Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:38AM   Printer-friendly
from the No-Gods-or-Kings-only-Man dept.

Alternet reports:

Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel...has teamed up with the grandson of libertarian icon Milton Friedman, Patri Friedman, to try and develop a “seastead,” or a permanent and autonomous dwelling at sea. Friedman formed the “Seasteading Institute” in 2008, and Thiel has donated more than a million dollars to fund its creation...

they claim a floating city could be just years away. The real trick is finding a proper location to build this twenty-first century Atlantis. Currently, they are attempting to find a host nation that will allow the floating city somewhat close to land, for the calm waters and ability to easily travel to and from the seastead.

In recent years there have been reports of similar efforts, like the Freedom Ship, a floating city designed to house 50,000 people, with a landing strip on top of the vessel.

Such concepts raise the questions, "Can these communities create new social structures when the subconscious societal norms we all grow up with have such a powerful influence on our expectations?" and "Is the ocean really the best place to site these communities, given how powerful, treacherous, and corrosive an environment the sea is?"

Related Stories

Hulk Hogan's Sex Tape and a Tech Billionaire's Revenge on Gawker 36 comments

Two Soylentils wrote in with an update on Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker. After these stories were submitted, it appears to have been confirmed by The New York Times that Thiel paid $10 million to fund the lawsuit.

Peter Thiel Funded Hulk Hogan's Lawsuit Against Gawker

Peter Thiel, the billionaire Silicon Valley venture capitalist and libertarian who we have reported on several times, reportedly bankrolled former wrestler Hulk Hogan's (real name: Terry Bollea) lawsuit against Gawker. After Gawker published a sex tape featuring Bollea, Bollea sued and was eventually awarded $140 million by a jury. That decision is being appealed.

Thiel has had several run-ins with Gawker's reporting on his political and financial decisions, but the most prominent incident was in 2007, when the website's then-running gossip vertical Valleywag outed Thiel's sexual orientation in a post titled, "Peter Thiel is totally gay, people."

Thiel, who is now open about being gay, later called Valleywag "the Silicon Valley equivalent of Al Qaeda."

Although the exact details of the arrangement between Thiel and Bollea are unknown, if Thiel negotiated for a share of the lawsuit's proceeds, he may get to stick it to Gawker while earning millions of dollars.

[Continues...]

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by PapayaSF on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:46AM

    by PapayaSF (1183) on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:46AM (#159675)

    Nobody would have an ocean location as a first choice, but all the land on Earth has been claimed by existing governments. The only place on the surface out of their legal reach (in theory) is on the ocean.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:01AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:01AM (#159685) Journal

      The only place on the surface out of their legal reach (in theory) is on the ocean.

      2D thinking. Even Jules Verne was more imaginative, about 145 years ago.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:32AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:32AM (#159708)

        I think you'll find ships cheaper and more reliable than flying cities, until working fusion and gen 2 emdrives at least.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:44AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:44AM (#159716) Journal

          I think you'll find ships cheaper and more reliable than flying cities

          What about undersea habitats? Isn't this still 3D?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:53AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:53AM (#159724)

            Again, seasteads will be cheaper, more convenient, and safer than undersea habitats. Unless the relative cost gap shrinks, I don't know why anyone would choose to go undersea. The seastead offers autonomy over land settlements, an undersea habitat could offer the same but couldn't use solar, would be harder and more dangerous to travel to and from, would have the same problems of corrosion as boats, but harder to fix and maintain, would need more safety features, would need to be more self-sufficient (at a cost), and would cause claustrophobia (a big undersea habitat would be very expensive and harder to engineer). An open air park on a seastead would be a lot easier to do than the equivalent for an underwater habitat.

            Face it, 3D sucks unless you lower the cost of electricity and materials to almost nothing.

