IMHO it kind of serves you right for attempting to use FB. But for a more "productive" evaluation I'd simply suggest that opinions are frequently going to misalign - and you don't have to be happy about this - but unless there's been some sort of breach to your basic rights, ToS/AuP / code of conduct - which I cannot personally spot from the provided evidence, certainly nothing I'd describe as "butchering" - then I fail to see how this becomes the responsibility of Asgardia as whole. It's basically between you and them - you will come to some sort of understanding, or you will not.

MetaBorg, can I suggest that you edit this post to re-create your Facebook post here so that members of the forum who do not have Facebook are also able to participate. To ensure the unbiased nature of the results Admins and Moderator will again make no further comments or actions , and again the post will be locked at 0300 AST (0700 GMT), so that we are all able to evaluate the results.

Welcome to the Asgardia Forums! We have many discussions and projects happening at the moment. We welcome your ideas. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the terms if you haven’t already. Let us know if you have any questions. Make sure to keep up with Asgardia News and Announcements at English is the language used on most Asgardian forums. The exception is on the regional forums where you can use your own language. It is recommended to use Google Translate if English is not a language that you know well. Follow the link to the Regional forums. If you have any further questions please let us know. Google Translate: Bing Translator:

Close, What we're currently forced to accept, by virtue of little other option, is trusting blindly in people that have already demonstrated a lack of skill. Undisputable fact. I really don't care about causing offence. If me pointing out incompetence offends you, cease being incompetent - especially when asking others to pay the price of your failure. Although it's completely out of control what they do, now, there is a loosely specified date by which we should form some "government" - and if this appears via the "direct democracy" model then change is assured. It's assured either way, because I don't predict most to stick around once this starts going tits up, and any other model is assured to head in that direction. But we'll be best to worry about crossing that bridge when we get there. As a community we should be developing this framework - concepts, groups, standards and borders etc. so that when the time comes it can drop into place with the minimum of fuss. Between now and then it's pure trust and hope however - two incredibly poor foundations to be building from. If it doesn't get a more stable foundation, then quite simply cease attempting to build. As for progressing faster, yes it should be really, but there's a good excuse behind it's lack - after placing several thousand "special" people into a room there's not a lot to honestly expect to come out of that room beyond dribbles and hugs and the occasional loud whooping when they see something shiny.

True EyeR. But what we currently accept is trusting blindly in the skills of people who are not elected to do what they do. It is out of control what they do. (I don't want to offend anyone here, it is just a fact) We could solve a lot of current issues when we would have any collective power to do so. The current progress of asgardia civic for example could be entirely re-managed to a network of people who work with a proposal based system that massively involves the resources of our community. Same counts for the development stuff and prototyping of concepts, groups, standards and borders. I don't downgrade the current system, but things could progress a lot faster with the right concept.

"Direct democracy" can work equally well when scaled into larger numbers - it really doesn't behave any differently when scaled to tens or hundreds of thousands of participants - can get a little hectic when some CBA to read previous input and continually raise points long since put to rest - and this would become the senate of which you speak. Especially considering the variables involved, we have no requirement for incredibly time sensitive decisions at this point, on the whole. There is time to afford discussion on a particular topic for at least a month wherin the discussions should find both the merits and pitfalls of persuing various actions and hopfully either agree on a solution or provide a range of solutions to select from collectively. Blockchain voting is a wonderful way to waste a lot of processing power achieving very little, least of all in the name of security. The largest and most obvious flaw - beyond taking 50,000,000 CPU cycles to achieve what could be done in four - would be the ease at which the reverse engineering of the blockchain data itself will yield who has voted for what, and when they did so. I'm currently ignoring how that could be used to build an "activity map" of the voting process, and othersuch, instead focusing purely on how trivial it would be to find out what you'd voted for, and then use that information to define if you have conformed to my wishes and deserve payment for. That's the consequences of "checking". Short of contacting every individual and asking them to confirm this is what they input I don't see how simply having a ledger makes it possible to assure legitimacy. It certainly doesn't prevent "rigged voting" as blockchains tend to be easily posioned, you just need a greater number of nodes, commonly. This is not difficult or restrictive to obtain, least of all to the well funded. You account for every vote being legit by rolling out a trustable system. Ideally this would be open sourced and fingerprints of hardware/softwares provided to assure what's running is actually what's in the code published - and no extra - it can be independantly verified. And nothing operates in Asgardia democratically *yet*. We need to build the framework in which that operates. Or quite simply put, it'll never happen.

