caldrail

Our contribution is outweighed by the methane produced by herbivorous animals. Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2, whose absorbtion is part of the normal eco-chemical cycle on earth. The oceans are scrubbing CO2 all the time, its part of earths checks and balances, as well as supplying it. CO2 is given off by earths fauna. If you want to reduce our contribution, then you need to reduce human population. That would solve a lot of ecological concerns, given that the need to create new land for agriculture or profit is reducing forestation and thus reducing the CO2 absorbtion. Its less of a case of what we're producing, more of what we're sticking spanners in. Are you going to dictate what lifestyle I should lead? The increased conformity and overcontrol by authority is a growing trend in Britain, where the ecological problem is less pronounced than some other nations. The third world nations who are destroying their forests aren't going to change their lifestyle - surely thats a more important issue? And how much reduction of the worlds CO2 has this resulted in? Not being funny, but the religious overtones of ecological movements gets on my wick. Even if you total everybodies elses efforts it doesn't amount to a huge volume compared to that obtained naturally. The earths climate changes, it is changing, there's stuff all you can do to stop it, so just deal with it. Survival of the fittest still applies to our own species however grandiose our self-opinion might be. Plenty of succesful species have hit the dust because the world has changed under their noses. Truth is, human beings really can't control their enviroment but they can control us, so they will increasingly regarding these eco concerns. The real issues are that - 1 - There's too many human beings 2 - We're too dependent on our nests/infrastructure

I'm watching the news this morning and one of the featured stories is about knife crime. One more young man of 19 has been stabbed to death in London recently. The family have organised a protest march to demand action from politicians. The brother of the latest victim is interviewed in the studio. Now I've no doubt whatsoever that this family have suffered a grievous loss, yet there was something artificial about that interview. It's hard to put your finger on it. The modern media are very slick - this particular channel has won an award for news reporting - but the answers the brother gave was somehow a little too obvious. Naturally he called for harsher sentencing. Thats an instinctive feeling from those who have lost loved ones so I do understand and sympathise. Thing is, the young man claims that these harsher sentences will make knife-wielders think twice, that it would provide a deterrent to such behaviour if thugs realise they will be punished for using knifes in this way. He's wrong. They won't. The deterrent only works if the thug thinks about the consequences of his actions. Thugs are not known for thinking, and young men commit these stabbings in the heat of the moment or because they believe they won't get caught regardless of the potential punishment. Realising that their peers are armed they seek protection. Since the 'herd' is helpless against a sharp blade they begin to carry knives too. Therefore the real definition of superiority amongst them becomes the willingness to use them instead of just threatening to. Knife culture is the bare bones of a 'warrior' culture in our midst and is therefore based on personal bravado. These people seek self-respect, a sense of self-worth, from the carrying of weapons and the willingness to use them. Further, they want the dread and fear that most people naturally feel if confronted. Young men are naturally competitive. It's part of our animal behviour in that young males jostle for dominance, to settle disputes, for mating rights, all sorts of instinctive reasons. It's the feeling that 'I'm dangerous now everyone respects me' that needs to be addressed. With every generation you need to recreate civilisation. Without that it becomes a primeval jungle in our own back yard. Inevitably film and tv will carry some blame with copy-cat behaviour cited as a cause for the killings. That isn't quite correct. Young people adopt the manners and actions of the screen in the absence of real examples. Without a firm constructive social background young men will turn to their own instincts and make connections from their own primal instincts to the portrayal of heroic violence that would otherwise merely entertain. So what solution is there? There needs to be a path for these young men to find self-worth in a more positive way, to work off their competitive instincts without resorting to uncontrolled violence. We also need to convince these young men that carrying knives is not a symbol of manhood. Street credibility needs to be exchanged for social responsibility. I wonder if the protest march is going to aim for that, or is it a veiled demand for revenge? A desire for justice? The government have already stated that action on knife-crime will be taken. Which path will they take? Is there a real desire by our politicans to solve these issues or will they adopt a short-term initiative to survive the bad press? The labour government came to power announcing they were going to tackle the root issues of crime. Ok, here's your chance. Embarrasement of the Week Our new border control agency has been set up to prevent illegal immigration and has issued dire warnings to employers that hiring such people will incur heavy penalties. Suprise, suprise, the border agency have discovered that they employed an ilegal immigrant as a cleaner. Whoops. Flog yourselves gentlemen. Nice and hard. No slacking at the back.

