WORK
CITY PLANNING
<span>In the 19th century, the population continued to grow unabated, doubling between 1801 and the 1820's and then doubling again between then and 1851, to 400,000 souls. This was phenomenal growth transforming Manchester into Britain’s second city. Manchester continued to grow steadily down to the end of the century. </span>
WORK- <span>Young men and women poured in from the countryside, eager to find work in the new factories and mills. The mills paid relatively high wages and they also employed large numbers of children. As a consequence, families migrating to the city often saw a considerable rise in their incomes. But not all aspects of life in the factories were pleasant. The rise in child labour was of course undesirable from the perspective of child welfare.
CITY PLANNING- </span>Better wages were undoubtedly the greatest attraction of city life, but the higher incomes came at a price. City planning was in its infancy and much of the new workers’ housing was erected with little regard to quality.
The factors that are combined to create the reproducibility crisis are chance and publication bias.
<h3>What is the reproducibility crisis?</h3>
This is what is also referred to as the replicating crisis. This tells us that there are well established findings in research that are difficult to replicate.
The publication bias exists due to the fact that the outcome of a research determines the need to have it published or not published.
Read more on the reproducibility crisis here:
brainly.com/question/26292941
Answer:
True
Explanation:
For the purpose of understanding and solving issues on foreign policy on international disputes, research respondents have recognized specific components that would facilitate them to nominate an expert as an arbitrator in international arbitration.
Even though experts (both technical and legal) is obvious choice quality for an arbitral judiciary in international arbitration, there are cases of using non-expert but diplomats taking importance participants' view
Hence, it is TRUE that a democratic society runs the risk of over-reacting or under-reacting in the foreign policy arena because experts are not the sole arbitrators of what course of action to pursue
<span><span><span><span><span>The Greeks had a lot of different kinds of governments, because there were many different city-states in ancient Greece, and they each had their own government. In addition, people's ideas about what made a good government changed over time.
Aristotle divided Greek governments into monarchies, oligarchies, tyrannies and democracies, and most historians still use these same divisions. For the most part, Greece began by having monarchies, then oligarchies, then tyrannies and then democracies, but at each period there were plenty of city-states using a different system, and there were many which never did become democracies or tyrannies at all.
In the Late Bronze Age (the Mycenean period), between about 2000 and 1200 BC, all Greek city-states seem to have been monarchies, ruled by kings. Homer's Iliad, and Greek mythology in general, shows us a whole series of kings like Agamemnon and Theseus, and some of their palaces have survived for archaeologists to dig up.
After the Dark Age, though, only a few Greek city-states still had kings. Sparta is the most famous of these, though actually Sparta had two kings, usually brothers or cousins, at the same time. One would stay home and the other go off to fight wars.
Most city-states in the Archaic period were ruled by oligarchies, which is a group of aristocrats (rich men) who tell everyone else what to do. Then in the 600's and 500's BC a lot of city-states were taken over by tyrants. Tyrants were usually one of the aristocrats who got power over the others by getting the support of the poor people. They ruled kind of like kings, but without any legal right to rule.
In 510 BC, the city-state of Athens created the first democratic government, and soon other Greek city-states imitated them. Even city-states that weren't Greek, like Carthage and Rome, experimented with giving the poor people more power at this time. But Athenian democracy did not really give power to everyone. Most of the people in Athens couldn't vote - no women, no slaves, no foreigners (even Greeks from other city-states), no children. And also, Athens at this time had an empire, ruling over many other Greek city-states, and none of those people living in the other city-states could vote either. Of course it is a lot easier to have a democratic government when you are only deciding what other people should do.
(And many Greek city-states kept oligarchic government, or tyrannies, or monarchies, through this whole time).
Then in the 300's BC, Greece was conquered by Philip of Macedon, and all of Greece began to be ruled by him as their king (in theory he was only leading a league of Greek city-states, but really he acted like a king). Athens and other Greek city-states still kept their local democracies or oligarchies for local government, but bigger decisions were made by Philip, and then by Philip's son Alexander the Great.
After Alexander died in 323 BC, Greece became a kingdom ruled by a series of Macedonian kings, until it was gradually taken over by the Romans between 200 and 146 BC. From 146 BC on, Greece was a province of the Roman Empire. Even after the Roman Empire in the West collapsed, Greece was still part of the Eastern Empire. In the 1100's and 1200's AD, parts of Greece were taken over by Normans, who built castles and ruled as kings.
And finally, in 1453 AD, the Turks took over and established Greece as a province in their Ottoman Empire; there was not very much change in the system of government from the Roman Empire.</span></span></span></span></span>
