I'm extremely bored, so I thought I'd put up the songs my iPod came up with on shuffle last night. It's slightly hilarious. I might create a playlist on Youtube, in order that one might experience the surreal-ness of this short group of songs in the order in which they appeared. It's really rather reminiscent of that game on I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue in which one has to say words which have absolutely nothing to do with the previous one.
1. Mozart's Piano Sonata in B major
2. Joe Moses & Tyler Brunsman - Guys Like Potter (from A Very Potter Sequel)
3. Hank Green - Shake-A-Booty
4. Owl City - In Christ Alone
5. LaFee - Prinzesschen
6. Joe Walker & Dylan Saunders - Getting Along (again, from A Very Potter Sequel - apparently my iPod enjoys it.)
7. The Civil Wars - The Violet Hour
8. All Caps - Voldemort Fangirl
9. Fireflight - Core Of My Addiction
10. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire soundtrack - Potter Waltz
11. Tal & Acacia - Garbage In
And then I gave up. On life. In despair. (Not really, I just couldn't stop laughing and thought that sleeping might be a better use of my time.)
What have I learned from this exercise? Firstly, that left to its own devices, my iPod plays a ridiculously disproportionate amount of Harry Potter related stuff (Siriusly, less than 4.5% of my library is dedicated to anything at all related to Harry Potter,) but also that my iPod has excellent comic timing, and thirdly that it just has a lot of crap on it that I should probably sort out at some point when I have time. Eh.
UNRELATED: I worked out last night that my Youtube videos have amassed a total of 20.6 years' worth of views. I was speechless, and that doesn't happen very often with me.
Pigfarts, Pigfarts, here I come... DFTBA, readers.
Friday, 2 September 2011
Sunday, 21 August 2011
Another post on university tuition fees
I read today about how a lawyer is preparing to challenge Scotland over tuition fees - that is, someone's finally taking a stand on the Scots getting free university places in Scotland and charging all other Brits up to nine thousand quid per year. Excellent! I've always said that the non-Scottish taxpayer shouldn't have to be paying for the Scots to attend university - why should they have any more right than the Welsh, Northern Irish or English to free university places, particularly when the money largely comes from Welsh, NIsh and English taxes? This irks me. *Scowls*
In the next paragraph of the same news story (on the BBC News page) was a tale of two (non-Scottish) students who are attempting to sue the government (I think) over the increase in tuition fees, on the grounds that they "discriminate against the poorer students and those from minority backgrounds." Um. WHAT?! It goes on to say in the next breath that the fees are paid back in installments after one graduates and is earning more than £21,000 per annum. This is an immediate contradiction to the students' claims. I've pointed out before that if one is paying back the money after one has graduated and is earning their own money, the ability to pay has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how rich or poor one's parents are when they leave for university.
I will be the first to admit that I'd personally love for fees to be lower, but really, there is a big loan for the country to pay off and the money has to come from somewhere. Would YOU rather the NHS budget was slashed? Students who really want to go to university won't be put off by the rise in tuition fees, and if one has second thoughts about going because of the rise, it only suggests that they don't want to go for the right reasons, and as such ought not to be encouraged.
On a semi-related note, A-Level results came out a few days ago. I would use this blog to express my apathy over my results, but seeing as my school are violating section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and withholding my results from me, I'll instead express apathy about not knowing them. Though really, the school are breaking the law and as such are to be frowned upon. Naughty bad school.
DFTBA
In the next paragraph of the same news story (on the BBC News page) was a tale of two (non-Scottish) students who are attempting to sue the government (I think) over the increase in tuition fees, on the grounds that they "discriminate against the poorer students and those from minority backgrounds." Um. WHAT?! It goes on to say in the next breath that the fees are paid back in installments after one graduates and is earning more than £21,000 per annum. This is an immediate contradiction to the students' claims. I've pointed out before that if one is paying back the money after one has graduated and is earning their own money, the ability to pay has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how rich or poor one's parents are when they leave for university.
I will be the first to admit that I'd personally love for fees to be lower, but really, there is a big loan for the country to pay off and the money has to come from somewhere. Would YOU rather the NHS budget was slashed? Students who really want to go to university won't be put off by the rise in tuition fees, and if one has second thoughts about going because of the rise, it only suggests that they don't want to go for the right reasons, and as such ought not to be encouraged.
On a semi-related note, A-Level results came out a few days ago. I would use this blog to express my apathy over my results, but seeing as my school are violating section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and withholding my results from me, I'll instead express apathy about not knowing them. Though really, the school are breaking the law and as such are to be frowned upon. Naughty bad school.
DFTBA
Monday, 8 August 2011
*Insert Mozart's Clarinet Quintet in A Major here*
Two things I really want to write about today, one serious, one Sirius. Yes, that's a joke you'll get if you read this entire post, or if you are a bit of a geek like me and have already got it, in which case, well done, you ARE worth knowing. Be happy about this fact. :D
The serious issue I want to say a bit about is, of course, the current rioting in London. I would just like to take the opportunity to point out the irony and hypocrisy in that the way some people are protesting against the police allegedly fatally shooting a suspect is to retaliate by burning police cars, in addition to burning down buildings after looting them for expensive gadgetry et cetera and just causing pandemonium in general. I mean, really, guys, if you want to protest, surely the best way would be to draft an eloquently composed letter and send it to either the police, your local MP, David Cameron, the neighbours, your local supermarket, Miley Cyrus, the florists' down the road, your grandmother, the cast of Glee or the Queen? Alright, so maybe those suggestions weren't all entirely serious, but if you were to write to Glee they might even turn up in Tottenham and sing some twisted abominations of songs (didja get the reference there? Didja? I doubt it, but I get it so I'm happy) about burning stuff which could seriously help matters. :O
OK, I'll stop being stupid now. Basically, if you're reading this and you're one of those who's been burning stuff and pilfering plasma TVs from shops who can't defend themselves, shame on you. Arson and theft are NOT means of protesting, they're serious crimes which ought to be (and are) heavily punished, and there is no excuse for those behaviours. Also, people ARE being arrested, so you'd be horrendously ill-advised to partake in these activities. Don't do it. And if you do, I hope you get put in gaol for a very long time. :)
Now for the more Sirius matter. Yes, that's my way of saying that with the current hype around Pottermore (which I managed to get an early access account to while I was on holiday, again, thanks for humouring me, mum & dad - I know you're reading this :D) and my recent discovery of A Very Potter Musical and the Sequel (and no, I'm NOT a fangirl, and I'm not one for fangirling, however pretty some of the male cast-members may be) I'm in a rather Potter-y mood, so I thought I'd reopen the classic HP vs. Twilight argument (maybe not reopen, but at least stick a foot in the door, before slamming it shut.) Essentially, I'm going to look at the best arguments presented by either side of the great debate, and then explain why the Twihards are talking rubbish. :) (NOTE: contains spoilers. Actually, I don't know why I'm bothering with this warning, the seventh HP book HAS been out for four years and nineteen days.)
I'd just like to start by firstly pointing out that I actually don't hate the Twilight series itself, I think that some of the basic plots are essentially alright, and there are one or two great characters (team guy-who-almost-hit-Bella-with-a-truck, anyone?) I just find the majority of characters to be extremely weak, Meyer's writing style tends towards tedious and the airhead fangirls all deserve a good slap. Excellent, now I've got that over with, time for some comparisons.
The first argument which is commonly (and rightly) trotted out is to do with the characters of Cedric Diggory and Edward Cullen, obviously, as they're both played by the same actor. Comparing the characters, one's a loyal, honest and trustworthy character who was strong enough to represent his school in an extremely dangerous tournament, and survived it until being murdered by the darkest wizard on the planet. The other just kind of existed for a century until a girl came along, when he became obsessed with her and exerted all his energy into following her around. I think we all know which character's the strongest. Actually, on the subject of the actor, Robert Pattinson, I do believe he's been quoted as saying that he died in the only good film he's ever been in. Make of that what you will. Ha.
