For me .su is a kind of historical curiousity. Not sure if I like it or not, or if it should be phased out, but there are a bunch of Soviet Union related sites in there too and sometimes these are pretty amusing (how about a site of the CPSU?)
В связи с геополитическими изменениями домен pos.su изменяется на pos.ru.
Which roughly sounds like "because of the geopolitical changes the domain pos.su will become pos.ru". The joke is that pos.su and pos.ru in Russian sound like "will pee" and "will poo" respecitively.
Huh, well that's my new thing I've learned today. I only ever heard it in conjunction with curry-type things (katsu chicken, which was always served with curry, for instance).
It's derived from French "côtelette", literally "little rib". It's etymologically related to "coast", actually. It being spelled "cutlet" is probably the result of a phonetic spelling of "côtelette" in English being reanalyzed as "cut-let", though, since "a cut of meat" is itself a thing.
It originally referred to the same thing "chop" does today, a slice of meat perpendicular to the spine, containing a single rib. Then it started referring specifically to a boneless chop. Then it started being used to refer to any thin slice of meat. And in a lot of the world it was introduced specifically as a breaded and fried thin slice of meat. And that's how we got katsu, the Japanese version of schnitzel.
Reminds me of my 9th grade teacher who was refusing to call it USSR like everyone else and was insisting on saying "usre" (pronounced like a word).
To this day still wondering if it was militant, or if she just read that on a map and thought it was a word.
Correct. Fun fact: For many years after the rest of Melbourne University moved to unimelb.edu.au the computer science department kept the domain cs.mu.oz as a nod to that history (and that they were one of the first institutions in the world to be part of the fledgling internet). I was a little sad to see that quirky disappear.
Removing .su != burning books. I will tell you opposite: we should write in history books the truth about what in realty USSR was and teach children with it so tragedies like USSR never happen again.
He is not saying that "removing .su == burning books", even though both actions lead to permanent destruction of something, I suppose.
> I hope we will NOT keep it. It reminds me how my country was occupied and annexed by Soviet Union.
Replace "it" with "history books". You hope that we will not "keep" anything that: "reminds you how your country was occupied and annexed by Soviet Union". By this reasoning alone we should not keep a lot of things (including history books) because a lot of things may remind people of something horrible. If you ask me, this is not a good basis of or justification for not keeping that something, which could be ".su", or "history books", or anything else.
In which case it essentially boils down to: X reminds me of something bad, but I am personally OK with keeping it around. Y reminds me of something bad, too, but I am personally not OK with keeping it. All you did was being selective about it, but the underlying reason is essentially the same, you just apply it selectively based on your own values without considering anyone else's.
Although, this does not seem to meet the seemingly only criterion: "reminds me how my country was occupied and annexed by Soviet Union". History books do that, but you do not seem to want to NOT keep them. So perhaps this is not the only criterion, there is something else. What is it? Could it be subjective value? If so, I still think that it is not a good reason to get rid of something because you have not found it valuable AND reminds you of something horrible.
I am not asking to remove based on that I personally dislike it. This is just my personal feelings and position.
But USSR does not exists and there is no reason to keep it. Using it is a kind of propaganda. Its place is in history books and not in the modern internet.
> I am not asking to remove based on that I personally dislike it.
> I hope we will NOT keep it. It reminds me how my country was occupied and annexed by Soviet Union.
It seems contradictory to me. According to the dictionary, "hope" = "to want something to happen or be true". Asking for something is "to want something to happen" as well. Is this incorrect?
I am not asking to remove based on that I personally dislike it. I am asking to remove it based on:
>But USSR does not exists and there is no reason to keep it. Using it is a kind of propaganda. Its place is in history books and not in the modern internet.
> I hope we will NOT keep it. It reminds me how my country was occupied and annexed by Soviet Union.
You mentioned nothing of the sort that you are NOW mentioning as a reason. I am glad that you are not asking for or wanting its removal because it reminds you of bad things. Perhaps it was an innocent omission, or you changed your mind. Either way, glad we could get to the bottom of it.
---
That being said, I disagree with its removal.
---
> But USSR does not exists and there is no reason to keep it. Using it is a kind of propaganda. Its place is in history books and not in the modern internet.
>> USSR does not exist
Why is its existence a prerequisite for having a TLD for it? It does not necessarily have to exist in the present (or at all).
>> There is no reason to keep it
There are many reasons. One of them could be not taking people's domains away from them.
>> Using it is a kind of propaganda
Not necessarily. One might just use it for fun, for example: sudo.su.
Plus, all TLDs could be used for "propaganda".
>> Its place is in history books and not in the modern internet.