          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 19 2015, @10:43AM

            by Wootery (2341) on Thursday March 19 2015, @10:43AM (#159864)

            An undersea libertopia? Sounds familiar... [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 2) by PapayaSF on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:45AM

        by PapayaSF (1183) on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:45AM (#159718)

        I actually wrote "on the surface" to exclude outer space, smart guy. Yes, the bottom of the ocean could be considered the surface of the Earth. But in common usage, "surface" means on land or on (not under) the ocean. I'm discussing practical and legal issues. Captain Nemo's submarine has all the technical problems of an equivalent surface vessel, plus some. And the legal issues remain.

        • (Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday March 20 2015, @01:06AM

          by BasilBrush (3994) on Friday March 20 2015, @01:06AM (#160215)

          Space is a great idea. Libertarians should definitely go there. Along with the hairdressers and telephone sanitizers.

          --
          Hurrah! Quoting works now!
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:08PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:08PM (#160037)

        Underground cities would occupy already-claimed territory.
        Flying cities would still occupy airspace claimed by established governments, unless they were over the same international waters as the floating cities.
        Undersea cities would have horrible commute times, what with the decompression and all, and again still have to be in international waters.
        Orbital cities would require technology we don't yet have, and the commute would be extremely dangerous and expensive (though that would keep out the riff-raff - elites and their indentured servants only!)

        Basically, getting off the surface doesn't actually change much.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gravis on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:20AM

      by Gravis (4596) on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:20AM (#159696)

      actually that isnt true at all! right now you can buy entire islands that are sovereign nation-states. a more ideal solution to these seasteads would be to take an existing island and expand it using the same methods as the earth uses to make islands: volcanos. we have all the basic technology to make it happen, we just need to find the right place to drill into the seabed to access magma that is a few miles below instead of hundreds of miles below. however, i think if we really applied ourselves, we could access it anywhere in the sea.

      • (Score: 2) by PapayaSF on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:38AM

        by PapayaSF (1183) on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:38AM (#159710)

        right now you can buy entire islands that are sovereign nation-states

        Really? Do you have a cite for that? Because while some rich people have bought entire islands, AFAIK these have all been purely real estate transactions, and no one considerers them separate countries.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Gravis on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:19AM

          by Gravis (4596) on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:19AM (#159731)

          right now you can buy entire islands that are sovereign nation-states

          Really? Do you have a cite for that?

          you should read up on micronations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation [wikipedia.org]

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:23AM

            by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:23AM (#159733) Journal

            You mean how they're a joke not recognized by any government?

            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:29AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:29AM (#159736)

              A seastead is potentially a bit less like a micronation. They only need autonomy, not to be recognized. If they can hang around in international waters or make an agreement with some nation, any nation, to stay offshore, it can be realized.

              What would cause a nation to come and destroy the project? Drugs? Sex abuse? Gambling? Tax evasion?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:00PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:00PM (#160087)

                I'd think fear of contamination from a garbage scow full of vile plutocrats would be enough to want to scuttle it.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:02PM (#160108)

                > What would cause a nation to come and destroy the project? Drugs? Sex abuse? Gambling? Tax evasion?

                Money laundering.

      • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:45PM

        by Justin Case (4239) on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:45PM (#160102) Journal

        > right now you can buy entire islands that are sovereign nation-states

        Well, the United States has already been bought, although I suppose the same business model could work elsewhere. Still not sure I'd want to live there.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Farkus888 on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:23AM

      by Farkus888 (5159) on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:23AM (#159700)

      These floating cities never address one of their major issues. Blowing things up. I can't get many guns or explosives just because other people are scared. In a libertarian world new full auto weapons would be legal. On a boat not so much because they are always a threat due to confined spaces and lack of proper back stop. It is much easier to safely shoot things for fun in a rural area on land.

      • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:30AM

        by redneckmother (3597) on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:30AM (#159707)

        It is much easier to safely shoot things for fun in a rural area on land.

        Oh, Yes! It is, indeed!

        --
        Mas cerveza por favor.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:55AM (#159726)

        Libertarians may like guns and explosives, but they also like contracts, and if the contract doesn't allow them to cling to their guns and bombs, they can choose not to sign up.

