Hongkong was taken away from China with cannons and drugs.
Handing it back was the right thing to do legally (for the new territories), morally, and historically.
It's sad to see people effectively praising European imperialism in 2019, reminds me of the old "civilising the natives" antics.
Edit since I'm being prevented from relying to comments:
There is no regression. Those protesters were charged under a colonial-era law.
Hongkong did not even have the Legislative Council under the British, which was created it as a 'gift' to the Chinese.
From the popular vote, it seems to me that the "pro-Beijing" camp has a majority, so that's what "the people want"...
Let's be realistic and put things in perspective, shall we.
Edit 2:
To the person who replied:
> Meanwhile, during those 100 years, a new, distinct, non Chinese culture developed. Hong Kong people speak a different language than mainland, have different food, culture references and desires.
HK's culture is as Chinese as can be. In fact it is more traditional Chinese than the mainland. They speak Chinese
(Cantonese is 'Chinese', it's the language spoken in Guangdong province hence why it is spoken in HK, 'Canton' is how Guangzhou used to be called...), they eat Chinese.
It would be good to know a minimum about a topic before commenting.
That's an actual average of 685 kW, so 4,700 turbines for Hinkley Point. But that's still the _average_ production. If, or rather when, there's no wind during a high demand period you get a nice blackout.
Also:
> So a 2-megawatt wind turbine would require a total area of about half a square kilometer
> It does because it is a relatively industrialized country.
No, it does because its electricity comes from fossil fuels.
You are completely avoiding the point of my comment. Germany could have much, much lower emissions with nuclear but it has decided to continue emitting for political reasons, while trying to claim that they are 'green'...
Calculate how many wind generators you need to guarantee the same production as Hinkley point and you'll see that it is not really realistic.
Then, take into account the goal of making of vehicles electric in the next 20 years.
There is no viable alternative to nuclear as of today even if renewables should of course be pushed as much as possible.
Germany is emitting heavily because most of its electricity comes from fossil fuel and it decided to kill nuclear power of purely ideological reasons.
(wood fired plants are counted as renewables in the EU, by the way)
The absolute priority should be to get rid of emissions, i.e. fossil fuels. Germany decided to get rid of nuclear energy first.
"Unlimited vacation" is just a gimmick that originated in the US.
Since there are no legal right to anything over there they can advertise "unlimited vacation" but the reality can be quite different because (1) approval is obviously still required, and (2) there is obviously a pressure not to be seem as being a slacker.
In Europe you have 20-25 days mandated by law and people do use them because companies tend to force them for fear of getting into trouble for flaunting employment law.
The author (what's his authority, by the way?) agrees, though:
> Well, it can't sell "copyright licenses," as that is a misrepresentation over the rights that Getty Images has -- but if it wants to try to get people to pay for stuff that is otherwise available for free, that's Getty's prerogative.
His point is that he does not think that Getty was selling licences. However Getty's past behaviour (and I'm sure their own website since I'm sure that the T&C and the licence are attached to any sale) suggests that this is exactly what they were doing:
> The first one was brought by photographer Carol Highsmith, who sued Getty after Getty had sent a demand letter to her over her own images, which she had donated to the Library of Congress to be put into the public domain.
And yes, knowingly selling licences for rights you do not have is against the law. If you think it's not then I'm happy to sell you a licence to fish in the River Dee...
The allegation is that they licensed public domain images, which is something obviously unlawful (and likely criminal if done knowingly) since they do not own the rights of a public domain image by definition.
If it is indeed work to find and catalogue those images then they are allowed to charge for access to that catalogue. But a public domain image cannot be licensed.
I'm gobsmacked that you do not know what the holocaust was, then.
China is not trying (and never has) to physically and systematically eradicate an entire ethnicity, nor are they trying to drive them out through ethnic cleansing. In fact under the 'one child policy' ethnic minorities have the right to have more children than ethnic Han.
I urge people to really learn history and to make appropriate comparisons.
Upholding copyrights in court seems the basis of the rule of Law, and quite far from the situation in China and Russia.
Living in a 'free' country' does not mean being able to flaunt the law, especially in this case what those sites do is hardly defensible.
> the French court ruled that the two sites “clearly claim to be pirate platforms rejecting the principle of copyright and bypassing publishers’ subscription access portals.
This is a ridiculous comparison. China is not expanding and does not systematically imprison minorities (and as you know the holocaust is in another league altogether).
The point of my previous comment is also to avoid such comparisons that are unhelpful, to say the least. Don't overuse those terms (holocaust, nazi, etc)
China is a vast place and has a multitude of local flavours and dishes.
This does not mean that HK isn't Chinese.