Why are iPods so ubiquitous? Why has this name become synonymous with "MP3 player"?
Having a deep love for all things Microsoft due to familiarity, regardless of how many times the system has crashed on me/fallen prey to viruses, I am predisposed to hate anything with the little apple icon. But I especially loathe iTunes, which I downloaded last summer for the purpose of purchasing some CSI: Miami episodes I couldn't bear to wait for any longer, only to find that I could not then play the videos in any other application, namely my preferred Windows Media Player, or second choice WinAmp. Furthermore, any music purchased through the site would not work on these programs either, nor could it be burned to a CD. USELESS.
It has recently come to my attention that one cannot move music from an iPod to the computer without purchasing an additional program. EVEN MORE USELESS. My generic MP3 player's major purpose in life is to cart music back and forth between my computer and the one with internet that I use most of the time; its secondary purpose is to free up space on my hard drive by allowing me delete any files stored on the device, knowing I can store them again whenever I get tired of listening to them. Having a dead-end transfer option just sounds stupid. In addition to that, I always hear people complaining that their iPod has broken down and displaying only a sick face, usually within under two years. That seems sort of counterproductive, too. Mine's only six months old, true, but so far it's given me no problems whatsoever.
Bottom line: precisely what is so alluring about the original iPod that one would choose it over a less expensive generic brand? What secrets am I unaware of?
II. Harry Potter's Fate
I don't have the time and patience required to whip up something good for hp_essays, with textual evidence and a multitude of examples, but I can give you a personal diatribe on why I think Harry will die:
Then there's the prophecy, "Neither can live while the other survives" - well, they *have* been living, in some manner, for 17 years already, haven't they? I know that's not quite what it means, but still, my initial reaction upon reading this was that neither could truly defeat the other. I see Harry dying in battle, he and Voldemort falling together. I take it as a given that the latter will die, but I also think that it will take all of Harry's energy to kill him, and that LV will take him down as he goes. I don't know if Harry is an accidental Horcrux, and I don't think it matters in this scenario, but that would play nicely into it.
My mom thinks that Harry will live because Rowling's fans would revolt and riot in the streets if he didn't; that people would be outraged to have the protaganist wiped out after investing so much collective emotion in him. She thinks that nobody new would want to read the series, knowing all the while that Harry dies at the end. She also thinks that it would thwart the underlying message of this books, the ultimate triumph of good over evil.
I disagree. The defeat of Voldemort and his supporters on its own is enough to serve that purpose; it is not dependent upon Harry's individual triumph. Heroes need not survive to go down in legend, and in fact, it might be better if they don't.
If Harry dies, you can at least be assured he'll go down in a blaze of glory, and it would bring a solid conclusion to his story - his story began with Voldemort and everything we know of him has been wrapped up in this ceaseless fight against LV; this has pretty much been his life's purpose. It's fitting that it end the same way. Conversely, have to think that if Harry survives the experience, he will be severely MESSED UP. Messed up for life. Remember Jake and the Animorphs? No kid with such a burden on his shoulders comes out of this fine and dandy. Look at Frodo - the lucky little hobbit survived his death march (much to the dismay of one of my friends, who kept yammering about how he should have died, damn it!), but he was never the same again and finally left his world altogether.
As to Harry's projected mindset, think the ending of HBP x10, because after DH I expect he'll have seen a fair few more people fall, and he's not exactly run out of people close to him whose potential deaths would rattle him to the core. He might not be utterly broken, but he wouldn't be quite the character we've grown to love, either, and to leave him like that would make for a poor and unsettling ending indeed. There are, after all, to use an oft-quoted line from the book, things worse than death. But hey, what do I know. Maybe Rowling has a way of making him ultra-resilient and able to find hope at the end of the war. So long as it doesn't involving nauseating epilogues of practically underage marriage and baby Potters (you wouldn't suddenly go all fanfic on us, would you O Powerful Authoress?), I might grudgingly be able to accept that.
My one last reason, perhaps best prefaced with "wishful thinking," is because I'm of the opinion that Rowling is almost guaranteed to kill ONE of the trio, and I'd really rather it not be Ron or Hermione. They need each other. Harry, on the other hand, I feel has become increasingly set apart, and will be whether Ginny survives or not (I'm undecided about her fate, although I'm leaning more towards her living. I'm looking towards Percy and/or one of the parents as the inevitable Weasley sacrifices). As for Ginny being the one left behind, she's stoic. She could move on. On that note, I am hoping Harry gives up his superhero complex somewhere in the middle of book 7, enough to give me my shipper's fix for the pair before he bites it.
By the way, I shall be VASTLY disappointed if he manages to not bite it. I've been firmly convinced of the correctness of my opinion for going on two years now, and finding out I'm wrong would be like...like...
Mr. Potter, your days are numbered.