the time a chopper gets out there, cherry-picks you up, and gets you back to a mainland hospital, you could be dead - especially if the weather sucks enough to interfere with flight operations or there are other emergencies that tie up medivac units, or there are multiple people who need help - like if there's an on-board fire.

Are they going to have a cat scanner and an mri on board? A decent lab? I doubt it - after all, this is about cutting costs to the employers (not the employees, who are charged up to $3,000 a month).

What about amenities such as pets? Where do you walk your dog? Are you even allowed a dog, or are you stuck with dogfish and stupid chia pets? Who do you complain to about unfair work practices, or an assault or rape, or even something as stupid as a peeping tom?

Re:Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disease will surely be a large risk.
Cruise ships regularly have outbreaks on relatively short voyages. When they happen, they can almost always port because the passengers have visas.
The most likely diseases will be MRSA or TB. It will be no better than conditions in Russian prison.

Re:Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[ColdWetDog]

Oh, it's a big enough ship to have basic medical facilities and a doctor that mostly sort of speaks English (whether or not they speak whatever language you happen to speak is another question).

At the moment, there are probably 100,000 people on this planet 'suffering' under similar situations in cruise ships everywhere. People do occasionally die on cruise ships when they would have survived if they were in a bigger city, but it's an edge case.

Re:Forget insurance ... what about health care?

[X0563511]

Does it have a helipad? Any reason it can't have a SeaKing or such on station to get medical emergencies on their way quickly?

VC Vipers

[tungstencoil]

Am I the only one who read this as "VCs will found a way to get cheap offshore talent under their collective wings by purchasing a cruise ship on which to enslave, err, house their startup 'incubators'"?

Re:VC Vipers

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be clear - it will be a slave ship and not a cruise ship.

Re:satellite broadband will suck for some thing li

[SuricouRaven]

It might not be as intensive as you'd expect. This isn't a datacenter, like the failed sealand. It's basically just an office that floats. They'll just have their own servers. All their internet connection is for would be communicating with customers to get specifications and deliver finished data.

Re:satellite broadband will suck for some thing li

[mounthood]

satellite broadband will suck for some thing like this. Maybe fixed wifi / RF but even then that is still not as fast.

It'll be the ultimate echo chamber.

With Start Up this sounds like bad idea

[ZombieBraintrust]

I would only get on a boat like this with people I trust. With a start up there is too much risk that the managers are terrible people. The motivations of a start up are not good either. For a startup it is all about cutting costs. Now if an Google rented the whole boat out to work on a specific project that would be different. Then the motivations would be focus and ease of access to people. I would also prefer the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific ocean. Seems like there would be more to do in the Gulf on weekends.

Re:With Start Up this sounds like bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

> Seems like there would be more to do in the Gulf on weekends.

Big, huge problem with the Gulf: hurricanes. Gulf hurricanes, in particular, can and do spin up unexpectedly and go from "tropical storm" to "category 3+" between breakfast & dinner. They can also wobble around a small area for days at a time. Hurricane season is incredibly disruptive of life in Florida *cities*, let alone a boat in the middle of the body of water where half of America's hurricanes are born or pass through as a visitor.

The Pacific is quite tame by comparison.

Re:With Start Up this sounds like bad idea

[phantomfive]

I would only get on a boat like this with people I trust.

And them wanting you to get on a boat to work is the first sign you shouldn't trust them.

Sweatship

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Sweatship

Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[sl4shd0rk]

Late 80's: there were a lot of skilled trades and professional labor in the US. Cars, Steel, Mass production, Agriculture, skilled trades, software development, science, NASA, everything was going pretty well compared to today.

mid 90's: NAFTA took root. Companies began leaving in droves to offshore labor to the far east and Mexico. Many companies who wanted to keep the labor at home, had no choice but to follow the leader because they couldn't compete with such cheap labor.

Late 90's Early 00's: software development, tech support and engineering started heading for India and other regions. Workers were told "too bad" and laid off in huge numbers. Corporations were swimming in revenue.

Today: Michigan, the hub of manufacturing in the US has no economy to speak of. Detroit is the most dangerous city to live in. The US no longer has much of a Scientific community. It's all been sold off or off-shored. We have no manufacturing to speak of. Most of what people buy now comes out of a Chinese shipping container.

The industry is crying that we have no engineers, software developers or scientific professionals and act like they have no idea why. Now companies want to float a boat out in international waters so they can ship in more cheap labor and not have pay for visas and probably skirt a shitload of tax revenue that would otherwise go into the US economy? Yeah, great idea.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[h4rr4r]

No manufacturing output? We do about 18% of the worlds total. That is some odd definition you have of none to speak of. We make expensive stuff, we let the chinese make cheap shit.

The industry always wants more labor, too much supply lowers prices. Why would they not want that?

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[vlm]

Actually we still have the largest manufacturing sector in the entire world by quite a bit.
We have completely and almost totally destroyed our consumer products manufacturing, true. The only thing I've bought in 20 years made in the USA is/was some plastic trash cans and oddly enough a gasket-less aluminum pressure cooker made in Wisconsin.

The whole world depends on the USA either exclusively or as a majority provider for aerospace, mining equipment, heavy stuff like that. To a much lesser extent we still make cranes too. And chemical process equipment although like cranes we're trying to give that away to China as fast as we can. You can almost draw a graph of "unit weight" on the x-axis and percent imported on the y-axis and you'll see damn near a straight line where we import 99% of our kitchenware but we manufacture 99% of the world's production of 100 kiloton and up mining dragline equipment (you know, the things that strip entire mountaintops off?) and practically all mining trucks larger than 100 tons.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[the eric conspiracy]

Exactly. The grandparent is complete bullshit and should be modded down.

The US is the world's largest manufacturing nation in terms of economic output. People seem to forget giant companies like Intel, Caterpillar, Boeing, Cisco, ADM etc. not to mention the pharmaceuticals and the farming industry which are world leading. Not only that but the US does it with a mere 8% of its workforce. The economic output of the average US worker is more than 10 times that of his Chinese equivalent because he's more technically skilled and produces far more valuable products in a highly automated setting.

The Boeing main aircraft assembly building in the Seattle area is the largest manufacturing facility in the world.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/facilities/

It was Boeing who discovered the Y2K problem because they are such a large consumer of aluminum they have to project consumption of aluminum a decade in advance so the aluminum industry can scale their capacity to match their consumption.

I don't know where people get the idea the US isn't competitive in manufacturing. It is a huge force on a global scale in manufacturing, and factors like low energy costs because of the vast natural gas reserves being developed are likely to keep it that way. Anyone writing that the US has no manufacturing capability is full of bullshit.

http://www.shopfloor.org/2011/03/u-s-manufacturing-remains-worlds-largest/18756

http://business.time.com/2011/03/10/can-china-compete-with-american-manufacturing/

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is indeed the problem; it is cheaper to offshore, so you can sell your products cheaper and people will buy it. But those same people will start to lose jobs, or get lower-rated (and thus lower-paid) jobs. Thus can afford less. It's a downward spiral.

I can understand the boat idea, not for cheaper labor, but so that you can work on your projects without being hit with all kinds of patent infringement and other anti-competitive lawsuits (*) along the way.

