Slashdot Mirror


UK Parliament Domain Without Registrar

asobala writes "According to this story at The Register, the UK parliament is using the domain www.parliament.uk. It's a top-level domain because it was registered before August 1996, before Nominet handled .uk domains. But since there is no registrar, they can't prove that they own it."

266 comments

  1. .uk by oateater · · Score: 3, Funny

    I should hurry up and sue, and get my website back!!!

    1. Re:.uk by levik · · Score: 0, Troll
      I always knew they were a bunch of unruly wankers. But now it turns out they're cybersquatters as well!

      Blimey!

      --
      Ñ'
    2. Re:.uk by jericho4.0 · · Score: 0, Troll
      Haha! Silly troll! You posted a totally inapropriate comment and got modded 'troll'!!Hahahahaha!!! What!? Funny!?I don't think so!!! Someone modded you 'troll', and that's what groupthink says you are. Hahahah! Stupid troll.

      What!? Offtopic!? What do you mean? Ahhhhh!!! Noooooo!!!!!!

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    3. Re:.uk by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      man am I sick of the stupid moderators. I rate your comment insightful and funny, not an easy combo.

      More ontopic, back in the day, my domain was whatever my (and a few friends) hosts file said it was. That sums up how the whole internet worked. It's a shame that the system couldn't/didn't scale so well.

      The great thing is, we can still tell all the registars to go fsck themselves and do it a different way.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    4. Re:.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont you think that the UK Parliament implicitly owns the domain www.parliament.uk because they've been maintaining before 1996.

      If they haven't registered it and nobody else has either, so nobody else is more apt to acquire it.

      And I'm sure lots of people want it. I don't have a receipt for that motherboard I bought in 1998. Maybe somebody else owns it even though I've been using it for the past 5 years. That reminds me, i need to buy a new motherboard.

      Must be a slow news day.

  2. so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so. What does it matter?

    1. Re:so by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      so. What does it matter?

      It's that old concept of 'ownership' usually decided by one of the following factors:

      Posession

      Recognition by some body which normally charges a fee for recognising things.

      Having sufficient means to wrest it from the posesssion of another. Means being, but not limited to: Guns, Lawyers, control over the body which normally charges a fee for recognising things.

      We have come to accept that ICANN holds the reigns to such things (as bodies which charge fees etc.) by virtue of being the first (or sufficiently influential enough) to claim that they do in the vacuum of power preceding them. It's all pretty absurd and anyone is perfectly open to creating their own network and fashion of assigning domain names within such a network which are in complete contradiction.

      Attempting to seize parliament.uk would amount to putting a foot in a large bucket of water and sticking your tongue in a light socket. If the body (etc.) wishes to fail to recognise Parliament's ownership of the domain, it would seem they beg for Parliament to stop recognising their control over anything. Best to just let them have it and go hassle Harry Potter fans.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  3. Innocent till proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


    Innocent till proven guilty

    they cant prove they own it because they dont have to, its up to others to prove they don't own it or are not entitled to it

    simple

    1. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by llamaluvr · · Score: 1

      I hear this band is after their domain. Maybe they'll make the legal push.

      --
      Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
    2. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Innocent until proven guilty? You do realize that is a foreign idea to most British and other Europeans, don't you?

    3. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by egreB · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was this about reading the articles... (-8

      They were trying to register an SSL certificate with Thawte, and Thawte needed them to prove it was their own domain. Nobody could actually prove that..

      So, in this case, it's up to them to prove that they are entitled to it, though nobody forces them to. They can just not sign up with Thawte..

    4. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by ajuda · · Score: 0, Troll

      An anonymous coward wrote:
      Innocent till proven guilty they cant prove they own it because they dont have to, its up to others to prove they don't own it or are not entitled to it simple

      My understanding is that, in the UK, people are guilty until proven innocent. If that's true, then Margret Thatcher stole the domain england.uk! I demand it back.

    5. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/British and other Europeans/Americans/

    6. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true ignorant and moronic troll. There are big differences in the legal doctrines of America and Britain. Most notable of which is in America you are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe there are some specific exceptions because of people of dubious character, but overall America's system is much, much better and much harder to be punished for something you didn't do.

      Obviously you know *nothing* about how either system works, or the history of them either.

    7. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Umm cant parliment as the govt just pass a law stating they are the owner?

    8. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      God, that's even funnier than the last time. Just wait until the UN inspectors roll all over your town...

    9. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a moron.

    10. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by KilerCris · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...so why doesn't someone over there just call thawte?

    11. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by eht · · Score: 0, Troll

      actually in england, i believe it's guilty until proven innocent

    12. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by ForestGrump · · Score: 0, Troll

      wait, then that means government becomes GOD over the people. its no longer a parliment for the people, but a parliment for itself...and they just tax the people to death. (um..glad to be an american..)

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    13. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by MrLint · · Score: 1

      well in this case its not like they dont/shouldnt own i. BTW as for being an american.. i suggest you lookup 'eminent domain'

    14. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      AAAAAHH! (like homer simpson would) Alright, did a google search..clicked on the sponsor page (yea, gotta support my favorite search engine) and I learned something today. =) Eminent domain is "When a condemning authority uses eminent domain, its main focus is to complete a project." heh, I see the irony of the parliament takes away its own domain name, then gives it back to itself! -Grump Sources listed anti-MLA style.. http://www.ownerscounsel.com/index.html?page=conta ct_us

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    15. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      And you do realise, of course, that the concept of innocent until proven guilty was established in English law, and copied by the fledgling United States of America. You do also realise there are very *few* differences between US and British law - yours is based on ours, but has a written constitution, whereas ours has an unwritted constitution and relies more heavily on presidence.

      Now, French law, based upon the Code Napoleon states Guilty until proven Innocent, maybe that is what you are thinking of. A reminder: France != Britain.

    16. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      Your understanding is wrong.

    17. Re:Innocent till proven guilty by andyt · · Score: 1

      Your understanding is wrong.

      Well, mostly wrong. We used to have a culture of "innocent until proven guilty", but that is slowly being undermined

  4. Of course... by mikeophile · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is well known that parliament.uk is rightfully the property of George Clinton and Parliament-Funkadelic.

    1. Re:Of course... by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 3, Funny
      Makes you wonder what a threatening letter from lawyers would look like


      From: Thompson, Worth, Haberdasher attorneys at law
      To: George Clinton

      Ow, we want the domain
      Give up the domain
      Ow, we need the domain
      Gotta have that domain

      --
      Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  5. frickin cybersquaters by CySurflex · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are you kidding me?!

    Everyone knows they are just a bunch of cybersquaters who registered parliament.uk so all the people who don't know how to spell it the right way (Parlament) will get to their site.

    oh wait... that is the right spelling? never mind.

    1. Re:frickin cybersquaters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      truer words have never been spoken

  6. Well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why wouldn't this just be a case of manuvering to register this domain? Is the issue that someone may register this and boot them off?

    1. Re:Well? by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

      I doubt that would be the issue as people aren't entitled to register any first level (under TLD) domain under .uk. There are police.uk, nhs.uk, sch.uk, ac.uk, plc.uk, org.uk, net.uk etc. but one can't just register something.uk, it's impossible as far as I know. net.uk probally has the most difficult registration policy of all, even ISPs can't have it. govt.uk as the article says doesn't exist, I believe it's gov.uk, until 1994 there wasn't even the LINX, all internal traffic went out to Europe. This is the price one pays for backward compatibillity. Really though, parliament.uk should be under parliament.gov.uk anyway.

      --
      David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
  7. I own slashdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, I own slashdot.org, I registered it back in 1954 before Al Gore invented the internet. I DEMAND you hand the domain over to me!!

    1. Re:I own slashdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your domain names are belong to Al Gore

  8. �90 by jkcity · · Score: 2, Informative

    I tried getting out of paying my £90 to nominet UK too, seriously thats how much they charge ro renew domains without a registra, ripp off.

    1. Re:�90 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA! I paid $17.90 (USD) for my .com domain for a 2 year registration!

    2. Re:�90 by Resseguie · · Score: 1
      £90 ~= $150

      (For those who don't know the conversion and are too lazy to look it up...)

    3. Re:�90 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I didn't want to know you insensative clod!

    4. Re:�90 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you really paid, what, about $400 Canadian?

    5. Re:�90 by matthew.thompson · · Score: 1

      Being a nominet member I can quite easily dispute this. It's £80. And that's for 2 years not 1.

      If you renew through one of the agents (They are registry agents and not registrars as we don't hold any part of the registry) you can get huge discounts as the Nominet members' price is far lower thanks to the savings passed on through a members' use of the automation tools and Nominet not having to chase for money.

      This charge can be as low as £5 - 6 for 2 years!

      Also note that if you register with Nominet directly or fail to allow your existing agent to renew for you you must provide your own name servers.

      This is because Nominet is not in competition with it's members - unlike the .com registry which is run by Verisign who not only allow members of the public to register domains and take services but actively want them too.

      Visit http://www.nominet.org.uk and Nominet claim that to register a domain you need to use a member.

      --
      Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
  9. Thanks to slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    soon they won't even be able to prove it exists.

  10. Several options to solve this problem... by Akardam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, short of going in and holding a gun to Thwate's head, they have several options, as I see it:

    1. Setup www.parliment.govt.uk, and have the webserver that handles www.parliment.uk redirect /(.*) to www.parliment.govt.uk/$1.

    2. Sign their own cert.

    3. Farm out the credit card transactions themselves to another site.

    I guess if they got smart about it they could go through some sort of legal process that confirms that they have "ownership" of the netblock that the DNS servers for parliment.uk are on, and therefore they are the defacto owners (posession is 9/10ths of the law?) of parliment.uk.

    Nonetheless, an interesting situation.

    1. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by belbo · · Score: 1
      1. Setup www.parliment.govt.uk, and have the webserver that handles www.parliment.uk redirect /(.*) to www.parliment.govt.uk/$1.

      That would work only for Slashdot editors and some of the commentators ... *grin*

      SCNR

      b.

