Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Unveil Plans For First Space Nation 'Asgardia,' Open Citizenship Applications (theguardian.com)

Scientists and legal experts have unveiled plans for the "first nation state in space." The state is called "Asgardia" after one of the mythical worlds inhabited by the Norse gods, and it will eventually become a member of the United Nations -- complete with its own flag and anthem. The Guardian reports: According to the project website, Asgardia "will offer an independent platform free from the constraint of a land-based country's laws. It will become a place it in orbit which is truly 'no man's land.'" Initially, it would seem, this new nation will consist of a single satellite, scheduled to be launched next year, with its citizens residing firmly on terra firma. Speaking to the Guardian through an interpreter, the project lead Igor Ashurbeyli, said: "Physically the citizens of that nation state will be on Earth; they will be living on different countries on Earth, so they will be a citizen of their own country and at the same time they will be citizens of Asgardia." "When the number of those applications goes above 100,000 we can officially apply to the UN for the status of state," he added. According to the project website, "Any human living on Earth can become a citizen of Asgardia," with the site featuring a simple registration form. At the time of writing more than 1000 individuals had already signed up. At present, the Outer Space Treaty that underpins international space law states that responsibility and liability for objects sent into space lies with the nation that launched them. But the project team claims that Asgardia will set a new precedent, shifting responsibility to the new "space nation" itself. "The existing state agencies represent interests of their own countries and there are not so many countries in the world that have those space agencies," said Ashurbeyli. "The ultimate aim is to create a legal platform to ensure protection of planet Earth and to provide access to space technologies for those who do not have that access at the moment."

275 comments

  1. Uh, the name... by saccade.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't help but read that at ass-guardian...as in CYA?

    1. Re:Uh, the name... by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      I think it's a reference to the Asgard in Stargate SG1. =p

    2. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I risk to differ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgard

    3. Re:Uh, the name... by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      The name "Asgardia" is so distorted that I hardly even recognized it. It's Ásgarðr. That's pronounced "OWSE GAR-thur". Where did "AS GARD-ee-ah" come from?

      Ás = a god (plural "æsir")
      Garðr = garden

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    4. Re:Uh, the name... by Kkloe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think it came from ass-guardian

    5. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I can't help but read that as ass-guardian

      Uh, if that's the first thing you think of, then you seem to have some personal issues with butt-sex that you need to discuss with a therapist. Plus you seem lacking in knowledge of Norse mythology.

    6. Re:Uh, the name... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Assuming your question was serious: from Asgard and -ia, the state of being in. You know; a watery-eyed, projection of seeing themselves as gods of sorts.

    7. Re:Uh, the name... by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not "Asgard", it's "Ásgarðr" (if you want to modernize the spelling, at least do so as "Ásgarður" - or if you want only English letters, at least get the pronunciation right with something like "Ausgarther"). That's an eth, not a d; an á, not an a; and it's not nominative if you drop the ending. And it's already a place name, it doesn't need a suffix to make it one - let alone a suffix taken from an entirely different linguistic branch. That's like naming a place "Beijing-ia" or "Tamil Nadu-ia"

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    8. Re:Uh, the name... by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      (And yes, I'm fully aware that I've picked a strange little hill to die on here...)

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    9. Re: Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for what it's worth, I've wondered how that was natively pronounced. Without weighing on the merits of your cause... Thanks!

    10. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not "Asgard", it's "Ásgarðr" (if you want to modernize the spelling, at least do so as "Ásgarður" - or if you want only English letters, at least get the pronunciation right with something like "Ausgarther"). That's an eth, not a d; an á, not an a; and it's not nominative if you drop the ending. And it's already a place name, it doesn't need a suffix to make it one - let alone a suffix taken from an entirely different linguistic branch. That's like naming a place "Beijing-ia" or "Tamil Nadu-ia"

      In America, and many other nations "Asgard" is a common pronunciation (like we say "Kew-bah" for Cuba, and generally not "Koo-ba", the proper pronunciation).
      As a Swedish-American (my father was from Gothenburg (Goteborg), and don't even get me started on that pronunciation), I'm fine with saying "Asgard". To each their own.

    11. Re:Uh, the name... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Was gonna say, someone better make the SG1 reference

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re:Uh, the name... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      It's an English pronunciation. Just like we call Köln "Cologne", Roma "Rome".

      English is not the only language to completely butcher and change the name of a location from a different foreign language. Many do the same thing. Hence your mythological location becomes AssGuard in English.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    13. Re: Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this is completely made up and they decided on "Asgardia" even if they incorrectly thought they were paying tribute to the original...

    14. Re:Uh, the name... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I can't help but read that at ass-guardian...as in CYA?

      Well, considering it's a country that only comic-book geeks and mythology nerds will sign up to join it's going to be a real sausage party... you may just want to guard your ass.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    15. Re:Uh, the name... by pla · · Score: 2

      I appreciate the lesson in pronunciation (sincerely, I don't mean that as sarcasm); but TFA didn't pull that particular transliteration out of their asses - The Western world has used "Asgard" as the standard spelling for at least a century.

      Sometimes, we don't get it right - Tao Te Ching. Bane Sidhe. The entire Welsh language... This "project" has sooo much more wrong with it than the name, no need to resort to picking nits. :)

    16. Re:Uh, the name... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Guess he's more interested in the Greek kind.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that there's anything wrong with it :/

    18. Re:Uh, the name... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Disney is already making a film based on this microstate;

      ASS-GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    19. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But will the members have ass-burgers?

    20. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering you're a Space Nutter and wish to die an excruciating drawn-out death in your precious vacuum, dying on a hill is sane by comparison! ;)

    21. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " only comic-book geeks and mythology nerds"

      In other words, Space Nutters. They'll have a place to mull over the future of the species a billion years into the future, while ignoring the fact that they won't reproduce anyways. They can seriously discuss Death Asteroids and colonizing Mars while oversimplifying all the challenges to a point where even 8 year olds would say "hey wait a minute, that can't be!"

    22. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that but modern Swedish, Norwegian and Danish all come in pretty close to Asgard as well. So while the Icelandic obviously has a strong bearing (with the Edda's and all) I would agree that using Asgard as the base is not exactly "distorted".

      But naming a made up nation (with open applications no less) by the home of the gods come out as a bit.... pretentious* to be.

      (*My lack of command over the English language wouldn't let me fit Hubris there and I would rather spend my time writing this lame excuse than google it)

    23. Re:Uh, the name... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      That would depend entirely on just how one chooses to guard their ass, now wouldn't it?

      You're being pretty cheeky there, AC.

      Freedom and libertines for all!

      Er, liberty. Yeah.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    24. Re:Uh, the name... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      In the same way that having a character named Jesus is a reference to "The Big Lebowski," I suppose it is.

    25. Re:Uh, the name... by Shadyman · · Score: 1

      And if you were playing an entirely decked out Destiny character, it would be a fine ass-guardian

    26. Re:Uh, the name... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, the eth has degenerated (for the most part) in the mainland Nordic languages but is retained in Icelandic and Faroese. Denmark contributed a lot to this - what is spoken today in Norway is more similar to Old Danish than it is to Old Norwegian. Now, I say "for the most part" concerning the mainland languages because, for example, Elfdalian still has the eth.

      Overall the mainland languages have taken on a much greater degree of continental influence than Icelandic and Faroese. Take a look at, for example, a Danish paper and click on the sections dropdown. You can probably read the majority of the section categories there, right? Now compare to an Icelandic paper.

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    27. Re:Uh, the name... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Many do the same thing. Hence your mythological location becomes AssGuard in English.

      If you wanted, you could take it full circle and name it "Rassvörðr" ;)

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    28. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marvel has a place called Asgard (literal spelling) where Thor comes from. Could this be a reference to that? Yes, I know Thor is a Norse god, etc.

    29. Re:Uh, the name... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      I appreciate the lesson in pronunciation (sincerely, I don't mean that as sarcasm); but TFA didn't pull that particular transliteration out of their asses - The Western world has used "Asgard" as the standard spelling for at least a century.

      Well, I'd say at least a few centuries. You can see that spelling pop up in English, Latin, German, and French treatises throughout the 1700s, maybe earlier. I would also note that when Asgard was declined in Latin, it commonly took Latin suffixes, so you see "Asgardia" occurring in text at least 300 years ago.

      Sometimes, we don't get it right - Tao Te Ching. Bane Sidhe. The entire Welsh language...

      It's really not a matter of "right" vs. "wrong" here. It's that one language doesn't get to "patent" words so that they always must be spelled and pronounced and declined the same way. That's the reality of history, and if it were not so, the English language would not exist (i.e., a bastardized compilation of Latin roots reinterpreted through French and then Anglicized, combined with Old English roots Anglicized from previous Germanic languages, themselves sometimes Germanic versions of Latin roots, and sometimes with other roots).

      And then you have common examples of place names -- in English, the city in Italy is called "Florence" and one can refer to a "Florentine banker." It matters not that locals call it Firenze and that the word "Florentine" is a bastardized Anglicization of a Latin form. Or take Munich instead of München, or whatever. (Everyone say "hip hurray" for Slashdot's antiquated character encoding!!)

      And when you start complaining about pronunciation, be prepared for a LONG discussion. Are you the self-absorbed pretentious twit who walks around gushing over "gay PaREE" instead of the regular English pronunciation of "PariS"? Do you pay attention to more subtle things, like using the right vowel sounds in Hamburg (different from the English pronunciation), or do you pronounce the ending consonant of Leipzig with a proper "soft ch" as the Germans would do, or do you do what 99% of English speakers reasonably do and just use a "G" sound??

      I'm a big fan of knowledge, and this whole conversation about Asgard is mildly interesting. But the word has been spelled and pronounced that way in non-Scandinavian countries for centuries. Words change when they move across languages. Deal with it.

    30. Re:Uh, the name... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      In modern Norwegian it's Åsgard and since English doesn't have the Å (we have A-Z + ÆØÅ = 29 letters total), I don't think Asgard as an Englification of a Norwegification of what is originally a Danification of Old Norse is the worst offense. Islandic is much more similar to the original tounge but that also worked the other way around, probably ten times as many Englishmen have heard the name from Norwegians over the centuries.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    31. Re:Uh, the name... by slew · · Score: 1

      It's not "Asgard", it's "Ásgarðr" (if you want to modernize the spelling, at least do so as "Ásgarður" - or if you want only English letters, at least get the pronunciation right with something like "Ausgarther"). That's an eth, not a d; an á, not an a; and it's not nominative if you drop the ending. And it's already a place name, it doesn't need a suffix to make it one - let alone a suffix taken from an entirely different linguistic branch. That's like naming a place "Beijing-ia" or "Tamil Nadu-ia"

      Get over it. In English, there are lots of appropriated proper nouns that are "mispronounced" in common usage that aren't likely to change. There have recently been a few exceptions that have reverted after centuries of use like: Beijing -> Peking, Mumbai -> Bombay, Kolkata -> Calcutta, but there are of course others like Hong Kong that haven't (and aren't likely) revert to a more phonetic spelling.

      FWIW, in Chinese it's quite a bit worse. Many place names pseudo-phonentic transliteration and country names often with a forced "Guó" (meaning country) at the end (e.g., Mei-Guó for America, Ying-Guó for England and Dé-Guó for Germany). Then again, like many languages, there are some so-called exo-nyms too like (Jn-Shn aka, gold-mountain, aka California).

      Although English gets a bad rap for appropriation of words, in German, this is an "interess-ieren" phenomena of lots of exo-nyms with Germanic roots.

      What's really confusing is when Italians call Munich -> Monaco (di Baviera)...

    32. Re:Uh, the name... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      That's like naming a place "Beijing-ia" or "Tamil Nadu-ia"

      Thailand in Spanish is Thailandia. So it does happen.

      Other languages do tend to conjugate nations and nationalities using their own conventions. We call people from Germany, Germans where as they often refer to themselves as Deutschlanders and vice versa refer to English as Englanders.