The other day, I heard of a Twihard who commented on how Cedric beat the character of Harry Potter in the second task of the Triwizard Tournament, and how this apparently makes Twilight better than HP. Can I just point out that this is stupid? Who tied for first place in the first task with Viktor Krum? Who returned to Hogwarts ALIVE after the third task? That's what I thought. *Smirk*
Well, I've compared male characters, so now for the main females in the series, Hermione Granger and Bella Swan. The best way of summing up this one would be to point out that when the love of Hermione's life left her, she continued to search for a way to bring down Voldemort. When the love of Bella's life left her, she curled up into the foetal position and cried for a few months, before throwing herself off a cliff so she could hallucinate her boyfriend's voice. I think that pretty much says it all. Oh, comparing the actresses, I've found a rather good picture, which summs up my point better than I could put it. Here it is. http://graphjam.memebase.com/2011/07/12/funny-graphs-in-kristens-defense-her-character-is-awfully-flat/
Yeah.
Another comparison one could make is between characters called Bella in both series. Bella(trix Lestrange) from HP would destroy Bella (Swan) any day of the week and just laugh about it. Problem, Twihards?
Another point that must be made is that the majority of Twilight fans who insist Harry Potter is rubbish have never read the books.
I would also like to point out that comparisons between fansites, so here are some examples. From http://averagewizard.com we have "Today my best Gryffindor friend and I (being a Slytherin) went to the go kart track at the beach. While waiting in line when we decided to put a spin on our go kart experience by dueling while riding the track. Being a gryffindork she warned me against using the unforgivables... So I pass her and yell, "FLIPPENDO!" and she swerves like she just got hit. OLAM" and on http://www.mylifeistwilight we have "Today, I realised my hair is bown jus like bellas! :D MLIT" (Am I the only one who headdesk-ed at the latter?)
Finally, I shall consider the overall morals of both stories. Some of the main themes in Harry Potter are love and courage, friendship and bravery, redemption, and ultimately the choice between what is right and what is easy. In addition to this, there are several Biblical allegories, the most notable being Harry sacrificing himself so that Voldemort couldn't kill anyone else, and then coming back to life (and by extension, Lily's sacrifice for Harry). Also, it's worth noting that a cross is carved on the tree under which Mad-Eye's eye is buried, and the roles of godparents in the series, which are a Catholic thing. As mentioned above, redemption is a major theme, most notably The Prince's Tale and Harry subsequently naming one of his children after Snape in the epilogue. In comparison, the message behind Twilight is "you must have a boyfriend or you will be unhappy." As A Very Potter Sequel's Snape would say, "That's b***s***." I'm single myself, and I'm perfectly happy with that fact. It's also worth pointing out that reading the Twilight books I didn't spot a single Biblical reference.
I think that's about all I have to say on the subject for the moment, the post's long enough as it is. If I find any more arguments from either side I think are noteworthy, I'll update the post.
Lowri out, bitches. (Another reference.)
The serious issue I want to say a bit about is, of course, the current rioting in London. I would just like to take the opportunity to point out the irony and hypocrisy in that the way some people are protesting against the police allegedly fatally shooting a suspect is to retaliate by burning police cars, in addition to burning down buildings after looting them for expensive gadgetry et cetera and just causing pandemonium in general. I mean, really, guys, if you want to protest, surely the best way would be to draft an eloquently composed letter and send it to either the police, your local MP, David Cameron, the neighbours, your local supermarket, Miley Cyrus, the florists' down the road, your grandmother, the cast of Glee or the Queen? Alright, so maybe those suggestions weren't all entirely serious, but if you were to write to Glee they might even turn up in Tottenham and sing some twisted abominations of songs (didja get the reference there? Didja? I doubt it, but I get it so I'm happy) about burning stuff which could seriously help matters. :O
OK, I'll stop being stupid now. Basically, if you're reading this and you're one of those who's been burning stuff and pilfering plasma TVs from shops who can't defend themselves, shame on you. Arson and theft are NOT means of protesting, they're serious crimes which ought to be (and are) heavily punished, and there is no excuse for those behaviours. Also, people ARE being arrested, so you'd be horrendously ill-advised to partake in these activities. Don't do it. And if you do, I hope you get put in gaol for a very long time. :)
Now for the more Sirius matter. Yes, that's my way of saying that with the current hype around Pottermore (which I managed to get an early access account to while I was on holiday, again, thanks for humouring me, mum & dad - I know you're reading this :D) and my recent discovery of A Very Potter Musical and the Sequel (and no, I'm NOT a fangirl, and I'm not one for fangirling, however pretty some of the male cast-members may be) I'm in a rather Potter-y mood, so I thought I'd reopen the classic HP vs. Twilight argument (maybe not reopen, but at least stick a foot in the door, before slamming it shut.) Essentially, I'm going to look at the best arguments presented by either side of the great debate, and then explain why the Twihards are talking rubbish. :) (NOTE: contains spoilers. Actually, I don't know why I'm bothering with this warning, the seventh HP book HAS been out for four years and nineteen days.)
I'd just like to start by firstly pointing out that I actually don't hate the Twilight series itself, I think that some of the basic plots are essentially alright, and there are one or two great characters (team guy-who-almost-hit-Bella-with-a-truck, anyone?) I just find the majority of characters to be extremely weak, Meyer's writing style tends towards tedious and the airhead fangirls all deserve a good slap. Excellent, now I've got that over with, time for some comparisons.
The first argument which is commonly (and rightly) trotted out is to do with the characters of Cedric Diggory and Edward Cullen, obviously, as they're both played by the same actor. Comparing the characters, one's a loyal, honest and trustworthy character who was strong enough to represent his school in an extremely dangerous tournament, and survived it until being murdered by the darkest wizard on the planet. The other just kind of existed for a century until a girl came along, when he became obsessed with her and exerted all his energy into following her around. I think we all know which character's the strongest. Actually, on the subject of the actor, Robert Pattinson, I do believe he's been quoted as saying that he died in the only good film he's ever been in. Make of that what you will. Ha.
The other day, I heard of a Twihard who commented on how Cedric beat the character of Harry Potter in the second task of the Triwizard Tournament, and how this apparently makes Twilight better than HP. Can I just point out that this is stupid? Who tied for first place in the first task with Viktor Krum? Who returned to Hogwarts ALIVE after the third task? That's what I thought. *Smirk*
Well, I've compared male characters, so now for the main females in the series, Hermione Granger and Bella Swan. The best way of summing up this one would be to point out that when the love of Hermione's life left her, she continued to search for a way to bring down Voldemort. When the love of Bella's life left her, she curled up into the foetal position and cried for a few months, before throwing herself off a cliff so she could hallucinate her boyfriend's voice. I think that pretty much says it all. Oh, comparing the actresses, I've found a rather good picture, which summs up my point better than I could put it. Here it is. http://graphjam.memebase.com/2011/07/12/funny-graphs-in-kristens-defense-her-character-is-awfully-flat/
Yeah.
Another comparison one could make is between characters called Bella in both series. Bella(trix Lestrange) from HP would destroy Bella (Swan) any day of the week and just laugh about it. Problem, Twihards?
Another point that must be made is that the majority of Twilight fans who insist Harry Potter is rubbish have never read the books.
I would also like to point out that comparisons between fansites, so here are some examples. From http://averagewizard.com we have "Today my best Gryffindor friend and I (being a Slytherin) went to the go kart track at the beach. While waiting in line when we decided to put a spin on our go kart experience by dueling while riding the track. Being a gryffindork she warned me against using the unforgivables... So I pass her and yell, "FLIPPENDO!" and she swerves like she just got hit. OLAM" and on http://www.mylifeistwilight we have "Today, I realised my hair is bown jus like bellas! :D MLIT" (Am I the only one who headdesk-ed at the latter?)
Finally, I shall consider the overall morals of both stories. Some of the main themes in Harry Potter are love and courage, friendship and bravery, redemption, and ultimately the choice between what is right and what is easy. In addition to this, there are several Biblical allegories, the most notable being Harry sacrificing himself so that Voldemort couldn't kill anyone else, and then coming back to life (and by extension, Lily's sacrifice for Harry). Also, it's worth noting that a cross is carved on the tree under which Mad-Eye's eye is buried, and the roles of godparents in the series, which are a Catholic thing. As mentioned above, redemption is a major theme, most notably The Prince's Tale and Harry subsequently naming one of his children after Snape in the epilogue. In comparison, the message behind Twilight is "you must have a boyfriend or you will be unhappy." As A Very Potter Sequel's Snape would say, "That's b***s***." I'm single myself, and I'm perfectly happy with that fact. It's also worth pointing out that reading the Twilight books I didn't spot a single Biblical reference.
