Wind
Power
Advantages
(2): clean, renewable
Disadvantages
(3): eye-sore, noisy up close, needs
to be windy
It's an
extract from a hand-out on energy sources which I've had to use for some tutoring, and what I find amusing is that no
weighting is given to any of the attributes. Wind power here is deemed 'bad' as
it has fewer advantages than disadvantages. But a rating system this reductive
can present a warped evaluation of pretty much anything, for instance:
Having a
serial killer in your house
Advantages
(3): Exciting, increases heart rate,
chance to meet someone new
Disadvantages
(2): Can't be reasoned with, will
brutally murder you and your family
Likewise:
Anything
for which there are more disadvantages than advantages
Advantages
(2): easy to ridicule, useful in weird
meta-jokes
Disadvantages
(1): more disadvantages than
advantages
 |
| FUCK MY EYES ARE SORE |
It's a shame that energy sources are so simplified in school because I think they're something the electorate desperately needs an informed opinion on. For instance, the government announced a new nuclear energy deal this week, and there appear to be some disadvantages to the plans not listed on the hand-out.
Can you elaborate?
Basically
China's President visited the UK this week, and during the brief
moments The Conservatives weren't trying to bustle Jeremy Corbyn into an
airing cupboard so he couldn't mention their human rights record, it was agreed that China will fund and possibly build the UK's next few nuclear power stations. I find these developments quite scary, not least because they sound like 'Phase 1' of a project where the final phase is entitled 'Completion: Harvesting Brain Tissue from The Remaining Western Population'. Indeed, British intelligence agencies have voiced concerns about the plans, claiming that they can 'never know what hidden capabilities are built into the plants' software'.
Yep. Hidden capabilities. If something’s hidden that can mean one of two
things: it’s evil or it’s embarrassing. Basically our next nuclear power plant is
either going to have a secret Porn, Candy Crush and ABBA lair, or the potential
to kill us all. Admittedly every nuclear power plant has the potential to kill
us all, but you see what I’m getting at. These plants could be used by China against the
UK.
Surely that’s never going to happen?
I agree it’s
unlikely. I mean, I own loads of products made in China and none of them have
ever turned on me (apart from my GAP ripped jeans which turned on me in about
2010 by becoming deeply, prickishly unfashionable) so it’s unfair to assume all the power
plants will feature a self-destruct button cleverly mislabeled ‘press for a
smaller dick’. That said, I don’t think it’s unfair to see the deal as some sort
of threat to national security.
Does anyone disagree?
Well that’s
the thing: it very much depends who you ask. Media coverage of the security
issue has been predictably inconsistent: The
Guardian dedicated an entire article to the concerns whereas The Sun
failed to mention them completely; meanwhile The Mail went with ‘30
reasons why
China is trustworthy’ followed by a highlights reel of Tom Daley's Beijing Olympics and some tits. (I'm not totally sure the tits were part of
the same article, but to be fair I was wearing my Mail Online Bile Protection
Suit and sometimes the anti-bullshit goggles steam up a bit.)
 |
| Bet she's just got straight vodka in there |
As
for the
government? Well, not much has been said. This could mean David Cameron
doesn't think China are a problem, but when you
consider that he recently declared a 66 year old
manhole-cover-enthusiast from Islington a threat to national security, your perspective changes a little. Basically, it's very hard to ascertain what's a threat to national security when your only sources of information have a vested interest regarding who's in power.
Or, in Cameron's case an 'un-vested' interest. He's topless, and his 'biased twat' tattoo is for all to see.
No comments:
Post a Comment