Do you know who you're going out with?

I read another interesting article in the Spectator today about the ability to get information on who you're about to go out with at your fingertips. Technology lets us do so much, access public files, check the weather, keep appointments on your phone or computer but technology is about to take the digital world a step farther. Check it out at:http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/679181

According to this article, Apple has developed two new i-Phone applications known as " Stud or Dud?" and "Are they really single?" to help paint a more apparent picture about the person you're dating. The applications gather information from public records and government agencies to help the user understand more about the person they are about to meet.

Sounds great so far, doesn't it? Well, it is considering you can search the person and get information such as criminal records, address history, marital status and whether or not they're a registered sex offender but you have to pay for it; however there is a catch. There is no guarantee that the information is 100% accurate considering how common some names are. You can either pay$ 24.95 a year or $9.95 a record.

The company PeopleFinders decided to launch this application with the i-Phone and if it's successful they might bring it on board with company's such as BlackBerry ect.

Talk about making people nervous? This definitely will, as much as having information can be useful; it makes it more difficult to maintain privacy especially if you have a criminal record and you're trying to clean up your life. I guess this will make people more concious of what they're doing with the knowledge that their information is that accessible.

World's oldest Sheep dies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8376053.stm
A 23 year old Sheep died in Australia from a heat wave. Yes, a sheep lived to twice it's life expectancy, no wonder it's named Lucky. Lucky held the Guinness record since 2007.

She was abandoned by her mother and raised and had 35 of her own offspring. Lucky died on Monday in the farm from a record heartwave of temperatures over 30c.

She was brought into the shed and put in air conditioning but she succumbed to the heat anyways. Lucky had lost all her teeth and had arthritis due to her old age. She was buried under her favourite nectarine tree on the farm.
They've displayed a copy of Guinness World Record certificate on the wall of the town's tourist information centre which supplies postcards, bookmarks as well as wool for sale.

Parents negotiating children's homework contracts?

This one blew my mind. Honestly, I can't even imagine a parent negotiating a contract on a child's behalf banning their school from giving them homework. Well, that's what two Calgary lawyers did for their 3 children. Check out the article at http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/674885 .

The lawyer's 3 children ages: 10,11 and 18 were struggling to balance homework and sports so their parents decided to design a contract banning homework and outlining the students responsibility.
The contract is known as the " differentiated homework plan" which states that the students must complete their work in class and be ready for quizzes as well as practice their music and read every night. However, all the grades they receive must be based off of the work done in class.

Studies show that homework and school performance don't have any clear link to prove that homework benefits the students.

If kids are getting bombarded with assignments daily, they aren't able to focus on what really matters- the lesson being taught through the assignment. Homework than becomes a race to get it finished and students aren't going to retain any information.

This is actually pretty effective in making school boards review their classroom structure. I can understand high school students having a lot of work to do outside of class but elementary students? That's a little ridiculous.

So first queue line jumping and now tossing vaccinations out?

I was quite appalled when I read this article in the Spectator today:http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/673249 So after we heard a week ago about queue line jumping from professional athletes we now find out that the they've miscalculated the amount of vaccination they needed, yet we don't have enough vaccine to give to school-aged children?

Sounds rather contradictory to me. If the country is so well prepared for this, how can we run out of vaccination and now have too much and have to throw it out since the vaccination is time sensitive?

It sounds like whoever was in charge of this plan didn't think it through thoroughly. They've said they had limited vaccine available and they wanted to be sure pregnant women, children under 5 and those with medical conditions received priority yet they threw out 1% of their vaccine?

After the vaccine is put in the syringe, they must use it within 24-hours or it's unusable since they haven't had enough time to study how it would react after that window.

I'm sure, that those awaiting the vaccine are very frustrated since many parents are trying to get their children vaccinated to prevent the spread of H1N1 yet every where they turn they're limited for what they can do.

There has to be a better way of distributing vaccination without wasting it.

Facebook Rape page?

I came across this article while on Facebook:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6530584/Anger-after-Sydney-students-set-up-pro-rape-Facebook-group.html
Apparently a group had made a Pro=rape Facebook page that was called "Define Statutory" and was formed by a bunch of male students from St. Paul's College in Sydney. The group was just shut down last month and has been in operation since August. I find this appalling that that sort of content would even be allowed and what shocks me more is that people wouldn't report it. The article states that the page could be accessed off of any of the members profiles, so why wouldn't someone say something sooner?

I can't imagine that anyone with morals would see that page and not do something about it. It's an illegal and unethical act so why would Facebook not catch it or someone report it?

There are so many regulations for what you're allowed to post on Facebook and anything offensive isn't allowed I'm sure Facebook does some sort of monitoring for its users, so I'm shocked that it stayed operational for as long as it did.This looks really bad on both Facebook and St Paul's not to mention the young men who created the page.
This sort of publicity is going to cause public outrage meaning a tightening of regulations for Facebook users.

This shouldn't have happened, I hope they do something about this sort of incident.