I've seen reports that the last ice age ended abruptly, possibly in as little time as within a quarter century. Temperatures rose dramatically by 7 degrees in a few years at one point, triggering an accelerated melt that flooded Doggerland (the 'North Sea' Plains). Evidence of human withdrawal from rising sea levels has been found in the english channel. It may well have had some impact, but the CO2 given off by volcanic activity still outweighs our contribution by a long way. Currently volcanic activity is mild compared to the huge events that have scarred the planet. At least twice the earths crust has literally cracked, once in Siberia, the other in India, both forming chains of hills from the lava that spewed out. Its anybodies guess how much CO2 was given back then. Also, the sun increases in temperature by 5% every billion years due to the increase in heavier elements after the fusion process. That means the sun is currently 25% hotter than when the earth started. Maybe not significant on our scale, but even more evidence that climate will change constantly.

Well it is Northumberland isn't it? Might be worth bringing survival equipment and an SAS guidebook to making pizzas from cement and bricks. Or maybe just some suncream? Decisions.. decisions....

Technically, we're entering an interglacial thats expected by some experts to last 50,000 years, allowing for smaller glaciations and stadials in between. As I've mentioned before, Britain had warm periods during the ice ages and in at least one we had a climate similar to modern africa. In fact, the climatic changes occuring over prehistory are extraodinary, and there have been levels of CO2 present in the atmosphere well in excess of anything China is responsible for. Have a browse through prehistorical climate inormation on Wkipedia. Its very illuminating.

A documentary about Hadrians Wall, shown a few days ago, looked at a 'solid' boot found at Vindolanda.

The roman soldiers wore caligae, a hob nailed boot, not sandals, although I appreciate the visual difference isn't obvious. I did read somewhere that caligae without slots (and hence very un-sandal like) were also used in northern climes but I'm going to check that out.

Aww not again... The guy downstairs has fired up his expensive state-of-the-art hi-fi and the carpet is vibrating. At least he's not pushing the volume as high as he had. Trouble is, whilst I can't hear the music as such, the bass frequencies travel up through the floor and its literally going right through me. I don't feel like another confrontation, so I need something to take my mind off it. Its not as if I can read a book.in these circumstances. Walking out the door and socialising is only a short term solution and it has to be said - it can get a little expensive. A loud heavy metal CD? There would be a certain justice to that! But I'm not in a musical mood. Aha! A driving game on the good ol' PC! Which one? Most are fantasy visualisations of the sort of street racing we lads always wanted to get away with when we were young, assuming we could afford the ridiculously customised vehicles for real. Those arcade games are fun for five minutes but there's no real depth or finesse to it. That dramatic oversteer and power slide is pre-programmed and flatters you. What about an F1 Grand Prix game? Sigh... Modern racing cars in the virtual world are too fast and mechanistic. You end up driving like a robot and whilst you want to be Michael Schumacher, you just know the driving experience is going to be the same whether the driving aids are on or not. So whats left? I pull out the CD for an older game simulating the 1967 season Grand Prix. No wings or aerodynamic widgets, no ultra-wide tyres, no safety cells, no race telemetry, no chicanes or run-off areas. Now we're talking. The sound is brilliant through the speakers. A heavy roar with a shrill scream as you rev the nuts off a highly tuned engine whose management system is connected to your right ankle. Driviing is a different experience to most games. The handling is absolutely knife-edge. This program doesn't suffer fools behind the joystick and bites hard at the slightest sign of carelessness. There's no grip at all. Every time you enter a corner your heart is in your mouth as you realise you're turning way faster than the laws of physics allow and the only thing keeping you alive is your ability to handle this snarling beast. Its tremendous sweaty fun, and the strange thing is, you do feel a sense of achievement when you power through the bend and clip the apex in exactly the right place. It makes you think. The drivers of an older generation were risking far more. Those fragile works of art propelled at speeds their brakes couldn't handle were not afflicted by the ever-present current obsession with safety. They would be judged dangerous by modern sensibilities. Is this why I feel drawn to them? They have an aura of their own. Its not just the appearance. The very presence of these cars is way beyond anything last years F1 cars can manage. Sure, they're probably awful cars to drive by today's standards, but its you driving it - not a microchip. Or is there more to it? Electronics, speed cameras, rules and safety legislation have made our lives more predictable for sure. Its certainly kept some people alive, but I can't help feeling that something important has been lost in the process. Fiscal Decision of the Week I remember when Labour got into power. Most people were glad to see the back of conservative government and Tony Blair was all smiles and vision. They were going to put aside 'old' labour and strive for 'Cool Britannia' - whatever that was supposed to be. Gordon Brown was considered a careful custodian of the economy. Back then, I said he wasn't. You wait - Never mind the promises, it'll be the same old Labour - He'll raise taxes and shove the economy down the toilet. I remember a few sneers and chuckles. Who's laughing now?