Such domains could point to valuable resources, they might be an online equivalent of a history book, for all we know. Why should information regarding USSR not be on the Internet, under this TLD? Seems like a good fit.
.su is for country USSR. That country does not exists any more. And that country have done many bad things to humankind. There are no reason to use it as like USSR exist now too. USSR is a history and lets keep it in the history.
I agree with you about the horrors of the Soviet Union, but if you want people to know what happened, why remove a bunch of highly accessible primary sources?
>why remove a bunch of highly accessible primary sources
I agree with you that we should not remove "a bunch of highly accessible primary sources" .su is not that kind of source. .su "was assigned as the country code top-level domain" and that country does not exists. It is not like picture, book or building. Why should we use it now?
My usual response to this is "keep it, but turn it into / put it in a museum". However, that seems impractical here. .su can't go in a museum any more than pi can go in a museum.
It could be a museum, but it would by nature be the only one of its kind on this topic -- so, who would get to decide what goes in the museum? The history there is too recent and too global to really find an impartial administrator anywhere.
That is not the point. There are a lot of things in the world that may remind someone of something bad. Take a look at history books. Should we not keep them either because they remind people of bad things? Of course we could use a zillion other things besides "history books" or ".su", the point is the reason behind not keeping or removing them.
"History books" have value in aggregating and presenting information with historical context. TLDs are artifacts without context. A history book that covered the 20th century and blandly mentioned that the Soviet Union was a collection of communist states, without mentioning any other events or context, would be similarly irrelevant, and should be relegated to the trash heap. Same with the .su TLD. We should definitely keep the historical records that it existed, but there is no reason to continue its actual existence at this point.
Those domains have value, too, to the owners, for one, and perhaps to its visitors.
> there is no reason to continue its actual existence at this point.
I might as well just reply: there is no reason to not continue. Why should we take away people's domains just because you think there is no reason to continue its actual existence? Put yourself in other people's shoes, please. Imagine if someone used this reasoning to get rid of or take away whatever you are fond of.
Perhaps these domains have no value to you, which is fine, but we should not get rid of anything just because they have no value to you.
Demonstrating symbol of ex "country" in which there was dictatorship, occupation, annexation and genocide is act of glorification/act of paying respect of/to that "country" and its behavior.
By that logic, we should certainly get rid of .uk and .us. Even the extremely biased accounts of the USSR that you seem to believe don’t match the continuing brutality of Anglo imperialism.
Ukrainians were not the only ones to suffer from the famines back then. Multiple parts of the USSR actually did. It doesn't seem like a targeted action on behalf of the govt.
I am from Georgia, not Ukraine. First of all they are Nationalists, not Nazists. I am not supporting nationalist too but anyway that is very different terms even if they can sound similarly. Second I am pretty sure you can find hundreds of real nazist in any country. But even if we suppose that people on video are nazist making inference about country based on minority is very big mistake.
That was in 2011. Since that time Putin has been cracking down on Russian nationalists - some got jailed for real crimes they committed, the number of participants in so called "Russian Marches" went down from 10000 to less than 500, number of hate crimes has been similarly reduced.
For Soviet-nostalgia buffs looking for a domain, although most obvious choices like CCCP, KGB, Lenin, Stalin and even Gorbachev and perestroika are registered under .su, GLASNOST.SU is available.
AFAIK IDNs are still possible under .su, but may depend on the registrar (non-Russian resellers may not do it).
If you mean what Russian words are available under .su, probably most, for example Ленин (Lenin) and Кремль (Kremlin), though КГБ (KGB), СССР (USSR), Россия (Russia) are registered, as are single letters like А or Х that people may like for a 'short' url.
Although the USSR collapsed not long after the creation of .su, it was briefly in 'proper' use on the internet - unlike, say, .dd, intended for East Germany - most notably via the ISP Demos, which famously used the name kremvax.demos.su as the name of its Usenet site, in reference to an early internet hoax/April Fool's from 1984 (https://godfatherof.nl/kremvax.html).
If Scotland leaves, I imagine we'll switch from "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" to "The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland", thus keeping the "uk". ".scot" already exists.
If Northern Ireland leaves, I guess the UK no longer exists, and we switch to ".gb". Could clone .uk at .gb for a while (ten years?) and give people time to switch, but seems more likely Nominet would prefer to just charge people twice for a .uk and a .gb.
If Scotland and Northern Ireland leaves, that leaves us as just "Britain". Maybe we create a new ".brit" (or whever the 2 char country code will be), and give time for .uk to disappear again.
Wales wont leave.
[edit] I just saw emmelaich's comment that .gb already exists.