(*) these kind of lawsuits are not meant to be won, they are meant to drain the upstart of capital basically suing them to death

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[chill]

Help me out here. Why would companies offshore labor to the Far East as a response to NAFTA? Last I checked, the NA part meant North America. Specifically, it is a tri-lateral agreement between Mexico, Canada and the United States.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[phantomfive]

You speak of the 80s as if you had not lived in them. In the 80s, people were worried that Japan was taking all our manufacturing. Now people who need a reason to worry speak of China the same way.

btw NAFTA had nothing to do with the far east. By the late 90s, most low-wage assembly lines in the US were filled with Mexicans anyway, so we had the choice to keep importing immigrants or sending the factories to where they were. Whether you hate immigration or labor more of course will affect your opinion of the choice, but sending the factories to Mexico is certainly the kindest thing to do for the immigrants, since they don't have to leave their families, go to a strange land, etc.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[DerekLyons]

We have completely and almost totally destroyed our consumer products manufacturing, true.

And much of that was shooting ourselves in the foot by patronizing whichever big box (Target, Wal-Mart/Sam's, and Costco being the biggies) has the lowest prices. (Nor is this a new thing either, the race to the bottom by the discount chains got it's start back in the early years of the 20th century.)

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[ahoffer0]

When my father was young, he said he felt like every product was stamped "Made in Japan".
When I was young, my toys were stamped "Make in Taiwan".
Now I'm middle-aged and I talk about the "Make in China" mark.
When my daughters are grown, products will probably have a different stamp.
And people will still be debating what it means to the US (as they should).
I'm pretty confident I won't be living in a post-apocalyptic bizarre-o US when it comes to pass.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Boeing who discovered the Y2K problem because they are such a large consumer of aluminum they have to project consumption of aluminum a decade in advance so the aluminum industry can scale their capacity to match their consumption.

Completely unnecessary hyperbole.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[msobkow]

It was Boeing who discovered the Y2K problem...

Considering that the Y2K problem and the 32-bit time problem were known issues raised way back in the early 1980s when I was starting university, I seriously doubt any one company could claim they "discovered" the problem.

Anyone with a functioning brain cell knew there would be a problem with the end of the century due to 2-digit years. Even when they were writing the software that contained the problem; they just decided to postpone dealing with it while technology advanced and storage became cheap enough that you didn't need to do trivial data compression like cutting the size of a date field in half.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[psydeshow]

I don't know where people get the idea the US isn't competitive in manufacturing.

We may be competitive and still be an industrial force in terms of output, but at 8% of our workforce we are by no means an industrial nation. So the popular perception is that the USA has left industry behind, much as we left agriculture behind before that.

Efficiency is great, but it leaves a lot of people out of work and bitter, and that causes them to compare the past (when there were plenty of "good" manufacturing jobs) to the present (when there are very few) and assume that we must not be very competitive.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[psydeshow]

Whether you hate immigration or labor more of course will affect your opinion of the choice, but sending the factories to Mexico is certainly the kindest thing to do for the immigrants, since they don't have to leave their families, go to a strange land, etc.

It's actually the kindest thing we can do for our corporations, since they don't have to pay US wages, obey our laws and regulations, or provide the kinds of benefits that US workers fought for and won a century ago.

Ask yourself, would I be an American if leaving your family and going to a strange land was such a bad thing? This used to be a country that people wanted to come to for things that a more important than a paycheck.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[escay]

You, and other people who befall the myth of assuming America has no manufacturing industry need to watch PBS's America Revealed series. Particularly the 4th episode for manufacturing America Revealed.

The US has one of the most advanced scientific communities in the world, and leads in terms of innovation and creation. This country is seeing enough heartbreak as it is from extremely divisive and counter-productive religion/political debates, let's at least keep the scientific/technological community above such disparaging and gloomy arguments.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[phantomfive]

This used to be a country that people wanted to come to for things that a more important than a paycheck.

Yeah, like Freedom of religion, which hopefully has managed to spread to most parts of the globe as well. I've talked to a lot of immigrants from latin american countries, and there is no doubt it comes with risks and hardships.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

Noone 'discovered' the Y2K problem - it's a known issue when you make software with two digits to store a date.

And having a company own factories in other countries doesn't mean that those factories are actually 'producing' in the country of ownership.

You sir, are an idiot.

Re:Quick primer on the downfall of the US economy

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, I am sure that the decline in manufacturing employment is the root of the idea that America is not capable of manufacturing, when in fact manufacturing is a core competency.

It's the natural evolution of capitalism. Just like farming became more automated and the percentage of people living on farms declined, the same process is well underway in manufacturing.

The idea that there is something wrong with a society that needs to devote perhaps 12% of its workforce to satisfying its material needs is just not right. It is profoundly liberating to have a society that can devote its energies to so many more creative endeavors.

Sweat shop

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly puts management in an advantageous bargaining position.

A tsunami in deep water is a non-event.

[ClayJar]

Off-shore in deep water, there is absolutely no danger whatsoever from a tsunami. A tsunami is only a problem as it reaches shore, as it's there that the very long period waves just keep coming and coming and piling up water. In deep water, there's just a very, very long swell of minuscule amplitude.

Storm waves are vastly more significant. Their period is short enough and their amplitude great enough to potentially cause significant damage to oceangoing vessels. Considering also the occasional rogue wave (a wave or short set of waves at several times the amplitude of the prevailing wave conditions at the time), and having lifeboat/evacuation drills every so often would be best practice. At least the area in question is outside the hurricane belt, so hurricane evacuations (such as those from Gulf of Mexico oil rigs) shouldn't be required.

Re:A tsunami in deep water is a non-event.

[X0563511]

... and also have the ship driving into the expected wave direction most of the time. It's when these huge waves hit the side or rear of a ship that problems occur, isn't it? I admit I have a very large lack of experience here.

Re:A tsunami in deep water is a non-event.

[ClayJar]

You are correct. A ship can take much larger waves directly into the bow than it can take abeam. It's perfectly logical if you think about it. The bow is designed to plow into the water, so it'll deflect the wave energy better, and designers know storms will come, so they design to some extent or another for waves breaking over the bow. Waves running directly into the side have a large surface to work on.

Additionally, consider the simple geometry. A ship is going to be much more stable in the pitch axis (where it is a nice, long lever) than in the roll axis (where it's much closer to a round log). Tipping a ship end-over-end would require something more like a Michael Bay movie, while capsizing it by rolling it over requires much less force.

The images I've seen of this ship show something much more like a floating rig platform than a plain old large yacht. It has a long axis, but it's much wider than a "normal" ship. That being the case, it would have more stability in the long axis, but it should be stable enough in the short axis. You *could* just go ahead and build a platform instead of a ship, with deep ballasts well below wave action attached by legs to the main platform well above the waves, but that expense, inconvenience of access, and greatly reduced mobility is apparently undesirable.

TWELVE

[way2trivial]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,[1] is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below.

No tax doging here

[markdj]

As long as the companies have shared resources: the boat, food, security, IT, etc. - they will be paying some form of taxes even if the boat owners call them fees.

Re:No tax doging here

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax is theft.