      --

      --
      "Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."

    2. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by mocktor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      its a shame that certificates can't be reliably delegated in the same way as DNS - securing the internet would be a much less painful process if the owner of the domain could announce their chosen cert authority as part of their domain's DNS record, then bodies like thawte could be left out of the loop altogether.

      [just my daft ruminations though, feel free to explain why this wouldn't work]

    3. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by kylegordon · · Score: 1

      The way it _is_ being done is getting Nominet to ask The House of Commons very nicely to register that ccld with them. Once it's registered, Nominet will then have proof of ownership that they can hand to Thawte.

    4. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      if someone hacked your DNS and it wasn't noticed, they could specify a certificate authority other than your's and no one would notice.

      SSL works on a basis of trust.

    5. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by jaoswald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Parliament does not have to go through any externally imposed process to get anyone else to *legally* recognize them; under the British constitution, Parliament can legislate whatever it wants---it is completely and utterly sovereign.

      The only problem is to get Thawte (or, rather, their British representative) to *technically* recognize them, so they can instruct their machines to approve the certificates. The obstacle is not a legal one, but rather a policy of Thawte itself. Thawte's policy is presumably strict so that its other clients can trust that spoofing won't be likely to happen.

    6. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by mgrant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your argument is an interesting one, but the problem is that DNS itself is insecure. That's the whole reason projects like DNSSEC exist. If we ever reach the point when we can guarantee that DNS queries are secure, then your proposal would be completely valid. Let's hope we get there someday :)

    7. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Just a small point, Britain doesnt have a constitution, in fact most countries dont have one

    8. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by adamsan · · Score: 0

      Yes it has, it just isn't written down in one place with 'The British Constitution' at the top of the page. It's contained by statute and common law, convention and what are called authoritative texts on the subjects, eg Bagehott. ALL countries have a constitution of some sort otherwise they'd have difficulty calling themselves countries.

    9. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      Firstly, it would be a .gov.uk, not .govt.uk, but anyway...
      There is a reason why they use parliament.uk and not parliament.gov.uk, and that is that parliament is not government. From http://www.parliament.uk/faq/parlgov_faq.cfm
      "The Government is the institution that runs the country. It is also known as the Executive. The Government formulates policy and introduces legislation in Parliament. Members of the Government are usually either members of the House of Commons or House of Lords. This enables Parliament to keep a check on their work by asking questions or debating the issues."
      The job of Parliament is to make the law, the job of government is to produce draft bills to put before parliament, to implement the law and to run public services.

    10. Re:Several options to solve this problem... by Jon+Chatow · · Score: 1
      [...]Setup www.parliment.govt.uk[...]

      Err... Have you heard of seperation of executive and legislature? *.parliament.uk is a cross-party independent web-site to do with the Commons, the Lords, and general matters of legislation, as opposed to execution of law and formulation of government policy. Of course, there's HMSO.gov.uk, which is the printer of *.parliament.uk... Ah well.;-)

      --
      James F.
  11. Actually... by tenjah · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Me and my wife own the domain

    1. Re:Actually... by CaptainBaz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ITYF it's "My wife and I"...

    2. Re:Actually... by tenjah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, I was referring to the life of brian, but i concede your point due to it being a lame joke anyway

    3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually actually it would be:

      "I own the domain, and so does my wife!"

  12. Hah by fateswarm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting story. It's sounds so strange having all these second level org.uk, ac.uk, police.uk etc. and non an official .uk operator.

    It's the same thing that makes me wonder why is that the case.

    How can all these second level domain operators exist but not an operator of the 1st level?

    Why don't they give it to the sum of the second level operators to decide?

    If the matter is really on the air, that's the most sane solution I can think of

    1. Re:Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, and who actually _handles_ the decision of whom to decide who is going to decide what is going to be.

    2. Re:Hah by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Informative

      You misunderstand.

      Nominet controls the uk. TLD and most of the xxx.uk. SLDs.

      Nominet doesn't control parliament.uk. The authoritive name servers for uk. (Nominet's servers) return NS delegation records for parliament.uk., and those servers do not appear to be Nominet servers. Therefore, Parliament controls it's own SLD.

      Why this is difficult to deal with I don't know. Nominet should only have to confirm to Thawte that Parliament owns the SLD. Nominet controls uk. and, in turn, the UK government controls parliament.uk., what's the problem here?

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Hah by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      And who authorized Nominet as the TLD controller for .uk in the first place? I suspect parliament (or at least the government) had something to do with that.

      "Who are we? We're the chaps who will shove our arm up Nominet's bum to the elbow and make them say what we want."

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what's the problem here?



      That you obviously didn't read the article, retard.



      3rd am.

    5. Re:Hah by Unordained · · Score: 1

      i believe it's been said elsewhere that at the time, there -was- no registrar for them to comform with. nobody had .uk exclusively. so they just took what they wanted and left the rest alone. when a registrar was declared, well, it was already taken. so they took the rest. simple.

      it's a bit like the people over at lunarembassy.com (i'm not bothering to check the link) -- they and others like them have declared ownership of most every celestial body in our solar system, sun included. why? because nobody else had. but in return, you won't see them telling earthlings to 'get off of their property' just because they control lots of stuff, and earth, well ... is what it is. there wouldn't either be a situation where earth would be asked to register with these other people (and by earth 'back' from them) to prove ownership -- the claim used by everyone else (for the moon, mars, etc.) is the same: we believe we own it. prove us wrong.

      i don't like the fact that people are out there claiming planets and stars as their own, without setting foot on them. (ouch!) but i'd rather not have to justify my ownership of an item every time someone assumes control of a large stock of it, or the trade of it, or a monopoly on the sale of the item, etc. ...

    6. Re:Hah by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      i don't like the fact that people are out there claiming planets and stars as their own

      Such claims are worth the paper they're printed on, and no more. (And the paper is important too. Man prosecuted over selling land on moon)

      As for the TLD, I thought it was the national governments that set the country TLDs. Thwate is just being silly.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  13. no, somebody else owns it. duh. by jdkane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doesn't anybody stop to think that the UK parliament might *implicitly* own the domain www.parliament.uk because they've been using it since before 1996? If they haven't registered it then nobody else has either, so nobody else is more apt to acquire it. And I'm sure somebody else wants it. I don't have a receipt for that pair of boots I bought in 1998. Maybe somebody else owns them even though I've been wearing them for the past 5 years. Come to think about it, I'm going out to buy a new pair of boots. Come on, give us some good articles to talk about.

    1. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by supabeast! · · Score: 1

      " Doesn't anybody stop to think that the UK parliament might *implicitly* own the domain www.parliament.uk because they've been using it since before 1996?"

      Even more obvious, maybe the UK parliament owns the domain because they ARE the UK parliament?

    2. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by AndrewM1 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's a good point. I have no proof that I own this computer that I'm typing on. I have no receipt for it. But I have been using it for a year. So you might think I own it.

    3. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by zCyl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even more obvious, maybe the UK parliament owns the domain because they ARE the UK parliament?

      True. That's the same reason that the US Whitehouse owns www.whitehouse.com

    4. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this is DIGITAL. Like software, that means you have to keep the reciepts forever and ever, or you must have stolen it!

      Who they stole it from way back in 1996, I'm not sure. But I'm sure ICANN can find someone willing to claim that the UK Government is squatting their domain.

    5. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by necromaedian · · Score: 1
    6. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      whitehouse site is whitehouse.GOV .com is a porn site :)

    7. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by ArsonPerBuilding · · Score: 1

      Hey dipshit, thats the joke.

      Go out, party, get a life, and stop correcting a JOKE.

      --
      1 tequila 2 tequila 3 tequila floor
    8. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 0, Troll

      Um, you might want to go their before you assume that that's a government site.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe more like whitehouse.us

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    10. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by Issue9mm · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

      Why is this so difficult around here lately?

      -9mm-

    11. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Kind of hard to tell blatant stupidity from sarcasm.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    12. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by Issue9mm · · Score: 1

      Touche. It just seems like lately, there have been quite a large number of people not knowing the difference between completely obvious (to me anyway) sarcasms. Of course, for all I know, he didn't mean to be sarcastic in the first place.

      -9mm-

    13. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats not a government site? Are you sure?

      NR

    14. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by Twintop · · Score: 1

      True. That's the same reason that the US Whitehouse owns www.whitehouse.com He's right you know...last I heard Bill Clinton was the mastermind behind whitehouse.com.

    15. Re:no, somebody else owns it. duh. by zCyl · · Score: 1

      Of course, for all I know, he didn't mean to be sarcastic in the first place.

      He did (and also thought it was obvious). :)

  14. Why? by digital-959 · · Score: 0

    Why would they have to prove that they own it? Seeing how they are the governing body of the UK wouldn't common sense dictate that they get it esp. if there is no registar. Hell couldn't they just pass a law saying that they own it? That would be a useless law but I'm sure they have lots of them. At least its not full of porn like the site Digital Teenz is. Then they might have a cause for concern if someone had stolen it and turned it into a porn site, but if there's no registar then I would guess that it can't be stolen correct?

  15. Let's not be hasty... by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...and Slashdot the British parliament, mmmkay?

    We don't want the Royal Marines raiding the VA Software headquarters looking for alleged terrorists Abdul Hemos and the commander of the cell, Hashish Taco.

    1. Re:Let's not be hasty... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      We don't want the Royal Marines raiding the VA Software headquarters looking for alleged terrorists Abdul Hemos and the commander of the cell, Hashish Taco.

      Sorry, we're too busy building up to a war on Iraq to go after actual terrorists threats.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Let's not be hasty... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Marines? Are they the ones who were supposed to do a beach landing exercise in Gibralter and inadvertantly invaded Spain? Hmm, I rather think they are.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  16. .co.uk by Newtonian_p · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I always wondered why I always see .co.uk and (almost) never just .uk.

    I know that co stands for commercial but why doesn't Nominet allow plain .uk to be registered anymore?

