All iPods Go To Heaven

It finally happened. My first iPod has died. 'Tis a sad day in this music-addict's world.

After a year and a half of loyal service, my iPod has ceased to function. All I get now is the Apple logo and the unhappy iPod icon with a link to the Apple Tech support website. It all began with a leaky ziploc container...

As a healthy snack for work, I packed up a ziploc container with sliced cantaloupe and placed it in my shoulder bag. On the way home, I carelessly (and uncharacteristically) tossed my iPod into my bag, and then placed the empty (or so I thought) ziploc container in the bag next to it. The bag was then tossed into the backseat of the Jeep.

When I got home, I made a sickening discovery. The ziploc container had leaked cantaloupe juice all over my iPod. Thanks to the clear case that I keep on the iPod at all times, it was mostly protected, but part of the wheel was exposed and more than a little sticky. Fearing for it's life, I rushed it over to Futureshop where I had a Product Service Plan with them. They took it in, but told me spill damage was not covered by the PSP.

A short while later it was returned to me with no indication of anything wrong. They did their diagnostics and pronounced it healthy.

Now, a week ago I got the sad iPod icon and called Futureshop again. But as I was talking, I accidentally dropped my iPod on the carpet. It immediately started up again. I was so thrilled, that I hung up without another word. Then last night while I was on the treadmill at the gym, it hung again. I smacked it with the back of my hand and it started up again. But not for long. It's my belief that the hard-drive is going, so I took it to Futureshop. The girl said that I shouldn't bother since they'll just write it off as being water damaged.

I'm not prepared to give up. I found an iPod repairman in Edmonton, but I'm a little concerned about just sending my iPod to them without any guarantee that I'll ever see it again. It is, however, the only option left short of buying a brand new iPod.

In the meantime, I think I'll pick up a Shuffle and use that at the gym. At least then, I'll have some sort of portable music. I may very well go mad without it. Has anyone heard anything about the Shuffles?

Pray with me that we can bring my iPod back from the dead, lest it become one of the dearly Departed.

A New Favourite: Mika

Cineplex theaters has not-so-recently been showing music videos in place of commercials before movies. However, they do not always show the song title, or artist name. So when I saw the video of a very handsome, very talented musician, I was intrigued.

When I got home, I frantically tried to remember some of the words for a Google search. All I could summon was, "Why don't you like me, why don't you like me without making me try?" But that was enough. I was soon on the trail of the newest pop iconoclast, Mika (pronounced Mee-ka).

With music heavily reminiscent of Queen and Prince, he's become an instant hit in the UK. His album debuted at #1 on the charts, and is rapidly spreading his infectious pop-tunes across the Atlantic. The album, Life in Cartoon Motion, is resplendent with bubbly, over-the-top, often funny lyrics, and is loaded with hooks that will stick you until you can't stand it anymore.

You can check out his album on the MuchMusic website.

Animal Cruelty Laws: Progress at Last!

In November, I posted this entry. Now, 4 months later, an Alberta MP is vying for Ottawa's attention to Canada's animal cruelty laws. Myron Thompson tabled over 111,000 signatures from 4 different petitions in an effort to get Canada's animal cruelty laws toughened.

The ball is rolling, thanks to all of you who signed the petition. The article mentions Bills S-213 and C-373. Tamara Chaney, the woman behind the petition I asked many of you to sign, is in favour of Bill C-373, and so am I. Having read both Bills, it is clear that Bill S-213 is insufficient change to the current animal cruelty laws. It is vague, and does not adequately address the issue of "property".

I encourage all of you to write to your MPs to endorse Bill C-373. This change has been 25 years in waiting, let's make it count.

I am a Facebook Divorcee

Yesterday, I deactivated my Facebook account. Why, you ask? Because Facebook no longer serves my needs in its capacity as a networking tool. In short, I don't need it anymore.

This may seem absurd or strange to many of you, but it makes perfect and logical sense to me. Facebook was introduced, like all things cool on the Internet, to me by friends and rapidly became an outlet for time better spent studying. We all used to joke about how much time we spent on Facebook: updating our profiles, reading other people's walls, searching for new friends to add, etc. We allowed it to consume our lives.

Eventually, Facebook added the News Tracker feature, which allowed users to track any and all movements of other users on Facebook. This was met with anger and dismay, as it opened the door for real "stalking" not just the joking kind of stalking we all claimed to do to each other. You could literally see everything a person did on Facebook, down to the exact changes made to a section of a personal profile.

Following that came the true opening of the floodgates: admittance of non-university/college users. You no longer had to have a university or college e-mail account that was registered with Facebook to become a member. Anyone could join as long as the invite was sent out by a current member. Soon, the Facebook network became infested with all manner of users. This to me, was incomprehensible given MySpace's security problems with real-life stalkers and pedophiles. Add to this, Facebook users' tendency to post drunken pictures of themselves on their profiles and you have a breeding ground for seedy online encounters.

A confidential source has also informed me of the unofficial use of Facebook to screen potential employees by employers. This is not entirely legal, especially in the case of gays, where sexuality can be used as a mark against an otherwise polished and qualified resume. However, employers cannot legally be charged with discrimination as the information posted on many Facebook accounts can be retrieved by virtually anyone, and can thus be argued to be public information.

I found myself looking through the Home page in my Facebook account, and wondering what I was looking at. There was an overload of information being thrown at me: so-and-so changed his picture, so-and-so wrote on so-and-so's wall, so-and-so is now friends with so-and-so. The list goes on. It was like being bombarded with useless and more-often-than-not irrelevant information. Despite my attempts to eliminate this feature from my account, I was still unable to truly appreciate the complexity of Facebook anymore. I no longer felt compelled to sift through other people's profiles. I no longer enjoyed reading snippets of conversations on other people's walls. It just seemed so utterly, and completely useless to me.