      Not that I'm arguing with your very eloquent point sir, I am merely saying that Asguardian is a perfectly acceptable anglicisation of a Nordic word.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    33. Re:Uh, the name... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually the summary already told you it is a referecne to the nordic/germanic home of the Gods called Asen.
      Star Gate obviously used the same reference. It is actually a Bildungsluecke that you don't know that SG did not invent the temr but borrowed it.
      I really wonder how much of the names in SG you did not grasp ... because ALL of them are from human mythology, as in Egyptian gods e.g.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    34. Re:Uh, the name... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Germans don't refer to them selves as 'Deutschlaender', we call us 'deutsch'.
      However following your argument, plenty of germans refer wrong to other nations as NATION-laender, which is embarrassing e.g. for people from Thailand, the land of the people of the Thai.
      A Thai is called a Thai and not a Thai-laender, but 90% of the germans get that wrong. Same for the language, Thai speak Thai, not Thai-laenderisch.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    35. Re: Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can call yourself however you may fancy, the rest of us will keep calling you "nazi shit".

    36. Re:Uh, the name... by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      That's like naming a place "Beijing-ia" or "Tamil Nadu-ia"

      Or Portlandia.

    37. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a strange little hill to die on

      It's good to see people still following the traditions of the bronze age and early iron age, before all those hipster boat and ship graves came to ruin the grave industry.
      --
      digger and land mover, thirteenth generation

    38. Re:Uh, the name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude....really, is your Ass (as in ASS-HOLE, not "Ásgarðr" ) that packed full of water that you really want to argue this? Asgard has been Asgard, since I was like 12 years old, reading not only marvel comics, but also from books based on norse mythology. and while you might and probably are correct, who the fuck cares? They made up the name, the made up the concept, and the they will probably make up a whole lot more shit to rob the idiots that signed up blind.

      sometimes just because you may know something someone else doesn't, does not make you a smarter person, in instances like this one it makes you seem dumber. Mainly your arguing a pedantic point that only you care about. Take some ex-lax, have a shit and this too will pass......

    39. Re:Uh, the name... by Methadras · · Score: 1

      Well, for a free citizenship to be called an Asguardian was worth it to me. Sausage party ahoy!!!

  2. Priorities by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    It's named after a mythical place mostly known for staring in a comic book hero movie and they're concerned about having a flag and an anthem.
    Seems like they have their priorities straight.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Priorities by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing they don't get out much.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Priorities by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      When the summary says 'scientists', I mentally see air-quotes around that word.

    3. Re:Priorities by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I sometimes wonder what the general public thinks "scientists" are really like. Do they have a mental image of people standing around a lab in white coats, complete with chemistry paraphernalia and a whiteboard with complex equations on it?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Priorities by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      They think some are like that, and there are some. They're also perfectly aware that some scientists or no more than paper jockeys, trying to come up with something they can slap their name on and be historically remembered. Futile, but that's what they're after.

    5. Re:Priorities by Maritz · · Score: 1

      If the objective is to be remembered, play golf or something. Our society values golfers, basketball players, footballers, etc. It does not value scientists, not even those with an exceptional contribution. The population in general know Einstein, Newton, maybe Darwin, and that's it. You'd probably have to replace one of those in the popular consciousness (e.g. not gonna happen).

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    6. Re:Priorities by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing they don't get out much.

      Well, Mom's Basement is both comfortable and cheap, and the Hot Pockets aren't far away. . . (grin)

    7. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i.e. is what you want, not e.g.

    8. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like salt pockets... amirite?

    9. Re:Priorities by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And thanks to Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park they are at least vaguely aware that some scientists do field work and rarely enter a lab.

      That actual archaeology pretty much never looks like anything Indy gets up to is another matter. Real lost buildings tend to be buried and discovering them is a task mostly done with tiny shovels.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:Priorities by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And the only woman you ever have to see is the one who never rejected you.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    11. Re:Priorities by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      When the summary says 'scientists', I mentally see air-quotes around that word.

      Exactly.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    12. Re:Priorities by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I sometimes wonder what the general public thinks "scientists" are really like. Do they have a mental image of people standing around a lab in white coats, complete with chemistry paraphernalia and a whiteboard with complex equations on it?

      Only children would think that. Grownups picture the equations on a chalkboard.

    13. Re:Priorities by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a scene in "The Restaurant at the end of the Universe":

      "What about this wheel thingy? It sounds a terribly interesting project."
      "Ah," said the marketing girl, "Well, we're having a little difficulty there."
      "Difficulty?" exclaimed Ford. "Difficulty? What do you mean, difficulty? It's the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!"
      The marketing girl soured him with a look.
      "Alright, Mr. Wiseguy," she said, "if you're so clever, you tell us what colour it should be."

    14. Re:Priorities by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Only children would think that. Grownups picture the equations on a chalkboard.

      Real grownups picture them filling out forms that testify that they're using the glassware for non-illicit purposes, in order to get a permit so they don't get dragged off to the drug war gulags by the minions of the oligarchy.

      But hey, this is the Texas legislature. One of the collections of idiots that thought it was a good idea to make sex toys illegal. And did so.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    15. Re:Priorities by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      We need a grammar scientist, stat!

    16. Re:Priorities by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Our society values golfers, basketball players, footballers, etc. It does not value scientists, not even those with an exceptional contribution

      In the short term, yes. In the long term, unlikely. We remember Michael Jordan because we watched him in his greatest moments. The scientist making a breakthrough today (not that that's the way science usually works...) is toiling in obscurity because we don't yet know how his or her achievement will change our lives.

      On the other hand, far more people know that, say, Robert Oppenheimer was working on the atomic bomb in 1943 than know that, say, Stan Musial won the National League batting title in 1943.

    17. Re:Priorities by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I always liked Jurassic Park just because two of the leads were scientists who were more or less portrayed as normal people, even if they were sometimes laying in the dirt with a small brush to wipe an exposed bone clean.

    18. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my case I think they just didn't include the word "social" before the word "scientist".

    19. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me tell you about what happened when in a high school class, a teacher asked us all to draw scientists.

      There were lots of males in lab coats, one female that I recall, one guy that looked like a sea captain. And my extraterrestrial. Who was not technically gendered. Or in a lab coat.

    20. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows the name of any Golfers outside Tiger Woods?

  3. Hmm.... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 2

    Although this is highly impractical, as you can't fit 100,000 people in a space station nor do they have money for such a thing, the idea of a country based solely on personal membership as opposed to land borders is an intriguing one...

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:Hmm.... by lxs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds more like the kind of unrealistic drivel armchair libertarians tend to spout, or an early Neal Stephenson novel.

    2. Re:Hmm.... by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Funny

      Though it does seem more realistic than their current plan of taking over New Hampshire.

    3. Re:Hmm.... by jarkus4 · · Score: 1

      But then how do you define country? And how do you differentiate it from International Association of People That Drink Beer and Use Dynamite?

    4. Re:Hmm.... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Tada: it's a micronation... in space!

      Of course it's unrealistic armchair-libertarian drivel: the magnetosphere is a harsh mistress, after all.

      What's interesting about this development is that it isn't a nearly-entirely American endeavour, which is often the case with such ambitions; Asgardia seems to be Russian and the AIRC supporting it is Viennese. I suspect we'll see a lot more anti-authoritarian behaviour from Europeans in the coming years as a) the EU weakens, b) the Internet transmits political memes that were previously comparatively contained by media limitations like talk radio and poor English literacy, and c) people already exposed to (b) come of age.

      The much more feasible version of "let's get off the Earth so we can get away from our countries' laws" is called seasteading, and generally involves a platform in international waters. There's one clear non-Libertarian, non-American example of seasteading (Sealand, UK) which is fairly old and unusually successful by micronation standards. These days, however, the idea is generally associated with these guys, who have been funded by Peter Thiel. They, unquestionably, are primarily concerned with ways to dodge regulation. Without a realistic means of building such a gigantic physical presence, though, they certainly aren't going to be doing much of that; at best they'd end up creating their own passports that no one would accept.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    5. Re:Hmm.... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      It's not a completely new idea: see panarchism and Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    6. Re:Hmm.... by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      LOL, right, it's the scary libertarians. After all, what near-anarchist wouldn't want to sign up to belong to of as many governments as they can.

      Some of you slashdot idiots and your straw manning of libertarians is amusing.

    7. Re: Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      read the page.. "unrestricted research" etc at top.

    8. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      impractical, and about the same legal standing as buying plots of land on the moon. i.e. none.

    9. Re:Hmm.... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's "seasteading" with a mailing address in space. It's not about space colonisation but instead about staying on the ground and pretending that you have diplomatic immunity to most laws and all taxes.

      Quite pathetic really.

    10. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should at least read the summary :

      [...] the citizens of that nation state will be [...] citizen of their own country and at the same time they will be citizens of Asgardia.

      which means, they will have non of "pretending that you have diplomatic immunity to most laws and all taxes".

    11. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same was said about Israel at one time...

    12. Re: Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's mostly just posts from very young millinials, as nearly anyone else doing so isn't in too large of a group.

      They are the ones after all that redefined "literal" to mean "figurative"
      They also redefined "liberal" to mean "a black person wearing a watch", and redefined "conservative" as "the place to buy milk and burritos"

    13. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarians who take themselves too seriously are also generally very amusing.

      Libertarianism isn't a complete philosophy of political economy, it's an ideological package that shapes one's political views and actions. Any 100% Libertarian project and most of the official policy positions of Libertarian candidates are obscenely nonsensical, e.g. space nations, elimination of publicly funded education, the drum beating around the myth of the Free Market, as if Adam Smith and Mill had the last word on economics.

      On the other hand, the late Libertarian strain within Republicanism in the U.S. had some very good ideas, and Centrists who make a libertarian position the basis of how they vote or support policies from the major parties represent the only realistic and rational way of promoting Libertarian ideals.

      Libertarians who take themselves too seriously like to state that they are Libertarians, as if that label is on par with the labels of major political parties and their ideology out on the world. And yet, Libertarians have yet to to make any kind of mark on any country's politics. Libertarians have yet to lead on any major political initiatives. In the U.S. at least, Libertarian Party candidates are still 80-90% fringe lunatics, like the ferret activist who was the official candidates for Vice-Governor of California a few years back. (And yes, he was holding a ferret in his official campaign photo). More importantly, all this is not for lack of trying or because it's a new philosophy.

      I have a very Libertarian view on the world, but I'm not dogmatic and recognize Libertarianism as guiding ideals that shape but do not wholly determine political action. My economic views are not that of the 18th century, and I accept that it is in society's best interest that the government provide certain services to the public. I see that the the major problem with Regulatory Agencies is that they've been victims of regulatory capture, not they supposedly hinder the economy. etc.

    14. Re:Hmm.... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      And their own countries will have the none of it.

    15. Re:Hmm.... by khallow · · Score: 2

      And yet, Libertarians have yet to to make any kind of mark on any country's politics.

      Telecom and passenger air privatization. US and Europe did that some time ago.

    16. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They laughed at Galileo... but they also laughed at Bozo the clown. I think you'd find that, in "take my ball home and make my own nation" territory, there are a lot more Bozos than Galileos around.

    17. Re:Hmm.... by Place+a+name+here · · Score: 1

      Not that any government would allow an unregulated space station to begin with - or at least not any that could execute a "the moon is a harsh mistress" maneuver before getting shot down by ASAT analogs. Kind of the same reason no government permits corporations to own nuclear weapons.

    18. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't fit 100,000 people on a space station?

      Ummm, Hello - Death Star.

    19. Re: Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an old person... uhhh... Wut...?

    20. Re:Hmm.... by Greystripe · · Score: 1

      Can't fit 100,000 people on a space station?

      Ummm, Hello - Death Star.

      Like that ended well

    21. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is that libertarians ruin everything they touch?

      I tend to agree.

    22. Re:Hmm.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      country, noun

      1. nation.
      2. often misattributed as a prefix for a type of music endemic to culturally impoverished areas of the Southern US; properly the prefix for this type of music is “shitty-.”

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:Hmm.... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      If we put our minds to the task, I'm sure humanity can build a death star that doesn't have an easily accessed weakspot that when tapped causes the whole thing to explode.

      Perhaps if Darth Vader hadn't hired the creators of the Pinto to design his death star the Empire would have won and we could all be happy now.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    24. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like that ended well

      Depends on which side you are on.

    25. Re:Hmm.... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Here's the fundamental problem(s) with the libertarian "privatize all the things" approach.
      Two key things that break the whole thing - things that Hayek overlooked.

      1) Competition does not always produce the most efficient outcomes. In fact, it can in the right conditions make the WORST possible outcome the ONLY possible outcome and make it impossible for any innovation to improve that. This is even true in nature with the competition that drives evolution. Richard Dawkins wrote a great article on it. A forest is nothing but a meadow that wastes nearly all it's energy on stilts. One tree taller than the grass - was a compeition winner, when everything copies the winning formula though - everything loses. And no plant can now STOP spening most it's energy on a useless giant trunk because then it gets no sun at all and loses the whole thing.