    --

    There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't

    1. Re:.co.uk by jkcity · · Score: 1

      to stop people creating there own registries :), thats why uk.com pisses them off so much.

    2. Re:.co.uk by netsharc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interesting point, which makes me remember, that .de domain names are usually just that, plain .de . For example earlier today we had this, ther's also this site. The same thing goes for .ch - for example the URL this famous site - and probably a few more countries.

      Wonder what the regulations really are.

      The DNS system is pretty much full of inconsistencies anyway (.tv, .cx, hmm what else?). I once had an idea how they can be arranged to be more logical, but change would just confuse oh-the-so-numerous websurfing grandmothers of the world.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    3. Re:.co.uk by sparkz · · Score: 1

      And when one small firm, uk.com, went down a few months ago, why did Nominet UK get all the flak?

      I've not heard of Nominet being upset about uk.com - it confuses some users, but it's basically ripping off its own customers; no skin off Nominet.uk's nose.

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    4. Re:.co.uk by Uart · · Score: 0

      don't forget Goatse.cx /humor

      --

      Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
    5. Re:.co.uk by abardsley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The .de thing is just a choice by the registrar.
      Nominet chooses to have the subdomains (which is
      fair enough).

      Using UK rather than GB is an historical accident, but I usu. feel compelled to point it out ;)

      As for countries selling there domains, well, that's their choice.

    6. Re:.co.uk by skington · · Score: 1

      Nominet has never allowed blah.uk to be registered. Nominet was set up to be the registrar for .co.uk, .org.uk, .net.uk, .ltd.uk and .plc.uk, all of which are intended for different things. .co.uk and .org.uk are open for all, .net.uk, .ltd.uk and .plc.uk are restricted respectively to ISPs/large Internet companies*, limited companies and public limited companies. To register under .ltd.uk and .plc.uk your company name must match certain conditions - mostly to do with being ultimately the same, barring hyphenation and punctuation, as the domain name you're trying to register.

      There's more information about the the various .uk SLDs and who administers them at Nominet's website.

      Why make people register under .co.uk or .org.uk (or others) rather than under .uk? For the same reason as we make people register blah.com or blah.org rather than just blah. To make the namespace larger (most trivially), but also so if you go to blah.org.uk you expect it to be non-profit making body, if you go to blah.co.uk you expect it to be a trading company, and if you go to blah.me.uk (a new SLD introduced recently), you expect it to be a site about Mr or Mrs Blah.

      There's further intricacies (there always are) but that'll do for now.

    7. Re:.co.uk by mrFur · · Score: 1

      Probably for much the same reason that nobody use .us. Of course, America is the internet ;)

      --
      My $0.05 (AUD - we don't have pennies any more)
    8. Re:.co.uk by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what you mean by inconsistencies. .de as in Deutchland non-English name? cx means Christmas island.

      --
      David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
    9. Re:.co.uk by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

      And .net.uk of course. Which until 1996 was open to all (see www.net.uk), never heard of .me.uk until now.

      --
      David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
    10. Re:.co.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you go to blah.me.uk (a new SLD introduced recently), you expect it to be a site about Mr or Mrs Blah

      Hey, I'm going yo go register blow.me.uk, eat.me.uk, suck.me.uk and a few others...

    11. Re:.co.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have to change your name to get them thou. You have to prove you are called XYZ.

    12. Re:.co.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      The DNS system is pretty much full of inconsistencies anyway (.tv, .cx, hmm what else?).


      Until just a week ago a great example of an inconsistency would heve been the Dutch system where - unless you had a company - you could only register name.123.nl, so you had to have three rediculous numbers before the .nl ... Hope they fired (or should I say shot?) the guy responsible for that rule!

    13. Re:.co.uk by Q+Who · · Score: 1

      The DNS system is pretty much full of inconsistencies anyway (.tv, .cx, hmm what else?). I once had an idea how they can be arranged to be more logical, but change would just confuse oh-the-so-numerous websurfing grandmothers of the world.

      Eh? The DNS system is very consistent. Each domain is responsible for its subdomains, what's more consistent than that?

    14. Re:.co.uk by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      And TV is for Tuvalu... I assume the parent meant people registering domains when they don't have anything to do with the country, e.g. .tv being used for TV programmes etc...

    15. Re:.co.uk by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 1

      In what way does uk.com confuse users? The only people I can think of who it could confuse would be people who don't have a clue what a TLD is, and thus would ignore it - and just type in the URL as they see it. OK, so it appears that the NHS have moved lovelife.uk.com to a .co.uk now, but there are still quite a few major companies using uk.com URLs... and I don't think their users are confused. Unless you mean people wanting to buy uk.com domains, in which case ignore the rest of my post :P.

    16. Re:.co.uk by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      You're a bit late for that trick. Those were all registered on 14th jan last year, the day .me.uk registrations opened. And, to my sibling post, you don't have to show your name matches the domain you register in .me.uk when you register. Cos I don't think that Adrian Kenanrd is called bugger, or fuck, or sue or .....

    17. Re:.co.uk by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      Because you can't get a .uk ever
      All UK domain names (with three exceptions) are within one of the following:
      .co.uk - anyone may use
      .org.uk - anyone may use
      .net.uk - ISP networks only
      .plc.uk - UK PLCs
      .ltd.uk - UK limited companies
      .me.uk - anyone may use
      .ac.uk - universities and other higher education bodies
      .sch.uk - schools (in the form schoolname.areaname.sch.uk)
      .gov.uk - government usage
      .mod.uk - military
      .police.uk - police forces
      .nhs.uk - National health Service bodies

      and the three oddities,
      .nic.uk - Nominet usage
      .parliament.uk - they don't have a gov.uk because parliament != government
      .bl.uk - The British Library, I have no idea why they have this

    18. Re:.co.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably this is because of ISO.

    19. Re:.co.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Domains registered before the existance of Nominet were of the .uk variety. Nominet refuse to support these because they are morons.

      It's quite simple.

    20. Re:.co.uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moderating that post as overrated is the most balls-less thing that moderator could do. The way I see it, it was either +1 funny, OR it was a troll, but overrated? thats BS. The moderator who made that decision should have his/her testicles removed immediately because he/she doesn't deserve them.

  17. It's amazing isn't it. by caluml · · Score: 1

    I read this a few days ago on The Reg, and I couldn't believe it.

    No matter what the rules are, it's pretty obvious to anyone that parliament.uk belongs to the UK parliament.



    Expert network security analysis: http://www.arhont.com/

    1. Re:It's amazing isn't it. by cheezycrust · · Score: 1
      I read this a few days ago on The Reg, and I couldn't believe it.

      And now you see it on Slashdot, you do?

      --
      Teenagers these days don't have as much sex as they want each other to think they do.
    2. Re:It's amazing isn't it. by Peter+Greenwood · · Score: 1
      it's pretty obvious to anyone that parliament.uk belongs to the UK parliament

      Well, not really. However it does seem to be true. Do a whois search ...

      [whois.iana.org]

      IANA Whois Service
      Domain: uk
      ID: uk

      Registrant:
      Name:
      Organization: Nominet UK
      ...etc

      - and from the original article:
      Nominet is "in contact" with Parliament and will confirm to anyone that asks that Parliament owns parliament.uk

      So the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority says Nominet runs .uk, and they say, verbally anyway, that Parliament has parliament.uk. No problem.

      One wonders why Nominet don't go so far as to include parliament.uk on their whois server, or do whatever else Thawte want to confirm registration?

      Maybe it just comes down to money. If Parliament offered to pay them their usual fee to register the name, who would have a problem?
      • The public would never notice the minuscule tax rise
      • Parliament would get undoubted title to their domain
      • Nominet would get a fee that possibly they weren't entitled to

      Oops - forgot the lawyers, who wouldn't have anything to write letters about at £££s per word.
      --
      freedom, n. Allowing people you don't like to do things you disapprove of.
    3. Re:It's amazing isn't it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Parliament is sovereign, therefore there is no 'higher' body to which it has to prove itself, not least Nominet.

    4. Re:It's amazing isn't it. by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

      Parliament is not sovereign. They answer to the Queen. The Queen must be bowed down to. Not Queen Blair. If they want to prove they own parliament.uk, they should have to answer to the Queen only. Mind you, parliament is making money for whom? If it is to the elected representitive it is wrong. Paliaments come and go, the Queen shalt stay. No government should be allowed to abuse this domain to make money for it's party.

      --
      David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
    5. Re:It's amazing isn't it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Parlment answers to the unelected Dictatership that is the House Of Lords.

    6. Re:It's amazing isn't it. by adamsan · · Score: 0

      The Queen is Head of State but, because Parliament holds the purse strings, if it came to it then Parliament would win out over HM, her powers are all delegated to the PM anyway and the army pledges allegience to 'The Crown' which means the established government of the day. The Commons does not answer to the Lords, the Lords' only power is to delay legislation for a year.
      I don't know what I should recommend first: that you learn to spell or that you learn to comment on subjects over which you have some kind of grasp.

    7. Re:It's amazing isn't it. by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      Yes Parliament is sovereign. Do a search for "Parliamentary sovereignty" if you don't believe me.

  18. ahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a slashdotting joke!

    too funny!

    please kill yourself!

    1. Re:ahahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, post your URL here!

  19. OK, I accept the challenge. by caluml · · Score: 4, Funny

    In fact, no one runs parliament.uk and it doesn't officially exist. OK, go on, you twisted my arm. For a mere £78k per annum, and a lifetime seat in the House of Lords, I'll oversee the running of this tld.

    Obviously, I'll need a 155Mb pipe, and all the leggy blondes I can eat. (So to speak.) Oh, and a nice quiet office somewhere :)

    1. Re:OK, I accept the challenge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . and a Monster Truck!

  20. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by abardsley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course, the question should be why doesn't the UK use its *real* ISO country code GB instead of UK.

  21. Re:Interesting Dilema by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Formatting is your friend.

    --
    I do security
  22. Time to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a time to think why USA doesn't use .us and com.us, org.us, ac.us, gov.us more often.

    This is 2003. It's not 1988 when USA had 90% of the inet.

