The cathedral looks nice:
But wiki tells me this has a population smaller than even Colchester's. And Colchester itself is pretty much a glorified village, imo.
Impressive cathedral !
Will look real nice with a good dose of sunlight
UK politics - continuing into 2021
- Thread starter EnglishEdward
- Start date
- Status
Impressive cathedral !
Will look real nice with a good dose of sunlight
The cathedral looks nice:
But wiki tells me this has a smaller population even than Colchester. And Colchester itself is pretty much a glorified village, imo.
I think you're using a pretty strange definition of village, but what makes somewhere a city or town is whether it is a local centre, which the surrounding area relies on. Thats why places like Stranraer or Haddington with populations of around 10,000 are towns when Penarth with a population of 27,000 is just a suburb.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Ironically, given Kyrakos and Ed's bickering Norwich kind of reminds me of Athens. Walk through something historical and gorgeous, then turn a corner and find a massive road with an architectural monstrosity. Curates eggs of towns.
Edit - Who both make me want to find some old man who was a town planner in the 60's and "have words" with him.
Edit - Who both make me want to find some old man who was a town planner in the 60's and "have words" with him.
Last edited:
aelf
Ashen One
And you're doing your usual selective dragging out specific unnecessary parts of posts directed solely at specific posters you seem to have a personal grudge match with, that have little relation to the actual constructive discussion. All to stick up for a scenario where a woman is being called sexist. Good work
If you return the favour and call out the nonsense very explicitly, he tends to shut up, though. Very effective.
That's because Athens isn't a real city either, although in its case it is a collection of 100 villages.
I just mean that it is
a) small
b) doesn't feel like a metropolis
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
But when it comes to inbreeding they beat you. They gave us the doctors note "NFN", normal for Norfolk. Meaning the patient is fine, just weird/ inbred/ an idiot.
Athens just was reduced to a village for a 1000 years, then artificially got set up as a capital and city, in the early 19th century.
You should perhaps add that Thessalonika was throughout most of history after 0 AD the most important city (of the current Greek territory).
and that indeed when Athens became capital and became the home for the central national administration + the benefits from the growing tourism starting as well in the early 19th century as romantic ancient Greek culture capital (Lord Byron etc) that civilised high middle class people just had to visit... it was indeed then that Athens became big again.
EnglishEdward
Deity
By the way, I was born in London, not Norfolk.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
All the best people were, dear boy.
…
It's like the recent statements by the UK government to the effect that a) they'll reinforce the military presence in the Falklands and b) they consider Argentina a strategic partner.
Nor is Gloucestershire, but since when have liars and propagandists ever respected the truth?
EnglishEdward
Deity
I think it is time for you to post a Greek thread and post pictures of your home town there.
I am not Domen
When is GM not GM? When it is CRISPR and in the UK.
Also I am not sure how you can define "could have been produced by conventional breeding". Given enough time you can go from a bacteria to a human with conventional breeding.
In a consultation that ends on 17 March, the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is proposing that gene-editing technology should not be regulated in the same way as GM, if it yields a result that could have been produced by conventional breeding.
The government’s aim is both to boost such research, and to accelerate the commercialization of gene-edited food and agricultural products. It is also asking for broader guidance on whether and how DEFRA should reform existing regulations governing organisms produced using genetic technologies.
I am not really sure how I feel about this. I think the off target alteration rate of CRISPR is still poorly defined, though that is less of an impact in agriculture than medicine. Looking at these things rationally is probably a good thing, but I am not sure I trust the current lot to take a really holistic view of the effects of these technologies.The government’s aim is both to boost such research, and to accelerate the commercialization of gene-edited food and agricultural products. It is also asking for broader guidance on whether and how DEFRA should reform existing regulations governing organisms produced using genetic technologies.
Also I am not sure how you can define "could have been produced by conventional breeding". Given enough time you can go from a bacteria to a human with conventional breeding.
EnglishEdward
Deity
That is indeed good news, albeit nearly five years late!.
As @Hrothbern has posted in another thread:
so there is no reason to stick with the EU technologically backward thinking on improving crops.
The dramatic improvement in UK crop yields that took place 1945 to 1975 ended shortly after
the UK joined the EEC; and I look forward to its resumption using more modern methods.
However my view is that the best way to move forwards to feeding growing populations and
meeting near zero carbon is radical genetic engineering to boost photo-synthesis so that plants
can be developed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere i.e. create changes that would not
arise out of random mutations and could not be produced by conventional plant breeding.
In this matter, the USA (not constrained by EU regulation) is ahead of the EU and the UK.
As @Hrothbern has posted in another thread:
so there is no reason to stick with the EU technologically backward thinking on improving crops.
The dramatic improvement in UK crop yields that took place 1945 to 1975 ended shortly after
the UK joined the EEC; and I look forward to its resumption using more modern methods.
However my view is that the best way to move forwards to feeding growing populations and
meeting near zero carbon is radical genetic engineering to boost photo-synthesis so that plants
can be developed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere i.e. create changes that would not
arise out of random mutations and could not be produced by conventional plant breeding.
In this matter, the USA (not constrained by EU regulation) is ahead of the EU and the UK.
From what I see on R&D developments, China is going at the highest speed in developing new food techs and new fibre techs (for garment etc).
Against the time Chinese Labor is getting really more expensive, their scale size of manufacturing, their up to date modern machinery, their huge pool of engineers & tech scientists, and on top cutting edge applying of practical science, will easily compensate for the total cost, leading to more attractive products in all three: features, quality and price
And the voters hindering non-threatening modern food and fibres (when properly regulated), will as consumers buy the Chinese products.
For example: the solution for all those micro plastics from washing our clothes, or all the pollution from using natural cotton, will not come from the western world, unless ....
I can make a very very long list of such examples...
Against the time the situation becomes clear to the voters, China will have a headstart of 20-30 years knowledge build up.
(in which case our reaction would BTW still be faster than it took to get the Climate-Environmental issue clear against the tides of vested interests and inertia thinking in the voter-politicians axis)
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
These are all good points.
Nevertheless, the UK should invest in such R&D, rather than blithely
assume it will automatically have the money to buy such on world markets.
There is a difference between "should invest in such R&D" and blithely letting the results into the wild without appropriate risk analysis and public consultation.
- Status