      2) The funamental requirement for market competition to actually work is that companies must be able to fail - completely and utterly. Dead. The problem is - you CANNOT allow critical national infrastructure to fail - because if you do the entire country WILL collapse with it. The entire rest of the economy will collapse as well. No sane government will let the failure of one business destroy their entire economy, plunge them into a depression (which pretty much guarantees not being reelected), starvation and suffering - and probably war.
      So whenever the companies running such critical national infrastructure do fail - they ALWAYS get bailed out. Not because government likes bailing them out - because NOT bailing them out will meet riots in the street and the end of your country. That's why Bush and Obama both bailed out the banks - you don't think Obama actually WANTED to pay the bankers for fucking up the economy do you ? He did it ONLY because he had no choice - it was that or the complete collapse of American society.
      This pattern happens over and over. So what privatisation ACTUALLY ends up being is businesses allowed to rake in massive profits from essential infrastructure while the risks remain firmly with the taxpayers. You have to pay, out of pocket, for their profits when it works - and out of your taxes when it doesn't. The people who fuck up never get punished for their fuckups.
      In that scenario - none of the market theories even *apply* anymore at all. They have varying degrees of reliability in general and heaps of exceptions that libertarians ignore - but the scenario of critical infrastructure privatization is one where a market never will and never can exist and thus they have no application whatsoever.
      This, indeed, is why historically privatized services for major infrastucture did not get cheaper, or better service - they usually end up just as terribly run but now your ticket costs 3 times more.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:Hmm.... by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if Darth Vader hadn't hired the creators of the Pinto to design his death star the Empire would have won and we could all be happy now.

      I take great delight in picturing Ralph Nader feverishly typing "Unsafe at any Speed II" after the Death Star disaster.

    27. Re:Hmm.... by khallow · · Score: 1

      1) Competition does not always produce the most efficient outcomes. In fact, it can in the right conditions make the WORST possible outcome the ONLY possible outcome and make it impossible for any innovation to improve that. This is even true in nature with the competition that drives evolution. Richard Dawkins wrote a great article on it. A forest is nothing but a meadow that wastes nearly all it's energy on stilts. One tree taller than the grass - was a compeition winner, when everything copies the winning formula though - everything loses. And no plant can now STOP spening most it's energy on a useless giant trunk because then it gets no sun at all and loses the whole thing.

      Competition is not for the supplier. We don't have competition so the sole monopoly provider of everything can sit on its ass and grow grass. As it turns, wood was a much more useful innovation for humanity than grass was.

      2) The funamental requirement for market competition to actually work is that companies must be able to fail - completely and utterly. Dead. The problem is - you CANNOT allow critical national infrastructure to fail - because if you do the entire country WILL collapse with it. The entire rest of the economy will collapse as well. No sane government will let the failure of one business destroy their entire economy, plunge them into a depression (which pretty much guarantees not being reelected), starvation and suffering - and probably war.

      A company's failure is not the same as failure of its infrastructure. That can always be sold to a more successful competitor (transfer of assets being a usual requirement of a capitalist economic system).

      This pattern happens over and over. So what privatisation ACTUALLY ends up being is businesses allowed to rake in massive profits from essential infrastructure while the risks remain firmly with the taxpayers. You have to pay, out of pocket, for their profits when it works - and out of your taxes when it doesn't. The people who fuck up never get punished for their fuckups.

      Then it's not privatization, is it?

      In that scenario - none of the market theories even *apply* anymore at all. They have varying degrees of reliability in general and heaps of exceptions that libertarians ignore - but the scenario of critical infrastructure privatization is one where a market never will and never can exist and thus they have no application whatsoever.

      Food supply is the obvious rebuttal here.

      This, indeed, is why historically privatized services for major infrastucture did not get cheaper, or better service - they usually end up just as terribly run but now your ticket costs 3 times more.

      Until the company goes bankrupt. Then those airports it had a lock on get sold to its competitors.

    28. Re: Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it turns, wood was a much more useful innovation for humanity than grass was.

      Depends on whether or not or you like eating.

      Not that it makes much difference to the figurative point that was being made, but if you're going to talk important innovations for humanity, domestication of the major crops includes several grass derived varieties, and their usefulness is very significant.

    29. Re: Hmm.... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether or not or you like eating.

      Eating grass? That's no better than eating wood. All of the grains, maize, etc that end up having substantial nutritional value underwent substantial breeding over thousands of years. They didn't start out ready for farming. And without some sort of evolution in the first place, they wouldn't have been nutritious for humans to eat at all.

      Not that it makes much difference to the figurative point that was being made, but if you're going to talk important innovations for humanity, domestication of the major crops includes several grass derived varieties, and their usefulness is very significant.

      Which I've already demonstrated is incorrect. It matters a great deal to everything that isn't grass or tree. The point of competition isn't to increase the profit margins of the given industry, it's to benefit everyone else. I find it telling that you haven't figured out who the benefactors of competition are.

      As your second observation, domestication is a intentional selection process for more nutritious strains and other desirable characteristics. That means competition among these plants for varieties that better provided for humanity.

    30. Re:Hmm.... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Competition is not for the supplier.
      The plants are not the supplier in that example - they are just competing for access to a resource: sunlight. They didn't evolve to supply anything - plants on land evolved long before anything existed to eat them. That some plants would, much later, evolve a symbiotic relationship with things that eat them (fruit-plants and birds for example) has no bearing on the analogy.

      >As it turns, wood was a much more useful innovation for humanity than grass was.
      Wood evolved more than 200-million years before people did. It's safe to say it's usefulness to us was not a consideration.

      >A company's failure is not the same as failure of its infrastructure
      A vital service is also a form of infrastructure for the purpose of this analogy.
      >That can always be sold to a more successful competitor
      In the real world - physical infrastructure requires constant maintenance to remain functional and the first thing a failing company cuts is maintenance, to try and milk the contract for all it's worth and enrich the CEO as much as possible before the failure comes to light. In the real world - after the company fails, more often than not the infrastructure is so worn down nobody will buy it - at least not anybody who intends to do better. The theory works for non-vital infrastructure where *other* infrastructure exists that compete with the infrastructure itself. The Channel-Tunnel is an example of that - the English side was done entirely by private contractors and run by private companies. The first three went bankrupt - it took until number 4 for somebody to figure out a way to profit from running the tunnel. It wasn't a disaster though because the channel was not critical infrastructure - the airports and harbours existed, there are other ways to get from England to France. You actually had to make the channel attractive for people to use it. Everybody with a need to get across the channel could choose from multiple paths and multiple providers. That doesn't work for things which are natural monopolies or where it's simply not feasible to have more than one.

      >Then it's not privatization, is it?
      Now you're arguing definitions - if that is NOT privatization though, then it means all the things us lefties have been saying SHOULD not be privatized are also things which CANNOT be privatized and you lot should stop trying.

      >Food supply is the obvious rebuttal here.
      Food supply may be critical but it is not a natural monopoly and there is no practical reason you can't have two farms. Even so - that one is falling appart. The American agriculture sector is now run entirely by only 4 companies - who mostly collude rather than compete - and there is no such thing as farmers anymore, American farmers have been reduced to share-croppers by effective monopolies in the supply-chain. In the meantime the price of food has grown at several times the inflation rate while the quality of the product has significantly declined and their enormous lobbying power has kept the big food companies from being regulated for polution - making farming now one of the most poluting activities the US engages in - in any SANE system giving antibiotics to livestock that are not suffering from bacterial infections would be simply illegal because it risks unleashing plagues on humanity: literally. In any sane system - farmers would actually own their crops and livestock - they don't, not anymore. The food system is falling appart, exactly because your argument is not true.
      Even so - the food system was never a candidate to be privatized because it was never a public service.

      >Until the company goes bankrupt. Then those airports it had a lock on get sold to its competitors.
      Airports are an interesting one - they worked fantastically in rich countries. In poorer ones privatization never had an upswing, the prices got high and stayed high for ever. Because in anything but the richest countries air travel is a natural monopoly and the company never goes bankrupt. Whether something is a natural monopoly is partly detemined by the incomes of potential customers.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    31. Re:Hmm.... by khallow · · Score: 1

      The plants are not the supplier in that example - they are just competing for access to a resource: sunlight. They didn't evolve to supply anything - plants on land evolved long before anything existed to eat them. That some plants would, much later, evolve a symbiotic relationship with things that eat them (fruit-plants and birds for example) has no bearing on the analogy.

      Ok, demand then. It's not important. Intent is not important either. Finally, I can't help but notice that I'm not a plant. So all this cooperation for plants that would hypothetically result in a carpet is just not advantageous for me. I imagine you are in a similar situation.

      Wood evolved more than 200-million years before people did. It's safe to say it's usefulness to us was not a consideration.

      And I say that's irrelevant as well. What innovations they evolved back then would be useful for building stuff today.

      My point here is that the "competition is bad" idea is an entirely subjective judgment. What is good for plants in terms of anti-competitive behavior would not be good for most of the rest of life. But a general observation is that anti-competitive behavior is good for whoever engages in it and bad for everyone else. Given that things like monopolies, cartels, monopsonies, etc are standard knowledge, the subjectivity of viewpoints on competition is well known.

      Food supply may be critical but it is not a natural monopoly and there is no practical reason you can't have two farms.

      Another thing which is irrelevant since the earlier poster didn't specify things which were allegedly natural monopolies, but instead made a blanket claim about everything.

      Airports are an interesting one - they worked fantastically in rich countries. In poorer ones privatization never had an upswing, the prices got high and stayed high for ever. Because in anything but the richest countries air travel is a natural monopoly and the company never goes bankrupt. Whether something is a natural monopoly is partly detemined by the incomes of potential customers.

      No, air travel is not a natural monopoly. What's going on here is control over gates which is a oligopoly or monopoly granted by the owners of the airports. The airport owner could distribute gate access between several providers instead of one, turning a monopoly into a competitive situation.

    32. Re:Hmm.... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Ok, demand then. It's not important. Intent is not important either. Finally, I can't help but notice that I'm not a plant. So all this cooperation for plants that would hypothetically result in a carpet is just not advantageous for me. I imagine you are in a similar situation.

      But the same happens to humans all the time, that's the point of the analogy. In industry it creates the "everybody is evil" problem - where anybody who is NOT willing to do evil cannot compete and soon only evildoing companies are left. The worst possible outcome actually becomes the one competition enforces on everybody, as opposed to being eradicated by it. A classic example from the industrial revolution. 19th century, England - standard practise of factory owners is to regularly rape (of the 'fuck me or your fired' variety) female staff as a way of maintaining worker discipline. A great many of those factory owners kept diaries. They all confess to engaging in the practise, all write that they find it abhorent and then proceed to say 'but because others do it, if I do not do it as well then my workers will be less productive, I cannot compete and I'd be out of business". Every one of them blames all the others for being evil and thereby forcing him to be evil as well. That's the human version of it. And the exact same pattern still happens today, less often with sex these days since we have specific laws against that one - but it still happens. Interestingly the fact that rape as a tool of discipline has been virtually eradicated (in the developed world at least) is proof that regulation can counter-act the 'force everybody to be evil' problem. We have nothing else that can.

      >My point here is that the "competition is bad" idea is an entirely subjective judgment.
      But nobody made that argument. Nobody said 'competition is bad'. Strawman. I merely said that competition is not universally good, it's outcomes are not universally ideal. It's not some utopian panacea. It can be good, and it can be evil, which it is depends entirely on the specific context being evaluated. Sometimes competition is good, sometimes it's bad, but you can't assume the former is always true - or even mostly true.

      >Another thing which is irrelevant since the earlier poster didn't specify things which were allegedly natural monopolies, but instead made a blanket claim about everything.
      No, the claim was made about critical national infrastructure. Which, overwhelmingly, ARE natural monopolies which is exactly why they were publicly owned in the first place.

      >No, air travel is not a natural monopoly
      Another strawman. I specifically said it's SOMETIMES one, not always. A natural monopoly is defined as an industry where the initial capital requirements are very high, and the price-per-unit are very low - so that it takes decades to make your investment back and start profiting on it. Since the incomes of the population determine the customer base and the price the market will bare - whether something is a natural monopoly is therefore partly dependent on the spending power of the local population. Air travel sits firmly on the edge where it's open to competition in rich countries and a natural monopoly in poor ones.