Re:satellite broadband will suck for some thing li

[h4rr4r]

So they will have servers but no datacenter?
This will not go well.

weird ignorant /.er opinions

[vlm]

Let me summarize an entire articles worth of weird and ignorant /.er opinions:

1) this is the first boat that is not US flagged to ever sail either in or nearby the USA, and if it docks for repairs it'll be the first time a foreign vessel has ever entered a US port, so no one will have any idea what to do.

2) there exists a single line in the sandy sea bottom, on one side its complete and total utter US control and the other side is all pirates.

3) magically, because this platform has servers instead of oil drilling equipment, decades of regulation and case law from the oil biz could not possibly apply to this biz, just because it makes for a nice sounding argument.

4) no one has ever lived on a boat for an extended length of time, nor is it even theoretically possible, much less comfortable.

5) the relationship must be binary, either a ship and its flag nation must be US lapdogs and hard core statists, or it must be a libertarian paradise, and only one of those possibilities is unrealistic therefore it Must be the other far extreme possibility (laughably goes for both sides arguments)

6) Foreigners and foreign sailors have never been present on a ship entering a us port, so no one will have any idea what to do.

7) Closely tied to #5, There are only binary governments, the hard core statist fascist western govts like the us and our european lapdogs, and pure capitalist anarchy, therefore since its probably going to be flagged out of panama or something, and panama isn't quite the usa, therefore slavery and polygamy will rule the ship. Uh, no. I don't think very many flag nations allow that on their ships. As a wild guess, I've been on cruise ships that are panama registered, if this tub's panama registered it'll be about as wild as a cruise ship... probably a nude tanning deck, a casino to gamble in, no secret police checking to see if couples in bed together are married (to each other) and are of the correct gender, and generally anyone looking "old enough" gets to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco although technically you have to be 18 in Panama (I think). That's probably about as wild as Panama is going to let it get.

8) A crime has never before happened on board a ship, therefore no one will have any idea how to handle a criminal activity if one happens.

Re:weird ignorant /.er opinions

[h4rr4r]

1. Not at all, nice stawman. The issue are if it is armed, or expects US navy protection without paying for it.

2. No there any many lines, and not that many pirates in that area. This might attract some.

3. Oil rigs are not generally trying to avoid the US government immigration laws like this.

4. It sucks, but people do it.

5. It will surely not be the latter.

6. your own stupid stawman

7. The Western governments are not fascist. You should learn a little more before speaking on that topic. The USA has nude beaches, Casinos, no secret police that check if people are married or correct gendered, alcohol and tobacco laws are enforced by locals not the feds. In short this is more nonsense you are spewing.

8. More of the same idiocy from you. In reality for practical reasons crimes on board ships are often under reported and under investigated. This will happen on this boat as well, if it ever leaves harbor.

Re:weird ignorant /.er opinions

[Elfich47]

I don't think vlm was espousing the list as his opinion, he was just summarizing.
Reality is going to work like this (assuming the boat ever leaves port):
At some point the ship needs to come into port for maintenance, repairs, you name it. DHS and Customs decides on a "Health and Welfare" inspection of a ship entering a US controlled port. At that point the cramped conditions, poor maintenance, foul sanitation, etc etc etc will be found out and the ship will not be allowed to leave port until it cleans up its act. Anybody who has been effectively shang-hai'd into working because they cannot afford to get off will be allowed to escape.
Welcome to Rapture.

Re:weird ignorant /.er opinions

[h4rr4r]

I meant to be responding to his insane notions of what other slashdotters would say.

You are correct of course. The only question is will this be before or after many people are victimized.

Re:weird ignorant /.er opinions

[vlm]

I don't think vlm was espousing the list as his opinion, he was just summarizing..

Yeah I was making fun of them too. Lots of people who've clearly never been on a non-cruiseship boat, but are none the less naval experts, naval engineers, navy sailors, admiralty law laywers... I'm certainly also no expert, but I've met and hung out with experts like that enough to absolutely laugh at some of the strange ideas I've seen in these posts.

The funniest one was some dude implying that a life in what amounts to a floating hackerspace is going to result in endless exepnsive helicopter medivacs, as if it'll be more dangerous than living on a oil drilling platform. "mayday mayday pan pan sos sos and all that shite help us coast guard we need a medivac because my buddy got a papercut and I ran out of energy drinks and the caffeine withdrawal headache is killing me!" Somehow, I'm thinking they'll be just fine.

I admit I'm torn... you're going to have the best and the brightest and most motiviated .. on the other hand they'll probably be from poor countries ... on the other hand you'll have plenty of people that don't want the well known USA "warm welcome" of treating every visitor as a terrorist criminal so they'll be plenty of wealthy Europeans on board its not all going to be 3rd world sweatshop conditions ... on the other hand they'll probably be scratching for every dollar they can get ... on the other hand have you seen the insane dumps that some nerds/geeks/freaks turn their homes into... On the other hand the purpose of living nearby the VCs is obviously for the VCs to visit, and they aren't going to want to meet in the town dump or the middle of the town sewage treatment plant, so its gotta be at least kinda nice.

At that point the cramped conditions, poor maintenance, foul sanitation

I LOLed, lets face it, we all know plenty of rich american landlubber, never set foot off american dirt, /.er types who would also miserably fail a health inspection of their apartment, or, heck, their workspace. Yet also plenty of ex-mil /.ers who still make hospital corners on their beds every morning. Thats before we get started with the OCD types who run "sync" three times before every reboot and wash their hands 50 times per day. I think it'll probably all end up as "not a whole hell of a lot different than living on land".

Re:weird ignorant /.er opinions

[vlm]

7. The Western governments are not fascist. You should learn a little more before speaking on that topic. The USA has nude beaches, Casinos, no secret police that check if people are married or correct gendered, alcohol and tobacco laws are enforced by locals not the feds. In short this is more nonsense you are spewing.

LOL don't know much about the US, well that's OK. Some of your stuff is actually pretty funny, but some is dangerously wrong to someone who doesn't know any better like the bit about there being no federal alcohol and tobacco laws, as a warning to anyone who doesn't know, that kind of stuff is hyper regulated by the feds and pretty heavily enforced too (all the locals do is check IDs to see if you're old enough, and occasionally have weird zoning type laws about when and where you can sell) Maybe a better way to describe it is the cruise ship experience would horrify a paleoconservative from Utarrrh yet simultaneously also bore the heck out of someone from Vegas. Can't please everyone all the time.

Torpedo Away!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot Headline: Tech workers of tax dodgers sent to Davey Jones locker.

Re:Torpedo Away!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot Headline: Tech workers of tax dodgers sent to Davey Jones locker.

The US blames the Chinese, the Chinese blame the Indians, the Indians blame the Pakistani's, the Pakistani's blame Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda blames the US and all the other Zionists and promptly launches a second major terrorist attack on US soil. The US retaliates against Al Qaeda by invading Norway because they have oil.
And the moral of the story is: I am not quite sure...

The Captain's Word is Law & Storms

[mallyn]

Yes, two very important concepts in ship-board life.

Weather.

And 'The Captain's Word is Law'.

Having been raised in a sailing family and having been on a sailing team in high school, I know that these two concepts in boat/shipboard life cannot be overlooked.

Glancing through this article, I see very little attention made to these.