So let's summarize, shall we. Facebook is bad because it is a) a waste of time, b) ideal for real stalking, c) a negative impact on employment opportunities, and d) a stadium for competitions to see who has the most friends on the most networks. That last point shouldn't need explaining. The competitive nature of college/university students is perfect for this style of one-up-manship. On the surface it appears to boost self-esteem, when it is in fact decreasing self-worth by reinforcing the notion that more friends means greater self-worth. This is completely untrue, as often a person's closest friends tend to form a rather small circle. So you can see, Facebook is also detrimental to a person's mental and psychological health.

I have therefore decided it no longer serves my needs in the realm of communication. Given my current network of friends, I see no reason to keep this account open and active. Many of the contacts on my list no longer keep in contact with me, nor I them. If you need to contact me, or leave me messages, e-mail will suffice.

Cyborgs!!

This is totally fucking cool. Just go read it. And then think about what it means. We're on the brink of incorporating machinery into flesh. How fucking cool is that?!

Science vs Religion

What is your opinion on the recent seizure by the BC government of three of the surviving sextuplets to give them blood transfusions? Was it justified? Does the parents' choice of religion and beliefs prevail over the possibility that some of the children might die? Is this a black and white situation, or is there room for alternatives?

A short summary is this, the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses whose religion forbids the consumption of blood products, which includes blood transfusions. The sextuplets are 15 weeks premature and weighed in around 2.2lbs. Their chances of survival were slim. Two have since died, and the remaining children are in the care of their parents. A short while ago, the BC government seized three of the children and performed blood transfusions in order to keep them alive. The parents are now waging a battle against the BC government to ensure that this does not happen again.

This case is very similar to another case that took place here in Alberta. She died in September 2002.

These situations are very troubling. Primarily because they involve the lives of children, minors, who arguably are not in a position to understand the full implications of their choices. The Alberta girl, Bethany, was 17 at the time of her death. It is possible that she understood the full consequences of her refusal to undergo blood transfusions. It is also arguable that even after forcibly receiving blood transfusions, she died, making it possible that even with such treatment, the end result is inevitable.

The sextuplets, however, are not even close to such a situation, where they have had time to make a choice on religion, and whether or not their beliefs coincide with those of their parents. What if the children decide that being a Jehovah's Witness is not for them? What if they choose to accept blood transfusions despite their parents' protestations? These are babies, infants even, who cannot currently choose for themselves what is in their best interests. It is thus up to the parents to decide what to do.

I disagree with the parents, that religion and possibly eternal damnation, are more important than survival. I cannot understand what kind of God would want children to die because modern medicine is in conflict with a set of ancient beliefs. It is therefore up to the government of British Columbia to do what is necessary to keep these children alive and well until they can decide for themselves.

What kinds of parents would risk the lives of their children because of their beliefs? What kind of parents would allow their children to die without doing anything other than praying for their souls? What kind of parents would put their own beliefs before the lives of their children? I just don't understand how this can happen. I urge the BC government to continue to fight for the lives of these children, to ensure their well-being, and to make sure that they have a fighting chance at life, without the misguided beliefs of their parents.

Lay Off, Will Ya?!

People really need to stop getting all angry and shit over Daniel Radcliffe (aka Harry Potter) trying to expand his horizons. For those of you who haven't been following, or live under a rock, the young boy wizard (as he'd prefer not to be called) has a role in the play Equus in which his character has an erotic relationship with horses. He also happens to spend part of the play nude.

I was reading an article today, and some father wrote in to say that Master Radcliffe was once a role model for his son, but that he would no longer be going to see the Harry Potter films, or any other work starring Daniel, for that matter (damn that's a long sentence). Well, mister, I can tell you right now that if your boy wants it bad enough, he'll find a way to see the rest of the Harry Potter movies. You are also teaching him that to expand ones horizons is a bad thing. Mr Radcliffe is simply trying to become more than just the kid who played Harry Potter in like 8 movies. Can you really fault him for that?

Well, no, would be the answer. Because the REAL issue here is that Mr Radcliffe has a part that involves being nude on stage. Something most of you probably don't know, is that he is also only 17 years old. I'm positive that some sicko will attend the play if only for the chance to see the little soldier (not that it's little, or big for that matter).

I gotta say, Equus is a helluva play, and a very daring role. We had it done at McGill and it was very popular amongst the students. It's a challenging role, and requires the actor to contend with some pretty serious issues (love for horse, yes more than just that kind of love). In my opinion, Daniel is taking a chance to step out of the HP shadow and become an actor with more than just a passing likeness to a character from a book. He's trying to broaden his repertoire, and show that he can do more than just recite ridiculous-sounding spells while waving a wand.

Seriously, the boy has talent (that's debatable, I know) and we'd all like to see what else he can do. This is evidenced by our most recent child-actor-turned-serious-movie-mogul, Leonardo DiCaprio. He started out as this kid, who got the role of a lifetime as Jack Dawson on James Cameron's Titanic. And now look at him. He got nominated twice in the same category for the Golden Globes, essentially running against himself for an award!! He has outgrown the young, "look who cute I am" phase of his career, which actually prompted a withdrawal from the stage light to find projects that were worth doing.

Kudos to you, Mr Radcliffe for doing something beyond the typical child actor stereotype. And shame on all you parents for dismissing what could be the best move of his entire career, keeping in mind that it's HIS career for chrissakes.