      There are no universal truths, and no universally good ideas. Competition is a good idea in general, but may not be so in a particlar specific case. Good and bad are contextual, there are NO simple answers and that right there is the critical flaw in libertarian thinking. The belief that there are, or indeed ever could be, simple yet universally applicable answers to anything, let alone something like economics - which is really a mirror of humanity itself in all it's infinite variety.

      Now here is the thing you never think about - how is privatisation NOT theft and corruption ? How is it legal ? My taxes paid to build up this infrastructure/service/customer base as it stands. How the hell can government now give away, that which I paid for, to a private company without my consent and without compensating

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    33. Re: Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eating grass? That's no better than eating wood. All of the grains, maize, etc that end up having substantial nutritional value underwent substantial breeding over thousands of years. They didn't start out ready for farming. And without some sort of evolution in the first place, they wouldn't have been nutritious for humans to eat at all.

      Which shows the grasses were a net gain to human innovation. You obviously do not realize it, but from my perspective, you are showing the value of my point, rather than refuting it.

      Which I've already demonstrated is incorrect.

      Wow, you really like doubling down when you thoughtlessly run your mouth, don't you? You made no demonstration counter to my point, which again, was that the grasses were quite preeminent in value to human innovation. You actually made statements that buoyed my position.

      It matters a great deal to everything that isn't grass or tree.

      While there is certainly a lot of value in discussion of the impact of humanity, I suggest we refrain from spreading the discussion into the realm of human impact on the environment as a whole.

      I did choose to limit my initial reply to you for a reason.

      The point of competition isn't to increase the profit margins of the given industry, it's to benefit everyone else. I find it telling that you haven't figured out who the benefactors of competition are.

      I find it telling that you didn't figure out that my reply was to your making an errant assertion regarding the value of wood over grass in terms of human innovation.

      If you wanted to ask, I would have said you make many good points, but I found that one statement of yours to be ill-chosen. Hence my reply to it, rather than the rest of your post.

      Was I simpky not clear enough to you in my purpose? I thought I had divorced my position from that one well enough, but can you tell me why you apparently failed to note it?

      As your second observation, domestication is a intentional selection process for more nutritious strains and other desirable characteristics. That means competition among these plants for varieties that better provided for humanity.

      Which again, relates to human innovation, to which the grasses have provided an incredibly valuable part. In particular, the aforementioned business of eating. To the point where I find your assertion relating to the value of wood over grass in terms of human innovation to be dubious at best. But more likely, I would, if I were to undertake an attempt at an objective analysis, find your contention unsustainable. I consider the obvious value of grasses as modified by human innovation to quite high enough to trump almost anything else.

      But again, please note, this has no relationship to the figurative language used above. I do hope this is clear to you now.

    34. Re:Hmm.... by khallow · · Score: 1

      But the same happens to humans all the time, that's the point of the analogy. In industry it creates the "everybody is evil" problem - where anybody who is NOT willing to do evil cannot compete and soon only evildoing companies are left.

      Unless, of course, doing evil is disadvantageous. Then they don't do that. Worker salary is a classic example. From the employer's point of view, paying nothing for work would be ideal. But then they don't get any labor and hence, can't compete.

      And yes, regulation is a well known way to prevent such things. It also is a well know way to create such situations.

      A classic example from the industrial revolution. 19th century, England - standard practise of factory owners is to regularly rape (of the 'fuck me or your fired' variety) female staff as a way of maintaining worker discipline. A great many of those factory owners kept diaries. They all confess to engaging in the practise, all write that they find it abhorent and then proceed to say 'but because others do it, if I do not do it as well then my workers will be less productive, I cannot compete and I'd be out of business". Every one of them blames all the others for being evil and thereby forcing him to be evil as well. That's the human version of it.

      Welcome to Victorian era porn. You do realize there is a difference between fiction and reality right?

      >My point here is that the "competition is bad" idea is an entirely subjective judgment.

      But nobody made that argument. Nobody said 'competition is bad'. Strawman. I merely said that competition is not universally good, it's outcomes are not universally ideal. It's not some utopian panacea. It can be good, and it can be evil, which it is depends entirely on the specific context being evaluated. Sometimes competition is good, sometimes it's bad, but you can't assume the former is always true - or even mostly true.

      And you do so by using an example of an monopsony with trees instead of people. We've already known about monopsonies for a long time and how it's great for the controller (and frequently the members) of the monopsony, but not great for anyone else. The "always privatization" side always knows of these examples. The "do evil" example is better though not everyone is going to agree that the activities in question are evil or encouraged by competition.

      Another thing here is that in the real world, the "sometimes competition is bad" argument gets used way out of scale with the problems it's supposed to address. For example, Franklin Roosevelt said in defense of the National Industrial Recovery Act which among other constitutional violations, created a variety of industry and labor cartels:

      No employer and no group of less than all employers in a single trade could do this alone and continue to live in business competition. But if all employers in each trade now band themselves faithfully in these modern guilds--without exception- and agree to act together and at once, none will be hurt and millions of workers, so long deprived of the right to earn their bread in the sweat of their labor, can raise their heads again. The challenge of this law is whether we can sink selfish interest and present a solid front against a common peril.

      and

      It is, further, a challenge to administration. We are relaxing some of the safeguards of the anti-trust laws. The public must be protected against the abuses that led to their enactment, and to this end, we are putting in place of old principles of unchecked competition some new Government controls. They must, above all, be impartial and just. Their purpose is to free business, not to shackle it; and no man who stands on the constructive, forward-looking side of his industry has an

    35. Re: Hmm.... by khallow · · Score: 1
      What was the point of this post suppose to be? You picked a bad example, which showed yet again the virtues of competition because we aren't grass. All this competition turned out quite advantageous for us, humans in the real world.

      The reason I'm making such a big deal of this is that you've routinely shown an eagerness to generalize from an observation that competition isn't perfect to a variety of anti-competition ideas and narratives:

      This, indeed, is why historically privatized services for major infrastucture did not get cheaper, or better service - they usually end up just as terribly run but now your ticket costs 3 times more.

      The funamental requirement for market competition to actually work is that companies must be able to fail - completely and utterly.

      In industry it creates the "everybody is evil" problem

      (bonus fantasy points for a gratuitous story about employers having to rape because the competition does it too. And they all keep diaries, oh dear!)

      If you want to privatize a public service the ONLY just way to do it is to form a public company around it and give 100% of the shares of that company divided among the taxpayers.

      The One True Way.

      It's quite clear that you aren't thinking here and looking for any excuse to blow off the idea of competition. Contrary to your assertion air travel has gotten a lot cheaper from competition despite the existence of more costly cartel/monopoly destinations. Contrary to your assertion, we now have cell phones which we wouldn't have in the absence of competition. And contrary to your initial model, we can feed ourselves with grass-related plants because they competed unintentionally of course to better feed us.

    36. Re:Hmm.... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > Worker salary is a classic example. From the employer's point of view, paying nothing for work would be ideal. But then they don't get any labor and hence, can't compete.
      What are you ? Braindead ? Managers never pay wages unless the law forces them to. That is literally what slavery is. The US didn't domestically get rid of it properly until FDR for fucks sake and there are STILL factories that operate things like debt-slavery on the down-low. Globally there are more slaves in the world right now then were sold in the entire 200 year existence of the transatlantic slave network - ALL of them in countries with weak or badly-enforced regulations.

      >And yes, regulation is a well known way to prevent such things. It also is a well know way to create such situations.
      But there is no other tool that can prevent it. Spraying a fire extinguisher on an electrical fire can potentially make the fire worse (depending on the type) - by your reasoning we should therefore get rid of fire extinguishers because the occasional misuse of them causing hardship cannot possibly be worth living with for the multitude of lives they save.

      >Welcome to Victorian era porn. You do realize there is a difference between fiction and reality right?
      Personal diaries were not fiction, especially since they never intended anybody else would read it. Now if one or two had done that, you could write it off as fantasies - but when they ALL say the same thing - the only reasonable explanation is that they are telling the truth. Besides which we know from multiple independent sources that the rape-for-discipline was a common practise (and it still is in places like China where regulations are lax), this is not in dispute and no serious historian doubts it. The diaries explain the reasoning of the factory owners, it is not the basis for saying it did it - it is merely their explanation for WHY they did it.
      The fiction here is your sincere belief that rich people would NOT fuck you in the ass for 1 penny if they can get away with it. Anybody who would skimp on that opportunity does not become rich.

      >Except of course, when they aren't. A blanket claim which starts off from very faulty premises is not worth supporting
      'Overwhelmingly' implies literally the OPPOSITE of a blanket claim - and if you are denying that most national infrastructure are natural monopolies then that is an extremely extraordinary claim for which I expect to see extraordinary evidence. By definition these things are huge capital investments with low per-customer returns. That's WHY they end up being funded by governments and almost never engaged in by the private sector in the first place.

      >And I don't buy your weasel clause
      My 'weasel clause' is literally the textbook definition of a natural monopoly. Look it up.

      >That alone will drop the price of tickets considerably.
      Only if more than one airline exists - when the market conditions create a natural monoply this does not happen, even if competition does open they invariably go out of business very fast. I live in one of those countries. We have completely open gates (and our airports are all government owned and run with zero restrictions - any airline that passed safety inspections can do business here) - we've had 12 airlines open and go bankrupt over the course of the last 20 years. Ultimately the market keeps shrinking down to the same 3 airlines - all of which are owned by governments (two foreign and one local). The market conditions simply will not allow another airline to stay in business despite the fact that every single one of them was cheaper than any of the other three. It worked very well in Nigeria - where, despite being poor, the market is massive - it didn't work here because the market is both poor and small.

      >Yea, yea. Moral relativism.
      We were not discussing morality so this is an idiotic thing to say. We were discussing economics - which IS a relative thing and anybody who tells you different is trying to con you. Whether or

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    37. Re:Hmm.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There are other problems. The more costs a company can pass on to someone else, the more profitable it will be, which is the problem of externalities. There's asymmetry of information, or lack of information. If it's hard to tell if a widget is good or not, it will be hard for anyone to sell a good widget for a higher cost than a mediocre one, and good widgets will be driven out of the marketplace. There's natural monopolies, in which the cost of entry into a market is very high, so a company can practice monopolistic pricing and threaten to bankrupt incipient competitors by dropping its prices to something more competitive until they're out of business, then raising prices again. Ideally, in the market, people pay money for what gives them the most value, but it may be cheaper to actively delude the public than to provide more value, or to spend money to make it more difficult to buy the competitor's product..

      In fields where people can see what they're getting, with reasonable barriers to entry, general access to the market, and which doesn't produce costs to society as a whole, privatization and the market are wonderful.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re:Hmm.... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      A very well put summary of the point I was trying to make.
      Of course Austrian School economics (which libertarians tend to follow) denies market failures exist - which requires denying something we can all see happening but since they reject empiricism this does not sway them.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    39. Re:Hmm.... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Worker salary is a classic example. From the employer's point of view, paying nothing for work would be ideal. But then they don't get any labor and hence, can't compete.

      What are you ? Braindead ?

      I'm making an obvious observation. Funny how people who make such a big deal about competition being less than perfect can't even manage to understand why workers have pricing power. It's as I suspected all along. You are operating from a profound ignorance of economics and reality.

      The US didn't domestically get rid of it [slavery] properly until FDR

      The mask has definitely slipped now. You're ignoring a considerable amount of history in making that erroneous claim (employers have been paying employees since before the US existed). And of course, you're ignoring that FDR drafted over 10 million people after he supposedly ended slavery.

      But there is no other tool that can prevent it. Spraying a fire extinguisher on an electrical fire can potentially make the fire worse (depending on the type) - by your reasoning we should therefore get rid of fire extinguishers because the occasional misuse of them causing hardship cannot possibly be worth living with for the multitude of lives they save.

      If you want to spray water on electrical fires, go ahead. Just don't be surprised yet again, when you get electrocuted. Oh wait, you didn't say that? Neither did I. Reading comprehension. Do it sometime.

      Personal diaries were not fiction, especially since they never intended anybody else would read it. Now if one or two had done that, you could write it off as fantasies - but when they ALL say the same thing - the only reasonable explanation is that they are telling the truth.

      Let's run a little exercise then. I'll list a bunch of UK industrialists and you point to the personal diaries that confirm they were serial rapists, raping their female workers to get more work out of them.