    Is it a flame bait? Or is a bait to all sane people the fact that I stress?

    1. Re:Time to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its simple: The US invented it, lock, stock and barrel. Well, not exactly. Al Gore did. But, he is an American.

      The naming conventions in use now have been in use in the US for 20+ years. Changing existing addresses would be confusing, add little value, and would largely be an exercise in political correctness. Anyone is largely free to use the existing tlds if they want to register. The country domains have been popular as a means of differentiating a domain, and associating it with a place, not necessarily because they have to. There are .us addresses in use, but it is mainly local governments and schools. (I will also add that it used to be tied to an inconvenient geographic naming convention.)

      You could treat our use of the current naming conventions as a minor tribute for funding and developing the internet. Or, if it makes you feel any better, you can view it as implied that .gov, .mil, .com, .org, .net, .etc, ;) are .us addresses. Or, we're just keeping .gov warm until the One World Government demands it.

      Of course, I suppose that the day will come when America will be bashed for internet address imperialism. Our unbounded use of domain names outside of .us will be viewed as an act of aggression and yet another reason to hate us. Demands will come that we retreat back inside the borders of .us.

      Ah, well, ... if the world doesn't like it, I guess we could just take our internet and go home.

      Of course that would lead to howls about American pr0n embargos, and threats of trade sanctions until we reopen the internet pr0n pipes. Of course, there will be world-wide joy AND rage over both actions. Violence will ensue. Counter-violence will follow the violence.

      Sigh. I guess we can't win.

      The only reasonably safe course of action is to not change anything.

    2. Re:Time to think by tenjah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Typical, Bloody Americans threatening to take your bat and ball home. Not that the rest of us'd give much of a fuck. You aint so big sunshine. And you're gonna find out soon enough. Yeee-hawww!!

    3. Re:Time to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I see where that stick is coming from:

      > Note to self: Next time I trust the Chinese Government FAR more than the AmeriKKKan one

      > perhaps you haven't quite yet worked out that the INTERNET is an INTERNATIONAL medium

      You know, a good proctologist could help you with that.

      > threatening to take your bat and ball home. Not that the rest of us'd give much of a fuck.

      Well thats the problem, isn't it? We're insulted and abused when we help, and threatened when we don't.

      > You aint so big sunshine. And you're gonna find out soon enough.

      Hmmm... let me guess Iraq? Would you be disapointed if there weren't large numbers of American or Iraqi casualties? Would you be disapointed if Iraq changes into a peaceful democracy from its current status as a murderous dictatorship that has invaded two of its neighbors (using chemical weapons on one), attacked and threatened to use chemical weapons on a third country, gassed to death entire towns in its own country, and threatened other countries as well. Hmm?

      Or are you thinking about a terrorist attack? Do you know something?

      Or is this all just 'ol fashioned anti-American hatred based on ideology, ignorance, and fear? Do you take pleasure in the deaths of others?
      By the way, if you really do trust the Chinese government more than the American government you might want to take a look at two little periods in Chinese history that might be a little before your time: the "Cultural Revolution" and the "Great Leap Forward." Both of these were gift of the Communist government of the PRC to the Chinese people. At least 20 million starved, and I'll leave it for you to learn about the political terror and cannibalism used to prove one's loyalty to the Party. If thats truly what you admire, I hope you get a chance to participate... although in those situations its always a coin-toss as to which side you'll be on.

      I hope that you are simply ignorant, and not evil. Ignorance is a much easier problem to approach.

      As you say, Yeee-hawww!!!

    4. Re:Time to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I work for a multinational. All of our domains are .com or .net. For example, the servers we have in London got .co.uk as an afterthought.

      It's not just the US that uses .com, it's the whole globe.

      The only exception (in our case) is Japan... always .co.jp. I dunno why, maybe that's preferred in Japan.

    5. Re:Time to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans: Well, we've got a bat and a ball and a field, let's play!
      Other countries: That looks like fun, can we join?
      Americans: Sure!
      Other countries: What are you doing, that's not how you play!
      Americans: That's how we've always played...
      Other countries: Well, now you have to play our way.
      Americans: Screw you, we're leaving.
      Other countries: Good riddance, you whiners!

      Americans: By the way, this is our field, get lost.

    6. Re:Time to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that Iraq was doing good for the world in fighting Iran's islamic republic extremist state, something the United States of Selfishness supported at the time. Back in 1990, Saddam asked the US embassador whether the US would object to an invasion of the providence of Iraq known as Kuwait and he was told the US would not care. These days it's all about the US' Israel-arse-kissing tactics. Too many Jews. Logic and history goes out of the window. Remember Liberty, the Jew will not remember your obidience.

    7. Re:Time to think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Too many Jews. Logic and history goes out of the window. Remember Liberty, the Jew will not remember your obidience.

      Your history was pretty much right, and had me, right up until that point. What are you? Jew hating anti-Semite? Man, I didn't expect to see that on Slashdot. Well, I guess the Nazis had their technological elite too. I guess you can find all kinds here.

      (By the way, please don't let anyone call you "right-wing" without challenging them. Conservative political ideas have nothing to do with anti-Sematism.)

    8. Re:Time to think by EdinBear · · Score: 1

      As I remember (from my mid 90s Internet Cafe NetManager days) the .us TLD was split up into States, so you have .ny.us and .ca.us... At the time I thought it an "unusual" way to split up the TLD, since most of the up-and-coming domains were not limited to any one State...

      I don't know of any other Country TLD which was split up geographically...

      S.

    9. Re:Time to think by cox075 · · Score: 1

      Another precedent along these lines:

      British postage stamps do not have a country identifier on them (unless the Queen's head counts :-)). This is because the poms invented them I guess.

  23. Possession by _fuzz_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They say that possession is 9/10 of the law. I think the fact that they've had the domain for 9 years should be proof enough that they own it.

    --
    47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
    1. Re:Possession by damiam · · Score: 5, Funny
      possession is 9/10 of the law

      Yes, but Parliament is 10/10 of the law, and it's not helping them. Thawte is a private company, and it can set whatever qualifications it wants for a cert.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:Possession by fateswarm · · Score: 1

      That doesn't count on any court ever existed on earth. If I get your house because you were on vacation for 9 years doesn't make me an owner.

      The only thing that exists is if something never was in the possession of anyone can easily be obtained by the first founder.

      But this is a 1st level domain which is not "first found", it gets more complicated, it's not just "oh see, I got this domain and no one owns so it's mine". 2nd level domains org.uk, ac.uk exist which make the case not that simple.

      Oh well, there's also the case of violent wars, when a hostile imperialistic nation gets other peoples' land and makes it its own, but that's not the case here either.

    3. Re:Possession by _fuzz_ · · Score: 1
      they've had the domain for 9 years

      Crap, I can't count. Make that 7 years.

      --
      47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
    4. Re:Possession by shepd · · Score: 4, Informative

      >That doesn't count on any court ever existed on earth. If I get your house because you were on vacation for 9 years doesn't make me an owner.

      No, that's where you're quite wrong.

      Since we're talking about the UK, squatters rule. In fact, this attitude seems to pervail in about 25% of the world (europe). AFAIK, the idea that squatters have no rights at all is part of an EXTREME minority of the world (about 5% of the world's population).

      Posession is very much 9/10s of the law. Any lawyer will tell you that, and it's about the only true thing they'll ever tell you.

      I had this discussion earlier: What if part of the space shuttle that just blew up landed on your property and you chose to keep it, violating laws against meddling with federal investigations? What powers does the government have to recover it (no, not just put you in jail, but actually recover the item)? And if they do recover it, how much will you be able to sue for?

      Posession of anything that isn't outright illegal is 9/10s of the law. That's why there's special "drug war" laws that allow the government to take your drug paraphenalia. Without them, upon release from prison, they'd have to hand your bong/crack pipe back, because they're yours.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    5. Re:Possession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a copy of Windows 3.1 that I copied from a friend sometime around '94. Does that mean I now legally own it? ;)

      Maybe I'll go steal some money and hide it for a decade or two...

    6. Re:Possession by shess · · Score: 1

      Huh. So now all they have to do is to prove that they've had the domain for 9 years. Presumably they have credit card receipts and the like, right?

      Oh, wait...

    7. Re:Possession by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      I don't care what the fucking law says, if someone moves into my house and claims it as their own, I'm going to shove a shotgun up their ass and pull the fucking trigger.

    8. Re:Possession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...And then the law will put you in jail for 1st degree murder for about 20 years. After which another squatter will move in to your house, and he'll have more than enough time to legally own it permanently.

      Just a thought to think about before using violence to fix a situation. ;-)

    9. Re:Possession by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      Shut up pussy, before I kick your ass. :)

  24. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by abardsley · · Score: 1

    Touche ;)
    I'm just a standards freak.

  25. Re:Interesting Dilema by AndrewM1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    DOH! Note to Self: Use Preview

  26. Re:dude by Drummer_Dan · · Score: 0

    The UK and France were the only ones to declare war on Germany during WWII. If they wouldn't have started war that early the germans at that time would have advanced a lot quicker. The U.S. didn't really care at the time what was happening over there. It was called Isolationism. The only reason US entered the war was because of Pearl Harbor. I don't think the US could've won a war against the world when we were that demobolized.

    --
    -- When all else fails, read the instructions --
  27. Actually, I hate everyone from Europe by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You know why? Their cigarettes. They've got these fucking cool exotic brands that I can't pronounce, like Gauloises. Hell, what do we have in the good old USofA? Fuckin Camels. Who are you going to impress with Camels? A motherfucker whips out a pack of Players, however, and you think "now here's a guy with some fucking class."

    Fuck you, Europe and your amazingly delicious cigarettes.

    By the way, how do you pronounce Gauloises?

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
    1. Re:Actually, I hate everyone from Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, how do you pronounce Gauloises?

      Gal-was. Not Gal-wuz. Learn to speak french, barbarian.

    2. Re:Actually, I hate everyone from Europe by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      By the way, how do you pronounce Gauloises?