I think that puts Swindon Library to shame! Although the new site is nearly ready now (its a new permanent building on the site where the old temporary building was... Hope that didn't confuse you) so perhaps we might get a dozen or more new books?

Salve, O Excuse me, but I can't follow the argumentation: If he wanted to rename the city and build some huge`palaces, then he required to set Rome on fire? That makes no sense to me. Land clearance. Nero needed to remain popular so evicting lots of people from their homes and businesses (including the wealthy senatorial properties whose ownsers were an impediment to Nero's magnificence). Makes perfect sense to me, given that Nero's ego was no longer under any restraint whatsoever. He had this image of how things were to be and expected his minions to simply make it happen. Nero did not see hadrians works, they came later. I strongly suggest that had Nero seen such works were possible, he would have ordered bigger ones, and in any case, his redevelopment was grander than what had been there before. Quite. Given the 100' high bronze statue Nero had made of himself, one has to conclude who the main beneficiary of this proganda was intended to be. They didn't have to. Nero had already made the space

Noisy pensioners... Noisy youths... Noisy kids... Could it get any worse? Well yes, actually. Now we have noisy strikers. Council workers are on strike for two days to get bigger pay rises than oil tanker drivers, and so the libraries are shut. They're all lined up outside council premises with printed placards (I wonder how much that cost?) declaring their strike action and calling for public support. They haven't got mine at all. So its off to the local internet cafe and spend a few quid. The cheapest is a place out in one of Swindons immigrant areas, so the moslem chants and sermons are played out loud. I guess its because its not my culture and not something I'm used to, but that wailing (the sort you get from minarets in foreign countries) is so irritating. There's a older woman who's just come in. She pushes and thumps things down with all the grace of an inebriated elephant. She's not satisfied with the position of the computor screen, and so attempts to rip it off its mountings. Three times. Take it easy girl... talking about taking it easy, the proprietor is having an argument with an african girl. Its quite a ding-dong, the pair of them pointing, gesturing, and spitting out random syllables at frantic speed. I'd like to give you a blow by blow account but I haven't a clue what its all about.... Neither does she apparently... Speed Camera News of the Week Swindon Council is considering withdrawing from the Wiltshire Speed Camera Partnership. Why? Because they object to fines going to the Treasury as profit. At last! Somebody with enough commonsense to see the whole thing was a rip-off by a government so deep in debt they tax anything that moves.

Ask Britain for theirs.

Yep - I know exactly what you mean. The jobseeker agency seem to be absolutely determined to push me into part-time labouring.

Then we agree to differ, since you prefer the wider meaning.

The british and canadians weren't entirely ignored. The script contained at least one disparaging comment. The only really problematic thing about that film is that is was telling an american story about retrieving an american from the combat zone. It was not an account of D-Day.

As far as I'm aware, the surviving gladii are not in particularly good condition. Whether eastern metallurgy is better during that period I can't say, although I suspect thats likely the case. However, you should remember that where these weapons are found has a large part to play in their condition. Were these chinese swords found in a location that would naturally tend to prolong their survival? Roman swords are usually grave goods or discarded weapons, and thus suffer the usual penalties. Also, it depends on the quality of the blade in question. Was it a mass produced sword for the grunts, or a lovingly crafted superior example for an important person?