I think that's about all I have to say on the subject for the moment, the post's long enough as it is. If I find any more arguments from either side I think are noteworthy, I'll update the post.
Lowri out, bitches. (Another reference.)
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
The pseudoscience of astrology, and why the topic is nothing more than a crock of crap.
I HATE PSEUDOSCIENCE. That's certainly no secret, and it always bothers me when people are saying "oh, because of Mars..." or "oh yeah, that trait is common among Capricorns" or "when Venus and Saturn make a right-angle..." because there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support a word they're saying. Here's why.
The first of the examples given absolutely infuriates me. Mars is a planet, with an average distance from the Earth of 227,500,000km. The only one of the four fundamental forces which is really relevant for that sort of distance is gravity, which is so weak it can only really affect (very minorly) the Earth's orbit shape. There's no way it could physically have any effect whatsoever on the goings-on in any one person's personal life, and the idea that it would only affect one in twelve people, even if it were able to have some sort of effect, is absolutely preposterous.
I also frown whenever anyone mentions traits shared by certain star-signs, but admittedly not so deeply as I do for most astrological ramblings. After all, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that people born roughly the same time of year might share traits, as one needs to bear in mind that when one first attends school, some people in the same year might be born almost a year apart (think two people, one born in August and one in September), and how at the age of four, one year makes a lot of difference. It's feasible that people born in September-December might show more characteristics of a leader as a child, as they'd be considerably older than the younger members of their year, and carry those traits with them in later life. I think there's a statistic which says that the majority of professional footballers were born in September to November, which would support this hypothesis. However, to go so far as to assign specific characteristics is absolute nonsense, and even though they might appear to be accurate, in a bit I'll say why they're really not.
The third of my examples, the idea that two planets could make a right angle, absolutely riles me. How is it even possible for two planets to make a right angle? Two planets just make a line, as you're joining one point and another. To make a right-angle you'd need a third object to provide a corner, which is never mentioned in predictions like this.
There are a number of other things which fill me with ire, but I really can't be bothered to write that much more, so I'll round my argument off by shooting down the whole "but my horoscope is accurate!" argument. Horoscopes are written to be generic, to apply to as many people as possible! Not everyone reading the same horoscope is exactly the same! Next time you read your horoscope, try reading all the other signs, and see just how many of the other eleven are also relevant to you. I dare you.
If you want to argue back, of course, you're very welcome to, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you like being torn to shreds - my argument is perfect. :)
The first of the examples given absolutely infuriates me. Mars is a planet, with an average distance from the Earth of 227,500,000km. The only one of the four fundamental forces which is really relevant for that sort of distance is gravity, which is so weak it can only really affect (very minorly) the Earth's orbit shape. There's no way it could physically have any effect whatsoever on the goings-on in any one person's personal life, and the idea that it would only affect one in twelve people, even if it were able to have some sort of effect, is absolutely preposterous.
I also frown whenever anyone mentions traits shared by certain star-signs, but admittedly not so deeply as I do for most astrological ramblings. After all, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that people born roughly the same time of year might share traits, as one needs to bear in mind that when one first attends school, some people in the same year might be born almost a year apart (think two people, one born in August and one in September), and how at the age of four, one year makes a lot of difference. It's feasible that people born in September-December might show more characteristics of a leader as a child, as they'd be considerably older than the younger members of their year, and carry those traits with them in later life. I think there's a statistic which says that the majority of professional footballers were born in September to November, which would support this hypothesis. However, to go so far as to assign specific characteristics is absolute nonsense, and even though they might appear to be accurate, in a bit I'll say why they're really not.
The third of my examples, the idea that two planets could make a right angle, absolutely riles me. How is it even possible for two planets to make a right angle? Two planets just make a line, as you're joining one point and another. To make a right-angle you'd need a third object to provide a corner, which is never mentioned in predictions like this.
There are a number of other things which fill me with ire, but I really can't be bothered to write that much more, so I'll round my argument off by shooting down the whole "but my horoscope is accurate!" argument. Horoscopes are written to be generic, to apply to as many people as possible! Not everyone reading the same horoscope is exactly the same! Next time you read your horoscope, try reading all the other signs, and see just how many of the other eleven are also relevant to you. I dare you.
If you want to argue back, of course, you're very welcome to, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you like being torn to shreds - my argument is perfect. :)
Friday, 24 June 2011
Special blog post, seeing as it's Friday, Friday and I thought that in between revision some fun, fun, fun, fun was a good idea.
epistula in latina scribere cogiti. salvete amicibus blogibus! translationem in latina Fridaymus Rebecca Black, quod dies Veneris hodie est.
Septimus ante meridian, in mane resurrectio
novus es volo, in atrium venere volo
scaphius meus habere volo, nutrimens habere volo
omnia specto, tempus venas
tices et tices, mundus omnia festinas
ad plaustrum advenio
meus amici specto
in curulis primus tempus bene habere
in curulis durus sedere
constituere volo
quod curulis capio?
dies Veneris, dies Veneris est
tempus bene habere volo in dies Veneris
dies cubitus, dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
dies Veneris, dies Veneris
in dies Veneris tempus bene habeo
dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
tempus bene, tempus bene,
dies cubitus volerant
septimus quadragintaquin, in via ambulo
festinere vitare, tempus advolere volo
tempus bene, tempus bene, tempus bene cogito
quod est scias
habeo, habes
amicus meus dextella meus est
habeo, habes
nunc scies
in curulis primus tempus bene habere
in curulis durus sedere
constituere volo
quod curulis capio?
dies Veneris, dies Veneris est
tempus bene habere volo in dies Veneris
dies cubitus, dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
dies Veneris, dies Veneris
in dies Veneris tempus bene habeo
dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
tempus bene, tempus bene,
dies cubitus volerant
heri dies Thor erat
hodie dies Veneris est
multus candidus sumus, sumus, sumus
multus candiduc sumus
gelamen hodie habimus
cras dies Saturni est
dies Solisque post est
dies cubitus exeuntere nolo
R-B, Rebeccius Aquilus
in curulis primus tempus bene habere
in curulis durus
adigo, veho, ita vero ita vero
celer via, via abeo
cum currus a tergo meo est
currus infantis adnato
ticus tocus facet, quiritare volo
tempus specto, dies Veneris est, dies cubitus est
tempus bene habimus, ita vero, ita vero omnia
dies Veneris, dies Veneris est
tempus bene habere volo in dies Veneris
dies cubitus, dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
dies Veneris, dies Veneris
in dies Veneris tempus bene habeo
dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
tempus bene, tempus bene,
dies cubitus volerant
dies Veneris, dies Veneris est
tempus bene habere volo in dies Veneris
dies cubitus, dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
dies Veneris, dies Venerus
in dies Veneris tempus bene habeo
dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
tempus bene, tempus bene,
dies cubitus volerant
Whoever said it was a waste of time taking Latin GCSE? :P
Septimus ante meridian, in mane resurrectio
novus es volo, in atrium venere volo
scaphius meus habere volo, nutrimens habere volo
omnia specto, tempus venas
tices et tices, mundus omnia festinas
ad plaustrum advenio
meus amici specto
in curulis primus tempus bene habere
in curulis durus sedere
constituere volo
quod curulis capio?
dies Veneris, dies Veneris est
tempus bene habere volo in dies Veneris
dies cubitus, dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
dies Veneris, dies Veneris
in dies Veneris tempus bene habeo
dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
tempus bene, tempus bene,
dies cubitus volerant
septimus quadragintaquin, in via ambulo
festinere vitare, tempus advolere volo
tempus bene, tempus bene, tempus bene cogito
quod est scias
habeo, habes
amicus meus dextella meus est
habeo, habes
nunc scies
in curulis primus tempus bene habere
in curulis durus sedere
constituere volo
quod curulis capio?