      I'm done. There's no point debating with somebody who does not do so in good faith and is unwilling to concede anything. My posts have been filled with concessions "it sometimes works" " in the right circumstances". I have spoken of dealing with individual problems on an individual basis - you have subscribed to a one-size-fits-nothing ideology and refuse to countenance the possiblity that sometimes it fits really, really badly.

      Good. It started out well, but you since descended into idiotic drivel. There's no point for me to argue with delusion. While your time is worthless to me, mine is moderately valuable to me.

      So instead, I'll summarize for anyone who's been reading along to this point. I made the observation way back when that deregulation of the air passenger and telecom businesses was a libertarian contribution to the modern world. silentcoder then goes on and on about how competition is imperfect and not suited for everything. Notice that his first example was of a monopsony (plants which evolve into trees even though they collectively don't get anything out of it), which is already acknowledged as a negative situation by libertarians, free market types, etc. Then he brings out the example of a natural monopoly which despite his assertion that somehow it's relevant to poor countries (which I gather he thinks never have wealthy visitors or people passing through on trips to other places) and somehow air travel to these benighted places becomes a natural monopoly, even though it doesn't fit the definition at all (since anyone can provide service to a developing world country just like they can a developed world country).

      Moving on, we then come to a long series of unfounded assertions such as the colorful one about the UK factory owners who all keep diaries expressing regret about how much their competitors force them to rape female employees in order to increase output, FDR ending slavery (even it had been e

    40. Re: Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was the point of this post suppose to be?

      Rebutting your assertion that wood was a much more useful innovation to humanity.

      Was that unclear to you for some reason? I thought my purpose was clear.

      You picked a bad example, which showed yet again the virtues of competition because we aren't grass. All this competition turned out quite advantageous for us, humans in the real world.

      No, you picked a bad assertion to make, since it was thoughtless of you to claim that wood was much more useful to human innovation. That would be very difficult to sustain, unless you don't like eating. I rather imagine, however, that you do.

      The reason I'm making such a big deal of this is that you've routinely shown an eagerness to generalize from an observation that competition isn't perfect to a variety of anti-competition ideas and narratives:

      You must be confused, I've made no such statements. Sorry, but those aren't my replies.

      It's quite clear that you aren't thinking here and looking for any excuse to blow off the idea of competition. Contrary to your assertion air travel has gotten a lot cheaper from competition despite the existence of more costly cartel/monopoly destinations. Contrary to your assertion, we now have cell phones which we wouldn't have in the absence of competition.

      No, quite clearly you are confused, I haven't said anything of the sort to you. Please try to keep to the contents of the post to which you are replying, rather than misleading yourself by adding additional matter from I know not where. Nor care, for that matter.

      And contrary to your initial model, we can feed ourselves with grass-related plants because they competed unintentionally of course to better feed us.

      No, in my model it would be that grasses, being a major supplier of foodstuffs, and even significant in other ways, such as textiles, and in suppying many meats, are much more useful to humanity in terms of innovation than you considered when you thoughtlessly made your assertion. This is not to say that wood has been useless, or not contributed any value, merely to disagree with the level you ascribed to woods over grasses.

      If you really wanted to argue it, you would gave to consider a different approach than the one you have, where you seem excessively distracted by other matters. That seems to be your own fault though, so I can only suggest you remedy it on your own.

  4. I for one by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I for one will not recognise it. Reinstate Pluto, you right rotten rat-bastards, then we'll talk.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:I for one by ad454 · · Score: 1

      I for one will not recognise it. Reinstate Pluto, you right rotten rat-bastards, then we'll talk.

      Give it up!

      It makes no sense to let small dwarf planets like Pluto, which are too small to have sufficient gravity to clear their neighbourhoods, to be called planets without having to add many more other dwarf planets in the solar system.

      Eris is 27% more massive than Pluto, should it be a planet as well? And there is likely even more massive undiscovered objects further out in the solar system. And there are many dwarf planets much smaller than Pluto, such as Ceres with similar properties including signs of recent geological activity.

    2. Re:I for one by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      And while you're at it, Free Mars!

    3. Re:I for one by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      It makes no sense to let small dwarf planets like Pluto, which are too small to have sufficient gravity to clear their neighbourhoods...

      So what do we do about Neptune then? It certainly hasn't cleared its orbital path of Pluto.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:I for one by ad454 · · Score: 3, Informative

      So what do we do about Neptune then? It certainly hasn't cleared its orbital path of Pluto.

      If you look at the orbits of Neptune and Pluto in 3D, they never really cross.

      In fact due to 3:2 resonance between them, the closest they ever get to each other is 18AU, about the distance of Earth with Uranus.
      https://www.quora.com/Will-Nep...

      So yet, Neptunes orbit is considered cleared.

      Note that small bodies in rensonace and in Lagrange points are considered excluded from the planetary "clearing" requirement, since they are not in the way of the planet's orbit.

    5. Re: I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SIEG ZEON!

    6. Re:I for one by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      I think it was a joke..

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    7. Re:I for one by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't tell people who disagree with a bad decision that they need to "Give it up!". Reposting my issues with the definition from earlier:

      First, the IAU definition:

      The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies in the Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

      (1) A planet [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

      (2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

      (3) All other objects [3] orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

      [1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

      [2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either dwarf planet and other categories.

      [3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

      1. Nomenclature: An "adjective-noun" should always be a subset of "noun". A "dwarf planet" should be no less seen as a type of planet than a "dwarf star" is seen as a type of star by the IAU.

      2. Erroneous foundation: Current research agrees that most planets did not clear their own neighborhoods, and even that their neighborhoods may not always have been where they are. Jupiter, and Saturn to a lesser extent, have cleared most neighborhoods. Mars has 1/300th the Stern-Levison parameter as Neptune, and Neptune has multiple bodies a couple percent of Mars's mass (possibly even larger, we've only detected an estimated 1% of large KBOs) in its "neighborhood". Mars's neighborhood would in no way would be clear if Jupiter did not exist - even Earth's might not be. Should we demote the terrestrial planets as well?

      Note that the Stern-Levison parameter does not go against this, as it's built around the ability of a planet to scatter a mass distribution similar to our current asteroid belt, not large protoplanets.

      3. Comparative inconsistency: Earth is far more like Ceres and Pluto than it is like Jupiter, yet these very dissimilar groups - gas giants and terrestrial planets - are lumped together as "planets" while dwarfs are excluded.

      4. Poor choice of dividing line: While defining objects inherently requires drawing lines between groups, the chosen line has been poorly selected. Achieving a rough hydrostatic equilibrium is a very meaningful dividing line - it means differentiation, mineralization processes, alteration of primordial materials, and so forth. It's also often associated with internal heat and, increasingly as we're realizing, a common association with subsurface fluids. In short, a body in a category of "not having achieved hydrostatic equilibrium" describes a body which one would study to learn about the origins of our solar system, while a body in a category of "having achieved hydrostatic equilibrium" describes a body one would study, for example, to learn more about tectonics, geochemistry, (potentially) biology, etc. By contrast, a dividing line of "clearing its neighborhood" - which doesn't even meet standard #2 - says little about the body itself.

      5. Mutability: What an object is declared at can be altered without any of the properties of the object changing simply by its "neighborhood" changing in any of countless ways.

      6. Situational inconsistency: An exact copy of Earth (what the vast majority of people

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    8. Re:I for one by khallow · · Score: 1

      Eris is 27% more massive than Pluto, should it be a planet as well?

      Why not? It's already a "dwarf planet". There's no real problem with having hundreds or thousands of planets except apparently someone is concerned school children will have to memorize them all.

    9. Re:I for one by JustBoo · · Score: 1

      I for one will not recognise it. Reinstate Pluto, you right rotten rat-bastards, then we'll talk.

      Been a while on /., but that made me laugh out loud. Nice.

    10. Re:I for one by JustBoo · · Score: 1

      I for one will not recognise it. Reinstate Pluto, you right rotten rat-bastards, then we'll talk.

      Give it up!

      It makes no sense to let small dwarf planets like Pluto, which are too small to have sufficient gravity to clear their neighbourhoods, to be called planets without having to add many more other dwarf planets in the solar system.

      Nonsense. Even small children can handle lots of dwarf planets. Witness Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy, Grumpy and yes, even Pluto. It's, you know, child's play.

    11. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do we do about Neptune then? It certainly hasn't cleared its orbital path of Pluto.

      If you look at the orbits of Neptune and Pluto in 3D, they never really cross.

      In fact due to 3:2 resonance between them, the closest they ever get to each other is 18AU, about the distance of Earth with Uranus.
      https://www.quora.com/Will-Nep...

      So yet, Neptunes orbit is considered cleared.

      Note that small bodies in rensonace and in Lagrange points are considered excluded from the planetary "clearing" requirement, since they are not in the way of the planet's orbit.

      With all of our satellites, and many more to come will Earth still be a planet in the future? :-)

    12. Re: I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a resonance would imply a similar onset, or path that would cross eventually. That would be neat to see.

    13. Re:I for one by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Satelites don't count - either natural or constructed, since they don't *share* the orbit of a planet, they orbit AROUND the planet.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:I for one by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      Regarding #1, there is the red herring principle, although that is in mathematics (& has no bearing on the other points).

    15. Re:I for one by Rei · · Score: 1

      The examples in that page generally involve cases where the first word is a generalizer or contradiction to the second - a "weak X", "meta X", etc. A nonassociative algebra is not a geometry because algebras are usually by definition associative; it's "broadening" the category by including a contradiction to the term. There is nothing inherently contradictory or broadening about "dwarf". A dwarf fan palm is a fan palm. A dwarf salamander is a salamander. A dwarf azalea is an azalea. On and on - here's a list of hundreds. A concept that, as mentioned, the IAU itself appears to recognize, given that they consider "dwarf stars" (of multiple varieties) to be stars and dwarf galaxies to be galaxies.

      Lastly, that there exist cases where things have been poorly named does not change whether things should be deliberately poorly named (see #1). Because killer whales were called "blackfish" does that mean that we should continue naming cetaceans as "fish"?

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
  5. Escape by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Note that North Korea is part of the countries that may apply for Asgardia citizenship. That is a good way for them to escape their dictatorial country.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Escape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that North Korea is part of the countries that may apply for Asgardia citizenship. That is a good way for them to escape their dictatorial country.

      Really...?! I can't tell if this is meant seriously or not. :-/

    2. Re:Escape by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      I tell things seriously. But people always think I'm kidding...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Escape by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Even if that would work out, I'm pretty sure that most all of the citizens of North Korea that will have access to the web in order to register for Ashardia citizenship won't be the ones that might actually want to escape the country, what with all of them being in the ruling class and all...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:Escape by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I suspect North Korea won't respect the wishes of Assguard any more than they currently respect the wishes of the US, EU, Japan, SK, etc.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:Escape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes I take humorous things seriously; sometimes I take serious things humorously. Either way it is immaterial.

  6. Outer Space Treaty by ad454 · · Score: 1

    What about the Outer Space Treaty which prevents ownership of by celestial objects by nation states?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet. Art. II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". However, the State that launches a space object retains jurisdiction and control over that object.[4] The State is also liable for damages caused by their space object.

    This means that that at best a space nation would have to consist of one or more "grouped" space stations, which would cost many tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars, and still likely not be entirely self-sufficient and independent from Earth. Even with all that, a space station would likely not be considered a nation, any more than a cruise ship or oil platform is currently.

    If you want you own country, it would be far easier and cheaper to claim some rock in the middle of the ocean, away from any 300 nautical mile national exclusion zone, or better yet just buy out or take over a poor failing state.

    1. Re:Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Assgaurdian people have not ratified that terran treaty. They are not bound to it's restrictions.

    2. Re:Outer Space Treaty by dbIII · · Score: 2

      The idea is about being immune to laws.
      As I wrote above, quite pathetic.

    3. Re:Outer Space Treaty by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Obviously. But the countries that did ratify it (all of them) are legally bound not to recognise a nation that does claim a body in violation of the treaty. So while I could form the "People's Liberation Front of the Moon" tomorrow and start claiming great big chunks of it - nobody would actually care or acknowledge it in any way. The main function that countries have is sovereignty over their citizens, which only comes about when they are recognised by other counties who then stop claiming sovereignty over the same citizens.