Having been around techies and geeks for my adult life (after my sailing life ended), I see many of my fellow geeks having issues with the concept that on board a ship, there needs to be one dictator, ada, the captain. And that captain's is the law. The captain, who is responsible for the well being of the ship/boat and the people therein, has to have final and dictatorial authority.

Who will be the captain of this ship? Will all the geeks thereupon be willing to accept that his/her word is law? Will they be willing to jump onto lifeboats in the event of a storm/fire/whatever disaster?

What if someone mis-behaves? Will there be a brig on board? Who will adjudicate? On a Navy ship, the captain can order anyone into the brig. I believe the same also goes for the merchant marine? What is the case here?

How will this rig ride storms?

What about seasickness?

What about long periods of time (weather/storms) during which food and supplies cannot be brought out?

Re:The Captain's Word is Law & Storms

[ColdWetDog]

I might invite you to look at a brochure on any Cruise Line in the world. They've solved all of these little problems and more. And some of them make money doing so.

This is basically a cross between a cruise line trip and a short jail sentence.

You get to decide which parts fit which theme.

Maritime law disagrees

[chrb]

None. The "Tech Love Boat" exists solely as a tax and immigration dodge, and its founders are proud of it. May real pirates raid this libertarian haven

Under international maritime law, all nations have a duty to combat piracy. "Piracy is of note in international law as it is commonly held to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus cogens, a conventional peremptory international norm that states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity)" Wikipedia

The bottom line is that it isn't in the interests of the United States to have pirates operating off the U.S. coast, even if they only target vessels of other nations.

When a crime occurs on the "Love Boat", who will settle that crime?

It is exactly the same legal situation as a crime on a cruise ship. The passengers are subject to the legal sysem of their flag nation, and of others that exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction over maritime matters, so it is up to the courts to rule on which particular crimes are worthy of extraterritorial jurisdiction. See In international waters, are you beyond the reach of the law?

I welcome tax dodging

[Anonymous Coward]

I welcome all forms of tax evasion and "dodging", for the simple fact that less revenue for the business of government means less death, destruction, and injustice.

Rationale: My relationship with government is a net loss. Therefore, tax evasion helps my position, effectively reducing my loss. If your relationship with government is a net gain, then naturally, you have the opposite view. I encourage you to think long and hard about whether your relationship with government is a net loss or gain.

Captain Sensible.

[MRe_nl]

Welcome aboard!

doubt this will work with governments

[Dan667]

If governments don't get their cut I could see laws being passed with a 1000% tariff on these organizations.

Why don't they setup in Anguilla, BWI

[masonc]

The same companies can set up in Anguilla, be outside the US, have no corporate tax, have real tax treaties and IP treaties, and go to the beach after lunch. Fiber to the US, low latency connections, stable economic situation and no need to rely on the boat owner to keep the thing afloat.
Handled properly, they would have much less hassle.

Re:Why don't they setup in Anguilla, BWI

[jjo]

The problem with Anguilla, BWI is that it is situated in the Caribbean Sea, and stubbornly refuses to budge from that location. Blueseed is for people who place a high value on physical proximity to and face-to-face interaction with people in Silicon Valley, but for whom a location in the US doesn't work. These people may be wrong, but it's at least a plausible idea.

Crime and security

[YrWrstNtmr]

Crime will happen. Even just low level stuff, like stealing someones wallet. Sorry for all you pie in the sky people, but it will happen. How would rules be enforced? Who? Some onboard constabulary? By what authority? Company rules?
What happens when there are more serious crimes? Rape, assault, etc. Walk the plank? Or just send them home, unpunished?

What do you do when the security forces go bad?

Re:Crime and security

[Jedi Alec]

In international waters, the captain is god. He is judge, jury, executioner and priest all at the same time.

So yeah, under the guise of a libertarian paradise these guys are going through a lot of trouble to reinvent dictatorship. Not that there's anything wrong with that as long as the dictator is relatively benign of course.

Re:Crime and security

[TheMathemagician]

The oceans are full of cruise liners which seem to cope with these issues perfectly adequately not to mention oil platforms.

Re:Crime and security

[ColdWetDog]

Oh stop. The captain is a big party schmoozer and paper pusher. They don't do all of those silly things on a non military vessel.

Create a problem? Some largish persons will escort you to a nice little jail cell. There you will sit until the company lawyers figure out what to do with you.

Of course, then you're really in trouble.

Re:Crime and security

[ColdWetDog]

The oceans are full of cruise liners which seem to cope with these issues perfectly adequately not to mention oil platforms.

But this will be different. It will be a boat full of programmers.

Re:Crime and security

[ColdWetDog]

er, 'software engineers', sorry.

Re:Crime and security

[91degrees]

The ship wouldn't be stateless. I don't think that's even legally possible.

It would fly flag of convenience of a tax haven somewhere. Although if you're going to do that, I'm not sure I see a good reason not to incorporate in the Bahamas. Or Gibraltar or Singapore for that matter, since proximity to Europe or Asia is probably no less useful than proximity to the US. They're also places that have established infrastructure and no difficulty attracting talent due to a pleasant climate and good facilities.

Re:Crime and security

[dandv]

Crime will be handled the same way it's been handled on cruise ships that have transported tens of millions over the past 30 years. http://www.blueseed.co/faq.html#laws

Also, it's one thing to steal someone's wallet on a cruise, knowing you won't see them again, vs. on the ship that's practically the town you both live in.

Re:Crime and security

[dandv]

Correct - http://www.blueseed.co/faq.html#laws and correction - http://www.blueseed.co/faq.html#silicon_valley

VSat Bandwidth, Latency & Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. VSat is still prohibitively expensive and slow compared to land service.

Just a new sliver of foreign territory

[jjo]

What Blueseed is proposing to do is create a new sliver of foreign territory (probably Bahamian or Marshallese) 12 miles outside Silicon Valley. Locating a new business there is no more a tax or immigration dodge than setting up across the Canadian or Mexican border would be. Even though some people might like it otherwise, US tax and immigration law applies only to US territory and US citizens and residents.

The US VC's funding the startups will pay US taxes. US citizens working onboard will pay US taxes. As for the others, why do you think foreigners who work outside the US should pay US taxes and have to get US work visas?

Re:Just a new sliver of foreign territory

[YrWrstNtmr]

What Blueseed is proposing to do is create a new sliver of foreign territory (probably Bahamian or Marshallese) 12 miles outside Silicon Valley. Locating a new business there is no more a tax or immigration dodge than setting up across the Canadian or Mexican border would be. Even though some people might like it otherwise, US tax and immigration law applies only to US territory and US citizens and residents.

The US VC's funding the startups will pay US taxes. US citizens working onboard will pay US taxes. As for the others, why do you think foreigners who work outside the US should pay US taxes and have to get US work visas?

Why then, are they wanting to do this just offshore, if not to take advantage of some benefits of being next to the US? If you want to set it up on a 'foreign' territory, why not just do that and dispense with the hassle of being on a ship?
They want some of the advantages of being (almost) in the US, but without paying for it.

Re:Just a new sliver of foreign territory

[jjo]

The key word is 'almost'. They are not in the US. There is no duty, legal or moral, to pay for being close to the US. Should the people in Tijuana pay US taxes for the privilege of being close to the US?