dies Veneris, dies Veneris est
tempus bene habere volo in dies Veneris
dies cubitus, dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
dies Veneris, dies Veneris
in dies Veneris tempus bene habeo
dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
tempus bene, tempus bene,
dies cubitus volerant
heri dies Thor erat
hodie dies Veneris est
multus candidus sumus, sumus, sumus
multus candiduc sumus
gelamen hodie habimus
cras dies Saturni est
dies Solisque post est
dies cubitus exeuntere nolo
R-B, Rebeccius Aquilus
in curulis primus tempus bene habere
in curulis durus
adigo, veho, ita vero ita vero
celer via, via abeo
cum currus a tergo meo est
currus infantis adnato
ticus tocus facet, quiritare volo
tempus specto, dies Veneris est, dies cubitus est
tempus bene habimus, ita vero, ita vero omnia
dies Veneris, dies Veneris est
tempus bene habere volo in dies Veneris
dies cubitus, dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
dies Veneris, dies Veneris
in dies Veneris tempus bene habeo
dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
tempus bene, tempus bene,
dies cubitus volerant
dies Veneris, dies Veneris est
tempus bene habere volo in dies Veneris
dies cubitus, dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
dies Veneris, dies Venerus
in dies Veneris tempus bene habeo
dies cubitus mundus omnia volerant
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
gelamen, gelamen
ita vero!
tempus bene, tempus bene,
dies cubitus volerant
Whoever said it was a waste of time taking Latin GCSE? :P
Monday, 13 June 2011
Renewable energy, and why nuclear (fission) power is a really really really good idea.
Seeing as I turned eighteen on the first of June, meaning I am now legally an adult, I thought I'd write a serious post to mark the occasion.
Now, everyone's aware that we're running out of fossil fuel, with estimates for running-out times being a bit too close for comfort, especially as far as crude oil is concerned. In fact, unless I am run over by a bus tomorrow, the chances of fossil fuels running out in my lifetime approaches one, an alarming concept (bearing in mind the fact that anything is possible so long as it doesn't defy the laws of physics, in which case it's entirely possible that Earth will spontaneously turn into a big blob of crude oil as soon as I hit the "publish post" button.) Because of the shortage of non-renewable fuel, the race to find a viable alternative is on, and so far several alternatives have been proposed.
One of the most commonly trotted out ideas is solar power, and at first, it seems brilliant. Harnessing the sun's energy basically forever! Yaaaay! Wait a minute. Where are the the majority of the world's solar panels? Germany. How many wetter, cloudier countries do YOU know? Well, unless you bunked geography at school, your answer ought to be "very few" or less. Essentially, the places advocating (and therefore making use of) solar power are the countries it's the least useful in. Now, you might say this could be remedied by making it more popular elsewhere, but you need to consider what solar panels actually are. There are two types of solar panel, ones which are easy enough to make, lots of thin pipes of water with a black surface, but can only provide hot water when the sun's out, or photovoltaic cells, which harness the sun's energy and can store it for later use. The one problem with these is that they can take an incredible amount of energy to create, to the point that some solar panels never manage to generate as much energy as they took to create. Big problem that, a negative net gain. In addition to these problems, solar power is hopelessly unreliable - you don't know when it's going to be sunny. No, I do not think solar power is the way forward.
Wind power? No. Have you seen the big turbines? They're ugly, noisy, and kill bats and goats (through the sudden drop in pressure, their lungs can't take it.) Out to sea is an option, but it's incredibly expensive. I'd say it's not worth the money.
Wave power? Well, this has its merits in that it's reliable (the moon isn't about to disappear from the sky) and relatively cheap. However, it wouldn't produce enough power for everywhere.
Biomass? No no no no no. To produce enough biomass to fuel the world, you'd require more space than there is on the planet to grow crops. It's not a good idea.
Hydrogen power? Ah, I like this one. The idea is that hydrogen burns in air, producing only water. Then again, water vapour is an incredibly powerful greenhouse gas, and to get hold of hydrogen to burn, you have to electrolyse water. Guess what? You need power to electrolyse water. Where does one usually get the power from? Fossil fuel. That could be changed to something else, but the efficiency is very questionable. However, hydrogen is, I think, the best option for replacing petrol or diesel in cars.
Nuclear fusion? A fantastic idea on paper. Do let me know when you manage cold fusion in your basement, but it looks unlikely for the moment.
Now, my choice for a fossil fuel replacement that could be rolled out worldwide in the next decade or two is nuclear fission. It's already in use in many places in the world, with something like 10-15% of the world's energy produced by nuclear fission. There are a great many pros to the idea, with the main one being that a huge amount of energy is produced from very little fuel (I've done my research, and a medium-sized power station operates on about a metre cubed block's worth of uranium-235 or plutonium-239 per year.) This is a ridiculously small amount! True, uranium isn't a renewable material, but there's certainly enough available to last a good century or two with what we have. Who knows? By that point, it's entirely feasible that someone will have worked out how to fuse lighter elements to get something which decays into U-235 or Pu-239 - you never know.
Now, whenever I tell anyone I'm pro-nuclear power, I get one of two responses. I either get the whole "oh, that's a good idea!" positiveness, or skeptical looks and ridiculed. You see, a lot of people believe the horror stories associated with nuclear power, for example the Fukushima incident. Let me dispel this one. The Fukushima incident occurred as the result of a magnitude 9.0 megathrust earthquake along a major faultline in the Ring Of Fire. Germany have declared that they're turning off their nuclear power stations before 2020 because of the Fukushima incident. This is terrible reasoning! A similar earthquake could not possibly happen in Germany - in fact, Japan is one of two places where such a large earthquake is able to occur (the other is by Chile.) This is because the only earthquakes powerful enough to be megathrust earthquakes are ones along major faultlines, which are straight(ish) lines for several hundred miles.
Other major incidents in the past have been accidents. Chernobyl, for example, blew up during an inspection, when the coolant system was being mucked around with. Similar incidents can be prevented simply by learning from our own mistakes. Nuclear terrorism may be presented as an issue, but there's a big problem with that. So far, there hasn't been one attempt to blow up a nuclear plant. I know one might say there's always a first time, but don't you think something would have happened sooner if it were going to at all?
Once you've got past matters like that, the main argument presented by anti-nuclear hippies is that of the waste it generates. Well, if you're aware of how little fuel is used, the amount of waste produced is actually quite small and there are ways of dealing with it. An idea I've heard proposed is to vitrify it, and dump it in Erta Ale (for those aforementioned people who bunked geography as a kid, that's the famous volcano with an active lava lake in the caldera.) The argument is that this has many positive points - the radioactive material is being returned to the Earth, it wouldn't hurt the locals (who are all tribes who wouldn't have a clue what the fuss is about and therefore wouldn't complain) et cetera, but what happens if Erta Ale produces a lava flow, as it does every couple of decades? No, there are better ways of returning it to the Earth's core.
What of dumping it in the sea? No, stop thinking that, it is actually a fairly good idea. If one were to put it in some sort of aerodynamically designed, concrete-filled pod and launched it into either a trench between destructive tectonic plates, or even just into the primordial silt at the bottom of the ocean, it could be disposed of for good. Launching it between plates puts it straight back into the earth's core (when the plates move, anyway) and the silt at the bottom of the oceans remains undisturbed for an extremely long time. It's astonishing how little happens down there. The great thing about this idea is that even if the radioactive waste did manage to escape the concrete and metal of its pod and the several feet of silt it would be buried under, the amount of radioactive substance leaked to the sea wold be literally neglegible in comparison to the amount of radioactive substances already present in the sea - seawater contains several tons of uranium per km^3 of water. It's also worth bearing in mind that because radiation is more commonplace in the sea than on land, a small leak in the ocean wouldn't affect living creatures, as they're more used to the isotopes (and their bodies are more able to ignore them) than humans are.
Well, I'm bored of typing now, if anyone has any questions, I'd be delighted to laugh at/answer them in the comments.