      So:
      A. Yes, you are technically correct.
      B. It's a pointless clarification.
      C. It does not have any impact at all on the wider point, of who can claim bodies.
      D. You are an idiot.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    4. Re:Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm already waiting for the future headlines describing the nuclear arsenal of Asgardia named the Wrath of Thor, and how it is perfectly legal and how their theoretical calculations completely correspond to the reality. If this nation is to be joined in the UN, it really should respect the agreements made under it, or it will eventually have to use its arsenal in a fully controlled manner of course. Because everything was legal, without needing to seek professional help.

    5. Re:Outer Space Treaty by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But the countries that did ratify it (all of them) are legally bound not to recognise a nation that does claim a body in violation of the treaty.

      That doesn't make sense until this nation signs the treaty. Presumably, such a nation wouldn't do it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Spacenoids are not bound by gravity. Newtypes rule!

    7. Re:Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop some rocks or an entire colony on a couple of capital cities and you'll see how fast the other nations will change their tunes. SIEG ZEON!

    8. Re:Outer Space Treaty by Rei · · Score: 2

      But the countries that did ratify it (all of them) are legally bound not to recognise a nation that does claim a body in violation of the treaty

      It says no such thing. Furthermore, it says:

      When activities are carried on in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such an organization

      So even if they weren't recognized as a state and just as an "international organization", responsibility for compliance would be borne only by the organization itself and "State Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization" (aka, none). States have no obligation to force non-member states or international organizations to comply, unless they're members of that organization.

      Concerning E.11 (the part banning the claiming of space resources), states only bear responsibility for themselves and "... non-governmental entities under their jurisdiction". Again, no bearing responsibility for third parties. There's a section for international intergovernmental organizations (E.16), which states that they have to declare acceptance of the treaty for it to apply to them. There is no section on international non-governmental organizations.

      Lastly:

      Any State Party to the Agreement may give notice of its withdrawal from the Agreement one year afte rits entry into force by written notification to the Depositary Governments. Such withdrawal shall take effect one year from the date of receipt of this notification

      Aka, even those who've signed can leave at any point, without penalty (except losing access to the benefits of treaty membership, and encouraging others to follow suit)

      --
      The internet is not a series of tubes. It's more like a net. Or a network of computers. Or an internet.
    9. Re:Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing worse than the Earth people are the People's Liberation Front of the Moon.

      Long live the Moon People's Liberation Front!

    10. Re:Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So while I could form the "People's Liberation Front of the Moon" tomorrow and start claiming great big chunks of it - nobody would actually care or acknowledge it in any way.

      You might be right about the "acknowledge it" part, but people would care. We already have people "buying" plots of land on the moon. How the sellers get away with it, I don't know. Maybe they are just hoping to fly under the government radar, or maybe their contracts are carefully worded to indicate that they aren't actually selling land. But they exist.

    11. Re:Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no... the worst are the People's Front for the Liberation of the Moon!

    12. Re:Outer Space Treaty by jlv · · Score: 1

      Mod Funny +1.

    13. Re:Outer Space Treaty by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > and still likely not be entirely self-sufficient and independent from Earth
      To be fair, neither is any country on earth - and it's doubtful any has been since at least the invention of the concept of 'countries'.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:Outer Space Treaty by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Moon People? Oh no...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Outer Space Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPLITTERS!!!

  7. The real ultimate aim: by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The perfect tax haven. Soon, all of Apple's profits will be recorded as happening in Asgardia at a 0% tax rate.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
    1. Re:The real ultimate aim: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more than just taxes... multi purpose evasion in mind, legitimate or not.

      There's going to be shit like "My 'country' allows me to sell heroin so I'm allowed to sell heroin at the local elementary school"

      My wife was robbed at gunpoint by a black guy earlier this year. He pulled shit like that at his trial... this "Moorish rights" horse shit... telling the judge that you old European white men brought my 19 year old black ass to America against my will, therefore the laws of the USA don't apply to me.

  8. This is science.slashdot.org? Really? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    Apropos line from an early season of the Simpsons, spoken by Stephen Hawking:

    "You could have had a Utopia; instead you have a Fruitopia."

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  9. 1..2..3..Profit!!! by codeButcher · · Score: 1

    So what prevents another $GROUP on earth to sell membership (and passports), even if they do not have satellite in orbit?

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  10. Anyone can. by sheramil · · Score: 1

    > According to the project website, "Any human living on Earth can become a citizen of Asgardia.." If they can get there. It's probably a good way of ensuring that only very rich people become citizens. I mean the citizens who will actually live in orbit, rather than the dues-paying plebeian scum living on the ground. Unless people think that being a "citizen of Asgardia" gives them diplomatic immunity on Earth, in which case it's just Sovereign Nation garbage again.

  11. Can I run for president? by muffen · · Score: 2

    Make Asgardia great again!

    1. Re:Can I run for president? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 0

      You need to be liar and sexist to apply. Are you?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:Can I run for president? by Alomex · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Because a mass murderer

      Not that we are exaggerating or anything.

      that is a psychopathic compulsive liar and traitor

      Now you have me really confused. I thought you were talking about Hillary, but the proven compulsive liar is Trump. He lies every 3 minutes or 75% of the time. It is difficult to find a single thing he hasn't spoken in favor of and against it, including Clinton's performance as secretary of state and her stamina.

      that has written, by her own hand,

      So we are back to Hillary, because of the two the only one who can write by her own hand is her.

      that she needs "compliant and uneducated" voters to win,

      And now back to Trump "I love the uneducated", "I don't need women to win" candidate.

      Funny how the left project what Killary actually is onto Trump.

      Now you are talking about yourself, where you just projected half of Trump's most defining characteristics onto Hillary.

      The uneducated (by design) Demo voters

      Study after study has shown that the uneducated tend to lean Republican over Democrat.

      They never learn, by design.

      In the last eight years only one party has had two post-mortems after losing the presidential election that were completely ignored. I'll let you work out which party was that.

      So realize that even the Demo 'leadership' thinks you're an Idiot when you vote for them.

      Again more projection. Democrats promise, and overall deliver improved economic conditions for the lowest level (combination of welfare, medicare, higher minimum wages, lower taxes for poor people). Republicans for the most part deliver improved conditions for rich people and businesses which so far in 20 years of republican administrations since trickle down economics was first proposed have failed to reach the bottom classes.

      So if you are poor (like most of the Southern Red States) and vote Republican you are either an idiot, or motivated by other considerations that are more important to you than $, such as I don't know, hmm, can't think of any....

    3. Re:Can I run for president? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then it would be full of deplorable rednecks.

    4. Re:Can I run for president? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But remember to Gardyeras.

    5. Re:Can I run for president? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      At least s/he can log in.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  12. Finally a chance to do things right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All citizens will use Dvorak keyboards, the metric system, drive on right hand side of the road, nonsmoking, use vi text editor, do not use system d

    1. Re:Finally a chance to do things right by invid · · Score: 0

      All citizens will use Dvorak keyboards, the metric system, drive on right hand side of the road, nonsmoking, use vi text editor, do not use system d

      ...replace tabs with spaces, 3 spaces per tab. Use a base 12 number system (this of course conflicts with the metric system, we'd have to create something better). Tau instead of Pi.

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    2. Re:Finally a chance to do things right by nategasser · · Score: 0

      Oh well, the peace and harmony was short-lived, for I'm now planning a public-awareness campaign espousing the superiority of emacs and how only racists, misogynists and people with bad breath use vi.

    3. Re:Finally a chance to do things right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is right hand side objectively better ? Honest curiosity.

      Obviously we will still do weight in stones though, right ? It's just hilarious.

    4. Re:Finally a chance to do things right by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      If we're going to do this right, we should use elastic tabs.

      Base 12 has some definite advantages over base 10. I would prefer new glyphs for A and B, but I'm not finding anything attractive. (/. would promptly eat them anyway.) Any ideas?

      Naturally, our Dvorak keyboards could be a little wider for the additional 2 digits which could give room for some compose-like keys, maybe grave, acute, circumflex, dieresis--at the risk of proposing a new space cadet layout.

      No opinion on tau vs. pi.

    5. Re:Finally a chance to do things right by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Base 12 has some definite advantages over base 10.

      Why Base 12 instead of Base 16? I mean, if we're changing the base numbering system, why not at least make it a power of two?

    6. Re:Finally a chance to do things right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot "and speak Esperanto"

  13. Gundam Flashbacks by mentil · · Score: 1

    Citizenship is allowed for those who live on Earth? For a 'space nation'? The vast majority of 'citizens' will be those still living on Earth, until that policy is changed (even with space elevators/habitats). Since those on Earth will be the majority, it's unlikely the policy will be changed so that the majority would disenfranchise themselves. This'll lead to a situation where those in space are living under the rule of those on Earth. There'll inevitably be conflict between how those on Earth think the space nation should conduct itself, and how those actually in space want to do things. Of course, they'll have big, heavy things (like a space colony) they can drop on us. I recommend investing in Gundanium.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Gundam Flashbacks by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Citizenship is allowed for those who live on Earth? For a 'space nation'?

      This is in line with the current trend towards making youtube videos and blog entries about things, rather than actually DOING them. If they can create a fictional "space nation", sign up a bunch of members and sew the patches to their space jackets and stare into the sky where they imagine their space station would be orbiting if they could build one.. wow, that's better than actually GOING into space. Well, perhaps not "better", but it's certainly more affordable.

  14. I refuse to join any club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    that would have me as a member. - Groucho Marx

  15. Tax? by mccalli · · Score: 2

    It's all fun and games until they institute a tax collection policy, with the recognition of the UN behind them as a sovereign nation with the right to enforce it...

    1. Re:Tax? by mu22le · · Score: 2

      It's all fun and games until they institute a tax collection policy, with the recognition of the UN behind them as a sovereign nation with the right to enforce it...

      Do you really think they have better chances of getting UN recognition than the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands?

    2. Re:Tax? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I can't see how they could collect any tax. They can add it to your tab, but unless you visit their sovereign territory or they have an extradition treaty that covers unpaid taxes there isn't much they can do to make you pay. I suppose they could try to revoke your citizenship, but that's not easy to do under international law, to prevent countries making people they don't want stateless.

      It's similar to how the US claims tax from overseas earnings of its citizens, or the UK expects ex-pats to pay off their student loans. They can't really do much unless you return to the US/UK, and even then it can be pretty difficult for them to prove what your earnings were.

      In any case, what services and benefits of citizenship would they provide in return for taxation? What kind of representation would citizens get?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Tax? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      but unless you visit their sovereign territory

      Uh, yeah, that's the point of the project - to build territory in orbit. So, apparently they want people to want to go there and then they'll impose taxes.

      The entire point of the modern nation state is to run a farm where people are kept to provide tax money, like cattle for milk.

      If there is competition, then there isn't a state - you only have a business running a concession. Like going to a resort.

      If they need a state then they automatically want to impose some kind of monopoly within their jurisdiction, by force if necessary - that's just the polisci definition.

      The true "space nutters" will be those who go to Space and then want to bring along the worst inventions of humanity (including states). We have communications and economics now - no need for hokey religions and ancient weapons.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands ...

      Indigenous culture: Gay/Lesbian
      Population: 0. (Given the Gay/Lesbian limitation, there will never be natural growth.)
      Military: 0. (Obviously)
      Diplomatic relations: At war with Australia (their closest neighbour).
      Buildings: 0.
      Primary industry: Stamp collecting. (Although there isn't a post office)
      Capital city: Heaven (beach)
      Government: Emperor (in absentia).

    5. Re:Tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why hokey religions and ancient weapons when we can have Contolism and Mobile Suits?

    6. Re:Tax? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Population: 0. (Given the Gay/Lesbian limitation, there will never be natural growth.)

      False. Gays and Lesbians have kids all the time - and have been doing so for thousands of years. It's not harder than it is for you to fuck an ugly woman one time. They may not enjoy the babymaking much - but they enjoy the babies.
      Oh and please define 'natural' - because in modern times sex is hardly a requirement for babies. I have a lesbian friend who has mothered well over 30 children - she's an egg donor, all of them being raised by nice gay and lesbian couples around the world.
      If anything her, genes will be MORE strongly represented in the next generation than yours. The population may be 0 right now, but you have no grounds for assuming that it will remain that way or that, if it goes up, it will not grow like any other. Though the UN would require at least some population to allow it, any number above zero will do since there's no actual minimum listed anywhere.

      >Military: 0. (Obviously)
      And why is that ? There are plenty of gay and lesbian soldiers in the US military right now - so why could they not establish a military ? I would argue they would likely have more fabulous uniforms though.

