Sadly, the one thing guaranteed to do it happened this week. Just 24 hours after Apple CEO Tim Cook announced the new iPhone 4S, his predecessor Steve Jobs, the man who developed the theatre and spectacle of the company’s announcements, succumbed to the cancer he had been suffering with since 2003.

It was only in August that Jobs stepped down as Apple’s CEO, taking on the role of Chairman instead. Although he had taken a number of leaves of absence from the company in recent years, usually prompting wobbles in Apple’s share price, he being so tied to its vision and ethos, he’d always returned (most recently against doctor’s orders to launch the iPad 2) seemingly with as much drive as ever.

However, two months ago he wrote in his resignation letter: “I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come”.

I think most of us knew what that meant. Any man who can brush off pancreatic cancer and a liver transplant is going to have to be very ill indeed to admit that they can’t carry on. But still, I’m not sure any of us quite expected Jobs’ death to come so quickly and it is incredibly sad that a man with such a talent and flair for business died aged just 56.

As the news spread, tributes began to pour in, and such a respected figure was he that even the protesters occupying Wall Street, campaigning against the capitalist system of which Apple is part, felt the need to mark the sadness of his passing.

What this means for Apple as a company isn’t yet clear. Those wobbles in share price have become less pronounced more recently, and as Tim Cook (who had been established by standing in for Jobs whenever he was away) is generally seen as a suitable new leader, the company itself seems perfectly stable in business terms. Also, Apple’s long lead times on new products means that we’ll be seeing new devices that Jobs had a hand in producing for some time yet.

And so influential was he for many new entrepreneurs now rising up the ranks, such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Spotify’s Daniel Ek, his outlook will likely continue to resonate for many years to come.

Just the fact that I’m writing about him here, and assuming that you’re not wondering why I’m talking about some tech guy in a music publication, shows what influence Jobs had. Because, of course, he did do hugely important things for the music industry too. Whatever you think about it, this business would be a very different place without iTunes. By adding a music store to Apple’s music software in 2003 as a means of feeding the already dominant iPod MP3 player, digital music was gradually brought to the masses.

The iTunes Store still has around 75% market share in the digital music space despite facing competition from countless rivals over the years, including all the traditional players in music retail. That’s a huge achievement, and it seems unlikely any of its competitors over the years could have achieved something similar had the Apple platform never existed – either because they are targeting a niche audience, or because their technology is a turn off to many. Apple have always approached digital music with a mainstream agenda, and with a technology the masses can use.

And, of course, all this was just a tiny part of Jobs’ overall achievements. Earlier this year, Wired published this great piece on Steve Jobs’ life in business, how he thought and how he worked. Reading it, it’s hard not to be impressed and inspired by him.

This is taken from my editorial for CMU, which you can read in full here.

If you’re not familiar with Death Grips, they are MC Ride, producer Flatlander and Hella drummer Zach Hill. They make dark, unwelcoming, industrial hip hop, a sound which was represented on Sunday (other than by the music itself) by the lack of almost any discernable lighting or on stage banter. It was brilliant.

Mind suitably pummelled by the aggressive sounds of Death Grips, I stumbled out into late night Shoreditch and waited for my eyes to adjust to the night sky, which was considerably brighter than the lighting inside the venue.

The fact that I had just returned to London after a weekend in the countryside provided further contrast to add to my Sunday evening experiences.

I’m telling you about the contrasts I experienced the other night mainly so you can contrast this Editor’s Letter from last week’s, because I’m about to bang on about Facebook and Spotify again. Though with a week to reflect on the new look Facebook, and the various subsequent events relating to Spotify’s hook up with it, there are some new things to say.

As you’ll remember, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg unveiled the social network’s big new redesign last week, and he put Spotify right at the heart of it. Although plenty of other content providers will be feeding endless amounts of user data into Facebook’s new activity tracker, it was Spotify’s Daniel Ek he called up on stage to talk about it. And although the latest redesign is yet to properly roll out, it’s Spotify which has probably garnered the most attention for hooking in to the evolving social network, though not with entirely positive results.

Spotify displeased a very vocal and sizeable minority of its users on Monday when it announced that from now on new users would have to sign up for the streaming service using their Facebook account. No Facebook account, no Spotify account. That’s it.

This assumes two things. Firstly, that everyone is happy to have a Facebook account. And secondly, that everyone who does is happy to use it to sign into other services. But not everyone in the world is a Facebook user, and many of those who are not – especially if they are web savvy enough to want to sign up to Spotify – have made a conscious decision, on whatever grounds, to not use the social network. Therefore, Spotify’s advice to just “set a Facebook account up and not use it” wasn’t very helpful. And even those who are Facebook users aren’t necessarily going to be comfortable with it having access to their wider online lives (even if it’s getting harder to stop that being so).