You should really look into biometric authentication - and how it doesn't significantly improve security as concluded by pretty much every security expert worth listening to. I need your fingerprints? If I can't find a photo online I can print them from guess who's going to have to learn a new way to tie their shoes. Retina? if you've had an eye exam since it went digital there's a record - and these companies lose their database(or copies of) all the time so that's spoofable via several techniques - else guess who's getting a new dog. The list goes on. For a sane authentication you want something that is difficult to copy or statistically infinitely improbable for unauthorised use if copied. Preferably something not left in five million places and held and or accessible by a few billion people. It also wants to actively avoid encouraging harm to reach a goal.

The free education is needed if a nation wants a continuous evolution, if the people can't get knowledge from others how they can arrive to new knowledge frontiers, how they can get us new medicine or devices or whatever than improve the humanity, remember Sir Isaac Newton modestly wrote a long time ago: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"

I can't think of one nation that does not provide "free education" to the populace, well up to University level. This is where the current divide lies. It seems the world can agree that a "free basic education" is in a nations best interest, but advanced levels cost some citizens money. I also agree that there must be a set standard of what education is. Traditional University? Trade/Apprenticeships? Currently the biggest costs of most University Scientific Curriculum comes from research. (Equipment, testing, analysis, etc). How does Asgardia offset these costs?

Hi, is a pleasure to me meet another Colombians trying to get involve on Asgardia proyect. I hope we can share the best things we learn on our native country. In the same way, i feel so good when people of other parts from the globe receive us in a wide open arms welcome.

Most powerfull weapon : Viololt flame & unconditional Love to all challenges. To things which may cause hate , fear , angryness just focus Your thoughts to unconditional Love & viollet flame and forgiviness. That is the only way to evolve .

Ok to really reply to the original post instead of heading off on a tangent: Do we need a defense and weapons? Simple answer is yes and no. Yes we need to be able to protect ourselves but unless we can pull phasers and photon torpedoes out of our asses weapons are close to useless. A simple mass driver and a nut is enough to take out a missile or an invading force. "A mass driver or electromagnetic catapult is a proposed method of non-rocket spacelaunch which would use a linear motor to accelerate and catapult payloads up to high speeds." You know the things we learned about in school. If I accelerate a pencil I can most likely punch clean through the upper stage of a missile. No need to lasers and particle weapons just 3 or 4 mass drivers. Now then shielding from all the bad this world can throw at us is all over earth orbit. Buy a decomed satellite from the insurance company and place it in a strategic area. Now they have to blast that before they can blast us. With so many 3rd stages and broken sats we could say we are trying to clean up earths orbiting junk. Place it between us and earth, maybe a second layer and we have, in effect, made shielding on the cheap for us. Is it a sad state of affairs that we would have to do that but stop and think, all it takes is a Kim to decide he cant let us have the high ground over him, or that he thinks we are spying for whomever. We can have cleared corridors for resupply ships protected by a mass driver. No army needed. No guns, bombs, lasers, particle beam weapons needed. We take away any reason to think we are trying to rule the world.

We have not to setup a simple military. Or even a complex one The act of setting up a military would contravine the outer space treaty. Further it would directly violate founding Asgardian ethics of being a De-militerised base of scientific knowlege in space. It would also almost certianly encourage Earths conflicts into space. Do you actually read the contents of a thread before posting the precise same content posted previously in other places? That's a rhetorical quesiton, the answer is quite obvious.

((sorry if I do not quite understand your language and translating bad )), but does not have a space for an ecosystem serious negative for some people and research, I believe that there is a lot even by studying and learning of nature; and incorporate ecosystems in the area of space would be a development of research that will bring us closer to the possibility of incorporating the prototype of terrestrial life (plants) in planetary areas that you can make intervention (planets sterile), there is the possibility that a society "intellectual" and "technology" that inhabits a "ship" decides to colonize a planet to habitarlo, deciding first enter the biological life to study and interpret its development. Even so I am not arguing against their thoughts or beliefs, can I am wrong, I could have reason, but I maintain the margin my concepts without discussing negatively and generate controversy by what i think. (This is the first and only response that I perform)