The three kingdoms which are united are the Kingdom of England, Scotland and Ireland, the first two by the Acts of Union 1707 [1], and Ireland added by the Acts of Union 1800 [2].
Wales is part of the Kingdom of England, under the "Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542" [3].
Without Scotland, it becomes the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland, leaving the Kingdom of Scotland. Scotland would be assigned an ISO 3166 code. SC, SO, ST, SL, SA, SN and SD are all taken. Perhaps they can have "AB" for "Alba". The "GB" code would be unassigned.
Without Ireland, it becomes the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Northern Ireland presumably joins the Republic of Ireland in this case.
Without both, it becomes the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, etc. England would then need an ISO code, "EN" is available.
According to wikipedia [0] and UK government sources [1] there are 4 countries in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: England, Scotland, Wales (together forming Great Britain) and Northern Ireland. If Scotland and Northern Ireland left the UK, it is conceivable therefore that the United Kingdom would continue to exist but as the United Kingdom of England and Wales.
The constitutional position of Wales has significantly changed with the three devolution acts introduced in the last 20 years. The Wales Act 2017 in particular made the assembly/parliament permanent and Welsh law as a separate body; that means Wales is effectively its own country in the UK, on par with the other three.
The 1707 Union created the Kingdom of Great Britain. 1801 created United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 gave us the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So if Scotland leaves, the Kingdom of Great Britain ceases to exist. "Britain" ceases to exists as a political/national state. IMHO any reconfigured UK after that is an absurdity.
Are you implying that European Union shouldn't be called that because it does not include all of Europe's countries?
I assume no, so perhaps it's ok for a Kingdom of Great Britain not to include all of it :)
FWIW, Serbia almost kept with the Yugoslavia for as long as it had someone to unite with. It did turn into Serbia and Montenegro in 2003, before ultimately splitting in 2006.
It even got a first case of ISO country code reuse with CS (hi Czechoslovakia), but I don't think there was ever a TLD .cs for it.
Meh, it will become "the United Kingdom of England and Overseas Territories" or something to that effect. UK is a brand and a symbol that Westminster will never abandon. Serbia, for example, tried really hard to remain "Yugoslavia", and if it weren't for the tensions it generates, that name would still be around.
Check your passport, it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
"The medieval conquest and subsequent annexation of Wales by the Kingdom of England, followed by the union between England and Scotland in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the union in 1801 of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
"Should the UK leave the EU with no deal on 1st November 2019, EURid will enforce the following measures as far as .eu domain names that have GB/GI as the registrant’s residence country code are concerned..."
Depends on the identity goin forward. If England+Wales stick to the name for some reason they will continue using it, and Scots and NI get new ones. (Well, later not if they merge with Republic of Ireland) If they form a new country and rename to "England" (poor Welsh) or "South Britain" they likely will be legal successor of treaties and stuff (like Russia being legal successor of USSR) and can use .UK for the time being.
One effect can be seen on .eu: After Brexit UK entities aren't eligible for .eu domains anymore and depending on the outcome on Oct 31st might lose it immediately (while there are statements for a grace period even on Brexit without further agreement ... but no deal leads to no legal requirement)
No. The official TLD – i.e. “Top Level Domain”, is .uk. It differs from the normal ISO 3166 two-character country code, GB, even though most other countries have an identical TLD and ISO two-character code. The TLD .gb is merely reserved to deter shenanigans.
.uk is also the UK's though. The country code is explicitly reserved by the UK, and it exists in DNS because they grandfathered in some old system's domains.
If you'd asked people in 2015 which country, UK or Ukraine, they expected to last the longest, I guess most people would have said UK. I wonder what the answer would be now :/
It wouldn't be any great upheaval. The component kingdoms of the UK would still be separately sovereign realms of the Commonwealth with the same monarch and royal succession. I imagine the process is now well established, as the Commonwealth has more than 50 countries in it, with 16 of them still constitutional monarchies.
.uk would probably remain just as grandfathered-in as it is right now, given that the official 2-letter country code is gb .
.scot seems to be the main Scottish TLD (e.g. gov.scot) and Wales has .cymru and .wales. Don't think there are ones for England and NI though - maybe .ruk would do?
Unlikely Brexit ever happens. There's too much at stake here, globalists would never let it happen. If UK detaches from the EU and it becomes successful, the EU project is over.
Isn't a contradiction that "globalists" are the bad guys in your story and at the same time UK wants to keep the benefits of being part of EU market ?
What I see happening is that in some countries the EU become the scapegoat for the government corruption and incompetence, usually you could use the other party that was before to blame them but if your party was in power for more then 8 years then is harder to find scapegoats.