      "Goal wazz", more or less. It's a traditional British word borrowed by another European nation a couple of years ago, apparently.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Actually, I hate everyone from Europe by LogicFlow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "good old USofA"? Try:
      "good old USofA's [i]gas stations[/i]".
      Find a real smoke shop. You'll have a heart attack at the selections. Or roll your own. There is _nothing_ anywhere prepackaged like a quality hand-rolled with a fine, fresh tobacco.
      Let these 'gauloises' and 'players' smokers have there dry, crunchy, smoke flavored air.

  28. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Of course, the question should be why doesn't the UK use its *real* ISO country code GB instead of UK

    Well, GB isn't correct. I don't want to argue history & politics, but it is currently the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And thus, UK.

    QED

    A better question is would the UK call itself UK if Northern Ireland joined the republic?

  29. David Crosby Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    If you need to impress people with cigarettes, you should become really good at cunnilingus or fellatio (whichever way you go) since you obviously have one of the smaller dongs ever.

    Also, cut it out with your lame worship of Europe. I hate you beret-wearing liberals who like to bash American culture and elevate to idiotic heights any culture that isn't American. It's so pathetic. If you hate this country so much, get out. I'm sure some hairy French broads would love to play with your two-inch cock you yellow bastard.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    1. Re:David Crosby Is My Cousin by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1

      > If you hate this country so much, get out.

      and on such proud defence of freedom, choice and the tolerance of dissent was the United States built.

    2. Re:David Crosby Is My Cousin by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

      Listen people, fsck the USA, I get fed up with hearing that thick as shit wanker "George Wanker Bush" talking rubbish on the wireless. I don't dislike the yanks as such (as long as they're not Jews) but please, the world is fed up with hearing from you for now. Be quiet and reduce the saber shaking.

      --
      David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
    3. Re:David Crosby Is My Cousin by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      No shit. I wish all these fucking liberals would go become what they want to be, Eurotrash.

  30. Re:tee hee! by caino59 · · Score: 1

    lemme guess...
    you're a lil salty because its your servers going down like a dress on prom night?

  31. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Malc · · Score: 1

    Why, does the province of Northern Ireland have it's own domain?

  32. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by skington · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was a discussion about this on the Nominet mailing lists recently. The most convincing reason is Northern Ireland.

    The official name of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. "Great Britain" is the island that includes England, Wales, Scotland and the multitude of little islands, which includes the Isle of Wight (part of England), the Isle of Man (not really part of the UK at all), and doesn't include the Channel Islands (which are closest to Normandy, which the French refer to as the Anglo-Norman islands, but otherwise are as British as the Isle of Man).

    "GB" would be a useful code, except that it excludes Northern Ireland, and if you've followed Northern Irish history at all you'll know that the the protestants / Unionists in Northern Ireland are very fond of being part of the UK, and would vehemently protest to the UK being known by a code, "GB", that explicitly did not include them.

    So, way before ICANN's official policy to use the ISO country codes for ccTLDs, and even though Ukraine had a strong claim to .uk, the powers that be decided on using .uk for British domains, and it's stuck ever since.

  33. Creative... by alexhmit01 · · Score: 1

    I expect a bill banning Thawte from selling anything to British citizens until this is resolved... Some higher up at Thawte will think twice... :)

    Alex

    1. Re:Creative... by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

      Actually, the UK government doesn't work that way. It will be done diplomatically. The UK government are liars, corrupted politicians, scum bags, but they are not Jew-controlled arrogant control freaks like the USA government.

      --
      David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
    2. Re:Creative... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK government are liars, corrupted politicians, scum bags, but they are not Jew-controlled arrogant control freaks like the USA government.

      Fuck off, asshole. Bush is an evangelical christian.

    3. Re:Creative... by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      Fuck off, asshole. Bush is an evangelical christian.

      Heh, that's even worse...

  34. Re:dude by tenjah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Err..."Might be"???!!!

  35. Tom Hanks' Wife Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The word is "DEFENSE" you fucking cock-goblin!

    And you're really ignoring what I was saying. I was not telling him he had no right to argue with the government or express an opinion that differs from policy. What I was stating is that this trend that has caught on in bashing American CULTURE (I didn't bring up the fucking government you dumbass) in favor of European or Asian cultures by kids from the suburbs is apalling. Furthermore, if they are so in love with all things [insert whatever country they love] they should go there to live. If they think that American television is a wretched cesspool in comparison to the high comedy of Faulty Towers, they should get the fuck out of this country. I hope you get the point and stop trying to play the typical faggot liberal. There's are reasons I hate liberals and it appears you are one of them.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
    1. Re:Tom Hanks' Wife Is My Cousin by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1
      > The word is "DEFENSE" you fucking cock-goblin!

      brilliant, just brilliant. For many (native UK) English speakers the word is, indeed, 'defence'

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=defence
      defence :n. & v. Chiefly British : Variant of defense.
      as well as that old thing, JS Mill's 'In defenCe of Freedom'

      http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/400.htm l

      but of course that doesn't matter does it? Cos *you* say it's 'defense'

      tomato, tomatoe, anyone?
    2. Re:Tom Hanks' Wife Is My Cousin by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

      Faulty Towers is _class_, it's a shame more weren't made. "I'm going to give you a damned good thrashing!" I'm English BTW.

      --
      David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
    3. Re:Tom Hanks' Wife Is My Cousin by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

      hmm, license versus licence, I though this wasn't a dialect issue but an issue of highly technical English language differences? As in, I give you license but there may be an off-licence? Is it an English/Yankie difference?

      --
      David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
    4. Re:Tom Hanks' Wife Is My Cousin by adamsan · · Score: 0

      UK:
      Verb: License
      Noun: Licence

      US:
      Verb & Noun: License

      UK:
      Verb: Practise
      Noun: Pracice

      US:
      Noun & Verb: Practice

      Go figure...

    5. Re:Tom Hanks' Wife Is My Cousin by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1

      Different words having different meanings?

      What an enlightening thought. Will this concept ever take off?

  36. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A better question is would the UK call itself UK if Northern Ireland joined the republic?

    Yes it would. The "United" refers to the union of the Scottish throne and the England/Wales throne - Wales having been conquered by England. The lowland Scotsmen wanted access to England's East India company, because of the huge profits it made out of the Empire. The English wanted the highlanders to stop raping and pillaging England. Therefore, the lowland Scotsmen agreed to join Scotland and England -- a promise to keep the pesky highlanders at bay, provided they got the riches of the England's empire.

    Ireland (the whole island) was briefly conquered by the UK, but the IRA conquered it back. However, the UK had succeeded in settling many UK loyalists (protestants) in the northern counties, so when the UK was forced in defeat to return Ireland to native/roman catholic rule, it did not return Northern Ireland because mostly loyalists lived there.

  37. All a little silly. by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

    Yes, but Parliament is 10/10 of the law, and it's not helping them.

    Actually I'm sure it *will* help them out. The fact that they ARE the law means that someone high up enough at Thawte to make a decision will decide to acknowledge Parliment's ownership of their domain. Or parliment can pass a law that simply says "we own parliment.uk" - If that is not enough for Thawte Parliment could pass a law that says "Any entity failing to recongise parliments sole ownership of 'Parliment.uk" shall have it's assets frozen and executives held in custody until such time as they recongise said ownership". I'm sure Thawte would come around, it doesn't pay for a commercial entity to get into a fight with the legislative body of a country they want to do business in.

    1. Re:All a little silly. by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      If they ARE the law, then youd think they would abide it. Maybe Im asking too much.

    2. Re:All a little silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In th US yeah, in the UK no.
      In the UK we don't detain anyone we like, unlike some other countrys (*peer Iraq & US*)

    3. Re:All a little silly. by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1


      Any entity failing to recongise parliments sole ownership of 'Parliment.uk" shall have it's assets frozen and executives held in custody until such time as they recongise said ownership".

      They wouldn't even have to worry about the second part, contempt of Parliament, is up there with contempt of court or treason, pretty dam serious.

    4. Re:All a little silly. by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      In the UK we don't detain anyone we like, unlike some other countrys (*peer Iraq & US*)

      Sure you do, Parliment has written many laws that require the detention of people for all sorts of (mostly) good reasons. Of course my example is silly but it is still the case that if Parliment *really* wants their domain recognized and Thwate for some unaccountable reason doesn't want to do so Parliment has all sorts of ways to require Thawte to do so - at least if Thawte wants to do business in the UK.

      The argument about some detentions in the US is that they are *illegal* - against both our laws and our constitution - in some cases that appears to be a perfectly valid criticism, in others it is debatable, all of which is beside the point. In my hypothetical situation it would be legal because Parliment wrote a law making it so - as for "constitutional" well I don't exactly understand the complexities of "constitutionality" in the UK but I'm pretty sure that Parliment has some impact on what is considered legal and on how the government is "constituted".

    5. Re:All a little silly. by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      If they ARE the law, then youd think they would abide it. Maybe Im asking too much.

      I'm not sure I get your point. What law is Parliment not abiding by? It's their domain, they not only own the domain under the law as it exists but they write the laws about .uk domains in the first place. I'm being silly when I suggest that they could imprison or fine the executives of Thawte for refusing to recongnize their ownership to make a point - the write the laws! Yes they *wouldn't* write a law that penalizes Thawte in horrible and nasty ways for refusing to play ball but they *could* and it would be perfectly legal because they determine what is legal and what isn't (within unwritten constitutional limits that are to some extent determined by - you guessed it: Parliment)

  38. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

    It does: ie..

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  39. whoa, dude... by selfdiscipline · · Score: 1

    A Hashish Taco? Whoa...

    --


    -------
    Incite and flee.
  40. there's no such thing as American culture by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Today's episode of American Culture was brought to you by...

    I think our culture sucks nuts, but that doesn't mean our country does. By your reasoning, if I think the traffic light by my house takes way too long to change, I should just get the fuck out of the country.

