Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:they are not "international domain names" (Score 1) 477

My point is simply that you seem to be under the impression that the USA should have a right to operate the way it does, that the Web is about business, or that anyone should flout or manipulate international law or ignore what is fair and right just to make money. Finally -- imperialism? Colonialism? The USA is the only country selfishly squatting on general-subject TLDs like .org... that seems pretty imperialist to me.

I am under the impression that I and everybody else who registered a .COM domain signed up for a domain administered under US law. That is why .COM was successful. And I strongly oppose changing that. It's a simple as that.

Comment Re:they are not "international domain names" (Score 1) 477

It doesn't matter if you pay for something -- sometimes, you just don't deserve it.

And sometimes you do, like when you invent something, build it, and then invite others to participate.

My point is that by having the US singled out as "special", we help to sustain a Web where the US controls a vast number of domain names (other than just *.us), and unfairly so.

The US is "singled out" because it invented, created, and implemented the Internet. It then allowed other countries to join in.

we help to sustain a Web where the US controls a vast number of domain names (other than just *.us)

Everybody who signed up for a .COM domain name knew that it was under US jurisdiction; they had lots of other choices available, but they chose a gTLD under US jurisdiction. Many did so deliberately because they wanted their domain names under US jurisdiction, protected by US free speech laws and removed from European and UN censorship. It was the US laws and regulations that made .COM so popular.

I would strongly object to having my .COM domains administered by the UN, the EU, or some international body. I do not want to be subject to European restrictions on free speech, European trademark law, or European intellectual property law, which are dangerously anti-democratic, protectionist, and anti-competitive.

and unfairly so. In the interests of treating countries fairly (that is, that countries like the USA don't get special privileges they have abused and will abuse again in the future), we should modernize certain TLDs. That is all.

What would be "unfair" is for the US to build a successful business under its laws, and then for other nations to come in an take it away under some pretext of "fairness" and "international law". That's the way European colonialism and imperialism used to work; no more, fortunately.

Comment Re:US, get out (Score 1) 477

Yes, we obviously care a ton about the (non-American) human consequences of our global actions, which are generally only orchestrated for our own gain. Hence funding terrorists, despots, dictators, and attempting to overthrow popular regimes.

There is a lot of middle ground between "the end justifies the means" and "we care a ton about the non-American human consequences", and the US is in that middle ground; it has to be.

I notice you didn't cite anything that is actually important to real people, like health and education.

You asked what made the US exceptional and why the US is doing all these things when nobody else is doing them and I gave you the answer: because the US actually can do them.

Though the sad fact of the matter is that no one can be considered to be "carrying their own weight" with the US, since our military is obscenely large, and would be even if we were sane, since we are a rather large country compared to the EU much less any individual country within it.

The EU has 500 million citizens and a GDP of 16 trillion dollars; the US has 315 million citizens and a GDP of 14 trillion dollars. Right now, the US is spending 4.7% of its GDP on the military, European NATO members below 2%. The US spending is so high because European spending is so low. The US could unilaterally reduce its spending, but both the US and Europe consider that risky.

So organizing a European military (a better Eurocorps) is a bit like herding autistic cats.

So you're saying that because Europe is still a bunch of squabbling, xenophobic nation states who can't take care of their own defense and hate the US no matter what the US does, the US should do... well, what exactly?

I don't see why not, then [UN] resolutions would have teeth. If i was the dictator of the world for a day, one of the things I would do is give the UN an actual military force ... I also see what you did there... Last I checked most of the worlds countries were in the UN, and most of them used it as a way of talking to each other from time to time. Thus by your logic most of the world is ran by an evil regime.

The majority of nations in the world are either totalitarian, or at least significantly non-democratic.

Well, all of them but the US, who is too good for international opinion or law, who sometimes tries its hardest to act like an evil regime (if China does something it is evil, if the US does the same thing it is saintly).

The US was widely hated throughout Europe for most of the 19th and 20th century, with only a brief interruption after WWII. You can't make these people happy, and there is no point in trying.

Comment Re:US, get out (Score 1) 477

Sure, short terms goals are very important, but that all becomes rather stupid when it blows up in your (literally) face a generation down the line

Dealing with the occasional terrorist attack is peanuts compared to world domination by the USSR.

But, we should realize that our "the ends always justify the means, no matter how horrible they may be" ideology is dubious,

Well, fortunately that is not US philosophy.

"American Exceptionalism", on the other hand, is just a fact... By what objective metric?

The size of our military, the size of our economy, the importance of the dollar as a global reserve currency, and the effectiveness of our intelligence services.

There are some things we should intervene on. Libya is a good example, we did well, there is no ethical problem, and the world is a better place for our help. Iraq being the counter-example, and an example of the US.

Hindsight is 20/20. Iraq didn't work, Libya did, so you don't like the former and do like the latter.

I do agree, Europe needs a military. If I remember right, though, we weren't very keen on that idea a couple years ago.

Of course they weren't, because it's so much easier to let the US fight wars for Europe, take the moral high ground, and spend the money on benefits and infrastructure.

Hell, the UN needs a damn military wing.

The UN is a diplomatic organization where even the most evil regimes can talk to each other to avoid disaster. It is not a democratic body and it certainly should not control a military.

Comment Re:they are not "international domain names" (Score 1) 477

Well it was supposed to be international,

And it still is: foreign entities are welcome to register in it, subject to US laws and regulations (the domain was administered by the US DoD).

The .US domain is effectively for oddball state-level entities. Difficult as it may be for you to comprehend, but the US doesn't necessarily work the same way Europe does.