Lowri :)
Now, everyone's aware that we're running out of fossil fuel, with estimates for running-out times being a bit too close for comfort, especially as far as crude oil is concerned. In fact, unless I am run over by a bus tomorrow, the chances of fossil fuels running out in my lifetime approaches one, an alarming concept (bearing in mind the fact that anything is possible so long as it doesn't defy the laws of physics, in which case it's entirely possible that Earth will spontaneously turn into a big blob of crude oil as soon as I hit the "publish post" button.) Because of the shortage of non-renewable fuel, the race to find a viable alternative is on, and so far several alternatives have been proposed.
One of the most commonly trotted out ideas is solar power, and at first, it seems brilliant. Harnessing the sun's energy basically forever! Yaaaay! Wait a minute. Where are the the majority of the world's solar panels? Germany. How many wetter, cloudier countries do YOU know? Well, unless you bunked geography at school, your answer ought to be "very few" or less. Essentially, the places advocating (and therefore making use of) solar power are the countries it's the least useful in. Now, you might say this could be remedied by making it more popular elsewhere, but you need to consider what solar panels actually are. There are two types of solar panel, ones which are easy enough to make, lots of thin pipes of water with a black surface, but can only provide hot water when the sun's out, or photovoltaic cells, which harness the sun's energy and can store it for later use. The one problem with these is that they can take an incredible amount of energy to create, to the point that some solar panels never manage to generate as much energy as they took to create. Big problem that, a negative net gain. In addition to these problems, solar power is hopelessly unreliable - you don't know when it's going to be sunny. No, I do not think solar power is the way forward.
Wind power? No. Have you seen the big turbines? They're ugly, noisy, and kill bats and goats (through the sudden drop in pressure, their lungs can't take it.) Out to sea is an option, but it's incredibly expensive. I'd say it's not worth the money.
Wave power? Well, this has its merits in that it's reliable (the moon isn't about to disappear from the sky) and relatively cheap. However, it wouldn't produce enough power for everywhere.
Biomass? No no no no no. To produce enough biomass to fuel the world, you'd require more space than there is on the planet to grow crops. It's not a good idea.
Hydrogen power? Ah, I like this one. The idea is that hydrogen burns in air, producing only water. Then again, water vapour is an incredibly powerful greenhouse gas, and to get hold of hydrogen to burn, you have to electrolyse water. Guess what? You need power to electrolyse water. Where does one usually get the power from? Fossil fuel. That could be changed to something else, but the efficiency is very questionable. However, hydrogen is, I think, the best option for replacing petrol or diesel in cars.
Nuclear fusion? A fantastic idea on paper. Do let me know when you manage cold fusion in your basement, but it looks unlikely for the moment.
Now, my choice for a fossil fuel replacement that could be rolled out worldwide in the next decade or two is nuclear fission. It's already in use in many places in the world, with something like 10-15% of the world's energy produced by nuclear fission. There are a great many pros to the idea, with the main one being that a huge amount of energy is produced from very little fuel (I've done my research, and a medium-sized power station operates on about a metre cubed block's worth of uranium-235 or plutonium-239 per year.) This is a ridiculously small amount! True, uranium isn't a renewable material, but there's certainly enough available to last a good century or two with what we have. Who knows? By that point, it's entirely feasible that someone will have worked out how to fuse lighter elements to get something which decays into U-235 or Pu-239 - you never know.
Now, whenever I tell anyone I'm pro-nuclear power, I get one of two responses. I either get the whole "oh, that's a good idea!" positiveness, or skeptical looks and ridiculed. You see, a lot of people believe the horror stories associated with nuclear power, for example the Fukushima incident. Let me dispel this one. The Fukushima incident occurred as the result of a magnitude 9.0 megathrust earthquake along a major faultline in the Ring Of Fire. Germany have declared that they're turning off their nuclear power stations before 2020 because of the Fukushima incident. This is terrible reasoning! A similar earthquake could not possibly happen in Germany - in fact, Japan is one of two places where such a large earthquake is able to occur (the other is by Chile.) This is because the only earthquakes powerful enough to be megathrust earthquakes are ones along major faultlines, which are straight(ish) lines for several hundred miles.
Other major incidents in the past have been accidents. Chernobyl, for example, blew up during an inspection, when the coolant system was being mucked around with. Similar incidents can be prevented simply by learning from our own mistakes. Nuclear terrorism may be presented as an issue, but there's a big problem with that. So far, there hasn't been one attempt to blow up a nuclear plant. I know one might say there's always a first time, but don't you think something would have happened sooner if it were going to at all?
Once you've got past matters like that, the main argument presented by anti-nuclear hippies is that of the waste it generates. Well, if you're aware of how little fuel is used, the amount of waste produced is actually quite small and there are ways of dealing with it. An idea I've heard proposed is to vitrify it, and dump it in Erta Ale (for those aforementioned people who bunked geography as a kid, that's the famous volcano with an active lava lake in the caldera.) The argument is that this has many positive points - the radioactive material is being returned to the Earth, it wouldn't hurt the locals (who are all tribes who wouldn't have a clue what the fuss is about and therefore wouldn't complain) et cetera, but what happens if Erta Ale produces a lava flow, as it does every couple of decades? No, there are better ways of returning it to the Earth's core.
What of dumping it in the sea? No, stop thinking that, it is actually a fairly good idea. If one were to put it in some sort of aerodynamically designed, concrete-filled pod and launched it into either a trench between destructive tectonic plates, or even just into the primordial silt at the bottom of the ocean, it could be disposed of for good. Launching it between plates puts it straight back into the earth's core (when the plates move, anyway) and the silt at the bottom of the oceans remains undisturbed for an extremely long time. It's astonishing how little happens down there. The great thing about this idea is that even if the radioactive waste did manage to escape the concrete and metal of its pod and the several feet of silt it would be buried under, the amount of radioactive substance leaked to the sea wold be literally neglegible in comparison to the amount of radioactive substances already present in the sea - seawater contains several tons of uranium per km^3 of water. It's also worth bearing in mind that because radiation is more commonplace in the sea than on land, a small leak in the ocean wouldn't affect living creatures, as they're more used to the isotopes (and their bodies are more able to ignore them) than humans are.
Well, I'm bored of typing now, if anyone has any questions, I'd be delighted to laugh at/answer them in the comments.
Lowri :)
Saturday, 21 May 2011
A Christian perspective on why Harold Camping's prediction isn't worth any paper it's printed on.
Ever since I heard of the Rapture predictions for today, I've been in a pretty bad mood about it. I mean, I'm a Christian, and I believe that it will eventually happen, but I (rightly, it would appear) dismissed the 21st of May theory as bunkem. Why? Because, like Harold Camping, I read the Bible. The crucial difference is that I remembered Matthew 24:36 - "But about (Judgement Day) or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Basically, the timing is so secret, even Jesus himself doesn't know when Judgement Day is. What are the implications of this, if Judgement Day really was today? Jesus, fully man and yet FULLY GOD, would know less than some mechanic from America? The mechanic would be in some way greater than God? Isn't that what the Devil got booted out of heaven for thinking?
As for the arguments that God might just have also chosen today, purely coincidentally, I think I can shoot down those too. Matthew 24:44 says "So you must also be ready, because the Son of Man (Jesus) will come at an hour when you do not expect him." Basically, people are (were) expecting Jesus to come today, therefore He could not have come today. I would apply the same logic to the whole 2012 idea, and any other end-of-the-world predictions.
Harold Camping obviously forgets that one can't just pick and choose bits of the Bible to be correct or false. In accepting the Bible, one has to accept the whole lot, and not just the select bits which back up your theory. Granted, a lot of it is, I believe, meant to be interpreted metaphorically, but I fail to see how direct statements like the ones I've outlined above can be at all subjective.
(Any "Christianity is wrong" comments will be deleted post-haste unless you have a watertight argument [which is impossible], so don't even bother.)
As for the arguments that God might just have also chosen today, purely coincidentally, I think I can shoot down those too. Matthew 24:44 says "So you must also be ready, because the Son of Man (Jesus) will come at an hour when you do not expect him." Basically, people are (were) expecting Jesus to come today, therefore He could not have come today. I would apply the same logic to the whole 2012 idea, and any other end-of-the-world predictions.
