hartpuff

You won't experience my life. So why should you get a vote on anything that affects me?

Young people are still building their lives, trying to establish their career. They're likely going to be denied the opportunity to live and work in 27 countries.

Why? Do you think only EU citizens are allowed to live and work in the EU? Do you think British people are now banned from entry into the EU?

Most people - young or old - do not even want to live and work in another European country.

I think it's pretty disgraceful that they've torpedoed our future based on their hazy rose-coloured memories of some supposedly-better past.

I think it's pretty disgraceful that people like you demonstrate such incredible arrogance that your minority opinion is somehow innately superior; constructing ridiculous fantasies of why people voted to leave, based on absurd generalisations and a childish, rose-tinted view of the EU.

There's nothing to stop you living in an EU country, if you think by virtue of those two letters it's such a utopia compared to the UK or any other non-EU country (aka almost every country on the planet).

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

HTH

they are known for being violent ones

Which imperialist was the non-violent one then?

Of small comfort then, is the fact that the English have abolished slavery in 1833.

I imagine it was a major comfort to slaves at that time. But you probably know better.

And "the commonwealth", oh my!

Oh my, indeed. Perhaps you can name another country, perhaps your own undoubtedly spotless nation, that has over 50 former colonies, comprising two billion people across six continents, happily and willingly belonging to such a commonwealth.

Pretty strange thing for them to do, considering all the evil the British Empire committed non-stop, 24/7.

we didn't even touch the mess that the English caused in India

The mess of leaving it as the world's largest democracy? (By population, that is. By size it just so happens to be another former colony of the British monsters.)

In fact if we make a short list of the most advanced/stable/richest/democratic former colonies in the world, we'll probably find it does not include the likes of Vietnam, Algeria, Congo, Mexico or the Philippines, but does include the likes of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, India.

Funny that.

you think that you are special, well good riddance, and stay out of EU

How is it special to be outside of the EU? Most countries in the world are.

It's even less mentioned that the French abolished slavery about 40 years before that.

Actually the Glorious Revolution had such relatively few deaths it is also known as the Bloodless Revolution.

But let's not be mistaken about its origins.

Let's not make nonsensical statements like US independence was completely inspired by the Lumières then.

Most notably, US independence was also inspired by the Glorious Revolution in England (the American Bill of Rights is even based on the English Bill of Rights), about a century earlier.

I think the same way about droll as I do begs the question.[1]

I don't see the point of insisting the original/archaic meaning of a word is 'correct' if, in the English-speaking world we live in today, essentially nobody uses it or understands it in that sense.

[1] I certainly do not think the same about nonplussed, however. I've never heard that word being used for unimpressed before, but it appears to be simply an Americanism; one I hope never catches on elsewhere.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nonplus...

Hopefully the parent of your post was joking - the site he linked to is a "joke" site - but either way, it's misleading and unhelpful (particularly to non-English speakers) to pretend that "begs the question" was used incorrectly there by tehabe. It wasn't.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beg-the-q...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/beg-the...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beg%20the%20questi...

But I don't see a great reason why aside from squatting or having tons of companies why someone should own 200x .coms.

How about because they paid for 200x .coms?

BTW, for you and some others here:

Domain squatting is when someone registers domains in the hope that trademark owners will shell out cash to get the domains.

Domain squatting is not when someone simply registers domains you happen to like and wish you owned instead.

An idea I've been tossing around: What if domains cost $100 if more than one person wants it? The idea here is to squeeze the squatters with 000s of domains.

So they dump all their crap, no resale value names that don't bring in more than $100 per year, as opposed to ones that don't make more than $10 per year.

As for non-"domain squatters", it seems like a great way to fuck with someone; just claim you want their domain and force them to cough up $100 or lose it.

This idea - which seems to be based on nothing more than bitterness that everyone in the world didn't sit back and wait for you to have first pick of names - is so transparently nonsensical that I find it hard to believe you are serious.

Whenever I want a domain, most of the ones I want are taken.

You should have bought them first then, shouldn't you.

Not by people who are making use of it, but by people who are squatting in hopes of extorting anyone who would actually use the domain to produce value.

Who are you to define value? Where people own 1000s of domains, they are always parked and bringing in money for the owner. Their profitability is the reason they are registered.

Who are you to decide that's not a valid way to make a living from domains? At least they're not spamming.

I'd actually be happy if Verisign or any other private company or any government extracted such an unfair price

I'm sure you would, because you imagine you'd be a winner in such a situation, unfairly appropriating someone else's property.

free up so many more useful domains for use.

There are literally millions of possible domain names that are unregistered. If your first preference is taken, do what everyone else does without complaint and think of another name, or pick a different extension, of which there are hundreds now.

I'd love to hear good arguments against this

I'd love to hear a good argument for it.

Domains used to cost $0 to register.

Edit: LOL Which idiot downvoted this? The chronic lack of basic tech/internet knowledge among some people here is ridiculous.

    In 1995, the NSF authorized NSI to begin charging
    registrants an annual fee, for the first-time since 
    the domain's inception.

So "crims" (if they're criminals why isn't it a simple case of prosecuting them and confiscating their ill-gotten gains?) are making otherwise unusable IPv4s usable? That seems to be the bottom line to this story.

Someone trots out Hitler analogy #879274032890, and it's the poster who at least turns it into a laugh who gets downvoted?

Edit: And this post downvoted within seconds. What a fucking joke this place is thanks to assholes abusing their karma. (If I'm going to be downvoted, it may as well be for something real.)

the majority of the rest are trying to provide useful services to improve their users lives

And if the ads or results on subjects you're interested in just happen to take a line against what you personally believe on the subject, and instead happen to tout an agenda that benefits the (right-wing/capitalist/US-centric) corporate or political interests of Google and FB and the like, is it still just about improving your life?