Re:Just a new sliver of foreign territory

[YrWrstNtmr]

No they shouldn't. But why not set up shop in Tijuana? Because they don't want to pay Mexican taxes, official and unofficial, either.

The ship thing sounds 'romantic'. But brings a LOT of hassles and expense. Set up in Bahamas. No US taxes, close enough to shore, etc, etc.

Re:Just a new sliver of foreign territory

[jjo]

You may well be right, in which case Blueseed will fail. It could be that physical proximity to Silicon Valley is as valuable as Blueseed thinks it is, in which case the hassles and expense will be worth it. I see no reason not to let them try.

Re:Just a new sliver of foreign territory

[dandv]

Very well put. There's nothing radical about Blueseed. People from Vancouver have been traveling to Silicon Valley for tens of years to conduct business. Blueseed is legally just like Vancouver, but closer.

no

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how companies claimed that H1Bs were needed to acquire talent that the US did not have, I expect future justifications for cheap foreign labor as close to America.

GiTS comes to life

[GameboyRMH]

In one of the movies there was a factory ship parked in international waters to skirt local laws.

Reality TV

[ahoffer0]

"Dangerous Waters" for geeks. Can't wait.

I fail to see ....

[PPH]

... the value of housing a few thousand code monkeys a few miles offshore. We've got broadband around the world with Skype, video conferencing, and group collaboration apps. We could just as easily keep these people in Bangalore or Shenzhen and not worry about the infrastructure (food, housing, etc.).

The tax issues have already been solved. Incorporate in a low/no tax jurisdiction and corporate taxes are paid through that office. You can have US employees, facilities on US soil and everything and still duck corporate income taxes. You can hire US nationals as contractors, working out of their own facilities by telecommuting from home, for example, and sidestep local taxes (employee, property, utility, etc.).

So, what's the boat for?

Re:I fail to see ....

[dandv]

See http://www.blueseed.co/faq.html#silicon_valley. And again, Blueseed will host startups. The project that intended to host coders was Sea Code, http://sea-code.com/

The mansion family

[doston]

Carl: Homer, have we hit international waters yet? Because, eh, things are gettin' real ugly. [cut to Moe, who stands in front of a keg of beer, holding off the advancing crowd with a bullwhip] Moe: I can't sell you beer until we cross the line! Barney: Legally, you can give us free beer. [Moe whips him] Ow!

Re:satellite broadband will suck for some thing li

[SuricouRaven]

I mean its purpose isn't a datacenter. It'll need one onboard for internal use, yes but only for their own use. They aren't offering to host services for anyone else.

US tax avoidance is a net good for humanity

[Anonymous Coward]

US taxation directly fuels US military belligerence abroad, so if you're looking for a good argument against Blueseed, lack of US taxation is not a good one to suggest to foreign nationals.

Oh, and by the way, it's not tax evasion that is under discussion here (as that would be illegal), but tax avoidance which is perfectly legal --- all your lovely US corps practice it. Blueseed would not be based in the territorial US nor fly a US flag, so it would have no legal obligation to pay US taxes. There would be no tax evasion.

I would certainly recommend that you try to avoid paying taxes wherever possible, as that's simply commonsense. But don't evade those taxes which your law makes mandatory, or you'll end up behind bars. There is an important difference.

Re:US tax avoidance is a net good for humanity

[nomadic]

"US taxation directly fuels US military belligerence abroad, so if you're looking for a good argument against Blueseed, lack of US taxation is not a good one to suggest to foreign nationals."

Unless you're one of the many countries which benefits from US military adventurism.

Just a gimmick

[Guppy06]

Quoth the FAQ:

The Blueseed vessel will fly the flag of a country that follows English/American common law and that has reputable judicial systems, such as The Bahamas (English common law) or Marshall Islands (based on American Law).

The national law of whose flag they fly is the one that applies. Instead of going through the effort to work on a ship of Bahamian registry, why not move to the Bahamas?

Of course, a major reason why ships choose these flags of convenience is that, while information wants to be free, workers want to be paid. It's less about escaping the NSA and more about escaping OSHA.

Re:Just a gimmick

[dandv]

Instead of going through the effort to work on a ship of Bahamian registry, why not move to the Bahamas?

The value proposition is proximity to Silicon Valley - http://www.blueseed.co/faq.html#silicon_valley

Re:Just a gimmick

[Guppy06]

The latency through an undersea cable connecting the Bahamas to North America is probably still less than the latency of a ship-to-shore link via satellite.

Meanwhile, physical travel time to and from this ship is only negligible if you can afford a helicopter.

re: love boat

[Phusion]

Love is in the air.... and also BO.

Regarding Law

[michaelwigle]

Check out the laws section of their FAQ... Laws. So, there will be American Common Law in place. They aren't claiming to be their own country. Actually, it looks like they are primarily saying "We're Googleplex on water. It's cool!". Whether or not that's enough incentive to actually move your living and working quarters there is another matter. It also appears to me that International laws will apply so folks hoping to run illicit activities from there may still find themselves in hot water. I don't think they are trying to get around laws, just provide a cool place to set up shop that would certainly have "fewer" laws.

Stay off shore until...

[GodfatherofSoul]

They need to use our infrastructure, courts, police protection, etc. These efforts should be treated like foreign entities. You want to play that game, then go ahead.

Re:Stay off shore until...

[jjo]

US investors in Blueseed and its startups will pay US taxes. US workers aboard Blueseed will pay US taxes. Non-US workers aboard will use the courts of the country of registry (e.g., Bahamas), if they need courts. Blueseed will have to provide its own infrastructure. Why should this foreign vessel on the high seas be treated differently from the thousands of other foreign vessels on the high seas?

just like real pirates.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not going to be able to hire any women on this viral incubator of BO.

200 maladjusted geeks working 5824 hours a year and it's going to be grab, pinch, grope, gropepity grope. And pretty soon rapeity rape rape rape. Over and over and over.

Open Pacifc is no joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a sailboat that I occasionally take out of San Francisco Bay to the Pacific (Farallon’s, lightship buoy, etc)

The open ocean 12 miles of Northern California is not the most fun place to be. Definitely an acquired taste. The water is very cold (~50 degrees) resulting in conditions far, far different from Silicon Valley. And depending on weather (not just local weather, but storm systems hundreds of miles away) the ocean swells and winds can be quite significant.

And having had a lot of experience with sea sickness, my own and my crew, their flip answer on the FAQ: "inexpensive medication such as Meclizine reduces seasickness susceptibility from 2-3 days to zero when administered" is hilarious. Equally funny is this line: "that stability is within acceptable limits for European passenger ferries." Anyone ever take one of those Irish ferries to the Aran Islands? Probably also within acceptable limits...but wow, what a ride!

Good luck brave souls...USCG be sure to bill them appropriately.

Wrong.

[SuperKendall]

That's one of the problems with libertarian dreamers. They crave a dog-eat-dog world, but they all think THEY'RE going to be one of the top dogs.

Wrong. In a truly dog-eat-dog world, any dog that gets too far ahead gets eaten by the pack...

Libertarians have no desire for power. They just want to see limited power OVER THEM. You seeing it as a quest for power over others is more revelatory to your own subconscious desires and/or fears than that of Libertarians.