Then came the next change: Without really explaining properly what was happening, Spotify asked current users to agree to send data about every track they play via the service over to Facebook, so the social network could build a profile of their listening habits, and share details of every single track played with their friends. It is possible to turn this data sharing off, even if you inadvertantly allow it when presented with an update window by Spotify, but at the outset it wasn’t especially clear how to do this. Responding to criticism (and, to be fair, they did do this pretty quickly), Spotify added a ‘private mode’ to its software on Thursday.

Spotify argued that all these changes were justified because they added up to “creating an amazing new world of music discovery”. But even if you agree that this is where Facebook and Spotify are taking us, trying to force everyone to join them on their journey, from day one, isn’t really on, and is particularly unfair on those who object to having a profile on Facebook.

The way Spotify seems to have leaped so resolutely into the Facebook camp – and the way in which the company seemed to try to trick its customers to follow – was either a gross misjudgement, perhaps because the geeks at Spotify got carried away with Zuckerberg’s grand plans, or was perhaps the result of some sneaky deal with the social network, which got Ek top billing at Facebook’s party but tied his team to certain Facebook promoting commitments. Conspiracy theorists speculated that the reason Ek was so openly responding to criticism on Twitter on Monday night was so he could persuade Facebook to let him out of previous commitments.

That all seems a bit far-fetched – Ek was probably just doing the decent thing, and handling the critics head on rather than hiding behind a PR machine – but even if we assume good faith on Spotify’s part, and that they genuinely believe the Facebook hook up will deliver the holy grail of music discovery and that we’d be mad not to want to be part of it, does that justify the rush? After all, the immediate benefits of Spotify-hooked-to-Facebook for the user are few and far between (the benefits for Spotify itself, of course, are more obvious, the Zuckerberg induced hype has scored them a flood of new sign ups).

As I noted here last week, the changes Facebook are implementing provide a service akin to Last.fm – ie one that logs your online activity, and makes recommendations and tries to form communities based on your tastes – though rather than just logging the music you play on your computer, it will try to record everything you do online, from reading news stories to watching films. This information is then shared with your friends in real time. For the reasons outlined above (ie the almost forced participation), the newly shared data from Spotify is most obvious as a Facebook user, because now you’re being bombarded with information about every track every one of your friends (well, the opted in Spotify users) ever plays. It’s a huge amount of data I’ve subconsciously trained myself to ignore within five days.

It comes in constantly via Facebook’s new ‘ticker’. It flashes before your eyes so quickly it’s hard to take in, even if you’re not already ignoring it, which you almost certainly are. It’s hard to see how this will ever amount to an “amazing new world of music discovery”. Of course, this is presumably just stage one. But what’s stage two? Even if Facebook begins grouping together tracks, so it tells you “ten or so of your friends have listened to track X”, how does that help? It assumes that a play equals a recommendation. Which it doesn’t.

In my job I listen to a lot of new music that I definitely don’t want to inflict on others. Even some of the things I like, I might not want to explicitly recommend to all my friends. When Spotify announced its easier opt out button – the ‘private mode’ – it suggested this would be used to hide “guilty pleasures” you don’t want people knowing you listen to. But that misses the point – a play doesn’t equal a recommendation, whether it’s a guilty pleasure or not. On top of all that, because Facebook logs a track as soon as it begins playing, rather than (as Last.fm does) half way through, I found it was logging an awful lot of stuff I wasn’t actually listening to, but was skipping or stopping after a few seconds. Or on a couple of occasions, after I’d mistakenly clicked on a link and a track had automatically started playing. That doesn’t aid music discovery in any way at all.

By confusing tracks being played (or even just clicked on) with tracks being recommended, Facebook and Spotify’s bid to find this new world of music discovery is heading in the wrong direction. Which is why I’m not travelling with them, and have turned the tracking function off.

I’m hoping any of you out there who I’m friends with on Facebook appreciate my selfless act of not filling your newsfeeds with pointless information. I’ll continue to help out by not installing any other tracking apps either. Because, frankly, who wants to be told every time I click on a link to a news story, which I may or may not then read or enjoy or find useful or want to recommend. If I want to recommend something on Facebook, I’ll just carry on linking to it manually, as before.

Of course Facebook and Spotify will say “that’s fine, we’re not forcing you to join us in this brave new world, so stop your moaning”. Which is fair enough. Except I suspect sharing information via Facebook in the old way will become an increasingly infruriating thing to do, as partner websites make it harder to link to and embed content without installing their activity-tracking-apps. I say “suspect”, I’ve seen that happen already this week.