Harold Camping obviously forgets that one can't just pick and choose bits of the Bible to be correct or false. In accepting the Bible, one has to accept the whole lot, and not just the select bits which back up your theory. Granted, a lot of it is, I believe, meant to be interpreted metaphorically, but I fail to see how direct statements like the ones I've outlined above can be at all subjective.
(Any "Christianity is wrong" comments will be deleted post-haste unless you have a watertight argument [which is impossible], so don't even bother.)
Sunday, 27 March 2011
Message to an irate United Kingdom - I'm only asking for five minutes of your life.
I should warn you now, this is going to be an extremely political blog post, in which I shall highlight why I believe the current coalition government to be doing the right thing in terms of the country's finances. I realise that this statement will make most people immediately switch off, or desire to bombard me with abuse, but all I ask is that you read the whole of this post with an open mind and see that what I'm saying actually makes a lot of sense. I'll keep it as short as I possibly can while highlighting all the points necessary to illustrate my argument. However much you disagree with it, I urge you to read it all the way through and not just dismiss is as rubbish because it's not what you want to hear.
Firstly, I would like to make something very clear. Even though I am about as middle-class as you'd expect from anyone living in inner-Surrey, one of the most Conservative areas in Great Britain, I'm putting my bias aside in order to speak the truth about what really is best for this country. Well, here goes, into the deep end.
The timing of this post (id est immediately after the protest march through London yesterday) is not a coincidence. One event during the march in particular which alarmed me was how the protesters booed Ed Miliband when he spoke about how some cuts would be necessary. Honestly, I don't usually agree with Ed Miliband on principle (I mean, have you seen that thick expression he's always wearing?) you know the government are doing something right when the opposition agrees (as is the case here - sort of: I'll go into more detail there in a bit.) The fact that the protesters booed at this just shows how selfish and ignorant we are, if we expect that the government can just magic up a load of money from thin air just so the outrageous spending spree held by the previous government can continue. I mean, Labour themselves admit that it was wrong to spend so much borrowed money, and that that level of spending can't continue, so the only way to stop that is to make cuts or raise taxes. The huge amount of money being poured into the public sector may well have been great for a few individual people (and Labour's popularity) but it's just not a feasible way for a country to prosper. It only leads to huge debts (like the ones we're seeing now) which have to be paid off, with interest. We have to raise that money somewhere, which even the culprits admit. The current government is only trying to clean up the mess the last one left behind.
To all those who argue that the cuts could have been put into place more gradually, instead of a big wallop immediately, have you no understanding of how the interest system works? The longer you leave debts, the more the interest builds up, and if you put cuts into place gradually you end up making the cuts for a far longer time, which means potentially a longer time of fewer jobs, less money being put into public services et cetera, which in the overall scheme of things is arguably worse for our country's economy. Think of it in a smaller scale. Say you have a credit card, for which you have to pay interest on anything bought on it. Do you spend a fortune on it, knowing full well you're not going to be able to pay it back? Not if you have anything between your ears. Why should it be any different for a country? The only real difference is that the scale is much larger, and therefore the damage is much greater. You know it makes sense.
Another important point is on pay rises. Now, I live close to the University of Surrey, where there have been strikes over pay rises for the majority of the last week. On Monday, when I was on the bus home (yes, inner-Surrey snobby Lowri uses public transport,) I saw a sign attached to a pole by the main university entrance which said "A 0.4% payrise is an insult" which, if I'm honest, made me wonder what people who thought like that are doing in a university in the first place. I actually felt rather tempted to return the next day and change it so it said "A 0.4% payrise is still more than you were earning before, so be grateful." I don't understand how the academics can be complaining about being given more money? Pay rises didn't ought to be seen as an entitlement, they should be seen as a privilege, and besides which, compared to a lot of workers, academics (who are responsible for the uproar in Surrey, at least) are actually paid rather well. This just further illustrates how selfish we (the UK) have become.
It should also be pointed out that the definition of happy is when things get better for said person. Likewise, unhappy is when things are worse for said person and you're more neutral when things stay the same. By definition, the population will only be happy when the government keep on pouring money into public services, which just isn't feasible. Whether we like it or not, cuts are necessary in order to reduce borrowing from other countries and pay back the debt, so the spending can start up again in the future. In introducing cuts, by definition there will be an unhappy demographic, who think the cuts should be somewhere else. It's like a domino effect.
My final, and perhaps most important point, is a reminder of what politics is all about. Getting the voter (us) to vote for you at the next election. And how does one do that? By spending in all the right places, not implementing cuts, and just generally making oneself popular. The current government are definitely not doing that. They are, quite simply, making themselves unpopular for the reason that they genuinely believe that what they're doing is right for our country. Why would any political party (or coalition) intentionally sabotage themselves for the next election?
In conclusion, and leading on from my last point, I think the best thing we can do in light of the cuts is to trust the government in what they're doing, after all, they may be politicians, but they're politicians who are willing to sacrifice their own popularity for the sake of our country (and popularity is everything to a politician,) and take pay cuts themselves (as the cabinet did at the start of their term.) In fact, protest marches are the least productive thing we could possibly do. After all, these marches tend to end up with shops/banks/et cetera being ransacked, work days being wasted when they could be generating revenue for the country, and such a degree of mob psychology that no one will listen to reason, instead of just being angry. It is for this reason that I wrote this blog post, to be a voice of reason when no one else is willing to step up and talk some sense.
Thank you for reading this blog post all the way to the end, I hope it at least made you think a bit more about how we can't just expect money to appear out of nowhere.
Lowri
Firstly, I would like to make something very clear. Even though I am about as middle-class as you'd expect from anyone living in inner-Surrey, one of the most Conservative areas in Great Britain, I'm putting my bias aside in order to speak the truth about what really is best for this country. Well, here goes, into the deep end.
The timing of this post (id est immediately after the protest march through London yesterday) is not a coincidence. One event during the march in particular which alarmed me was how the protesters booed Ed Miliband when he spoke about how some cuts would be necessary. Honestly, I don't usually agree with Ed Miliband on principle (I mean, have you seen that thick expression he's always wearing?) you know the government are doing something right when the opposition agrees (as is the case here - sort of: I'll go into more detail there in a bit.) The fact that the protesters booed at this just shows how selfish and ignorant we are, if we expect that the government can just magic up a load of money from thin air just so the outrageous spending spree held by the previous government can continue. I mean, Labour themselves admit that it was wrong to spend so much borrowed money, and that that level of spending can't continue, so the only way to stop that is to make cuts or raise taxes. The huge amount of money being poured into the public sector may well have been great for a few individual people (and Labour's popularity) but it's just not a feasible way for a country to prosper. It only leads to huge debts (like the ones we're seeing now) which have to be paid off, with interest. We have to raise that money somewhere, which even the culprits admit. The current government is only trying to clean up the mess the last one left behind.
To all those who argue that the cuts could have been put into place more gradually, instead of a big wallop immediately, have you no understanding of how the interest system works? The longer you leave debts, the more the interest builds up, and if you put cuts into place gradually you end up making the cuts for a far longer time, which means potentially a longer time of fewer jobs, less money being put into public services et cetera, which in the overall scheme of things is arguably worse for our country's economy. Think of it in a smaller scale. Say you have a credit card, for which you have to pay interest on anything bought on it. Do you spend a fortune on it, knowing full well you're not going to be able to pay it back? Not if you have anything between your ears. Why should it be any different for a country? The only real difference is that the scale is much larger, and therefore the damage is much greater. You know it makes sense.
Another important point is on pay rises. Now, I live close to the University of Surrey, where there have been strikes over pay rises for the majority of the last week. On Monday, when I was on the bus home (yes, inner-Surrey snobby Lowri uses public transport,) I saw a sign attached to a pole by the main university entrance which said "A 0.4% payrise is an insult" which, if I'm honest, made me wonder what people who thought like that are doing in a university in the first place. I actually felt rather tempted to return the next day and change it so it said "A 0.4% payrise is still more than you were earning before, so be grateful." I don't understand how the academics can be complaining about being given more money? Pay rises didn't ought to be seen as an entitlement, they should be seen as a privilege, and besides which, compared to a lot of workers, academics (who are responsible for the uproar in Surrey, at least) are actually paid rather well. This just further illustrates how selfish we (the UK) have become.