      • (Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:09AM

        by richtopia (3160) on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:09AM (#159774) Homepage Journal

        Would the ocean provide an adequate back stop?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:37AM (#159812)

          A recent survey of dead sea animals was inconclusive.

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:15PM

          by Freeman (732) on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:15PM (#160044) Journal

          Seems like the ocean would provide a perfectly acceptable back stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads [wikipedia.org]

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:53AM (#159801)

        Look up Kahoolawe, close to the Hawaiian Islands. You, too, could make a fortune being a practice target for the US Navy?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @04:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @04:16PM (#160018)

        Speaking of which, I'd bet you a billion dollars that these assholes would do everything they could to restrict my right to blow up their seastead with a nuke. What about my freedom?! These libertarians talk about "freedom this" and "freedom that" but they won't respect my freedom to blow them up?! Hypocrites I say!

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:02PM

          by Justin Case (4239) on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:02PM (#160107) Journal

          You're being deliberately stupid, of course. Libertarians support your right to have weapons, not to use them -- except in self defense. This concept -- violence only in self defense -- is fundamental to libertarian thinking. In fact, it is almost the entire philosophy in one sentence.

          So I'm calling you on your deliberately slanted smear. Since you chose not to be honest in your debating, what were you actually trying to accomplish? And why? What are your real motives? Are you, perhaps, someone who benefits from the authoritarian state's propensity to steal the fruits of other people's labor?

    • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:27AM

      by Non Sequor (1005) on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:27AM (#159703) Journal

      And why is that? Why is all the land claimed by governments that maintain diplomatic relations with other nations that at least tenuously respect their borders while the sea is governed by international agreements which are in turn enforced by governments operating ports?

      --
      Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday March 19 2015, @09:11AM

        by fritsd (4586) on Thursday March 19 2015, @09:11AM (#159825) Journal

        And why is that? Why is all the land claimed by governments that maintain diplomatic relations with other nations that at least tenuously respect their borders while the sea is governed by international agreements which are in turn enforced by governments operating ports?

        Because of Hugo de Groot [wikipedia.org], a Dutch lawyer who escaped his government inside a box of books. That's his claim to fame, what I learned in school as a child.

        Oh, he also co-invented international law, especially "The Freedom of the Seas" (1609) [wikipedia.org], but that was probably too difficult to explain to Dutch school children.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Spook brat on Thursday March 19 2015, @09:50PM

        by Spook brat (775) on Thursday March 19 2015, @09:50PM (#160142) Journal

        Why is all the land claimed by governments that maintain diplomatic relations with other nations that at least tenuously respect their borders. . .

        Short answer? Because the local government has enough guns and guts to tell the people outside their borders to stay away.

        . . . while the sea is governed by international agreements which are in turn enforced by governments operating ports?

        Similar reasoning. The sea is big, and defending large areas of it is difficult. A floating city on the sea sounds like a fun idea, but it would be very vulnerable to air, surface, and undersea attack from foreign powers wanting to challenge the city's sovereignty and/or raiders wanting to come grab stuff from rich idealists.

        My advice? If you want to try this add the cost of a surface fleet (including carrier group), some attack subs, and a net of sonar buoys to the startup costs.

        --
        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:54PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:54PM (#159942) Journal

      The reason for this is human nature. The absence of government creates numerous incentives to create one, if only a tribal/feudal/mafiaesque one run by those who can use their collective power to control those who have no organization protecting them.

      As long as the seasteads keep their population under the triple digits, it's possible to imagine people sorting out things as a community, and pointing to it as a lack of need of a government. But once you can't know everyone "in town", these guys are going to be in for a shock.

      And that's assuming they could even possibly set up a remotely sustainable food/energy/sanitation system on libertarian principles.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TLA on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:46AM

    by TLA (5128) on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:46AM (#159677) Journal

    I think that's where this'll end up - a(nother) ten thousand Dollar a night hotel.