I don’t want to sound like a luddite, and I’m willing to accept Facebook’s data capture frenzy might – might – result in some genuinely interesting services down the line. But until it does Facebook is going to have to do a lot to convince me that these new changes are a good idea. For the first time since I signed up to the world’s biggest social media network I’m genuinely thinking I might have to give up on it. I’ll just stick to Twitter, or maybe I’ll give Google+ another go. Maybe this will be the making of Google+. We’ll see.

Or perhaps I’m sounding like a luddite because that’s what I’ve become, the lone moaner who harks back to the good old days of the internet, aka 2009. Is that what Spotify getting all these sign ups since its hook up with Facebook actually means? Maybe I’ll just go back to standing in the dark listening to aggressive hip hop. That’s the future, I tell you!

This is taken from my CMU editorial for this week. Read the whole thing, including some links to music I actually recommend you listen to, here.

Actually, Facebook’s announcement yesterday does mean some pretty drastic changes to the biggest social network, changes that may over time alter the way we interact with content online. If you allow it to, Facebook will now not only log every song you ever listen to via Spotify et al (just like Last.fm), it’ll also log pretty much everything else you’ll ever do online. All automatically. And it will inform all of your friends as you do so, while mapping it all out on a handy timeline of your entire life. Scared?

Mark Zuckerberg’s explanation of all these changes was pretty long and tedious (as much as he tried, he’s no Steve Jobs) but he pretty much summed it up when he said:

“This year, we’re adding verbs”.

He said it as if the concept of verbs was something people might not have heard of yet. As if Facebook was in the process of inventing language. But what he meant was that you’ll no long have to click the ‘Like’ button to share things on Facebook, the sharing will just happen as you listen to, watch or read anything online. And if you cook something too. He talked a lot about cooking. Though I’m not sure how that could be automated, unless he knows something about net connected ovens that I don’t. He also said “express” more times that I thought possible in an hour.

Anyway, bringing this back to music, the big deal here is that music services will be able to log your listening data in your Facebook profile (or ‘timeline’ as it is to become known). Your friends will be able to see what you’re listening to, and if they’re interested they’ll be able to listen to the same track at the click of a button. You can even share a track directly with someone and both listen to it together at the same time while discussing it on Facebook’s instant messenger.

Now, these are all things you could, to an extent, already do, but in theory the new look Facebook makes everything a lot easier. Zuckerberg also talked a lot about “frictionless experiences”, and that’s relevant here. As I said, a lot of this new functionality can already be achieved with Last.fm and other social media apps and tools. But Facebook is, for most people, the de facto online service for sharing comments and content. And while people may be interested in music discovery, many have not been interested enough to sign up to bespoke services. This will bring the music discovery to the place where they are already sharing online.

And it won’t really matter which music service you are using to discover new artists and tracks, because pretty much all of them will be hooked up to new look Facebook. Though yesterday everyone’s focus seemed to be on Spotify’s involvement. It must have been something of a disheartening moment for some of the bigger US streaming services to see the new kid (in their market), Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, wander on stage at Facebook’s big event to explain how his service will integrate with the new look social network.

And while Zuckerberg said he wanted to “rethink the music industry”, Ek said the hook up would boost engagement and draw more people to a system that “fairly compensates artists”.

Interestingly, that last claim was at the heart of the other big digital music story this week: Is Spotify giving artists a good deal? Spotify proudly announced this week that it now has over two million paying subscribers, news that won’t please the co-founder of metal label Prosthetic Records EJ Johantgen, who told LA Weekly that “there [does] not appear to be an upside” to having your music on Spotify as he pulled the label’s catalogue from the service.

Prosthetic is the third US metal label to pull its catalogue off Spotify since it launched in the States in July, following Century Media and Metal Blade. Johantgen argued that the “fractions of pennies” Spotify pays per stream do not compare well with the revenues to be made from downloads and physical releases. And in his view, having your music on Spotify will drive down CD and download sales as time goes on (although download subscription service eMusic published research this week that suggested ‘ownership’ of music remained important to many consumers, despite the rise of ‘access’ based services, with many users of Spotify-like platforms still buying MP3s).

As well as Prosthetic, self-releasing indie band Uniform Motion also announced they were pulling their music off the streaming service, and in an attempt to explain why published an entire breakdown of how much money they earn from every possible avenue, including retail, pay-what-you-want downloads, publishing and more. Spotify, they said, just doesn’t come up with the goods.

