Paz! Esse é o objetivo mais nobre que podemos ter, mas sua implicação é deveras complexa, ainda mais considerando que temos um "caldeirão" cultural, onde eventualmente algumas de nossas ações ou inações são consideradas verdadeiras ofensas a grupo étnico diverso, logo para atingirmos esse objetivo há a necessidade que todos nos desvencilhemos de nossos atuais "modelos" culturais e adotemos um novo modelo hibrido (que a priori deve ser estabelecido pela Constituição), onde possamos sempre estar exercitando o mútuo respeito por aquilo que não conhecemos ou consideramos diferente, torna-se importante que nossa Constituição seja mais racional que emocional, visto que a emoção acaba por ter a necessidade de autoproteção de valores pessoais e culturais, logo se algo deve ser feito de tal maneira é por que há uma razão para que isso assim seja, e não porque eu acho que deve ser.

Greetings fellows, I believe that founder Igor Ashurbeyli's (IA) desire for the nation we are all a part of is to establish a place, a nation, where people of a like-minded disposition can come together and work towards furthering our race as a whole. The Human species and its progression are the bones that this concept is built on. I believe that IA truly desires to provide a platform to create a utopian society we can all call home and feel a part of. However, as you said meisberger, we are human and by our nature, prone to conflict. It is then up to each individual to decide whether or not to become part of this utopian idea (via applying for citizenship) or to dismiss this as a waste of money, determining it an unattainable goal. We must collectively decide to become more understanding, compassionate, and respectful of each other in order to achieve "the prevention of Earth's conflicts being transferred into space". My point is, Asgardians must choose this conflict free way of life. If the view for Asgard was to create conflict by restricting world views, there would not be an open invitation to join the nation. Instead, I believe that the goal of our new nation is to promote the open-minded respectful attitudes of people all over the world that wish to pursue a significant shift in the collective consciousness of humanity.

I can understand the utopian theory of Asgardia wanting to be "peace". Indeed the theory, the ideal of peace is truly noble. For a singular instant, let us accept Founder Igor Ashurbeyli's statement of "The essence of Asgardia is peace in space, ..." is achievable. Having accepted that one of the founding tenants of Asgardia as Peace in space we then look at the second half of the quote. "and the prevention of Earth's conflicts being transferred into space." While it is a truly desirable goal. I am not exactly sure that it is attainable. Given the fact that "we" are all humans, we will, by the very essence of our being, take/bring our genetic and psychological conflicts with us into orbit around the rock we now call home. By definition prevention is the action of stopping something from happening or arising. Thus conflict. Ergo, we can rewrite the the sentence, "The essence of Asgardia is peace in space, and conflicting the Earth's conflicts from being transferred into space." How does Mr. Ashurbeyli propose being a community of peace all the while conflicting conflict?

Actually, we should have no viable use for propaganda. Only impirical facts. We're already well in excess of minimal counts required for consideration from the UN - but there's more to it than head count. Much more. Facebook, being a prolific security and privacy risk, should only be utilised in order to direct Asgardians to secured services. In fact, even using it for that is more interaction than sanity would dictate. Long story short, there's a lot more productive things you could be doing. Like watching grass grow via a realtime web feed.

I've seen quite a few good ideas on mining resources however if we think at the financial side it will be very expensive to start gathering minerals by mining. The best and closest thing that we could do would be as I have already seen here is to clean the Earth's orbit from rocket debris and disabled satellites. The start will clearly be slow but in time I am sure that we will accelerate the process and we could use those materials to build the modules that could mine the NEO.

Talking about using abandoned satellites to help with the resource issue of Asgardia got me thinking, just how many satellites DO we have in orbit that are no longer functional? I understand Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable resource, but it did seem as good a place to start as any. Here is what I found. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Derelict_satellites_orbiting_Earth

I fully agree with @shanewatt. An Universal Basic Income System should be considered for the future of Asgardia. The old system is broken already. Greetings, Leonardo.

Welfare? UBI would certanly fit the predicatble variables, if any such system should be required at all. As previously mentioned, it should take care of requirements regardless of circumstances, and thusly free up the people's time for more productive efforts than chasing fictional resources in order to assure survival. It would also mitigate things like "losing jobs to AI" which is assuredly to only be an ever increasing feature - and this is a good thing, it frees up human time for that human to do what they would like to do. As for "finding another job" it's quite unlikley there is to be many jobs to find. Most requirement for being eliminated, that which remains being far too few to realistically entertain prospect for most to find one. But thanks to things like UBI they shouldn't need one. There is no real "looming threat" to AI, IMHO, It's not looming, it's here. And it's not a threat, it's happening. I personally don't think this has to be a bad thing, if approached correctly it could be an incredibly good thing.

