hartpuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> they are known for being violent ones

Which imperialist was the non-violent one then?

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

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

> And "the commonwealth", oh my!

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

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

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

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

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

Funny that.

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

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

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

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

> But let's not be mistaken about its origins.

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

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

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

How about because they paid for 200x .coms?

BTW, for you and some others here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> free up so many more useful domains for use.

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

>I'd love to hear good arguments against this

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

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