That is an Oxymoron. Peaceful conquest (ie, by bullying) is still conquest. Quite, but diplomacy and deceipt? We're arguing about your definition of conquest, which for the record I regard as military action for the purpose of hostile occupation. That said, the english language contains a lot of variable meaning and conquest can be applied to any situation where an objective is met. If you really want to. That has been widely discussed in another thread. No evidence has been so far presented of anything remotely like that currently happening. Check it out. No evidence? Have you watched the tv news or read the papers lately? Its happening. Right now. There are european politicians who want ther stake in a european empire and thy're just not going to let the european public stop them. Its only a matter of time if we all shake our heads or stick them in the sand. Sorry, but I do feel very strongly on this issue. Social Darwinism? Anyway, that analogy is fallacious; the "maturing" of a state (Imperial or not), whatever you may mean, is not biological. Do you need a definition of the word 'analogy'? In any case, you seem to forget the universe functions the way it does because of its fundamental structure. This means that biology will tend to follow certain paths because of the chemistry that underpins it. Since behaviour is part of biology, it too is influenced by the form and enviroment. Since history is the study of the results of human behaviour, we are necessarily studying an analogous subject - although without reference to the medium which produces it - which to my mind is wrong. You can study a subject in isolation and become very knowledgable - but if you don't place that study in context, do you really understand it? A roman pot is found, and someone dates it to a certain period. But what is that pot doing there? What else is there to complete the picture of events at that time in that place, and how does that fit events in the roman world as a whole? This is why context is so important in archaeology. Without it, a great deal of information may be ignored. Therefore, its necessary to place history in context. You can study biology as a life science, as its traditionally taught, or as an extension of the universe and its fundamental rules. Remember - everything is relative. Your source on this one? Certainly not Christian or Jewish; I don't think even our Roman Quisling "Titus Flavius" Josephus had ever stated something like that. BTW, Persian socio-economical system would have been considered "semi-feudal" at best. Its strongly hinted at in one of the osprey titles - "Enemies of Rome - Persia" or something similar. But I accept I know almost diddly-squat about the persians beyond that.

Its the turn of the french to hold the presidency of the EU right now. What are they suggesting? They want each member state to stump up 10,000 men, plus tanks, planes, and ships, for a european defence force. This is interesting because a european defence force was part of the Treaty of Lisbon, which the french people didn't want, nor did the dutch, and neither - somewhat more pointedly - did the irish. But it seems we're going to get a Treaty of Lisbon even if we didn't want one at all - Which is what I said would happen. Unfortunately, the british are close to being overextended on security issues already, so where are the extra 10,000 men to come from? We used to have National Service in this country, and with rising violence there are calls for a return to just that. Its ironic that in order to solve knife crime we're going to give them bayonets. But who foots the bills? The government is up their eyeballs in debt already, taxes are the highest they've been since the invention of money, and our armed services are seriously underequipped. One solution is obvious, and in some ways, an unpalatable choice, because I'm sure the europeans would far rather get their hands on our highly professional force than a crowd of bolshy youths with a typically british bad attitude. They suffer that every summer already. Imagine all those braggarts currently wandering around drunk proclaiming their manhood and denigrating other peoples, suddenly having to prove themselves for real, especially since the french have been using foreigners as expendable troops since 1831. The chances are that Europe will eventually get our professional troops, leaving Britains defence in the hands of 'hoodies'. I wonder if the government are as confident about european unity than they were when Ireland said No? Power To The People Gordon Brown has set 'no limits' to nuclear power in Britain. The plan is to expand current sites to avoid contentious siting issues. Welcome to Englands Green and Luminescent Land. Thats if you can see it under all those wind turbines. Cancellation of the Week Wiithout a doubt, the biggest cancellation is due to the British July Monsoon Period and that means the Royal International Air Tattoo at Fairford, just down the road from Rushey Platt. For the first time in 38 years the the event has been washed out. The roads around Fairford are notorious for traffic jams during this normally well-attended event and perhaps this is the reason why Swindon was deserted this weekend, as the police deal with the chaos of turning visitors around. Or is it because someones decided to recruit 10,000 extra troops from Swindon layabouts? That would cancel a weekend or two...