LOL No answer (because your post made zero sense) but downvoted. Pathetic.

Not sure why my previous comment was voted down

Same reason mine was. Tedious and predictable Ali fanboys.

It's really nice that he finally got around to expressing some kind of weak regret decades after the event - as if the only reason he didn't apologise at the time was Malcolm got himself killed just before he could do so ("he was killed before I got the chance").

The reality is Ali spent a decade after Malcolm's death fully endorsing and promoting the very organisation that murdered him (after they'd found their replacement mouthpiece, from a sport they had zero respect for, and prior to Ali had zero time for).

Which comment is misogynistic or racist, and who is 'calling it out'?

It's somewhat ironic that your comment was also posted twice. :)

FWIW, I don't disapprove of you submitting this twice. I, like most people, did not see the original submission, so why not.

Ali's friend, Malcolm X, hardly an "Uncle Tom" - as Ali disgracefully called another friend he betrayed, Joe Frazier - had turned away from the anti-white racism of the NOI by the early 60s (and been killed by the NOI as a result), so what's so special about 1969 that excuses a supposedly intelligent man continuing to mindlessly parrot their inane racist beliefs?

There are many things that are curious in the UK legal system. This week, a guy has been sentenced to 30y in jail for gun trafficking [...] items that are not even illegal in countries like the US

If you tried to smuggle this:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/0B22/production/_...

and this:

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/11A62/productio...

into the USA, you'd be facing about 630 years in jail, not 30.

Ali wasn't "allowed" anything. He lost his livelihood for roughly a third of his athletic prime for standing up for his beliefs. He faced constant racism and bigotry.

Joe Frazier supported Ali financially when he was unable to box and supported the restoration of Ali's licence.

"The greatest" [sic], who for reasons you have stated should have been more aware than most about racism and abuse, paid back this great friend who supported him while others persecuted him in the most foul, racist ways (Ali had links to the KKK and gave at least one speech to a KKK rally), calling Frazier an "Uncle Tom" and a "gorilla".

This post obviously won't go down well with Ali fanboys who only accept the hype and mythology and who don't want unfortunate facts about Ali getting any wider exposure, but Ali's reprehensible treatment of Frazier was so egregiously appalling - even had Frazier not been such a decent and loyal supporter of Ali - it should not be hidden, forgotten or excused, any more than the persecution Ali faced should be.

Anyone who hasn't seen it should check out HBO's brilliant documentary from a few years back, centred around the Thrilla in Manila. It's on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUQNKb_1xlc

Even triple has the right prefix.

Unlike, say, three?

So it's simply grinding an axe against London, and not that, according to the UK National Crime Agency, "hundreds of billions of US dollars of criminal money almost certainly continue to be laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries, each year”?

if the Maffia recycles money into legitimate assets in Italy then trades those assets in London, it's pretty rich for an Italian to try to pin that on London

It's not rich to criticise London if London is aware of or suspects that it's the Mafia they are dealing with and that the "legitimate" assets are simply laundered.

I also don't see why it's rich for an Italian to do the criticising. Perhaps you can explain that one.

"some of the City’s biggest investment banks – including Goldman Sachs and UBS – are charging the government a £1 fee for work that would normally cost tens of millions of pounds."

"Oliver Holbourn, head of market investments at UKFI, said some City firms had even offered to pay the government to work on its privatisations."

"The banks, however, eventually concluded that such arrangements could be an offence under the US foreign corrupt practices act."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/08/mps-warn-uk...

"the share price had been at 400p as recently as February, leading critics to blast the decision to sell now and question the relationship between banks and the Treasury"

http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/595769/RBS-privatisati...

Other than every quote in my two posts?

I wasn't addressing the veracity or otherwise of the "100% success rate" claim, I was using a different quote from the article that was linked, stating the UK's financial regulator told a whistleblower to not contact them again.

Here's another quote from it:

    Newsnight can reveal that not a single UK-
    based bank has ever been punished for firing
    a whistleblower within its ranks - even though
    these individuals are protected in law

The issue is that the UK has serious corruption and (organized) crime problems, seemingly tolerated (at best) at some of the highest levels in the UK.

However hyperbolic you may find the journalism to be, it's a lot more instructive and interesting than yet another bullshit list designed to show just how jolly honest and law abiding we are, compared to the developing world.

The premise is that because corruption involves money and money involves banks and London has lots of banks, transitively, London is very corrupt.

I thought it was based on the premise that:

    London is the drug money laundering capital
    of the world

    90 per cent of drug cash ends up in 
    the US and Europe via London

    criminal corporate activities within the City of
    London which have dominated the headlines 
    over the past decade

    an alternative metric for financial corruption
    [puts Britain and its dependencies] top of the list

    the four companies in line to buy [from the Government]
    the UK Land Registry [which tracks the (often foreign)
    ownership of UK properties] are all based in or have
    close links to the offshore tax havens of Jersey, 
    Cayman Islands or Delaware

AKA:

     powerful financial firms will destroy the lives
     and reputations of whistleblowers [claiming] a
     100% success rate

    The BBC spoke to one such whistleblower who wrote
    to the FSA [UK financial services regulator] on
    numerous occasions with his concerns about 
    behaviour at his then-investment bank.

    The FSA refused to act on the information
    and even requested that the whistleblower 
    never contact them again.

This is about financial corruption; corruption in other spheres - police, judiciary and politics - is rife in the UK too.

The only question about whether the UK is the "worst" is whether other so-called open, accountable democracies are any better, which I doubt.

But it's about time we started putting our own house in order, instead of blindly pointing the finger at the usual suspects, poor developing countries, who can only dream of having corruption so established that it's not even referred to as such; and when someone does call it what it is, people instinctively write it off as "idiotic".