Basically, you apparently can't handle a world where you are not on a leash...

Re:Wrong.

[s73v3r]

Again, you're assuming perfect markets. That shit doesn't happen in reality.

Re:Wrong.

[crazyjj]

Wrong. In a truly dog-eat-dog world, any dog that gets too far ahead gets eaten by the pack.

Yeah, except it has never once worked out that way in reality. In lawless regions or other areas where the government is weak, what inevitably happens is that you end up with a handful of powerful warlords who basically terrorize and dominate the populace. They build up their own private armies to not only protect themselves from the "pack" but to do whatever the fuck else they want too, including showing up at your home periodically to take anything they want and rape your wife. Life is great if you happen to be one of those warlords (or one of their family or close friends). Life is complete shit if you're anyone else.

And you're not escaping the leash. You're just trading in the democratic government leash for the much tighter and shorter leash that the rich and powerful will have you on in your libertarian paradise.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarianism is an ideal, and on paper it's attractive. Hell, done correctly, communism has its good points.

The problem is that humans tend to group together and exercise power / governance over one another in entirely predictable patterns, patterns that have not changed much over the years- With the exception of how long it takes for a nation or group to slowly transform from whatever ideal they started with to a homeostatic basis of one group, in wealth, lording it over another group in poverty.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the individual changes, and don't hold your breath on that one, the exercise of power and governance won't, either. Someone will come up with a good idea, it'll start out grandly and devolve into the same old shit.

Re:Wrong.

[Captain Splendid]

Wrong. In a truly dog-eat-dog world, any dog that gets too far ahead gets eaten by the pack.

Spoken like someone who's never owned more than one dog.

Fun fact: The dog that gets out in front is the pack leader. Might want to try a different metaphor.

Unless you really believe that a near-monpoly in a libertarian universe could ever get taken down by a bunch of scrappy startups...

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you just confused tyranny with liberty. I know, I know, it's easy to do.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well that's good to know. I'm glad that your hypothetical ideal Libertarian exists in theory.
Now please tell the 99% of the other libertarians that are greedy capitalists, tax dodgers, or creeps that want to justify their other less savory behavior that they're doing it wrong.

Oh wait, you can't. Your ideal prevents you from interfering with the above bad actors.
The 'Free Market' cannot make a substitute for a system of laws that protect freedom and safety. Sorry. You don't have the magic formula that can magically tell when market freedom ends and harm begins.

Goodness, have I debunked Libertarianism in less than 5 lines? Sure looks like I have!

Re:Wrong.

[crazyjj]

I think you just confused tyranny with liberty

You think that getting rid of government is going to get you the latter. In reality, it's going to get you the former.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians have no desire for power. They just want to see limited power OVER THEM. You seeing it as a quest for power over others is more revelatory to your own subconscious desires and/or fears than that of Libertarians.

Basically, you apparently can't handle a world where you are not on a leash...

The leash on me makes very little difference in my life. The leash that prevents others from hurting me matters a great deal. I can handle a world where there is no "leash" keeping me from murdering children and poison the water supply. What I can not handle is a world where others have no such leash.

Re:Wrong.

[cowboy76Spain]

That's one of the problems with libertarian dreamers. They crave a dog-eat-dog world, but they all think THEY'RE going to be one of the top dogs.

Wrong. In a truly dog-eat-dog world, any dog that gets too far ahead gets eaten by the pack...

Then how did WE start as a bunch of villages or nomadic tribes and like THIS?

Re:Wrong.

[ediron2]

THIS! They're both utopian extremes that never quite pan out. Humanity is a paradox of greed, laziness, industry and goodness overall, run roughshod by anyone able to find gameable advantage.

Re:Wrong.

[jythie]

That is the problem. Too much liberty just makes it easier for someone else to implement the tyranny since no one will stop them.

Re:Wrong.

[jythie]

*nods* which is why all real systems are hybrids, taking pieces from various ideals and counterbalancing them.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

In lawless regions or other areas where the government is weak, what inevitably happens is that you end up with a handful of powerful warlords who basically terrorize and dominate the populace.

1. Correlation does not imply causation.

2. A failed state is not the same as a stateless society.

I think it's more likely that "warlords taking over" means conditions were already pretty dire. If Niceville, Minnesota turns anarchist do you really think we'll have Farmer John becomming a warlord? It's a defeatist line of argument. You keep saying it can't be done but eventually it will.

How will they power the servers?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they going to power the servers on a ship that floats indefinitely on the ocean? Will they buy a military surplus nuclear-powered aircraft carrier? At some point, the ship will need fuel, especially if it has a cloud computing infrastructure below decks sucking up power from its power plant. If the logistics are worked out, they sure sound expensive - could this possibly be cheaper than just paying a decent wage to landlubber programmers?

No visas?

[Choad Namath]

So the idea is that everyone will fly into the US and then take a boat or helicopter to the ship? You're still going to have to go through US customs when you enter the country and at least get at least a tourist visa for whatever amount of time you're on US soil, and then go through again to leave for the "love boat" to avoid having your visa expire. Of course that might not be such a hassle compared to getting a work visa, but it's not like you can just go straight to this place without dealing with customs.

Re:No visas?

[ZombieBraintrust]

nah you can do that all in Canada or Mexico

Totally wrong!

[SuperKendall]

*nods* it dovetails into the idea that somehow the people who do have power do not deserve it or got it illegitimately.

WTF? No, it doesn't dovetail with that notion at all. That's an Occupy sentiment, not Libertarian.

Libertarians are OK with people having power, insofar as they do not hurt other people.

In terms of government, Libertarians simply want to take over - and then leave you alone. That's the extent of it.

You have no clue whatsoever what Libertarians think. Your assignment is to read 50 articles from Reason and come back when you are better informed.

Re:Totally wrong!

[s73v3r]

In terms of government, Libertarians simply want to take over - and then leave you alone. That's the extent of it.

And by "leave you alone", they mean allowing any employer to mistreat you as much as they want, and giving you no fucking recourse whatsoever. They mean allowing any company to pour whatever toxic sludge in the environment that they want, and forcing YOU to bear the burden of trying to prove they did some harm, against their legion of highly trained lawyers.

You have no clue whatsoever what the people in charge of the "Libertarians" think. You cannot learn from history, and see how bad this shit would be.

Re:Totally wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider Ron Paul's argument in favor of libertarianism. Enforce property rights. Then your neighbor has no right to pollute your air, soil, water, etc.

Re:Totally wrong!

[prehistoricman5]

Yet the government tries to do that and "libertarians" cry foul.

Libertarianism is based upon a false premise; it assumes humans are fully informed rational beings. The reality is that we are never fully informed which forces us to rely on irrational things like emotions.

Re:Totally wrong!

[nomadic]

In terms of government, Libertarians simply want to take over - and then leave you alone. That's the extent of it.

Most Libertarians have authoritarian tendencies. Remember when Badnarik got the Libertarian nomination for President then started talking about creating a benign dictatorship with himself in charge?

Re:Totally wrong!

[nomadic]

"Enforce property rights. Then your neighbor has no right to pollute your air, soil, water, etc."

