So Britain "screwed" India (how anyone in their right mind can argue that partition of India was worse than inevitable and catastrophic civil war is beyond me) and yet somehow, despite Britain, India managed to establish democracy (coincidentally the same model as Britain's), a legal system (coincidentally the same model as Britain's), infrastructure (British made roads, railways and bridges), universities, the banning of barbaric Indian practices like suttee and female infanticide, the suppression of thugs, the establishment of major important cities like Bombay (Mumbai) and Calcutta (Kolkata)... I could really go on too.
But seriously Indians have the temerity to think all that happened despite Britain, and not because of Britain?
And presumably when other British colonies developed similar infrastructure, stability, prosperity through trade, rule of law and/or democratic principles, it was also just mere coincidence; while most/all colonies of other European countries and the USA notably ended up as virtual failed states and/or dictatorships.
> 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).
> 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.
> I am unaware of anyone in any of the EU countries who support the death penalty nor capital punishment. It is overwhelmingly frowned upon.
No it isn't. (And I post as someone who is against it, BTW.) In every right-wing party in the EU (and the world) there are almost certain to be elected representatives who support the death penalty.
> Polls (until recently?) Which polls? I'm honestly curious.
Obviously not curious enough to make a simple Google search. Here's a BBC item from last year showing support for the death penalty in the UK dropping below 50% for the first time:
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.
I think the same way about droll as I do begs the question.[1]
I don't see the point of insisting the original/archaic meaning of a word is 'correct' if, in the English-speaking world we live in today, essentially nobody uses it or understands it in that sense.
[1] I certainly do not think the same about nonplussed, however. I've never heard that word being used for unimpressed before, but it appears to be simply an Americanism; one I hope never catches on elsewhere.
Hopefully the parent of your post was joking - the site he linked to is a "joke" site - but either way, it's misleading and unhelpful (particularly to non-English speakers) to pretend that "begs the question" was used incorrectly there by tehabe. It wasn't.
> 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.
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.
Someone trots out Hitler analogy #879274032890, and it's the poster who at least turns it into a laugh who gets downvoted?
Edit: And this post downvoted within seconds. What a fucking joke this place is thanks to assholes abusing their karma. (If I'm going to be downvoted, it may as well be for something real.)
> the majority of the rest are trying to provide useful services to improve their users lives
And if the ads or results on subjects you're interested in just happen to take a line against what you personally believe on the subject, and instead happen to tout an agenda that benefits the (right-wing/capitalist/US-centric) corporate or political interests of Google and FB and the like, is it still just about improving your life?
Same reason mine was. Tedious and predictable Ali fanboys.
It's really nice that he finally got around to expressing some kind of weak regret decades after the event - as if the only reason he didn't apologise at the time was Malcolm got himself killed just before he could do so ("he was killed before I got the chance").
The reality is Ali spent a decade after Malcolm's death fully endorsing and promoting the very organisation that murdered him (after they'd found their replacement mouthpiece, from a sport they had zero respect for, and prior to Ali had zero time for).
But seriously Indians have the temerity to think all that happened despite Britain, and not because of Britain?
And presumably when other British colonies developed similar infrastructure, stability, prosperity through trade, rule of law and/or democratic principles, it was also just mere coincidence; while most/all colonies of other European countries and the USA notably ended up as virtual failed states and/or dictatorships.
Yeah, what have the British ever done for us?