    --
    Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:50AM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:50AM (#159678) Journal

    "Can these communities create new social structures when the subconscious societal norms we all grow up with have such a powerful influence on our expectations?"
     
    No.
     
    But, why would they need to? Even Communism works when the population can fit on a boat...

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by TLA on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:55AM

      by TLA (5128) on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:55AM (#159682) Journal

      and when they run out of biscuits, they can always fall back on democracy to decide who gets eaten first.

      --
      Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @04:28AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @04:28AM (#159754)

        The opposite of Communism is Capitalism.

        The opposite of Democracy is Totalitarianism.

        ...and Communism requires Democracy to work.

        Those places that have called themselves "Communist" (USSR, Red China, North Korea) have actually been Totalitarian governments with State Capitalism as the economic system.
        They simply replaced the tiny number of people in charge with a different tiny bunch.
        That's not Communism, that's Fascism.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @04:45AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @04:45AM (#159764)

          Thank you gewg
          What is the _ for?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:00AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:00AM (#159792)

            It's a real shame that Comparative Economics and Comparative Governmental Systems aren't taught in most places.

            The trailing underscore is for uniqueness.
            There was a time when I could google myself and get practically nothing else.

            -- gewg_

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:05PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:05PM (#160109)

              You still can, just takes little more google-fu than before

              https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=intext:gewg_&gbv=1 [google.com]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20 2015, @12:59AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 20 2015, @12:59AM (#160213)

                Yes, genius, people can still do google searches.
                The intext: parameter, however, doesn't filter much, if anything.

                Getting back to my original point, the top hit on my long-time handle is now Greg Dawson (not I).

                You will find text strings that aren't all lowercase and that's noise too.

                There are also things like German Educational Working Group that come up.

                It's been a long long time since you could do a search and get just me.

                -- gewg_

        • (Score: 1) by turgid on Thursday March 19 2015, @10:18PM

          by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 19 2015, @10:18PM (#160153) Journal

          Stop talking sense. The intertubes cannae take it, captain.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:13AM (#159691)

      Can these communities create new social structures when the subconscious societal norms we all grow up with have such a powerful influence on our expectations?

      And you all thought those sociology majors would have to give up their drivel after they graduated.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:45AM (#159717)

      If a capitalist seastead can exist outside national boundaries and laws, people who live there will pay for the privilege to live there. Any dissatisfaction with services (including security/policing) and living conditions will have to be addressed, otherwise the residents will just go somewhere else. Residents will still hold citizenship in another country. If they can continue to make money while on the seastead, they could live there indefinitely. Much easier for the rich than the poor, but some poorer people may choose to be employed and live there. As time goes on a lot of the jobs needed on a seastead or cruise ship will be automated anyway.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:15AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:15AM (#159795) Journal

      "Can these communities create new social structures?

      No, again.

      Sooner or later Tina Turner is going to have to go up against Master-Blaster! Who runs Floaty Town?

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:05AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:05AM (#159687)

    If earth becomes The Matrix, then we'd be better off colonizing one of the moons of Saturn or Jupiter than trying to live on Mars.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:38AM (#159711)

      As long as robots and supplies can be landed in advance, there's no reason a Mars habitation can't work. There is plenty of water on the planet.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:43AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:43AM (#159814)

        But there's no pre-existing local life forms that can be conquered and exploited to be used as slave labor. Just because humanity might try to colonize a different celestial body doesn't mean we will stop being human.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:47AM (#159719)

      I dont know why that would be better without artificial gravity. Even with Mars gravity there will be some long term side effects we haven't even dreamed of.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:12AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:12AM (#159690) Journal

    given how powerful, treacherous, and corrosive an environment the sea is

    Corrosive? Tell that to 5-10 billion tones of biomass in the sea, perhaps they'll laugh.
    Ah, you mean corrosive to man-made structures? What, you think the libertarians will be backing off from the survival of the fittest fight? Piece of cake, I tell you

    (grin)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by carguy on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:29AM

      by carguy (568) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:29AM (#159705)

      Maybe it will be made of Titanium? This site compares an undersea pipe installation and concludes that the installed cost is less(!!) for Ti when compared to ordinary carbon steel (plus painting), http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2755 [azom.com]

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:52AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:52AM (#159723) Journal

        See? Piece of cake, I told yea.