    I don't know why I'm responding to someone whose first volley involved penile derision.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  41. Think Again by Ted_Green · · Score: 1

    It's more trouble than it's worth with little practical benifit to those involved. Sure, it gives everyone a warm fuzzy feeling of equality, but other than that there just isn't much practical benifit compared to the effort of such a change.

    Exacting standards look great on paper, but when dealing with legacy systems (esp. when those systems are historicaly and socialy based) it's sometimes more trouble than its worth.

    If you'd like to spearhead the effort to convience everyone to change, then more power to you. But frankly I think you'll need to get in line right behind the people who want to have everyone learn esperanto.

    1. Re:Think Again by jkramar · · Score: 1

      The significant difference is that for it to be useful to learn esperanto, there need to be a lot of people who know esperanto (not that there aren't). If you need a domain name and it's already occupied under .com .org .net, then registering it under .us if you're American is useful even if (especially if) nobody else does it.

      --

      true && more || less
    2. Re:Think Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all fine and dandy unless you're a multinational corporation. Maybe they should have to register in .int like the UN? Sony.int, IBM.int, etc.

    3. Re:Think Again by Ted_Green · · Score: 1

      That is a differnt point than the one I was addressing and if that was the orginal point, to use the .us if the other has already in use, then it was a good one and I was mistaken in my understanding.

      What I find faulty is getting people to change from using the .com's and .net's and .govs out there (this is more specific to .govs than anything else really, since .coms and .nets are, when you get right down to it, avaliable to anyone) Certian TLDs like the .gov have allready become institutionalized, and if our goal is order then it's probably better to have them all as .gov or .gov.us ... since they're all already .gov (as far as I know) its probably most practical to take the path of least reistance.

      Though for .com .net etc I don't think it really matters.

  42. Re: www.whitehouse.gov by jc42 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That's the same reason that the US Whitehouse owns www.whitehouse.com

    Yeah, but check out www.whitehouse.org or www.whitehouse.net. Then there's www.whitehouse.com, which you'd expect to be the government office that sells political favors, but isn't that at all.

    I wonder how long before the gummint cracks down on these. This might be fun to watch. I expect they have already tried, but like the trademark on "windows", "white house" is a rather generic term. I mean, half the people in my neighborhood live in a white house. So do lots of people in the US government, for that matter.

    The main problem here, as I see it, is that the main article was badly misclassified. It should have been "It's funny; laugh".

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  43. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's for the Republic of Ireland as you're well aware, I guess they could always try to light up the dark fibre that is .GB

  44. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by jc42 · · Score: 1

    I always thought it was because the British portion of the Internet was originally set up mostly by academics, and they wanted .ac.uk because they were all Bloom County fans.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  45. Re: because they are smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    K.GB doesn't have a chance now

  46. at least... by Imazalil · · Score: 1

    ahh well at least we burned that ugly-ass white house a little. Why kill when you can just cut of the d*ck off :)

  47. Cat Stevens Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    If you're going to bother to reply to something I post, at least think up something intelligent to say. Or, actually - you'd probably have to hire someone to think up something intelligent for you to say, since you're a fucking moron.

    Don't bother replying again. You've obviously got no argument against your filthy suburbanite longing to be in another country where Dr. Phil doesn't reign supreme.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  48. Except for burning the White House in 1812 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just wish I could get Sam Kinison's emotion into that subject...

  49. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by isorox · · Score: 1

    Ireland (the whole island) was briefly conquered by the UK,

    About 120 years is briefly?

  50. Wow, you really showed me! by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1

    I'm in awe of your magnificent skill in the art of debate. Nothing wins an argument like completely unsubstantiated claims that one's opponent is a fucking moron.

    Since you seem to be incapable of carrying out an argument at anything but the most base level, your mom is a filthy slut, but your dad sure can suck a mean cock.

    Thank you and have a pleasant evening.

    Who's Dr. Phil?

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  51. The *real* Nazi's in this world today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You really do need to check the history of one Haj Amin el-Husseini.

    Find out what he did, and if you really want to see what's going on even today, find out who his followers and relatives are.

    Hint: On of them was born Rahman Abdul Rauf el-Qudwa el-Husseini...

  52. Re:they don't care about being honest & legal by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

    Well, you're so off topic it's untrue, this has bugger all to do with anything because Blair only seized power in 1997... but you're also damned right. Anybody who supports this war is fighting for the Jew. It would be merely cannon fodder for the unquestioned support and arse-kissing for "Israel" which the USA is famous for and has reaped the punishment for on Sep 11 2001.

    --
    David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
  53. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by DDR+Palmer · · Score: 0

    You make a very interesting point. I think I am right in thinking that we are the only ccTLD which does not match the ISO of assigned country codes. .gb is registered to the United Kingdom and is the domain we would/should have used but it is just marked as reserved and nothing more. One day it might open up, you never know. Then there will be a whole new registration frenzy!

    --
    David Duncan Ross Palmer, author of OverChat
  54. Misquote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong, as are nearly all others who try that quote.

    The correct quote is that "possession is 9 POINTS of the law" not 9 tenths of the law.

    That is a very big difference. If you don't believe me, google it.

    1. Re:Misquote by _fuzz_ · · Score: 1
      You are wrong, as are nearly all others who try that quote. The correct quote is that "possession is 9 POINTS of the law" not 9 tenths of the law.

      Who am I quoting? Nobody. I've never heard the 9 points version before, though it does appear to be the correct legal term. That's not going to stop people from saying it the way it is most commonly known, as "nine tenths".

      Anyways, I did find an interesting essay on the subject.

      --
      47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
  55. No, any lawyer won't tell me that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Posession is very much 9/10s of the law. Any lawyer will tell you that"

    The correct quote is this:

    Possession is nine points of the law.

    Not 9/10!! 9 points

    Your misquote is enormously different than the real quote. The meanings aren't even in the same ballpark. So no, I don't think "any lawyer" would tell me that, only a really bad one.

    1. Re:No, any lawyer won't tell me that by shepd · · Score: 1

      Well, either lawyers don't use the internet, or you belong on Penn & Teller's Bullshit!.

      Sorry -- but you, sir, are in another EXTREME minority. As in, 9/282 extreme, or 3% extreme. And 2 of the 9 quotes seem to be from a feline-o-phile story... which sort of worries me. I really had no clue that such literature existed, until today. Another 2 of the 9 are from the same person, Ed Arditti. So, striking out the unusual literature, and not giving credit for dupes, I'm down to 6. Which makes it a 98% advantage for the non-points team.

      If you'd like, I'll email Ed Arditti and see if he can shed some light on to his wildly unsupported claim.

      Now, if only 3% of the connected world says you're right, you'll need to provide me with some much harder evidence. Like, perhaps, at least an actual known slashdot account that you're willing to back up that claim with (both that it's a misquote, and what the difference is, exactly. Preferably referring to the UK, which is the land we're talking about). Otherwise, I'm more likely to believe I've been probed by aliens. At least in that case I'd have a reason for my constipation today that isn't related to McDonald's.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    2. Re:No, any lawyer won't tell me that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about 1620
      "possession is nine tenths of the law"

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8& oe =UTF-8&q=%22possession+is+nine+tenths+of+the+law%2 2

  56. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "GB" would be a useful code, except that it excludes Northern Ireland, and if you've followed Northern Irish history at all you'll know that the the protestants / Unionists in Northern Ireland are very fond of being part of the UK, and would vehemently protest to the UK being known by a code, "GB", that explicitly did not include them.

    So if we changed from .uk to .gb, we'd seriously piss off the Ulster Unionists? Sounds like an excellent reason to me!

  57. Re:dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK and France were the only ones to declare war on Germany during WWII

    Actually, Canada did as well. And Canada had a real military at the time. Not like now, when the LAPD is a stronger fighting force than the Canadian forces.

  58. .us by Epeeist · · Score: 1

    I always wondered why I always see .com, and almost never .com.us.

    1. Re:.us by Niadh · · Score: 1

      Because, when the DNS was established the internet was primarily a U.S. phenomena. The TLDs that were established were primarily for the U.S. name space. As the Internet went global these same TLDs became artificially valuable because they were the only ones that did not have a two digit country code suffix.

      Anyways, who ever said all .com, .net, and .org's where U.S. based?

  59. Oh no it isn't by Epeeist · · Score: 1

    The British Parliament is effectively an extension of the US congress.

    Or at least Tony Blair is GWB's poodle, or America's foreign secretary according to Jaque Chirac.

    1. Re:Oh no it isn't by mattrix2k · · Score: 1

      America's foreign secretary according to Jaque Chirac.

      Actually it was Nelson Mandela that said that.

  60. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ireland was GIVEN to UK by the pope, in an attempt to stop the UK breaking away from the pope.

  61. Lots of Domains Like This. by ClickNMix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you read the article you might come across the section that sats:

    there was no contract between Nominet and the registrants of domain names registered by the "Naming Committee" - the loose assortment of tech-heads that existed prior to Nominet.

    Since, at one point you didnt have to pay for .co.uk domains, you just submitted to the commitee, and if they liked you they voted that you could have the domain and use it. (There might be more to it, I was only 16 when the ISP I was working for was doing this!! - But I do belive thats the gist)

    There was also a 'limbo' of about 24 hours when the Naming commity handed over to Nominet, where people could register anything (No more voting by the committee), for free(Because Nominet werent charing yet).. but there is no paper work of any kind for these domains. (One of which I own - But cann't prove and not sure how to go about getting it back into my full control!)

    There's also been several court cases I know about because of this lack of paperwork, and people selling domains they may or may not have been the owners off.

    Since you never have to pay for these domains, you dont even have the invoices, no renewal fees etc. They just exist. Some are no doubt lost forever because people have just left them behind, and theres nothing to remind anyone about them.

    --
    I saw the light at the end of the tunnel... But it was just someone with a flashlight bringing more work.
  62. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by mlk · · Score: 1

    Anyone know where I can regestar a .GB, as I think we (the brits) should give NI back :)

    --
    Wow, I should not post when knackered.
  63. For goodness sake, pass a law... by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

    ... and then it's yours.