      >Diplomatic relations: At war with Australia
      Seems like a pretty solid reason to consider their nationhood. If you can declare war on somebody - you ought to vote to consider them a country, otherwise it's either a civil war or an act of terrorism against another country.

      >Buildings: 0.
      The UN never actually lists that as a requirement

      >Primary industry: Stamp collecting. (Although there isn't a post office)
      That's not actually a problem - people will still be collecting stamps long after there are no post offices anywhere. Stamp collecting has always been an international hobby. Hell, when I dabbled in it in my youth - I had a a very large selection of stamps from countries that no longer exist !

      >Capital city: Heaven (beach)
      No problem there.

      >Government: Emperor (in absentia).
      UN rules require the existence of a government, but makes no requirements about the nature of that government, this will do.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:Tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what services and benefits of citizenship.

      This is a fantastic question on it's own. Can I travel on an Asgardian passport?

      taxation

      Well if they don't collect any taxes, all of their citizens' incomes are going to be made in Asgardia and all large corporations will consider doing the same. Double Asgardian Sandwhich?

  16. The next Ireland by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "The ultimate aim is to create a legal platform..."

    Ah, so another corporate tax haven, out there floating in no tax land.

    Got it.

    1. Re:The next Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! Tehcnically Ireland doesn't have a Space Rapture caste system and the ability to fling libertarian death asteroids down on earth populations who refuse to support the lifestyle choices of spacenoids.

      t. IRE

    2. Re:The next Ireland by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      Ireland is not a tax haven. They pretended to be in order to garner Apple's attention. Ireland violated EU rules and now has to pay (indirectly, via Apple) the real price.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:The next Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ireland *is* a tax haven. It just went further down that road with Apple.

      read this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement, then try to re-read your sentence with a straight face. Then only mitigating factor is that this vanishes in 4 years. But until 2020, Ireland is a massive tax haven for international companies.

    4. Re:The next Ireland by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      another corporate tax haven

      More like "another 'Soverign Citizen' platform". Corporations live too much in the real world to invest in this idiotic idea. Also, they can already negotiate 0.0% tax rates with various countries.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  17. Re:Just one question by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

    Build what?

  18. Moneymaking scam! by Chas · · Score: 0

    Hi! We're selling citizenship to Sealan...err...Asgardia! Our own made-up nation that, at the earliest opportunity, will join the UN!

    Holy shitcakes Batman! The Bat-Bullshit detector just disappeared up it's own asshole!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  19. Can this get me tax breaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would we have to renounce our current citizenship?

    If deported, where would we be sent?

    And what are the taxes like for Asgardians?

    1. Re:Can this get me tax breaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If deported, where would we be sent?

      Hey, that's not a bad idea. Become a citizen of Asgardia, break the law on Earth, get "deported" to space.

  20. There's never a Cretan around when you need one. by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    If I'm not a sexist but claim that I am, is that good enough?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  21. So a citizen of this place is called..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... an Asgardian?

  22. Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    See, there's actually a difference between saying you're going to do something and actually doing it.

    No there isn't. -- @realDonaldTrump

  23. Scam? by MayeulC · · Score: 1

    That's an interesting concept, and I am quite tempted to register. But I would like to have some additional guarantees.
    Having an open policy about finances would be a plus: I don't want some tax money, however little it is, to fall into an individual's hands, just to disappear the next day.

  24. Should have put Asgardia in front of Uranus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  25. Re:There's never a Cretan around when you need one by smallfries · · Score: 0

    No, you need to actually grab some pussy to qualify

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  26. This has already been done. Um, Sealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds very hokey. It's as if you're creating a corporation and then making yourself a citizen of that imaginary entity. For what? To avoid all the messy stuff like local laws that you will claim no longer apply to you? Why is this on Slashdot at all? Just try getting a job without a work visa -- oh wait, THAT is why it's on Slashdot!

  27. Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    >> Build what?

    Most people don't read the fine article but it appears you didn't even read the article post.

    Here let me help you by quoting from the article summary: "Initially, it would seem, this new nation will consist of a single satellite, scheduled to be launched next year, with its citizens residing firmly on terra firma."

  28. Funny waste of time by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    A nation is only as good as its ability to defend itself. Until a power like the US or China comes in and dictates its will, this is nothing more than show.

  29. Oh give me a break ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    ... Elon Musks Massive Mars Flight Presentation and now this.
    Just because we have better and more realistic computer animation today doesn't make these 'ambitions' any less "new agegy".

    It would make more sense to first finish Auroville or found a Quasi National Entity as an independant organisation for improving things here on earth.

    I'm pretty sure that we need a Skyhook/Space Elevator before we can seriously start settling in space, be it on mars or on some massive space station. No way are we going to get matierials for projects like these into space consistently with regular rockets. Not in these payload sizes. I just don't see it happening.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Oh give me a break ... by khallow · · Score: 1

      No way are we going to get matierials for projects like these into space consistently with regular rockets.

      From Earth. A number of other places don't have the delta-v problems that the surface of Earth has.

    2. Re:Oh give me a break ... by JustBoo · · Score: 1

      ... Elon Musks Massive Mars Flight Presentation and now this. Just because we have better and more realistic computer animation today doesn't make these 'ambitions' any less "new agegy".

      It would make more sense to first finish Auroville or[...]

      Or hey, how about sending a few people to the Moon, what a concept, maybe for a few days, and then, maybe bringing them back alive. A tall order, but someone has to do it.

      Given no one, that's no one, on planet Earth currently has the viable technology to even do that, it makes it all the rest completely ridiculous. As someone commented elsewhere; 'scientists' have become so enamored with shiny computer simulations they are believing them to be real.

  30. Currency by ojs · · Score: 1

    I propose Bitcoin will be the currency for this new sovereign state!

    1. Re:Currency by Place+a+name+here · · Score: 1

      And decisionmaking be done by means of an Ethereum DAO, natch.

  31. And Asgardia will whine mightily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the Chinese, Russians, and Americans "trangress" in their territory....

  32. Re:Just one question by JustBoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Where will the $50 trillion dollars necessary to build it come from?

    See, there's actually a difference between saying you're going to do something and actually doing it.

    This is nothing new. I've worked with a lot of PhDs. Most, if not all, are completely bonkers socially and totally out of touch with reality. They spend so much time in the 'academia' fantasy land hyper-focused on their specialty, that even "stuper-doofus" names like dumb Ass-gardia sounds good to them. What a laugh riot.

    The real irony is they indulge in infantilization of those around them, or anyone who disagrees with them, so as not to have to actually deal with their loony tendencies. Assgardia is a (heavily smoked) pipe dream.

  33. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see how this is different that placing a ship in international waters and claiming it is a country.
    Only with the twist that the ship would be unmanned.

    It's not a country, it's a derelict.

  34. Buying Land? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do I buy ass..err land on Assgardia?

  35. Space Welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " *and* to provide access to space technologies for those who do not have that access at the moment."

    Ya know... countries who poured zillions into the education of their citizens, research, training, manufacturing etc. They deserve to enjoy the benefits of space before others. Musk will be providing field trips on his magic school bus soon enough. Best to charge admission and recoup some costs before all the moochers jump on board and stink the thing up with curry.

  36. Slashdot Editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not much more than a glorified WordPress blog. Why would you post this?

  37. Scientists and legal experts! oh my! by chewie2010 · · Score: 1

    Scientists and legal experts! oh my! In the Guardian! Slashdot is fetting into drudge/huffington post territory.

  38. Deportation by sreever · · Score: 1

    Would have to pretty expensive to deport citizens.

    1. Re: Deportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you just toss them in the opposite direction of your station's orbit, and gravity takes care of the rest.

      Illegal immigration, however, won't be much of a problem for quite a while...

  39. This is BS by NoPhD · · Score: 1

    No human can match machine learning. But - if you put garbage in you get garbage out.

  40. Next up.. Cyber Nations!!! by ninthbit · · Score: 1

    The nation of World of Warcraft
    The nation of Second-Life
    The nation of Darkweb (just an FYI, this one has some CRAZY protective privacy laws)

    Though to be fair... Many people all over the world have dual citizenships and reside their whole lives as expatriates. How is this concept any different. All member citizens are simply expatriates, but still carry voting rights for representation of their member virtual nation. This doesn't excuse them from their locally resided countries laws, but it does afford a unified voice to a largely geographically dispersed group of people that may carry similar ideals. Its membership could grow to the point that it does in fact have sway at the UN.

    1. Re:Next up.. Cyber Nations!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect like most nations, the average assguardian voice will be heard about as well as the average American's voice is heard.

      Maybe if you got like 1 billion memberships and then some how got a 2/3rds majority to agree one something, maybe you'll get the UN to care, but that doesn't mean USA, China or Russia will care.

      If the UN was so special, Israel might actually pay attention to them when the "Palestinians" complain about new settlements being put on their land. We see how well that's working out for them.

      This is just something fun for a bunch of nerds. And that's okay.

  41. One question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will I have to give up my Sealand citizenship?

  42. LEGAL STATE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really arrogant of them to think this is some U.N. based state. It's a fantasy world. I personally will ignore it.

    How will it accept their "citizenship" and passports if some REAL nation state blows it out of the sky?

  43. Something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm going to do something similar.

    I'm going to throw a bottle into the ocean; publish an application for citizenship to the bottle. And once we have 100,000 we will inform the rest of the world that we are a sovergn country.

    1. Re:Something similar by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "When the number of those applications goes above 100,000 we can officially apply to the UN for the status of state,"

      Why bother with the bottle? Just get the petition drive completed and declare a virtual nation. No contiguous land mass, no closed loop border, nothing but intent.

      The UN could indeed recognize this, and so fully declare they are as much use as a handbrake on a canoe. In space.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  44. Settlement first, THEN nations by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Government of any kind arises out of local need, for whatever size of 'local' we're talking about. The idea of defining a 'space nation' before there is any territory for it to represent is redolent of all that Silicon Valley posturing about sovereign floating islands on the high seas.

    The UN Space Treaty has only two concerns: that earthly countries take responsibility for objects they launch, such as a failed American launch crashing in Brazil, and that terrestrial sovereignty not extend into space, such as the US claiming lunar territory because 'we got there first'. The Treaty allows local government to evolve naturally as needed, so long as it does not represent an extension of power by some part of Earth.

    If the ISS eventually needs its own city council as private modules are added, one will evolve. Any Mars or asteroidal settlement can under the Treaty govern itself in the same way.

    1. Re:Settlement first, THEN nations by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "long as it does not represent an extension of power by some part of Earth."

      Ah, so 100,000 people from Earth would not 'represent an extension of power by some part of Earth.'

      Ok. You go first.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Settlement first, THEN nations by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      By the UN Treaty, those people cannot act as legal representatives of any government on Earth. And by the time the number reaches 100,000 , they definitely would not.

    3. Re: Settlement first, THEN nations by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      And they would not, by themselves, constitute a 'government'?

      Interesting theory. A nation without a government is merely a nation pretending it 'has no government'. Even voluntarism is a form of government.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  45. So now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The opposition to the militarization of space becomes the proposition of the totalitarianism of space.

  46. Elysium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Matt damon!!!!

  47. Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of a football pool with no numbers in X or Y until all boxes were bought. Only difference is the suckers knew how much it cost to buy in.

  48. Contest by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    What rhymes with Asgardia?

    1. Re:Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What rhymes with Asgardia?

      Retardia

    2. Re:Contest by sheramil · · Score: 1

      .. tachycardia?

    3. Re:Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      En guardia! (You did not say in English per force). En guard...

  49. This Sounds Like... by JohnPerkins · · Score: 1

    So nobody's going to live there and everyone stays a citizen of whatever country they're in now?

    This sounds like Star Trek fans who claim to serve aboard this or that Federation ship. Or people who declare their house to be a sovereign nation. Petoria, I guess.

  50. Re:Just one question by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Where will the $50 trillion dollars necessary to build it come from?

    See, there's actually a difference between saying you're going to do something and actually doing it.

    This is nothing new. I've worked with a lot of PhDs.

    And you don't read articles either.

    Most, if not all, are completely bonkers socially and totally out of touch with reality. They spend so much time in the 'academia' fantasy land hyper-focused on their specialty, that even "stuper-doofus" names like dumb Ass-gardia sounds good to them. What a laugh riot.

    Um, interesting. You don't read the article, and fixate on a jeramiad. I've worked mostly with Ph.D's (note spelling) my entire career, and you know what? The pretty much fit a cross section of all people, with the exception of there aren't many stupid ones, and they rend away from activities that stupid people engage in.

