#21
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Oct 8, 10:27 am, John Schilling wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 07:09:05 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky" Given that any puncture of a habitat or space suit is potentially fatal for all inhabitants, I'd definitely include in the constitution or body of law a ban on private ownership of firearms. Didn't we just have this discussion? A puncture of a habitat is only "potentially fatal for all inhabitants" if you assume the inhabitants are going to spend the next couple of days doing absolutely nothing whatsoever about it. So, if you were administering a Terrestrial city, would you insist on a ban on private ownership of matches? Yes, you just had this discussion. It DOESN'T MATTER. The people who think any hole is a catastrophy have seen LOTS of movies and TV shows that show it being a catastrophy, and for the most part haven't taken any classes in fluid dynamics at all (or watched myth-busters for that matter). I'm guessing no, but that you'd still be in favor of the ban on firearms. Again, the legal and political environment in any future space colonies is going to have a *lot* more to do with the people who decide to set up the colony, than the nature of the colonial environment. Whatever laws you want to impose on your neighbors, you'll find a reason to say those law are particularly appropriate for your space colony. Guns release evil gun mind control rays that corrupt otherwise non- violent people into homicidal murderers even if no gun is actually present. You should know this. The danger to the habitat is that the people working in life support might NOT have a gun present, and hence when one of them sucumes to the "gun poisoning" they will be forced to resort to doing something seriously nasty rather than just opening fire. DougL |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
In article ,
says... Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote: :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: : BernardZ wrote: : : : : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like : :ships do today. : : : : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are : willing to give up their citizenship. : : :Really? Why? : Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens. If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company. The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these problems. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S. has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if: * The ship, regardless of flag, is a U.S.-owned vessel, either whole or in part, regardless of the nationality of the victim or the perpetrator, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state; * The offense by or against a U.S. national was committed outside the jurisdiction of any nation; * The crime occurred in the U.S. territorial sea (within 12 miles of the coast), regardless of the nationality of the vessel, the victim or the perpetrator; or * The victim or perpetrator is a U.S. national on any vessel during a voyage that departed from or will arrive in a U.S. port. : :Suppose that someone sets up a Liberian space ship. Some of the assengers, employees and investors are citizens of countries other :than Liberia. : :Presumably, if the rules on board the spaceship or in Moon colony are :felt to be unfair to some of those involved, the consul of their :native country in Liberia can complain to Liberian government and ask :the Liberian government to enforce their laws. : :Whereas if those involved have given up their citizenship and become :Liberian naturalized citizens, they have no consuls to protect them, :but they can themselves complain to Liberian government... : The law isn't about protecting the individuals. It's about responsibility for actions that are essentially 'extra-territorial'. If a Mongolian crewman does something on your Liberian spaceship that leads to a couple of buildings getting smashed, who is responsible? Hint: It doesn't work like ships, where the flag nation is automatically responsible. You may want to check this link out http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/05/09/tanker- investigation050509.html Apparently Liberia. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
BernardZ wrote:
:In article , says... : Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote: : : :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: : : BernardZ wrote: : : : : : : : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like : : :ships do today. : : : : : : : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are : : willing to give up their citizenship. : : : : : :Really? Why? : : : : Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they : are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens. : If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company. : : :The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these roblems. : Hogwash. One more time, for the folks who didn't get it. MARITIME LAW ****DOES NOT APPLY****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Get it yet? The rules are totally different. : : Hint: It doesn't work like ships, where the flag nation is : automatically responsible. : : :You may want to check this link out : :http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/...ion050509.html : :Apparently Liberia. : You may want to go reread the hint. Apparently you're illiterate. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:34:17 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: In article , says... Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote: :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: : BernardZ wrote: : : : : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like : :ships do today. : : : : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are : willing to give up their citizenship. : : :Really? Why? : Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens. If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company. The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these problems. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S. has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if: This has nothing to do with space. Space activities are governed by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, not maritime law. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
BernardZ wrote:
:In article , says... : On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:34:17 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ : made the phosphor on my monitor glow : in such a way as to indicate that: : : In article , : says... : Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote: : : :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: : : BernardZ wrote: : : : : : : : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like : : :ships do today. : : : : : : : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are : : willing to give up their citizenship. : : : : : :Really? Why? : : : : Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they : are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens. : If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company. : : : The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these : problems. : : : http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm : : The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime : and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of : the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S. : has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if: : : This has nothing to do with space. Space activities are governed by : the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, not maritime law. : : :Although not a definite answer it appears that space law is basically :maritime law. : :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty : No, it does not appear that that is the case at all. If a company chartered in the Bahamas owns a Liberian flagged ship with a Moroccan crew and there is an accident, who is financially responsible? Now ask yourself the same question about a spacecraft. The answer is quite different. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:28:43 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: In article , says... On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:34:17 +1000, in a place far, far away, BernardZ made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: In article , says... Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote: :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote: : BernardZ wrote: : : : : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like : :ships do today. : : : : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are : willing to give up their citizenship. : : :Really? Why? : Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens. If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company. The company should be able to arrange its affairs to overcome these problems. http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress...ndez032707.htm The principal law under which the U.S. exercises its Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This statute provides, in relevant part, that the U.S. has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if: This has nothing to do with space. Space activities are governed by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, not maritime law. Although not a definite answer it appears that space law is basically maritime law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty That doesn't mean that Maritime law applies in all details. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
In rec.arts.sf.science Eivind Kjorstad wrote:
If you can use a very narrow signal, this problem goes away, it's a bit hard to imagine a swarm of LEO-satelites, each maintaining a large number of very narrow-beam signals (say laser) with independent receivers. Keep in mind that the lower a satelite is, the faster it zips by, from the POV of the receiver. So the satelite would need to be constantly tracking with all of its beams, and there'd be a constant stream of handovers from one satelite to the next. Using a phased array would probably help a lot. Then everything comes down to a problem of computing power, something which becomes less of a problem with each passing day. And at the end of the day you get internet to the few places where it -doesn't- pay to do it the land-based way. Which means there's few users and/or the ones that are there have low ability to pay for it. This is the lesson of Iridium. Non-satellite works well enough for 99.99% of the people, so you'd better be able to make money off only 0.01% of the people. -- Michael Ash Rogue Amoeba Software |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Laws
On 9 okt, 03:53, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote: :On 8 okt, 16:09, Fred J. McCall wrote:: BernardZ wrote: : : : : :Worst case the company could pick the country that it was based on like : :ships do today. : : : : In the case of space, that doesn't save you unless all your people are : willing to give up their citizenship. : : :Really? Why? : Because many countries (like the US) sort of require it, since they are still going to be responsible for the actions of THEIR citizens. If they're going to be responsible, they want to control the company. : :Suppose that someone sets up a Liberian space ship. Some of the assengers, employees and investors are citizens of countries other :than Liberia. : :Presumably, if the rules on board the spaceship or in Moon colony are :felt to be unfair to some of those involved, the consul of their :native country in Liberia can complain to Liberian government and ask :the Liberian government to enforce their laws. : :Whereas if those involved have given up their citizenship and become :Liberian naturalized citizens, they have no consuls to protect them, :but they can themselves complain to Liberian government... : The law isn't about protecting the individuals. It's about responsibility for actions that are essentially 'extra-territorial'. If a Mongolian crewman does something on your Liberian spaceship that leads to a couple of buildings getting smashed, who is responsible? Hint: It doesn't work like ships, where the flag nation is automatically responsible. Ah, this part. Read the Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention then. Nowhere is the citizenship of persons mentioned. I see references to launching state, and to states whose territory is used for launch as well as states performing or procuring the launch, but not to persons. When a Soviet spacecraft (unmanned) crashed in Canada, Soviet Union paid for damage. Should a US spaceship launched or about to land in Florida crash in Cuba, USA would pay Cuba for the damages. Columbia carried an Israeli citizen. If a US shuttle with an Israeli citizen aboard were to crash in Cuba, would Israel be jointly and severally liable for the damages done to Cuba, or would the damages be paid by USA alone? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Laws of Nature | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 0 | January 2nd 07 10:31 PM |
80/f5 For the In-Laws | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | November 3rd 05 12:55 AM |
IP in china worse than no laws at all | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | February 24th 05 03:02 AM |
Kepler's laws and trajectories | tetrahedron | Astronomy Misc | 2 | March 27th 04 05:31 AM |
Kepler's laws | Michael McNeil | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 23rd 04 04:45 PM |