    How can they possibly run a country if they can't even organise a domain name for thenselves. Well I ask you!

    1. Re:For goodness sake, pass a law... by nagora · · Score: 1
      How can they possibly run a country if they can't even organise a domain name for thenselves. Well I ask you!

      ANSWER: they can't.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  64. Re:dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Re:dude (Score:1, Offtopic)

    Outside of Soviet Russia, joke is on you!

  65. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by abardsley · · Score: 1

    All good points, the real issue is that the UK hasn't
    bothered to change its two-letter code to UK from
    GB. Odd.

  66. ha by happy+monday · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    this is a hoax. there's no such country as "uk", it's just an elaborate fiction.

  67. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by nagora · · Score: 1
    It does: ie..

    That's for Eire, or The Republic of Ireland, which has the same sort of relationship to Northern Ireland as the US has to Canada: same language, common border, totally different culture.

    Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is much closer culturally to Scotland, even down to its internal religion-based troubles, than to "The South".

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  68. huh? by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    According to Netcracft.com:

    The site www.parliament.uk is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Solaris.

    Is Microsoft branching out into Unix software after all?

  69. set type=ns by Rogain · · Score: 0

    how the fuck do they update their IPs? I think they could just pass a law forcing nominet to register the domain for free. Fuck 'em, all registers are fucking cocksuckers anyway.

    --
    The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
  70. The registrar is not the only thing they lack by Teun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What about a nice constitution?

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  71. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by jpc · · Score: 1

    .gb is registered. There are some old uk military sites on it, or were. Which is even odder.

  72. this is stupid. by way2trivial · · Score: 0

    They want a SSL cert, so they can sell stuff. does the site parliment.uk have to be the same site that 'sells stuff'? can the ordering of govermnet publications be handled by a second site? i.e. www.parliment-gpo.co.uk?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  73. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Drakin · · Score: 1

    Well... it depends on the scale of things... 120 years is 1/5th the times my ancestors spent feuding with each other...

  74. Whois and ping... by vidarlo · · Score: 1

    Whois www.parliament.uk returns "No match for "www.parliament.uk".(c)Nominet UK" but ping www.parliament.uk returns PING www.parliament.uk (194.60.38.75): 56 data bytes . However, they don't respond to ping. But that probably is offtopic...

  75. To clarify a few things:- by Rob-sif · · Score: 0

    .co.uk - open to anybody, anybody can register them, and have as many as they want. By and large the most popular 2nd level domain in the UK .org.uk - supposedly for non-profit organisations, though again there's no restrictions on who can register them and how many. .net.uk - restricted to ISPs, generally people who have a netblock assigned to them from RIPE, and even then the registration must match the name of the ISP. .me.uk - open to anybody again, supposedly for personal registrations. .police.uk - restricted, open only to police force regions .nhs.uk - restricted, open only to NHS institutions, although even in practice NHS institutions tend to use co.uk and org.uk. .sch.uk - restricted to schools, usually a school will register under a regional version, such as balbycarr.doncaster.sch.uk (in the case of my old school). .ac.uk - similar to above, but for any academic institutions. This includes universities, colleges (such as don.ac.uk), and institutions relating to academia (ukerna.ac.uk - the people who look after the .ac.uk domain) .mod.uk - restricted to Ministry of Defence. .gov.uk - restricted to governmental organisations. .plc.uk/.ltd.uk - restricted to PLCs/Limited companies respectively. Like .net.uk, the registration must match the name of the company registering the domain. .nic.uk - Nominet use only.

    then there's the oddities:-

    parliament.uk - Houses Of Parliament
    bl.uk - British Library
    jet.uk - European Fusion Development Agency

    Also:-

    govt.uk - Original governmental 2nd-level domain. Some domains still exist under this (www.meto.govt.uk is one example)

    orgn.uk - Original non-profit organisational domain.

    There also exists a .gb TLD, under which a few domains were registered, but is now deprecated.

  76. UKers: check your postage stamps by jfruhlinger · · Score: 1

    The UK is the only country in the world that, by dispensation of the international postal union, doesn't have to put its name on its postage stamps. This is because the UK was the first country to have postage stamps, so when they were introduced obviously there was no need to differentiate them from anyone else's.

    You can think of the US's disregard for the .us domain in the same way.

  77. So who owns scottish.parliament.uk? by 00_NOP · · Score: 1

    That's it.

  78. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

    Eire? I dont know of a country called Eire.

    The ie. domain does not make distinctions between the South and North.

    As for culture and NI not having anything in common with the South, that really depends on your perspective. There are lots of Northern Irish down here, many of whom'd be of the more orange persuasion, and they get on fine. but i'd still say they're closer in culture to the South than to those in England. (same applies to Scotland). There is one cultural aspect that Northern Ireland and Scotland share which the south does not, and which i'm glad of, and that is the secterian bigotry that sadly still infects the two.

    There's a reason that orange is one of the colours of the flag of the Republic: Irish independence was originally a middle-class protestant cause and many of the well-known names involved in gaining that independence were protestant. Orange for the Orangemen in the North, Green for the south and white for peace between them.

    And imo, the unionists in NI would ultimately be better off sitting in Dail Eireinn than in English Parliament. They'd have a lot more seats and influence for a start - ~25%. However, strange sentimentalities for a dutch prince who lived 400 years ago seem to have clouded their thinking.

    And btw, I have a protestant dutch father, and i've lived in scotland. :)

    1. 3.5 million people in the south, ~2.5M in the north. Presuming 60% of the NI population votes for some unionist party, then 1.5M/6M = 25%. Lot better than the measly representation NI has in English parliament. (course, on occassion the unionists will hold balance of power and the "orange card" will be played).

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  79. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by nagora · · Score: 1

    Eire? I dont know of a country called Eire.

    Well, according to article 4 of its constitution, it's the official name of the country where you live in its native language. Now you know!

    The ie. domain does not make distinctions between the South and North.

    That's a matter of opinion...

    There are lots of Northern Irish down here, many of whom'd be of the more orange persuasion, and they get on fine.

    Having different cultures does not have to mean not getting on.

    Irish independence was originally a middle-class protestant cause and many of the well-known names involved in gaining that independence were protestant.

    I think you're confusing "independance" and "wanting to be able to bully anyone they like with no fear of public opinion". Rather like today's "Loyalists": their cause was one of convienience in which only a few intellectuals had any genuine interest. Most people, then and now, would prefer them all to piss off and leave them to earning enough cash to retire on.

    They'd have a lot more seats and influence for a start - ~25%.

    Yes, and zero influence on the EU, just like the people in Northern Ireland. Big deal! Ireland votes the "wrong way"? Have another vote. Keep on having votes until they give in and vote the "right way". Still, as long as the hand-outs keep coming who gives a toss about independance now, eh?

    And btw, I have a protestant dutch father, and i've lived in scotland. :)

    I have a mildly protestant Northern Irish family, I'm an athest and my girlfriend's family is Catholic and we live (at the moment) in Surrey although we would move to NI if the government ever decided to lock the criminals up (again) and stop pretending that crack sellers are politically motivated.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  80. [OT] a check on "most common" by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    That's not going to stop people from saying it the way it is most commonly known, as "nine tenths".

    I ran a quick googlefight between "possession is nine points" and "possession is nine tenths", and the former was the overwhelming winner (by an order of magnitude). So, it seems you're wrong -- while "nine tenths" is common, it isn't even close to being most common.

    1. Re:[OT] a check on "most common" by _fuzz_ · · Score: 1

      I forgot google was the source of all knowledge. Since one set of words returns more google hits than another, the former must be more common in everyday speech. Whatever.

      --
      47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
  81. You can't have it both ways... by Akardam · · Score: 1

    Members of the Government are usually either members of the House of Commons or House of Lords.

    Parliment's not part of the government? I'm confused. I always thought it was.

    1. Re:You can't have it both ways... by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      Nope, Parliament is not part of the government. The government is made up of all central government (run by government ministers) and local government (run by local authorities.)
      Read the FAQs I put a link to in my previous post.

    2. Re:You can't have it both ways... by meme_police · · Score: 1
      Ahh, I did look at the FAQ:

      "It (it being Parliament) consists of three constituent parts:

      * House of Commons

      * House of Lords

      * Crown"

      "Members of the Government are usually either members of the House of Commons or House of Lords."

      Kind of confusing, innit? Both Houses being included in both entities.

      --

      The meme police, They live inside of my head

    3. Re:You can't have it both ways... by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      Only confusing if you're a retarded gimp. I can't put all of this is words of less that five letters for you, but I'll try (aint I kind? ;-) )
      Most of the people who are members of the government are also members of one of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. A lot of the members of those Houses are not members of the government.
      Now, why don't you arrest yourself for picking up the "stupid slashdotter" meme?

    4. Re:You can't have it both ways... by meme_police · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, sounds a little inbred to me. A subset of the House of Commons and House of Lords sure is quite different than the independent Government which you seemed to be implying.

      The only person who should be arrested is you for your misuse of the word meme.

      --

      The meme police, They live inside of my head

  82. James Brown Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
    "I think our culture sucks nuts, but that doesn't mean our country does. By your reasoning, if I think the traffic light by my house takes way too long to change, I should just get the fuck out of the country."
    You call this debate? You're a fucking idiot and at no point did you even come close to replying to my point. You'll notice that I posted another reply in the thread (in response to someone with half a brain, unlike your quarter) which I threw a bit more thought at before posting. When I respond to you, I think to myself "Well, this fucking moron doesn't even read what I write. He's got a European dick up his ass and he loves it so anything he reads has got a slant to it based on all the filthy European semen that's leaked into his brain. Thus, I won't waste too much time on this asshat."

    I can tell that you're the typical liberal who loves to criticize American culture. You grew up in the suburbs. You don't have any black friends but you think (and use the word) "urban culture" is great. You think that like is perfect in Britain and France. So, what I have to say to you is 'get the fuck out.' You enjoy another culture, which is basically how you experience life, more so go live within that one. I'm not talking about the government of any country. I'm merely saying that if you like the culture of another country so much better, go live in that one.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  83. Because it isn't .UK anymore. by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

    The proper URL is now www.parliament.airstrip1

    --

    help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  84. calm down there, little buddy by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1

    I hope you don't ask mommy for milk money with that mouth, son.