Flu Shot Ethics?

http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/667720

I read an article in today's paper regarding the H1N1 vaccine and the accusations regarding the professional Basketball and Hockey players in Toronto jumping the line and taking up some of the supply for the priority group.

I think it's ridiculous that grown adults would be selfish enough to take the vaccine when they're well aware of the fact that we're short as is for the priority group. Children and those at higher risk should come first and it's rather sad that adults would forget that those who could die should be of a higher priority.

What's worse is the fact that those giving the shots would allow these players to get their shots. The idea is that everyone who wants to be vaccinated can get the shot. It's disgusting to think that the health care system doesn't know what their priorities are, this looks bad on both the teams and those administering the shots.

As it stands right now, school-aged children can't be vaccinated and they're of high risk since they come into close contact with so many people on a given day. Professional atheletes are at risk but if the general public can't get the shot due to the low reserve of vaccination why should these athletes without medical complicaitons be given special treatment?

If they are pregnant, under five or have medical conditions I can understand them getting thier shots since they are at a higher risk with weakened immune systems but since they most likely don't fall into these categories I think they should wait thier turn.

Who's using the most resources, and it's not humans

I read an article in today's s Spectator all about pets using up more resources and suggesting that your pets are "environmental disasters".
Check it out here: http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/660962

According to a book called Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, feeding large pets have more of an environmental impact than driving an SUV for 10,000 km.

So, basically, theses authors are suggesting giving away your pets so you can help the earth. According to the research that Robert and Brenda Vale( New-Zealand researchers) conducted your dog requires 0.84 global hectares (gha) to sustain him for a year. Larger dogs require as much as 1.1 gha a year versus an SUV which only requires as much as 0.41 gha a year.

Honestly, I don't see how getting rid of dogs is going to help improve the environment. We've done so much damage to the earth over the years, we depleted the Ozone layer years ago by using pesticides and cleaning products- I doubt that the damage is reversible.

Dogs don't really add to the "environmental disaster" that these researchers are referring to. We create the products so maybe it's time for us to take the responsibility and do something to make these products more environmentally friendly. I think we should try all our other options at saving the planet before getting rid of beloved family pets in order to make ourselves feel better about our environmental contribution.

Cozy Graffiti?

Yarn Bombing? Yes, I said Yarn bombing. I read this article today and I found it to be very intriguing. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/712784--graffiti-gangs-chant-knit-one-purl-two

Yarn bombing is a new type of graffiti. People from all over the world are tagging all sorts of objects with coloured knits such as a part of the Great Wall of China, telephone poles, buses and anything else they can tie knits onto.

We're against graffiti but the Yarn Bombers say that it's just meant to beautify their neighbourhoods or to promote the art form since it's not that well known. Others think it's going against "consumerism" and because it doesn't damage property it's just seen as an interesting version of art.

I find this to be interesting since no one can really say anything against this form of expression because it isn't damaging and they're taking an interest in their community and that is a good thing.

If all they want to do is express their art and beautify their communities than let them continue their work and it will better the community too.

Publication Ban Breach?

Okay, so coming from a Journalistic background, I know all about Publication Bans. These usually seem to be placed while a trial is ongoing or the case involves a child under the age of 18.

I happened upon this article: http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/650463
this morning in the Spectator about the paper breaching a publication ban regarding the Johnson- Aziga HIV- murder trial. I was shocked for two reasons: one being that the Spectator is covering their own story and two that they would breach a ban placed by a Superior Court judge.


It makes me wonder about the integrity of journalism since it's rather odd to hear of bans being breached. The ban was put in place for a reason, to protect the identities of the victims. The women died of AIDS and having their names and faces out there would only had to the trauma cause by this situation to their families.

The Spectator has been charged for breaching the ban connected with a published photo in April.

According to the editor-in chief, David Estok, they would never intentionally publish something that was banned. They felt at the time that, the photo met the requirements and didn't reveal any identities.

This should be interesting to see how it plays out and how it affects the media as a whole. It could affect publication banning and make the law even more strict when coming to trials and the media.

David Letterman's latest incident

Okay, so by now everyone knows about David Letterman’s latest incident. I honestly don’t feel that it matter whether or not he was forced into admitting to his affairs. Regardless, he came clean and he apologized to both his wife and the women he worked with.
Now, I’m not condoning cheating on anyone because I don’t believe it’s fair or morally right but when you’re in the type of industry it’s kind of understandable why it might happen. Look at it this way, if you’re never home always on the road- your relationship is bound to suffer whether you’re married or just dating. The lack of communication and attention being paid to your significant other is bound to take a toll and eventually affect the intimacy you share. In saying that, it’s only human nature to seek comfort where you can find it.
Many people in prominent positions have done this- so why is so much attention being paid to this particular incident? Well, obviously the blackmail aspect definitely adds to the appeal. No matter what, Letterman admitted to being in the wrong- came clean and apologized, I think it’s time to move on and let it go.