    And there are a few doofuses, just like regular folk.

    The real irony is they indulge in infantilization of those around them, or anyone who disagrees with them, so as not to have to actually deal with their loony tendencies. Assgardia is a (heavily smoked) pipe dream.

    Yarbles! A large part of my work with these folk was analysis of their ideas. They were universally grateful when I pointed out fatal flaws.

    The only caveat I'd note was that my work tended toward the scientific end of the spectrum, but still worked with a lot of disciiplines. Any assholes got dropped pretty quickly. And asshole distribution isn't any higher among Ph.D's than among the general public.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  51. An isolated micronation made by scientists and aca by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Well, that can't possi -

    NO GODS OR KINGS, ONLY MAN ...bly end badly. Yeah.

  52. Piece of cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should be a cinch to nuke. The ICBM won't even have to re-enter the atmosphere to reach it.

  53. What is the benefit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what exactly is the benefit to this? I still have to pay the taxes of the country that I physically live in, still have to obey the laws of the country that I physically live in. The only change that I see is that the government of the country that I physically live in can now claim that I have dual-citizenship, which seems more like a bad thing than good, though I will admit that my knowledge on the subject is rather non-existent.

  54. Re:Just one question by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  55. Governmental Body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their prez leader shall be Odin. There VP will be called Thor, and their Trump, Loki.

  56. Common D sen C. by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Show some respect to this lonely warrior.

    His hill is high, the air is thin, the stars are bright and do not waver, but burn steadily into his unblinking eyes as if they were hard, bright points of righteousness. He cannot sense Yggdrasil from there; yet he soldiers on.

    When he shouts Ásgarðr, the surface dwellers... they hear nothing. Muspelheim awaits those who step away from the true path of pronunciation.

    You have been warned. You insensitive clod.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Common D sen C. by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Where are mod points when I truly need them?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    2. Re:Common D sen C. by dataspel · · Score: 2

      Quite possibly the best post ever written, to anything.

  57. XD by sims+2 · · Score: 2

    So this is how elysium got started.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  58. There's plenty of space at the bottom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is so much space to colonize and develop down here, on Earth. Think the Far North in the US, Canada, and Russia, the deserts, the bottom of the oceans. Such an endeavor would be far less expensive, faster, and less risky on Earth than in lower Earth orbit or on Mars, which is a cold, unbreathable, dead desert to our best knowledge.

  59. Percussery by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    the drum beating around the myth of the Free Market, as if Adam Smith and Mill had the last word on economics.

    That's not a drum. That's a garbage can lid.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  60. I choose Rapture by timrod · · Score: 1

    Asgardia "will offer an independent platform free from the constraint of a land-based country's laws. It will become a place it in orbit which is truly 'no man's land.'"

    This sounds like it's one male stand-in for Ayn Rand away from being Rapture in space. Alternatively, it's one SHODAN away from being System Shock 2.

  61. Celesital bodies of note by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    IAU reasoning: The earth has its moon; ergo its neighborhood is not clear; ergo the earth is not a planet.

    That whole "has cleared its neighborhood" is ridiculous on its face.

    Also, you try sitting 100,000 km over the planet Pluto without a nice orbit helping you out and you'll find out just how good it is at clearing its neighborhood, all right.

    The nice thing about the IAU is when they shit themselves and fall in it, we are free to ignore them.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  62. Eye of horus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the site it has an eye of horus in the middle, this is to get sheep into thinking this is a new thing but hey guess what same people that are destroying the planet are behind this nation, cause god forbid any person be free from their claws.

  63. Sealand by DarthVain · · Score: 2

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

    Reminds me of the whole Sealand thing. Regardless of the novelty of space, the bottom line is unless other nations recognize you as a nation, you're not a nation. Heck there are plenty of contemporary examples of actual physical land areas for various political reasons call themselves independent or a nation, which arn't recognized by anyone. Then there are those that are by some nations but not by others, some for decades! So I don't hold out a lot of hope for the land of Thor...

    1. Re:Sealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't we already passed laws that say you can't own any part of the cosmos that isn't Earth?

  64. Tessier-Ashpool by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Funny

    'Asgardia'? No, they should name it 'Freeside', with the biggest investor taking up residence in a villa within the station called 'Straylight'.

  65. Libertarian label is one of the best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Libertarians who take themselves too seriously like to state that they are Libertarians, as if that label is on par with the labels of major political parties and their ideology out on the world.

    How is this not a label on par with major political parties!? As a label, it's far more descriptive than words like "Democrat" or "Republican." If I say so-and-so is a Republican, or so-and-so is a Democrat, does that tell you anything distinctive about any of so-and-so's political positions?

    At least with Libertarians, while there is some diversity within the label, it tells you a lot. If you tell me so-and-so is a Libertarian, I can accurately predict a fuckton of his answers to political questions. You can't do that with a Democrat or a Republican. Those people will surprise a lot, because their labels are so meaningless. (Especially Democrats; there isn't anyone who couldn't get away with saying "I'm a Democrat." Trump could run as a Democrat.)

  66. Fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait until "Asguardian citizens" have to start paying "Asguardian taxes"

  67. Supreme commander of Asgardian fleet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As supreme commander I call for the eradication of all mechanical spiders.

  68. Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sovereignty is not something you can just claim. You need to be able to defend it from those who would take it away. You also generally need it to enforce national laws, such as tax policies. Anything else is just a club.

    1. Re:Military by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      What about the case where thieves and would-be aggressor nations decide it is too insignificant and pitiful to waste space resources on attacking or capturing? Perhaps this is what has protected us from extra terrestrials ...

      There are a couple "nations" out in international waters (reclaimed WW II gun platforms, giant ships, etc) that could easy be conquered by any navy, but aren't.

      Boethius' story of poor people whistling through the thieves' forest, etc.

  69. So the UN recognition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...how do they plan on getting the 10,000 citizens to be recognized without actually getting 10,000 people on the station?

    If just having 10,00 people sign up to say they want to be 'citizens' is all it takes, then pretty much any sizable company/forum/community/religion can become it's own nation.

  70. Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh, I'll sign up just because it could be fun. I think I may even try my hand at designing a flag for it too.

  71. Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've worked mostly with Ph.D's (note spelling) my entire career

    Your grammar is incorrect. By inserting an apostrophe you are denoting possession, not plurality.

  72. Re:Just one question by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I've worked mostly with Ph.D's (note spelling) my entire career

    Your grammar is incorrect. By inserting an apostrophe you are denoting possession, not plurality.

    They were MY Ph.D's

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  73. Re:Just one question by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    I've worked mostly with Ph.D's (note spelling) my entire career

    Your grammar is incorrect. By inserting an apostrophe you are denoting possession, not plurality.

    They were MY Ph.D's

    Perhaps so, but the possessive makes no sense in that original context!

  74. The important question by TheMadTopher · · Score: 1

    But will Asgardia have banks for corporations to shelter/launder money through?

  75. I have doubts....many doubts by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
    This strikes me as a well-intentioned, but utterly impractical concept. I suspect the originators haven't paid much attention to actual world politics. There are *numerous* places on Earth, with actual resident populations that struggle to gain acceptance and recognition in the community of nations. This isn't even as plausible an attempt at nation building as Northern Cyprus, Transnistria or Somaliland. This is more akin to the Principality of Sealand. Namely, a place intended from its very inception to base its existence on a loophole of international law. And; as with Sealand, if this orbital micronation in any way steps on the toes of a real nation, it will quickly cease to exist.

    On of the biggest challenges to public acceptance isn't having a large enough population of people who claim citizenship. Rather; it is the universal assumption that a nation must have a set physical location not already claimed by a bigger/more powerful pre-existing nation and have people already living on it who wish to be sovereign. I don't know of any cases where a ship or aircraft was declared to be sovereign, which would be the closest example. (There is the case of Princess Margriet of the Netherlands who was born in an Ottawa hospital, but in that case, it was Canada, an existing recognized sovereign nation, temporarily declaring a small portion of its territory to be extra-territorial. And was only done because she was a) effectively a temporary refugee of WWII and b) In the line of succession of another sovereign and allied state)

    All in all, this seems similar to a RPG player who has found what he or she thinks is a loophole in a rarely referred to rulebook or rule supplement and thinks that this obscure reference should trump how the game is normally played or how the current quest is playing out. With a good GM, such rules-lawyers get hammered pretty quick. Hell, in a good group, quite often the other players will cooperate in squelching the rules-lawyer. In real world politics, I can't see gaming the system to be a viable strategy...

    --
    I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  76. too much westworld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these "scientists" have been watching too much "westworld"

  77. Careful - Lose your current citizenship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some countries, like the United States, will take away your current citizenship for voluntarily applying for foreign citizenship.
    https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html

  78. Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've worked mostly with Ph.D's (note spelling) my entire career

    Your grammar is incorrect. By inserting an apostrophe you are denoting possession, not plurality.

    They were MY Ph.D's

    Which explains your projection and bullshit answer. Like how you never admit you are wrong. Thanks for a perfect example of what the op was writing about. LOL.

  79. Re:Just one question by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    Nonetheless i did apply, my first impression was this is a scam for the next mmo where you can exchange qubitcoins for real dollars in space ...
    but now im left with one question ? can i bring my cat or does he have to register separately ?

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  80. Re:Just one question by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    akshully and skjoozmee for doubleposting, wether they get it up or not .. it does sound like a real nice brainpicking gedanken sourcing concept to gather spacenuts around and steal ideas for free or at least write some seriously decent sci-fi

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  81. Re: Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you claim to have multiple PhD yet you cannot use possessive apostrophes correctly?

    You are exactly what the OP was talking about.

  82. Muscle Mass in Space by brendan_orr · · Score: 1

    I would be they would suck at the Olympics. On the plus side if they host then we'll get new records for shot-put!

  83. Welcome to Slab City! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Complete with it's own CANNIBAL CLUB.

  84. Re: Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like someone has actually observed evidence of libertarian scientists. I will wait for secondary confirmation before pondering the implications of this astounding discovery.

  85. Did anyone actually read what they're proposing? by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 1

    "Asgardia will demonstrate to scientists throughout the world that independent, private and unrestricted research is possible."

    Anyone else concerned with the implications of this statement from the site? While "independent" and "private" research aren't particularly worrisome, I'd like to know what "unrestricted" research means, especially when just above that they state: "Economical and political considerations often take precedence over purely scientific ones and ethical boundaries are considered necessary to sustain safety."

    Is part of this underlying ethos the idea that ethical boundaries, as well as economical and political considerations, get in the way of scientific ones? If that's the case, I want, *even more*, to know what "unrestricted" research means. Is this an attempt to circumvent well-establish ethical oversight common across scientific domains? The only reason you'd want to circumvent ethical oversight is if you're considering doing something unethical and, sadly, we've seen far too often what happens when ethical oversight of research is disregarded.

  86. Bioshock: Asgardia by Vastad · · Score: 1

    "A platform free of land-based law"?
    "A true no-man's land"?
    A flag and anthem?

    Have I just seen the premise for Bioshock 4?

  87. Re:Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were MY Ph.D's

    That statement is also grammatically incorrect. Again you are denoting possession, but this time you left out the object instead of simply misplacing an apostrophe.

    You really ought to have stayed in school.

  88. Re:Just one question by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    They were MY Ph.D's

    That statement is also grammatically incorrect. Again you are denoting possession, but this time you left out the object instead of simply misplacing an apostrophe.

    You really ought to have stayed in school.

    That denotes a joke. Lighten up, coward, and you'll see that much of life will serve to make you laugh, which is very good for the soul.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  89. Re: Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Literally everything you just said, is complete bullshit based on ignorance. Just so you know, nobody likes a person who is completely negative and rude. I'm talking about you dipshit!

  90. Bioshock 4? by dieguiariel · · Score: 1

    Sounds more like a publicity stunt for Bioshock...

  91. Will white people ever get away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... from non-whites?
    Even if we moved to another planet, they would demand to come with us, wouldn't they...

  92. Re: Just one question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Projecting again Ol Olsoc? Or should I say Anonymous Coward. You made an ass out of yourself, proved the OPs assertion and have been flailing about with sad and futile responses (again proving the point) and just can't let it go, can you? Another typical flaw. Proving the point, once again. The true irony is your last response above is a complete projection of yourself, once again.

    Keep digging, it's amusing for all to see.