    Since you figure you've got me all worked out, let's see what I know about you.

    You're a whiny little bitch, probably sitting there soiling yourself in idignance as you read this, brain feebly trying to come up with a response that doesn't instantly turn into a string of profanity. You can't argue worth a damn, you can only insult. Even when you throw "a bit more thought" at it, it's plainly obvious you read and write at a sixth grade level.

    You're probably going to sit there and fume for a while, then churn out some idiotic response to this like the little monkey you are. You're easier to play than a god damned Nintendo. When someone riles you, you have no recourse but to respond with childish insults. It's truly pathetic.

    Thank you for your time, and have a pleasant evening.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  85. Funniest TLDs by thedji · · Score: 1

    Thinking of starting a company in the Cook Islands?

    Well hurry and get your .co.ck domain now!


    Nobody ever believes me when I tell them they can register mybigfat.co.ck. Albeit, it is US$150 to set up and US$150 for two years (for non-NZ residents).

    I own a Djiboutian (sp?) domain, wicked.dj, and a Christmas Island domain, suc.cx, but i'd like to get an Icelandic one, *.is. The redirection possibilities are endles... this.is/cool this.is/shit you.are.what.you.is slashdot.is/silly etcetc :)

    --
    ... and then there were none
  86. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

    Well, according to article 4 of its constitution, it's the official name of the country where you live in its native language. Now you know!

    So it is and all. I always thought Eire was the name the english mistakingly used instead of Eireann, which i thought was the correct name in irish. Hmm.. (i was exempt from irish in school).

    That's a matter of opinion...

    It isnt, the IEDR dont. Applications are as welcome fron NI as from the south. The general criteria for a ie. domain apply to all 32 counties. (Those criteria may be rubbish, and the IEDR may have a tendency to change its rules /after/ people ask why it isnt following its own rules, but still.. :) )

    Having different cultures does not have to mean not getting on.

    Well, i meant that even those in the north who would consider themselves more english than irish get on fine down south. And in general i feel the scots, northern irish and irish have more in common with each other culturally than they do with the english. Finally, you seem to forget that a significant part of the population of Northern Ireland are "Taigs" and /would/ consider themselves culturally closer to the South than to the english. Further, going by trends in the NI census figures, the "Taigs" look like they may one day be in the majority. (They tend to have more kids than the other half of the NI population). One reason why the Unionists were a bit anxious about the self-determination clause in the Good Friday agreement.

    I think you're confusing "independance" and "wanting to be able to bully anyone they like with no fear of public opinion". Rather like today's "Loyalists": their cause was one of convienience in which only a few intellectuals had any genuine interest. Most people, then and now, would prefer them all to piss off and leave them to earning enough cash to retire on.

    I was talking more of the likes of Erskine Childers, the first president of the Free State, Sir Roger Casement, yer man who married Kitty O'Shea and many many other men who were involved in the long struggle for indepedence but whose names i cant remember (was O'Connell protestant? probably not, but OTOH he was rich and in his times it was nearly impossible to be rich and catholic).

    Your view on the modern paramilitaries i'd agree on. They're a curse.

    Yes, and zero influence on the EU, just like the people in Northern Ireland. Big deal! Ireland votes the "wrong way"? Have another vote. Keep on having votes until they give in and vote the "right way". Still, as long as the hand-outs keep coming who gives a toss about independance now, eh?

    Well, the president of the European Parliament is an Irish man (like yourself :) ). But who has influence in the EU anyway? That's a general problem with the EU at the moment, very little accountability and even lower perception of the accountability there is. The Nice referendum, well because of the initial "No" we were able to get some concessions, chiefly on neutrality. Once that contentious issue was dealt with the second vote was much more likely to be "yes". Handouts: yes, we took them, but Ireland was very under developed. I'll note that we will soon become net contributors to the EU soon if you exclude CAP (which benefits the big 2 quite a lot too). As for independence, we're still a sovereign state, however we /agreed/ to enter the EU and to the processes, overseeing institutions and international law that go with it, just as has the UK i'll note.

    Anyway, on the national level, 25% of Dail Eireann beats 2% of English parliament anytime. And the unionists'd be welcomed the same as any other to it. Didnt Pat Kenny have Ian Paisley on his Friday night talk show on RTE1 once upon a time? :) (his son has been on TV talk shows down here too). Personally, i rate the leader of the PUP (the guy with the moustache) very very highly.

    stop pretending that crack sellers are politically motivated.

    Actually, one of the best arguments i've heard for the 6 counties / Northern Ireland ceding from the UK and joining "Ireland" was that immediately all reasons for republican paramilitarism would cease, and presumably loyalist too, if they wanted this. This argument actually came from a sitting Unionist MP, who was promptly kicked out of his party :)

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  87. Re:.co.uk - GB not UK by nagora · · Score: 1
    Applications are as welcome fron NI as from the south.

    My own domain is in .cx (Christmas Island); it is pushing it to say that .cx "applies" to people from NI even though they can buy such domains.

    Well, i meant that even those in the north who would consider themselves more english than irish get on fine down south

    Such people are vanishingly rare in NI; it is a common belief amoungst Southern Irish and even Northern Catholics that non-Catholic Northerners think of themselves as more English than Irish. In fact, Ireland's Rugby team (for example) will be cheered on in any pub especially when playing England. England is regarded very poorly for obvious reasons. I have never met anyone in NI of any background (other than born in England) that would not be insulted by your idea that they would regard themselves as more English than Irish. But I have met plenty that are more British than Irish.

    I was talking more of the likes of Erskine Childers, the first president of the Free State, Sir Roger Casement, yer man who married Kitty O'Shea and many many other men who were involved in the long struggle for indepedence

    That's the people I meant too: politicians and other low-lifes that want the high-life.

    Well, the president of the European Parliament is an Irish man (like yourself :) ).

    I'm no more Irish than a Canadian is American and I don't see why that's a problem.

    But who has influence in the EU anyway? That's a general problem with the EU at the moment, very little accountability and even lower perception of the accountability there is.

    Certainly, I didn't mean that it was a particular issue for Ireland. The EU is a fundimentally undemocratic organisation for all its "citizens".

    we were able to get some concessions, chiefly on neutrality.

    Ah, Irish neutrality. I often wonder about a country that's still proud that it refused to stand up to the Nazis. I can't imagine why anyone would even want to talk about such a disgraceful act against humanity let alone try to ensure that it could happen again.

    we / agreed/ to enter the EU and to the processes, overseeing institutions and international law that go with it, just as has the UK i'll note.

    I think that once you are contributing instead of receiving it will start to dawn just how poor a bargain it is, just as the UK is.

    we're still a sovereign state,

    For sufficently small values of "sovereign".

    Personally, i rate the leader of the PUP (the guy with the moustache) very very highly.

    You must know very little about him, then; I would be more than happy to see him behind bars. Unfortunately, he's always been very careful. Internment was invented for people like him.

    Actually, one of the best arguments i've heard for the 6 counties / Northern Ireland ceding from the UK and joining "Ireland" was that immediately all reasons for republican paramilitarism would cease, and presumably loyalist too, if they wanted this.

    This is not true. The Ireland that republican "true-believers" want to join no longer exists (ie a truly Catholic country) and the vast majority of the ones causing the trouble are no longer interested in the issue of a united Ireland. They're making their money from drugs, protection rackets and prostitution. What relevance has a united Ireland to them? They same applies to the loyalist gangs.

    This is a problem that can never be solved by politics. Historically, the only thing that has lessened the troubles over the 3-4000 years that they've been going has been low unemployment: idle hands and all that. Poverty breeds discontent and discontent make people easy to manipulate into joining "the cause". If there was zero unemployment in NI the troubles would just end. Until the next economic downturn.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  88. Contempt of Parliament by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

    Contempt of Parliament

    Any action taken by either a Member of Parliament or a stranger which obstructs or impedes either Parliament in the performance of its functions, or its Members or staff in the performance of their duties, is a contempt of Parliament.

    The Commons has the power to order anyone who has committed a contempt of Parliament to appear at the Bar of the House and to punish the offender.

    If the offence has been committed by an MP he or she may be suspended or expelled.

    1. Re:Contempt of Parliament by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      There you go - they don't even have to write a new law about this - they already have one.

  89. Latrell Sprewell Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
    You cite my journal and call it "whiny." Please check my journal again son. There's no whining there - just good science. Now, on with the flame. (For the record, I troll for fun. You seem to be taking this much more seriously than I.)

    If there's one thing you know a lot about - it is tools. I mean, doing a quick calculation, it appears that in your short lifetime you've already sucked 25,000 different dicks. That's a lot of dick. Now, let us assume that each dick was sucked a minimum of 10 times. Obviously this is a low estimate since we both know that you've sucked your dad off at least 1,000 times. But anyway, this means you've given 250,000 blow jobs. Now then this article points out that each ejaculation averages to be about 1 tablespoon of semen and semenal fluid. 1 tablespoon is equal to 15 mL according to this article. So if you've had 250,000 tablespoons of semen shot into you, you've consumed 3,750,000 mL of semen. Furthermore we know that 1 quart equals 946.36 mL from this webpage. Therefore, you have had 3,962 quarts of semen. Ultimately, this means that you've ingested 990 gallons of semen. Consider this, an in-ground pool with dimensions of five feet by seven feet and a shallow depth of one foot and a deep depth of seven feet holds roughly 1,050 gallons (source). You've drank an entire swimming pool of semen.

    Ultimately, you're a homosexual and therefore will soon have AIDS.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  90. ya fuckin poofta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck my hairy manchode, ya poof.

  91. Tom Clancy Is My Cousin by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 1
    Ah, I guess I won.

    You're soft and I'm better at this [and everything else that entails being a straight male] than you. Go back to Europe and be a fag.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.