There's big forces at play that do want it to happen though; financial, in that there's a lot of people that want UK businesses and real estate to drop in value so they can buy it up for cheap, and political, political forces who have an interest in destabilizing Europe (and the world).
> If UK detaches from the EU and it becomes successful, the EU project is over.
I think that's a big _if_ here. Most probably the economy will crumble and there will be fights in Northern Ireland again. Also whatever kind of border has to be established, to separate UK and Ireland, as people would obviously not be allowed to enter the UK/Schengen area without proper border checks...
Back in the late 90's and early 2000's, there were a set of hacking challenges called the Zebulun Challenges hosted by the site CyberArmy. For the 7th or 8th challenge (Lt. Kernel to Kernel), you had to find a proxy or have an rDNS for your IP that resolved to a .su domain in order to proceed into the simulated system you were trying to hack into.
In the late 90's with dial-up connections, most ISPs would not do this, hence the search for .su proxies. Today, it is much easier when you can spin up a VM in the cloud and control DNS entries.
.gov is restricted to US government, but consider the immense sprawl that is the US federal government, and then consider that US state and US local governments are allowed in the club too, and it doesn't look so exclusive any more
.mil is restricted to the US military, but that is a gargantuan entity with countless agencies and bases and divisions and whatnot all of whom seem to want to have publicly accessible websites (even for stuff that is obviously only useful for people actually in the US military), and .mil turns out to be a dime a dozen too
.int – under current rules, you need to be an international organization established by international treaty, or else you need observer status with the UN General Assembly. Numerically that is smaller than either of the above two categories. (It also has some random stuff that doesn't belong under current rules, like the YMCA – which wasn't established by treaty, and doesn't have UN General Assembly observer status – but those are grandfathered registrations.)
“AQ domain names are available to government organisations who are signatories to the Antarctic Treaty and to other registrants who have a
physical presence in Antarctica.“
.arpa is in use, but only as an internal detail for reverse name resolution (i.e. looking up the PTR record for 1.2.3.4 queries the server 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa)
Which also yields one of the more interesting backronyms of the internet, as .arpa today is understood to mean "Address and Routing Parameter Area" as opposed to the Advanced Research Projects Agency that was involved in the early internet (ARPANET).
I believe anyone can register the .xyz domains. They're typically on sale for $0.99 on GoDaddy for the first year, so there seems to be a lot of junk, volume registrations using it.
My bad, my main point is that likely the most restrictive would be one of the corporate/private TLDs that are for internal use mainly. .xyz was a bad example. Maybe better is .bananarepublic
There's literally hundreds of new gTLDs like this that only have the one required nic.tld on them and nothing else (because they haven't launched yet and might never). My team runs a couple dozen of these.
For comparison's sake, we should probably restrict ourselves to legacy gTLDs, ccTLDs, and open, launched new gTLDs.
.gb, the old UK ccTLD, which still exists, but isn't open for registrations. AFAIK there are no websites in it, but you can ping hermes.dra.hmg.gb and friends.
I tried to search goo.gle on their whois and it seems like they even support private registration! All the fields are filled with "REDACTED FOR PRIVACY". Unaccessible except by Google, yet private!
oh thanks. It was just some toy I made playing with golang and tries a few years back. It uses some linux word file as input, I just forget which. From memory, I think these are all the endpoints...
/startswith/xyz
/endswith/xyz
/contains/xyz
/anagrams/xyz - exact match anagrams
/canmake/xyz - all words that can be made with that combination of letters
Once upon a time I thought it would be funny to buy the .su domain for my site, and on April Fools, have a link to it and a script that output all my posts using the Cyrillic alphabet. I doubt I'll ever get around to it.
I don't think ICANN should retire a domain namespace just because a political entity that it used to represent no longer exists. Cool URIs don't change [1].
> Among the institutions still using this domain is the Russian pro-Vladimir Putin youth movement Nashi, as well as by the pro-Russian armed insurgency in Eastern Ukraine. Some organizations with roots in the former Soviet Union also still use this TLD.
> The domain has been reported to host many cybercrime activities due to the lax, outdated terms of use, and staying out of focus (2% usage comparing to the primary .ru zone).
You click the "submit" link at the top of the page. Then enter the URL you want to submit. It will then appear in the list you can see under the "new" link.
If people find it interesting, they can then upvote it by clicking the little up arrow beside the submitted link. If enough people do that, then it will end up on the front page. And that's all there is to it!
That was quite courteous way to perceive the question and respond. I can do one better:
The link is to a Wikipedia page with a long url. You can submit a title to mask the link. The op posted ".SU" and so .su isn't a link, it's just a title.
Also there's sudo.su :)
Source: am Russian.