It should also be pointed out that the definition of happy is when things get better for said person. Likewise, unhappy is when things are worse for said person and you're more neutral when things stay the same. By definition, the population will only be happy when the government keep on pouring money into public services, which just isn't feasible. Whether we like it or not, cuts are necessary in order to reduce borrowing from other countries and pay back the debt, so the spending can start up again in the future. In introducing cuts, by definition there will be an unhappy demographic, who think the cuts should be somewhere else. It's like a domino effect.
My final, and perhaps most important point, is a reminder of what politics is all about. Getting the voter (us) to vote for you at the next election. And how does one do that? By spending in all the right places, not implementing cuts, and just generally making oneself popular. The current government are definitely not doing that. They are, quite simply, making themselves unpopular for the reason that they genuinely believe that what they're doing is right for our country. Why would any political party (or coalition) intentionally sabotage themselves for the next election?
In conclusion, and leading on from my last point, I think the best thing we can do in light of the cuts is to trust the government in what they're doing, after all, they may be politicians, but they're politicians who are willing to sacrifice their own popularity for the sake of our country (and popularity is everything to a politician,) and take pay cuts themselves (as the cabinet did at the start of their term.) In fact, protest marches are the least productive thing we could possibly do. After all, these marches tend to end up with shops/banks/et cetera being ransacked, work days being wasted when they could be generating revenue for the country, and such a degree of mob psychology that no one will listen to reason, instead of just being angry. It is for this reason that I wrote this blog post, to be a voice of reason when no one else is willing to step up and talk some sense.
Thank you for reading this blog post all the way to the end, I hope it at least made you think a bit more about how we can't just expect money to appear out of nowhere.
Lowri
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Fires, floods and frighteningly icy red pistes... it can only mean one thing: the annual family skiing trip to France!
I am pleased to announce that I am still alive.
Indeed, my family just this minute got back from our annual skiing holiday in La Tania, exhausted, with complaining stomachs and two pairs of skis even more in need of a wax than they were this time last week. Seriously though, it was brilliant, even though there were one or two... ahem... incidents.
Now, I don't usually make a habit of explaining the things in the titles of my blog, but I think this week definitely merits some decent explanations, so, first, the flood & fire. Now, the fire wasn't really anything to do with us, but Crystal (the company organising the holiday) had a VERY busy week. On Tuesday, in one of the other chalets (which are all made of wood, it being the Alps) there was a fire. Not a serious one, of course, just an oven that decided it would much rather be a flamethrower, but it was enough to have the rep running around answering phone calls all evening (when he was helping to cook for our chalet as one of the hosts went back to the UK for a few days.) In addition to this, and much more relevent to me & my family was a fairly major flood, caused by something in the boiler blowing up, meaning that the chalet briefly became a large, three-floored sauna. Now, for anyone reading this who is not familiar with the alpine lingo, chalets are when you get a load of strangers (sixteen people in our case) into a large house, notably with a sloping roof which extends below the ceiling of the top floor at least, causing the ceilings on the top floor to be sloping. Basically, to have a flood in such a building is slightly disastrous, and all sixteen of us had to be moved. Thanks to this, my family (along with another six people) were transferred to a five star hotel in Courchevel 1850 (one of the swankiest resorts in the Alps) for the last night. It was certainly an interesting experience, but I feel sorry for the people whose jobs were to cook and clean for us in the chalet, as they would have been the ones faced with the unenviable task of owning up to the next sixteen people (who would have arrived this afternoon) why the rooms were all wet, the ceilings dripped and why the sofas which ought to have been in the communal living room were upside-down on the veranda, missing cushions.
I've written a fair bit about that now, so I shall end this blog post with some advice. It may seem like a brilliant idea to do that red piste at the top of the chairlift to bomb down to the village as quickly as you possibly can so you might get in a few extra runs, but it probably isn't if it hasn't snowed for a couple of days and it was icy even after the snowfall. It'll be an absolute deathtrap. Having said that, I managed to not fall over (even flying several yards off a mogul at easily 40mph,) and don't remember when the last time I had so much fun was... ;)
Lowri :)
Indeed, my family just this minute got back from our annual skiing holiday in La Tania, exhausted, with complaining stomachs and two pairs of skis even more in need of a wax than they were this time last week. Seriously though, it was brilliant, even though there were one or two... ahem... incidents.
Now, I don't usually make a habit of explaining the things in the titles of my blog, but I think this week definitely merits some decent explanations, so, first, the flood & fire. Now, the fire wasn't really anything to do with us, but Crystal (the company organising the holiday) had a VERY busy week. On Tuesday, in one of the other chalets (which are all made of wood, it being the Alps) there was a fire. Not a serious one, of course, just an oven that decided it would much rather be a flamethrower, but it was enough to have the rep running around answering phone calls all evening (when he was helping to cook for our chalet as one of the hosts went back to the UK for a few days.) In addition to this, and much more relevent to me & my family was a fairly major flood, caused by something in the boiler blowing up, meaning that the chalet briefly became a large, three-floored sauna. Now, for anyone reading this who is not familiar with the alpine lingo, chalets are when you get a load of strangers (sixteen people in our case) into a large house, notably with a sloping roof which extends below the ceiling of the top floor at least, causing the ceilings on the top floor to be sloping. Basically, to have a flood in such a building is slightly disastrous, and all sixteen of us had to be moved. Thanks to this, my family (along with another six people) were transferred to a five star hotel in Courchevel 1850 (one of the swankiest resorts in the Alps) for the last night. It was certainly an interesting experience, but I feel sorry for the people whose jobs were to cook and clean for us in the chalet, as they would have been the ones faced with the unenviable task of owning up to the next sixteen people (who would have arrived this afternoon) why the rooms were all wet, the ceilings dripped and why the sofas which ought to have been in the communal living room were upside-down on the veranda, missing cushions.
I've written a fair bit about that now, so I shall end this blog post with some advice. It may seem like a brilliant idea to do that red piste at the top of the chairlift to bomb down to the village as quickly as you possibly can so you might get in a few extra runs, but it probably isn't if it hasn't snowed for a couple of days and it was icy even after the snowfall. It'll be an absolute deathtrap. Having said that, I managed to not fall over (even flying several yards off a mogul at easily 40mph,) and don't remember when the last time I had so much fun was... ;)
Lowri :)
Monday, 24 January 2011
An exodus and B10, the loony room
For background information: at the beginning of the school year, my school hired a new head of sixth form, who is pretty much universally unpopular. It would appear that in the last few days, that has come to a head, with two of my friends leaving. One in particular made a big show about it, including making an amusing note in the signing-out folder. (We have folders in which to write our name, reason for signing out and times we were out for.) This friend decided to write something along the lines of "leaving forever and ever and ever and ever and ever harharhar SUCKERS" as her reason, some interesting anatomical diagrams as her signing out time and "you wish" as her signing back in time. Considering this new head (no names mentioned) is making it his priority to get as many people to join the sixth form as possible (because UCAS applications and admin apparently just aren't important) this exodus must be quite a blow to him. Indeed, he doesn't appear to be in a terribly good mood. Good.
Something else of note is an incident that occurred in a room (B10) in the sixth-form block my friends (and a load of other people) inhabit during free periods, break and lunch. We'd been hearing a load of the lower-sixth formers in the room next to ours banging walls for a while, and itsounded like someone was in the cupboard (which backs into our room, a square of wall in the corner.) We retaliated by thumping the wall of the cupboard, to alarm whoever was in it, and everything went quiet. After a bit, some lower-sixth boys rushed into our room and started moving the ceiling tiles around. When they'd moved one tile in particular, a face appeared in the ceiling (again, no names mentioned) and asked us to put some tables under the hole so he could climb down. Then, he clambered down into the room, covered in the best part of a century's dust. Really, it's not every day you see someone enter a room through the ceiling. That's what doors were invented for. All the same, it was rather funny :)
B10 does seem to be a place where mad things happen. Last Spring, as a good example, saw a group of people (myself included) trapped inside with the door mechanism stuck. I had to have my lunch passed to me through two windows, as we were on the first floor, and after an hour or so of wondering whether we could climb through the ceiling, the caretakers showed up with their crowbar. Needless to say, the door lost its insides, the frame took a bashing and no one has bothered to fix it. Even a year after, if you want it to shut you have to put a bin in front of it. What a brilliantly maintained school.