You Americans would be so funny if you didn't have such a big military.

You're welcome to build your own big military. Until you do, however, we call the shots.

Comment Re:US, get out (Score 1) 477

Man, you're right, its not like the US funded the Taliban or Bin Laden or anything... Damn Europeans.

Yes, it's indeed not like that.

Carter and Reagan did support the Mujahideen because he hoped that they would fight against communism, and it achieved its narrow goals but ended up creating new problems. Supporting conservative religious factions in Germany had managed to pacify the country after WWII, it had been a reasonable thing to try, but it obviously doesn't work well with Islam.

I'd take the ghost of previous colonialism any day over American Exceptionalism.

So you like theft on a global scale, genocide and slavery then? Because that's what European colonialism was. "American Exceptionalism", on the other hand, is just a fact: after Europe self-destructed in the 20th century, the US ended up being the only superpower. I'd like that "exceptionalism" to end too: the sooner Europe pays for its on defense and polices its own backyard, the better. But for 70 years, Europeans keep asking the US to fix their messes for them, and the US can't refuse, because not intervening is even worse than intervening.

Comment Re:US, get out (Score 1) 477

Oh, come on. British influence was in the 19th century.

Britain was still trying to hang on to its colonies until the mid-60's. And this wasn't some benign protective impulse, it was motivated by greed, exploitation, and racism. Britain only gave those up it became unprofitable. The entire Iran disaster and the reason we are facing a nuclear threat from Iran is due to Britain and her economic interests, first begging America for help, and then disavowing any responsibility and leaving the mess to the Americans when it blew up. France's post-WWII colonial history is just as sordid.

It weren't the British who were funding the PDPA or arming the Mujahideen using billions of dollars.

That was part of the Cold War, and it was Europe that was responsible for the existence of the Cold War in the first place: European political ideologies, European wars, and ancient European enmities. And it was Europe's inability to defend itself against the Soviets that pushed the US into the role of having to deploy its military around the world to keep the USSR in check.

Comment Re:they are not "international domain names" (Score 1) 477

Why do they have a similar monopoly over domains like .gov? Why, indeed, do domains like gov exist?

Different registrars were created in different countries over time for different TLDs. The COM/EDU/GOV/ORG TLDs have always been US administered. Everybody who signed up under one of those TLDs knew whose jurisdiction and control it fell under. If you didn't want US jurisdiction or control, you should have signed up somewhere else. Changing the jurisdiction after the fact is not acceptable (and probably legally not even possible).

Comment Re:they are not "international domain names" (Score 1) 477

The US created the original TLD system, and ".COM" was only for companies with DARPA-related business, which effectively meant a subset of US companies. Eventually, the US dropped those restrictions and more companies started registering. Because the US is laissez-faire about it, it also allowed foreign companies to register. Then, eventually, other nations got their act together and created their own TLDs.

The .COM TLD is managed by the US according to US rules because the US created it. The fact that it is more lenient about managing it than (say) the EU is about the .EU domain doesn't mean that other countries all of a sudden have acquired a right to tell the US how to run .COM. If you don't like the way the US runs it, use a different TLD.

Comment Re:US, get out (Score 1) 477

NATO is a DEFENCE alliance, according to wikipedia "its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party". Saying that Europe isn't living up to it's commitement by not beeing enough involved in the Libyan civil war is just ridiculous,

Well, and I'm not saying that. Europe hasn't been living up to its financial commitments for decades, instead relying on the US to defend it, both during the cold war and afterwards. And you are absolutely right that Libya had nothing to do with NATO or NATO objectives, but it was the Europeans that called for the US to help with it. The US response to Europe should have been "fix your own damned problems". Unfortunately, if the US stops being involved, Europe will spiral down the economic or totalitarian drain again, and that's bad for the US as well.

You don't want the US telling you how to live your life? Then get your act together, pay for your own military, and fix your economies. It's as easy as that.

Comment Re:US, get out (Score 1) 477

Who are the US troops protecting us from?

Ask your own politicians. I mean, US troops aren't there for fun, they are there as part of the NATO defense pact. If the UK considers it no longer necessary, it can simply leave NATO. And since WWII, the UK keeps asking for US help with European problems:

But worry not: US politicians are increasingly getting tired of this b.s. Maybe soon you'll be able to clean up the messes that European colonialism left around the world and in your backyard yourself again.

Comment Re:US, get out (Score -1, Flamebait) 477

I'm not sure what you where you got your info from but Europe actually DOES pay for it's own defence. NATO is a defence ALLIANCE

Yes, it is an alliance, and Europe isn't living up to its commitment.

the only thing it's european members has gotten out of it so far is having to help fight some US war in Afghanistan

Well, geez, who created the mess in Afghanistan in the first place? Oh, right, European colonial powers. Same in Libya, the Middle East, South East Asia, and Africa.

You really do not know much about what's going on outside the US, do you?

You really are the typical European: ignorant of your own history and anything outside your home village.

Comment Re:US, get out (Score 1) 477

That's a little hard when ICANN and Verisign (the company that handles .com .net and even some other countries TLD's) are US companies, don't you think? The US can keep their .us TLD, which is the actual TLD given to United States.

You are sadly mistaken. The ".com" registrar is in the US because the US created the software, hardware, and domain name. Eventually, the US opened it up to foreign registrants. But if you don't like the way the US administers the domain, register your domain name somewhere else.

Slashdot Top Deals

Riches cover a multitude of woes. -- Menander