The psuedo-republicanism was also a survival tactic. Although the roman public had come to accept autocratic rule in spite of tradition, it was necessary for those rulers to remain popular or face possible removal from office - which was likely to hurt somewhat. True, it was with the legions rather than the plebs that popularity was more important, but lets not forget the senate contained men who were wealthy and influential. These were the power brokers of Rome, whom the emperors ruled in front of. There would always be men amongst the senators who thought they deserved to rule and could do a better job that that arrogant idiot standing before them. The senate still had considerable influence by the end of the republic however badly they wielded it. Augustus was careful not to upset them and more than once left the senate house with his tale between his legs in the early half of his reign. They declared Nero an enemy of the state, and refused point blank to accept the credibility of Didius Julianus. There was of course in that instance the pending arrival of Severus and his army that ensured the senate would not accept Julianus nor attempt to replace him with one of their own, something that had happened more than once before, never mind the innumerable plots to do so. It was the power of the legions to replace an emperor that pushed the senate into the background, for they couldn't compete with a popular legate with six thousand men at his back.

If you think about it, we know very little of roman parades and ceremonies, and not just about those concerning the military.

Personalised Job Search Assistance Session? Yes, I did one of those a couple of weeks ago. A young woman insisting I use public transport to travel beyond the visible horizon (No, I couldn't, I just couldn't), and also going to great lengths to prove how financially better off I'll be if I sign up for a low paid job. My impression is that she has little experience of job-searching, and given she's a pretty young woman with an education she is therefore capable of getting a job almost anywhere, whereas a single white male of mature age without a vocation is actually a disadvantaged person, a statistical embarrasement, and too long in the tooth to be persuaded that the world will be his oyster if he settles for being a washed up grunt in manual labour. Not that I'm developing a chip on my shoulder you understand..

Sharp Dressed Man? Oh that is soooo eighties... get with the times Doc. Men have moved on from texas-style beards

Empires are a group of external territories ruled from the dominant member. That doesn't mean conquest is always the reason for this grouping. Europe is assembling an empire right under our noses as we speak. The destruction of an empire can occur for a number of reasons. there is a sort of analogy with biology, in that empires grow, mature, then wither away or get killed off. Further, advancement isn't always possible in an empire, and in recent times the only reason some empires showed any advancement at all is the need o compete with other powerful blocs that are advancing their interests a little more easily. As with most things in this univrse, the glory and advancement of an empire are relative. I doubt the jews were too impressed with the romans, and was gladiatorial combat, a free public entertainment, really a cultural high point? Not by our standards, but I suspect the romans considered it so. Many people thought the nazi regime was a great advance before the war started - they had turned germany around from a bankrupt loser to vibrant expansionist society, yet at what cost? The persians had an empire of sufficient size to create a stand-off with Rome. Although the persians were an advancing society with great wealth, they were also a cruel fuedal regime whose treatment of their common folk was far worse than the romans own. Its common to think of an empire as the result of destructive conquest (it sometimes is, and those are the stories we hear most often) but that isn't always the case.

I understood the Domus Transitoria was damaged, not destroyed, and in any case, Nero was not the sort of person to be satisified with something built for a lesser emperor. He was Nero, the living Apollo, a man who needed and deserved a statement of grandeur. Further, since the land clearance necessary for Domus Aurea and its grounds meant evicting large numbers of people from their property would Nero wish to risk unpopularity? He may have seen himself as a self-important celebrity, he was also very concerned about his public image, and as later events showed none to self confident in a crisis. No argument there, however the reports of individuals fanning the flames and declaring they were under orders to do so must be considered. Further, the fire restarted on the grounds of Tigellinus, Nero's advisor, for no obious reason. Possibly, but why should criminal or vengeful activity of other people be discounted, especially since they weren't standing in the spotlight.

I believe that I did formerly say that "dissention within the senate proves the senate's (moral)weakness" So i'm not contradicting you on that. Moral weakness? I would describe it as political weakness. The Senate wasn't a unified organisation with an identifiable command structure, it was an exclusive club for wealthy and influential men, and since those guys were mor concerned with their own privilege and status as opposed to being the 'state patrons' they wanted to be seen as, they were acting for their own individual purposes, forming factions, and sometimes supporting those that threatened a new order like Caear. By doing so each senator was hoping to curry favour and 'get with the winning team'. Its not so much weakness as divided objectives.