Enough of my ramblings now, I have an evil physics exam on Thursday about trains and other exciting stuff to revise for. Fun fun.
Lowri :)
Something else of note is an incident that occurred in a room (B10) in the sixth-form block my friends (and a load of other people) inhabit during free periods, break and lunch. We'd been hearing a load of the lower-sixth formers in the room next to ours banging walls for a while, and itsounded like someone was in the cupboard (which backs into our room, a square of wall in the corner.) We retaliated by thumping the wall of the cupboard, to alarm whoever was in it, and everything went quiet. After a bit, some lower-sixth boys rushed into our room and started moving the ceiling tiles around. When they'd moved one tile in particular, a face appeared in the ceiling (again, no names mentioned) and asked us to put some tables under the hole so he could climb down. Then, he clambered down into the room, covered in the best part of a century's dust. Really, it's not every day you see someone enter a room through the ceiling. That's what doors were invented for. All the same, it was rather funny :)
B10 does seem to be a place where mad things happen. Last Spring, as a good example, saw a group of people (myself included) trapped inside with the door mechanism stuck. I had to have my lunch passed to me through two windows, as we were on the first floor, and after an hour or so of wondering whether we could climb through the ceiling, the caretakers showed up with their crowbar. Needless to say, the door lost its insides, the frame took a bashing and no one has bothered to fix it. Even a year after, if you want it to shut you have to put a bin in front of it. What a brilliantly maintained school.
Enough of my ramblings now, I have an evil physics exam on Thursday about trains and other exciting stuff to revise for. Fun fun.
Lowri :)
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
A year in updates and an highly political rant
So, it has been a year since my last post here. Since then, life has gone on: I have a new way to terrorise the country (called a provisional driving licence - soon to be full if all goes well,) I am a year closer to adulthood, a potentially terrifying thought, and for once I actually agree on things with the government. In fact, I thought I'd base this blog post on politics, and in particular an issue that will particularly affect me. This issue is, in fact, the rising university tuition fees.
As you may have already gathered (and if you hadn't, you're one of those who should certainly not be going to university,) I am a supporter of the cuts, which I gather from all the abuse I receive from my peers, is uncommon for my demographic. In fact, statistically it's precisely my demographic (white, very middle-class, young and rather spoiled) who tend to be socialists, expecting everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. I suspect that had I not two parents working at university, and therefore the understanding of the system, I should probably be a whinging socialist myself. However, if one really thinks about the issue they ought to realise a few things that make rising tuition fees actually look like an OK idea.
Firstly, one must ask oneself why exactly the fees are rising. There can only be one answer to this problem: the fact that the previous, Labour government spent a load of money they just didn't have, and the massive debt owed by the country had to be paid back somehow. In fact, if one digs deeper, an interesting and entirely feasible conclusion may be speculated - the possibility arises that Labour intentionally spend more than they reasonably can to make themselves appealing to the voter, so when the voter realises that actually what they're doing isn't good at all and vote the Tories in, the Tories have to make whopping great cuts which are a worse deal than what the taxpayer are used to, so Labour get back in again. It could easily be argued that it's simply a vicious circle of dirty tactics designed to make their opponents look bad.
There is one major problem with the cuts, however, and that is simply the sheer number of students protesting. Just for the record, I'm fine with the fact that they have the right to protest, but they also have the responsibility to keep it peaceful, and I am a firm believer that people should only get their rights if they adhere to their responsibilities. I'm sure you've heard about the case with a sixth former called Edward Woolard, who threw a fire extinguisher from the roof of the Millbank building into the crowd below. A couple of days ago it was announced that he would be gaoled for (I think) a year and a half. Cases like this make me so annoyed, it's just a load of students think they have the right to do whatever stupid and dangerous stuff they want if it means they can get angry for the sake of being angry.
Something else most students don't realise is the fact that they don't pay for a degree, they pay for the chance to study for a degree. Added to the fact that a lot of students go to university to socialise, get drunk and just prat about in general, I seriously think that if anyone really wanted to go to university to study for a degree, they'd go anyway, tuition fees wouldn't stop them. Also, if you consider that one can take out a student loan for all the tuition fees with no interest, that you only need to pay back when you're earning over £21000 per annum. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me! Something for those who would attempt to counter with "but then students would be in debt for the rest of their life!" to remember is that the whole point of a degree is that it's an investment, id est you pay more early on to increase the chances that you'll earn a lot more later on in life. That would also be my argument against the ignorant fools who claim that the fees rising discriminates against the lower class - only the richest people who attend boarding schools and whose fathers go out shooting foxes while their mothers sit at home and drink tea with their little fingers in the air actually pay up-front, so in most circumstances the wealth of one's parents has flip all to do with ability to pay for university.
I could go on about this for ages, but I have a maths lesson in a minute and should probably go. I am enabling comments, so if anyone disagrees and fancies being proved wrong, they're very welcome to argue. In vain. ;)
/rant
Lowri :)
As you may have already gathered (and if you hadn't, you're one of those who should certainly not be going to university,) I am a supporter of the cuts, which I gather from all the abuse I receive from my peers, is uncommon for my demographic. In fact, statistically it's precisely my demographic (white, very middle-class, young and rather spoiled) who tend to be socialists, expecting everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. I suspect that had I not two parents working at university, and therefore the understanding of the system, I should probably be a whinging socialist myself. However, if one really thinks about the issue they ought to realise a few things that make rising tuition fees actually look like an OK idea.
Firstly, one must ask oneself why exactly the fees are rising. There can only be one answer to this problem: the fact that the previous, Labour government spent a load of money they just didn't have, and the massive debt owed by the country had to be paid back somehow. In fact, if one digs deeper, an interesting and entirely feasible conclusion may be speculated - the possibility arises that Labour intentionally spend more than they reasonably can to make themselves appealing to the voter, so when the voter realises that actually what they're doing isn't good at all and vote the Tories in, the Tories have to make whopping great cuts which are a worse deal than what the taxpayer are used to, so Labour get back in again. It could easily be argued that it's simply a vicious circle of dirty tactics designed to make their opponents look bad.
There is one major problem with the cuts, however, and that is simply the sheer number of students protesting. Just for the record, I'm fine with the fact that they have the right to protest, but they also have the responsibility to keep it peaceful, and I am a firm believer that people should only get their rights if they adhere to their responsibilities. I'm sure you've heard about the case with a sixth former called Edward Woolard, who threw a fire extinguisher from the roof of the Millbank building into the crowd below. A couple of days ago it was announced that he would be gaoled for (I think) a year and a half. Cases like this make me so annoyed, it's just a load of students think they have the right to do whatever stupid and dangerous stuff they want if it means they can get angry for the sake of being angry.
Something else most students don't realise is the fact that they don't pay for a degree, they pay for the chance to study for a degree. Added to the fact that a lot of students go to university to socialise, get drunk and just prat about in general, I seriously think that if anyone really wanted to go to university to study for a degree, they'd go anyway, tuition fees wouldn't stop them. Also, if you consider that one can take out a student loan for all the tuition fees with no interest, that you only need to pay back when you're earning over £21000 per annum. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me! Something for those who would attempt to counter with "but then students would be in debt for the rest of their life!" to remember is that the whole point of a degree is that it's an investment, id est you pay more early on to increase the chances that you'll earn a lot more later on in life. That would also be my argument against the ignorant fools who claim that the fees rising discriminates against the lower class - only the richest people who attend boarding schools and whose fathers go out shooting foxes while their mothers sit at home and drink tea with their little fingers in the air actually pay up-front, so in most circumstances the wealth of one's parents has flip all to do with ability to pay for university.
I could go on about this for ages, but I have a maths lesson in a minute and should probably go. I am enabling comments, so if anyone disagrees and fancies being proved wrong, they're very welcome to argue. In vain. ;)
/rant
Lowri :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