Typically libertarian bait-and-switch; claim your neighbor has no right to pollute in theory, but in practice deny 99% of pollution is actually pollution. "What? I can put PCBs in your drinking water, they haven't proven conclusively that PCBs are dangerous!"

Re:Totally wrong!

[s73v3r]

And how the actual fuck am I supposed to enforce that? Especially if someone the size of Dow Chemical moves in next door?

Re:Totally wrong!

[jythie]

Simple, become rich and move elsewhere.

Re:satellite broadband will suck for some thing li

[s73v3r]

But how will they browse /.?

Re:satellite broadband will suck for some thing li

[X0563511]

Encapsulate HTTP requests into something like PACTOR III to a terrestrial station serving as a gateway. Not a difficult idea.

A ship off Half Moon Bay. Right.

[Animats]

This has been talked up for a while, but it's not taken seriously locally. They want to locate this 12 miles offshore of Half Moon Bay, CA. They can't locate this off San Francisco, because the Farallon Islands push the US border much further from the mainland.

Montara, a few miles north of Half Moon Bay, has a modest small boat harbor. But they'd need a full-scale ferry dock and a cargo facility to service their offshore operation. They'd also need a U.S. Customs port of entry, which Montara is not. So they'd have to ferry everything up to the Golden Gate. That kills most of the advantages of being only 12 miles offshore. And you can't just helicopter out there; you have to go through an airport port of entry. (There is a big USAF radar station at Pillar Point, overlooking the proposed ship location. All air traffic is monitored.)

What they're talking about is called an "accommodation barge". Those are available. Most are rather basic, and only some are suitable for mooring in open ocean. Some available barges. They might also lease a cruise ship, which would be more luxurious, although it would need modifications for solid offshore anchoring.

And what's the point? At great expense, somebody gets to avoid US taxes on a few hundred employees.

Out to sea and the eventual rise of "crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

With no laws, I can see prostitution and gambling being housed on the platform. I can also see it as a trade point for illegal goods. Laws and regulations generally have a purpose of placing order on society, making all participants play fair. Remove the rules and it will be the wild west.

Can't find anything in the FAQs

[NeroTransmitter]

About how a worker gets from say Bangladesh to the BlueMySeed boat. I imagine they will have to have a Visa to fly into the San Francisco International Airport. Perhaps they will be recruiting really well swimming candidates?

Off shore == out of the rule of law

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Yeah this is something the cruise industry caught onto a few decades back. If your ship isn't registered in the US and it's not in US territorial waters, then it's not protected by US laws, neither criminal nor civil.

Good luck saying "I was eavesdropped on" or "my software / idea / business model / proprietary information was stolen" or anything like that.

Civilization- it has it's benefits.

What's the point of being close to the US?

[EmagGeek]

If they aren't bothering with visas, they won't be able to come ashore anyway, so what's the point of being physically close to California? Why not the Bahamas? Or Bora Bora? Or some place one might actually like living?

Re:What's the point of being close to the US?

[lpq]

Availability of high-speed RF link to shore?

Ability for owners to have easy access?

Ability to be close to shore for repairs (workers get a vacation)...

My big Q: will this be the next server co-lo for the Pirate Bay??

Hey Blueseed, ever gone out off CA in the winter?

[Pvt_Waldo]

For that matter, has your concept artist? That artwork is an absolute load of crap fantasy about what it's like out there. The weather can and will absolutely suck in the winter. And the summers may be nice(r), but you're not talking "lounging on the deck in your swimsuit". Seriously, what are you going to do if a storm blows up and it's 30's seas? Go into port while you close down all work? Watch your work force all call in sea sick?

Here's a summary of Dec/Jan conditions from a NOAA buoy close to the proposed location...

Average wind speed, 10 knots, with peak wind gusts up to 50 (and beyond) at times, which can create 25-30 foot seas. Trust me, 25-30 foot seas suck. You're not doing nothing but point the boat into the waves and riding it out. Average air temperature is about 53 degrees, with the water about the same, so forget swim calls. Maybe go out on deck for a big of an invigorating walk, but then it's back into the ship's interior. Even right now in Spring/Summer, it's blowing 15 knots and the air temperature is 51 degrees.

This is from http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=46012

Blueseed FAQ

[dandv]

I should've linked to the Blueseed FAQ in my original post. It answers a lot of the silly counter-arguments (though not those as silly as "Pirates!!!" - When has anyone last seen pirates near California?). To sum up:

• * why not telework/conference call all the time: because that doesn't work for startups in their early stage, and because no investor will invest in a startup without meeting the team in person; also because you can't go to startup events via Skype
• * the whole libertarian red herring - Blueseed has nothing to do with a political system or another. It's an entrepreneurial solution to a very clear problem: the lack of visas for foreign entrepreneurs. AILA (the Association of Immigration Lawyer of America) explains it very clearly in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLCYfhZEFb8#t=3m15s: "There are simply no US visas available for immigrant entrepreneurs"
• * the whole tax haven or lawlessness red herring: Blueseed is JUST LIKE Vancouver, in the sense that Microsoft employees come to Silicon Valley all the time from Vancouver to conduct business, then they fly back. There's nothing radical about Blueseed, other than it being much closer than Vancouver. Also, the entire cruise ship industry has been functioning for years and is a clear precedent that laws do apply on cruise ships, and people don't just go murder each other.
• * International waters are 12, not 200 miles from shore. See UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, article 3.
• * the exploitation red herring: how in the world would you think that Blueseed will be on anything BUT best behavior when everybody on board is online pretty much 24/7, and the entire ship will be in the brightest press spotlight?

Cruise Ships doctors / medical is a mixed bag

[Joe_Dragon]

http://www.lipcon.com/news_archive/news_article35.php

http://travel-golf.org/cruise_ship_medical_doctors.htm

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-08-02/health/profile.ship.doctor_1_emt-training-park-ranger-emergency-medicine/3?_s=PM:HEALTH

also there is a potential for a shipboard epidemic of viral or bacterial infection.

Cruise ship precedent

[dandv]

The laws that apply on the ship will be those of the flag country - www.blueseed.co/faq.html#laws

Cruise ship shave a 30+ year precedent of ensuring order and safety aboard.

Google and Yahoo! have been started by immigrant founders. Now they're employing tens of thousands of people. The US of A is quite desperately looking for ways to boost entrepreneurship. The USCIS has an Entrepreneurs in Residence program to understand startups better. The White House supports that too, see Strengthening Immigrant Pathways for Job-Creating Entrepreneurs.

You don't quite understand VCs

[dandv]

VCs aren't after "offshore talent". They're looking for high-growth startups. Plus, Blueseed wasn't started by VCs, but by immigrant entrepreneurs (look at the bios of the founders). And please drop the silly argument about "enslaving". If someone doesn't like it on the ship, they leave. Do you realize the amount of press the ship will get? If anyone is in the least unhappy, that would lead to a PR disaster to Blueseed. Slavery? Please.

Re:You don't quite understand VCs

[tungstencoil]

Sorry - my comment should read "will find" not "will found", e.g. this would be an example of VCs finding a way to get of getting cheap *and entrepreneurial" talent without having to worry about work visas/sponsorship/et al.