        (grin)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:30AM (#159706)
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:51AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:51AM (#159722) Journal
        Corrosive substance [wikipedia.org]:

        A corrosive substance is one that will destroy and damage other substances with which it comes into contact. It may attack a great variety of materials, including metals and various organic compounds, but people are mostly concerned with its effects on living tissue: it causes chemical burns on contact.

        I have no qualms with the steel corrosion by sea water, but I think it's a bit an exaggeration to stick a "Corrosive substance" label on the surface of the ocean(s).

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:59AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:59AM (#159728)

          It's not an exaggeration if you're engineering a ship or semi-permanent seastead and have to deal with the effects of seawater on your project.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:34AM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:34AM (#159740)

          Seawater is extremely corrosive to most metals, so in context (the topic is human habitats at sea, which with today's technology means some kind of ship made of metal) it's entirely accurate and not an exaggeration at all.

    • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Thursday March 19 2015, @12:37PM

      by CoolHand (438) on Thursday March 19 2015, @12:37PM (#159915) Journal

      This might be a stupid thought for some reason of which I'm not thinking, but, why wouldn't they start building hulls of ships and structures like this out of plastic? We know that the ocean definitely isn't very corrosive to that.. [wikipedia.org]

      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:16PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:16PM (#160045)

        Most likely because while it may be immune to seawater, it's generally highly vulnerable to sunlight, and will lose structural integrity rapidly. Plus the strength-to-weight ratio is usually pretty bad even when new, an important consideration when your fuel costs scale by the ton.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:13PM (#160092)

          That's not a problem. The builder of the city will be liable to make amends to any survivors after failure of the structure, assuming such language was put into the contract, and assuming that there was a government entity with standing to enforce the contract. Future floating cities would, of course, benefit from the free market forces that would discourage future floating city builders from building unsound structures.

  • (Score: 1) by Balderdash on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:55AM

    by Balderdash (693) on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:55AM (#159727)

    I, for one, welcome our yuppie-fied floating trash island overlords.

    --
    I browse at -1. Free and open discourse requires consideration and review of all attempts at participation.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:26AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:26AM (#159734)

      This is a fun topic because the seastead becomes more capable and self-sufficient as technology advances. Better power generation, agricultural yield, better construction materials (including nanotech).

      A lot of people and companies pay lip service to sustainability but it is essential for such a project.

      So if Peter Thiel and the libertarian crew wants to start something, at least it will be interesting.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcosanti [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:49AM (#159743)

    Libertarian paradise already exists:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0 [youtube.com]

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Geezer on Thursday March 19 2015, @12:10PM

    by Geezer (511) on Thursday March 19 2015, @12:10PM (#159900)

    Since they brought political leanings into their science article, howzabout providing enough funding for a libertarian candidate to run a competitive campaign in 2016?

    I'm not a Libertarian, but it would be a huge game-changer and perhaps get some other alternatives into play some day.

    Any alternative to the Repubmocrat oligarchy is better than the same old hold-your-nose-and-vote routine.

    But I'm being naive. We'd probably wind up with another Nader or Perot nutjob that will just reinforce the corporate media image of 3rd-party loonies.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @12:16PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @12:16PM (#159904)

      > We'd probably wind up with another Nader or Perot nutjob that will just reinforce the corporate media image of 3rd-party loonies.

      Or Koch brother. [nytimes.com] His campaign fractured the Libertarian party.

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday March 20 2015, @09:40AM

    by sjames (2882) on Friday March 20 2015, @09:40AM (#160313) Journal

    The new man made island nation sinks never to be seen again when the great and powerful architects discover that in the real world just writing weld here does nothing. Some guy has to actually do the work and he belongs to a union.