Why is this even a question? There are far too many variables that affect people that may cause a need for such a system to be in place! Not everyone will be able to work for a living and in turn pay taxes. Also after a certain age it becomes more perilous for people to strain themselves doing physical labor. Those folks will need to be cared for and would benefit from such a system. A nation is only as strong as it's citizens and poorly cared for citizens make for a weak nation! So, I say when the time comes give the people who will need it a safety net and do not punish them for what is beyond their control. Folks, please do not bring that bs hostility implanted into your subconcious by folks who seek to control you into Asgardia and realize the folks who would benefit from such a system just need the help

I think there is a simpler solution to this issue, Assuming Asgardia has gotten to the point where. The nation can start accepting refugees, having an Earth based organization solely tasked with vetting refugees and other immigrants. Would be far easier and less expensive than some of the other ideas. This organization would have a huge database of known criminals and terrorists groups and highly trained soldiers or four to six man squads. Ready to apprehend any criminals or terrorists elements that try to make it to Asgardia

Creating a captcha is trivial, because all you have to do is pick any task that the average human is competent to do and that no one has designed a computer that can do the same task competently. It's the tradeoff between user convenience and accuracy that is letting spambots win. The ability to detect the difference between a terrorist, a future terrorist, a potential terrorist, and someone who will never become a terrorist does not currently exist and is probably impossible. If anyone here can develop it, that would be a tremendous moneymaker for us.

If my analysis is correct, and these posts are being done by a human being, there is no present way to stop that. Captcha relies on the human ability to differentiate shapes at odd angles to a letter. A human is not affected by this. Registration, even if made more difficult by requiring two-step registration (confirmation of email address), would also not prevent a human from fraudulently making an account to make spam posts. Automation isn't likely going to fix this. This is a 'boots on the ground' situation.

Certainly, if we can attribute the raw mass to consider sensibly populating the stars, we can mitigate anything. Litereally anything. There is nothing deluded about faith in these systems, and these are not of my design - I am simply talking about them. I may of mentioned this several times before. You'd also know this if you'd bothered to do any research on the subject, instead of just operating purely on baseless and irrational fears. It can't fail due to the scale of deployment and the laws of probability. The only possibly way that could fail is if there's intentional use of substandard parts using substandard materials and made with substandard techniques - which would be precisely what you would use if you're intending for failure which you seem pretty determined to entertain as the way we would proceed - which results in your plans being dangerous, not mine. With hundreds of thousands of things that can go wrong at any second, the entire thing will *require* AI to take control. This also might of been mentioned several times previously, along with how these failures are dealt with on an individual, subsystem and system wide scale. You need to account for this in the design or mass habitation isn't sensible, it adds no extra cost to the initative. You'd know this if you could of been bothered to do a feasibility study on the concept but that would possibly require counting beyond 20. Systems failure is a pretty poor excuse to deploy troops. What is it you'd expect the military response to such a situation to be? You honestly think this would be required enough to legitimately qualify for a fulltime offensive force? I only treat people like mindless idiots when they are busy being mindless idiots. Like putting forwards rediculous arguments based on irrational fears or demonstrating massive failures in logic. Mentioning a probable senario would not be fear mongering, intentionally going out of your way to find these situations - most of them actually the same but painted slightly differently and re-introduced a few posts later - would be attempting to inspire these irrational fears in others. It's not about me not handling disagreement, it's about you consistently providing incredibly poor arguments. Sensors are somewhat spoofable, and can provide for false data. What will be more difficult to spoof is the metadata. And as previously mentioned, this will also require to be observed, the difference noted and the sensor scheduled for maintainence/replacement. Likely investigated/resolved in less than 30 mins. Being able to spoof a sensor isn't a particularly strong argument to require to deploy military troops, and represents another rediculous premise. Less irrational fear and more research. Rudundancies do serve to cover a gap in equipment failure - this is the entire point of the redundancies. Should for some reason all the redundant systems be offline at the same time, the backup systems kick in. Due to the scale required of the redundant systems, it's unfeasible by way of probability that any should be able to fail faster than the ability to replace. Defence does not require weapons. Offense requires weapons. To protect ourselves, we need to stop others from causing us harm, not cause them harm - that conforms to another definition. Yes we must be prepared for the worst, but this is no requirement that we should be prepared to do the same thing ourselves.

To protect ourselves from the inside we need weapons guns, blades, blunt weapons. All can be non lethal but still needed. People will find a way past everything we just gotta make it hard to find, because people will get creative. And Brandon is right eyeR you act like this smartass person when really your blind as hell, peace doesn't last forever. At least not outside of something. We must be prepared for the worst. So take the cactus out of your ass and look past your damn idea for flaws and how others feel.