So yes: I do understand VCs. So yes: they aren't interested in "offshore talent" in the manner of "hiring a code monkey to write classes", but they ARE interested in "offshore talent" like "these folks from [another country] who have what we think is a high-growth (your words) idea", and the idea is WAAAAY more compelling if you can bypass the whole pesky US/immigration/work bits.

Oh, and yes: VCs do practically enslave their staff. Especially the founders, and anyone else who has the possibility of a big payout dangled in front of them, that future, unstable, gamble-of-a-possibility pretty much chains someone to the startup. Yes, I'm being a big metaphorical, and not literal. You're right - someone can leave. There aren't real shackles. But anyone who has worked for a funded startup that has failed (and even some that have succeeded) can tell a tale that harkens to enslavement.

Blueseed might not be started by VC, but they (you) sure do seem to have some on their advisory board; again, sorry if my semantics are a touch off, but the flavor (doused with metaphor) remains correct.

Re:You don't quite understand VCs

[nomadic]

"Blueseed wasn't started by VCs, but by immigrant entrepreneurs (look at the bios of the founders [blueseed.co])"

Not a single one of those bios reflect an "entrepreneur." Actually, those bios reflect an astonishing lack of practical experience running a commercial operation.

Idiot

[dandv]

How in the world do you expect a sweatship for startup entrepreneurs online 24/7, to survive in the press spotlight near California's coast? Have you the faintest idea about the PR implications?

I'll Believe it when I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a venture capital with pie-in-the-sky plan. If this ship/facility really happens, it would likely be more conventional ship if anything else. There choosing what kind ship to house these people on? They might well get newish retired Cruise Liner and save money that than build a barge (2 of the 3 ships were more like barges with trees on it.) which not likely move well.

There was something similar to this but more housing plan called the Freedom Ship. Tax Free/duty free- good living on mobile community. That didn't fly because they could afford built the thing. This maybe smaller, but their going have deal with problems that are going come up. Like security and possibly treatment of the customers if thing go bad.

Greap Leap Rightward

[luis_a_espinal]

You know, the real disadvantages of having the oppressive, income taxing government are much greater than the perceived advantage of having an 'educated' population. The so called education system is in a huge bubble in USA, people are getting gov't guaranteed loans - basically free money, because whatever they don't pay out in 15 years is forgiven, and the maximum amount anybody is going to have to pay monthly is only on top of 2 minimum poverty levels, and then it's only a 10% of that so called 'discretionary spending' , so the poverty level counts at 16,000USD/individual or 33,500 for a family of 4, 2 of these is is 32000 for individual, so if you make 50000, then you have to pay a maximum of 10% from the 18000 a year, or 1800 a year, or 150 a month, and this goes on for maximum of 15 or 20 years, so anything you owe beyond that is forgiven, it's a massive bailout/stimulus/incentive to spend huge globs of 'free' money.

So everybody should go back to college, and they should go to a college that provides the students with everything. Why not buy everybody an expensive car as part of 'education' process? Why not a house and all the furniture, a bunch of expensive clothing, whatever?

A college has all the incentives to waste money, the student has all the incentives to waste money, the colleges and students need to collude under this system and just buy globs of stuff and put it on the gov't backed education loans system. Of-course there is already a huge bubble in education loans, over a trillion USD of debt too.

All this so that anybody can go to college to major in Arts - sociology, why not? A language or literature or whatever passes for 'economics'.

Though you mention some real issues that need addressing, you gather them all up to create a hyperbole. Nicely done.

So AFAIC costs of this system far outweigh the benefits,

That is true only within the hyperbole that you constructed for the sake of supporting your argument.

in fact there can be no benefits once gov't gets involved in anything beyond its direct mandate - border protection being one of those, but not healthcare, not education, not housing, not banking, not money, not debt, not insurance, not regulating businesses, not taxing income,

That is as dogmatic as Mao's Great Leap Forward, with the only difference that your POV is sitting on the other side of the political spectrum. It is unrealistic and unworkable. Or what, do you think everything is going to regulate itself? I'm a conservative that believes in small government (where small means efficient, and not just about size reduction or elimination of services simply for fiscal or ideological sake of it). However, I find the claim that government has no say or fiscal policy on education or taxation absolutely ludicrious, a Greap Leap Rightward no matter how you cut it.

not telling people how to live their lives, what to smoke and who to fuck.

More hyperbole. I agree with you that governments should have no saying in how we live our private lives. But to bundle them with other issues like education or taxing, that's just being dogmatic for dogmatism' sake.

Libertarian koolade

[ediron2]

Libertarians have a wide range of desires for power. FTFY.

Meanwhile, the power- and money-hungry will not share, the sociopathic will not resist the urge to shit in the sandbox, and so on. As naive as socialism is, libertarianism pretends that everyone will behave ethically without regulations. All those regulations libertarians hate? Yeah, they each pretty much trace back to someone pissin' in the pool **BECAUSE THEY COULD**. We don't make that s''t up.

Now, when you find an unneeded law, shout and I'll be your wingman. If you want us to throw entire chunks of the regulatory codebook into a dustbin because they're byzantine and push for actions contrary to what society wants, again, I WILL BE THERE WITH YOU. But that means designing taxes that are simple and progressive, not a flat tax. That means making a social safety net that makes people WANT to do better, without punishing the weak or unlucky. We can debate subsidies to guide economic development -- I'm cool with you and I disagreeing about my WANTING us to collectively solve big problems and you hoping the free market finds economic value.

But you're wrong on regulations. The leash isn't about me, it's about sharing the same space fearlessly: I don't want to endure a world where someone else's mad dog doesn't have to have a leash.

How will this be better/different than the rest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Others have proposed identical tax haven ships and offshore islands. Those other proposals also tended to add luxury and vacation options to the package. (You could buy in on the cheap, or get a $30M penthouse corner condo space.) Those others never got off the drawing board, how is this one different?

omnomnom shark bait

[Anonymous Coward]

about 30 miles west from the Golden Gate are the Farallon Islands. It's rough chop pretty much all the time, cold as balls even in the summer, and in the winter it blows and storms like hell. Oh and the waters are full of sharks, there are a few boat charter companies that offer shark tours of the Farallon Islands.

Neat place, but makes me seasick just to think about being out there. And the list of sailors lost in that area is pretty long. The coast guard prefers to take helicopters to the area, especially if they need to visit the island as the water can be rather rough. And really most of the water off the coast of California is like this, I only mentions the Farallon because I've been there, but I am told it is not unique in terms of the waters and weather.

I don't get it

[thoughtlover]

What does this have to do with a 'love boat' where beautiful people come for a week of dodgy lust? It's more like the 'love' of dodging taxes.

If you want to dodge taxes, just incorporate in Nevada.

Gonna get myself couple of 'em cruise ship !

[Taco Cowboy]

There are plenty of old / almost old cruise ships awaiting to be scrapped

Gonna get myself couple of them - Park one outside the coast of CA, park one near Singapore, park couple of them somewhere off the shore of Europe and we are talking business !

Re.

[Anonymous Coward]

Health care is the important issue of every peoples on this earth.. ED

Honeypot

[wye43]

Nice way to catch 146 companies that want to do heavily illegal-everywhere stuff.
The entire world will look away when they get bombed down to the Pacific depths.