"Halo 3 Hype"

The trailer that would've made some gamers jump for joy:


To clarify, I am not a gamer. And from that statement you can conclude that I would NEVER line up for 24 hours in order to purchase a video-game which I would then race home to play for another 24 hours. But no, I didn't choose this article to waste my time bashing those people who do so, because I probably would do the same thing for something this big that I was passionate about. Reading the article I realized the impact that video games are having on our culture (and no, not that they make children more aggressive and violent).

With Halo 3, you can wear a headset and talk to the other people that you are gaming with over the network. What does this mean? A new form of communication and interaction that has developed through technology other than IM, telephones, etc. Individuals can now communicate with the people they are playing with and against. It's almost like a schoolyard game of capture the flag. The article states:

"There's this wonderful online playground where groups of people can jump in, drive large vehicles, shoot against each other and talk and have conversations with headsets," Abel explained. "That kind of social mass appeal has driven a lot of people to want to get this in order to start playing with their friends now."
Let's re-read that: "shoot against each other" while "[talking] and [having] conversations with headsets."

This is appealing?
Maybe if it was Mario Party with headsets.
What happened to Hide-and-Seek?

Anyways, my point is that the idea that you can communicate with people miles away that you're gaming with is actually a pretty cool technological advance. And although at this point this form of communication doesn't effect me, I can probably assume it will soon enough considering how technology develops.

The "Greatest" Hamiltonian

In 2006, the Hamilton Memory Project decided that the town of Hamilton should nominate a famous Hamiltonian as The Greatest Hamiltonian.

I suppose this an attempt to, in a way, force the people of Hamilton to research and learn about past citizens and history of their community. And, with this, be able to nominate a worthy candidate for the "greatest" Hamiltonian. Although I think that it is a good idea for people to know about their history, selecting a "greatest" Hamiltonian is impossible.

Individuals have many different interests and goals and, therefore, have had different influences in throughout their lives. For example, a foot-ball fanatic would probably vote for Russ Jackson (CFL Hall of Fame quarterback and broadcaster) while a dancer would vote for Karen Kein (international ballet star) What I'm trying to say is that a person would think the Greatest Hamiltonian would be the person who most influenced them / their interests.

This is a clip from the original contest, "The Greatest Canadian":
As you can see, each individual has a different idea as to who the "greatest" Canadian is. Therefore, there is no "Greatest" Hamiltonian but a long list of great Hamiltonians.

But, I must say, that if I were forced to pick the greatest Hamiltonian, it would be George Hamilton. Why? Because without the founder of Hamilton, there'd be no Hamiltonians to nominate!

"Should your daughter get the HPV vaccine?"

The article outlines the issues revolving around a vaccine which has begun to be administered to young girls throughout Canada. The vaccine is said to prevent an STD that commonly leads to cervical cancer. Parents across the country are torn as to whether to allow their young daughter to receive the vaccine or not.

I would hope that if a parent is faced with the option of helping to prevent their child from contracting an STD and, potentially, a form of cancer, that he or she would be all for it. While reading through the article, I found myself asking the question: 'why would a parent or guardian DISagree with having their child receive this vaccination?'

Some individuals argue that the vaccine is "the motives of a drug company that stands to make big profits" and "politicians who may be pandering for votes." Whether or not this is the case, I don't believe that it is a good enough excuse for your daughter not to receive the vaccine. 80% of women contract the HPV virus and an attempt to stop it is better than nothing.

Another poor excuse for a girl not receiving the vaccine is "feeling a certain queasiness about dosing girls as young as 10 years old with protection for an STD." Eventually, every (or most) girls are going to become sexually active and I would hope parents would be able to face this reality in order to protect their children.

In the video below, Bill Maher discusses The HPV Vaccine vs. Sexual Promiscuity:

But, of course, there is one legitimate argument concerning the "fear of side effects." Because the drug is fairly new, some parents are worrying about the possible side effects that may come in the future. I would hope that before distributing the vaccine to hundreds of girls, scientists would have studied and tested the vaccination to the best of their ability.

Although I would have my daughter receive the vaccination, it is essentially up to the parents and the child as to whether they are willing to risk unknown future side effects to protect against a known cause of cancer. Of course, parents should research before allowing their daughter to receive the vaccination as there are some known side effects that effect a rare amount of young girls after receiving the vaccination.

Blog for CMST1A

hello world.