Spotify responded to all this by pointing out that it’s unfair to compare its payouts to download sales, because it doesn’t “sell streams”, rather, it sells access to a whole catalogue of music. Spotify would rather, I imagine, you think of its service in terms of radio, and the fact that seven million streams through its software will earn an artist far more in royalties than if a song is heard by seven million listeners all at once by having their song played on the Radio 1 Breakfast Show.

However, while Spotify is not a download store (assuming we ignore the fact that it has a sideline selling MP3s too), it’s not a radio station either. It may sell access to music, but users can still access that music on demand, like they would a download in iTunes.

But anyway, that, said Uniform Motion, was not even the issue. The problem, they said, is that Spotify is so secretive about its business model. It’s entirely possible the band were getting a fair cut of advertising revenue and subscription fees, but because Spotify doesn’t explain how it divvies up the money between the various people due a payment, no one actually knows.

Now this isn’t entirely Spotify’s fault. The reason we know how much money an artist gets from a play on Radio 1 is because radio is licenced by collecting societies PPL and PRS via a transparent blanket licence. But digital services can’t do that, they have to do deals with individual rights owners or their representatives (such as the indie sector’s Merlin). Even when rights owners decide to use their collecting societies for digital deals, the arrangements are often clouded in secrecy. In the case of the major labels, it’s assumed that they insisted on a larger cut of Spotify’s revenues in order to play ball. And Spotify’s founders, who needed all of that major label music in their system to be able to get enough traction with the public, had to roll over. And also had to sign the non-disclosure agreements barring them from saying what those cuts were.

So, Spotify may be stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to transparency, but that doesn’t alter the fact that a lot of smaller artists and indie labels therefore assume they’re getting ripped off.

One solution to this would be to apply the methods used to licence radio to streaming services. Stop lumping streaming music with downloads – Spotify is right when it says the two services are not the same – and instead think of streaming platforms as interactive radio services, and licence them like radio, through transparent blanket licences, probably administered by collecting societies or some similar organisation. This would add transparency to the whole system and ensure that everyone was getting their fair share.

It would also mean that online services unwilling or, more likely, unable to meet the demands of the big rights owners would be able to get their services off the ground. Having more digital services has to be a good thing. Sure, Mark Zuckerberg and Daniel Ek might be clever, but their success has, in part, been down to their skill and luck in securing big money investment. There are other clever but less cash-rich people who – if the industry would just help them get the licences they need in an easier fairer way – could also help build a more diverse and engaging digital music marketplace. Which is almost certainly the best solution to that tedious piracy problem.

This is my editorial for CMU this week. You can see the whole thing (there’s even more of it, yes) right here.

These systems, which allow you to upload your MP3 collection to an online ‘locker’ in order to play it back at any time on any internet-connected device, have been around for some time now. Google and Apple already offer online storage systems which can be used for MP3s, though without user-friendly ways to play back music files. There are various reasons why more user-friendly music-focused locker services have not, as yet, taken off.

One is a problem that has plagued many a forward-thinking web service until fairly recently: bandwidth. Although few internet users are not now on broadband, limits on usage and upload speeds have been (and continue to be in some cases) prohibitive to uploading a large music collection. Also, until the rise of smartphones, it was fairly uncommon to have a portable net-connected device, which is what you’d most likely want to be streaming music to – OK maybe you’d want to be able to listen to your home MP3 collection on your work computer, but your employer may have something to say about that. And even with smartphones (more so, in fact) bandwidth remains a major issue.

Then there are the licensing issues. Many, Amazon included, say that digital lockers don’t require the sorts of licences from record labels and music publishers that other digital services do, arguing that putting back-up copies of MP3s a user has already bought onto a remote server is no different than making back-up copies to an external hard-disk, and no one would expect to pay again when they do that.

But others – mainly labels and publishers – disagree. Some say that uploading MP3s to and playing them back from a server in the cloud is not the same as backing them up on an external hard disk. Some might even argue that, anyway, technically a licence is needed to make any sort of back-up, even to a simple external hard disk. The reason such opposing opinions can exist on this issue is because copyright law in all territories is rather vague on such matters, and therefore very open to interpretation.

We are most likely to get some clarity via US copyright law, because of a legal dispute between EMI and one of the best known existing music locker services, MP3tunes.com. They have launched a locker service without a licence, and EMI is suing them as a result, testing whether a licence is indeed needed. The case is ongoing, And earlier this year Google submitted to court a letter in support of MP3tunes and its founder, Michael Robertson (whom EMI is also suing directly), which perhaps suggests Google hopes to launch its much planned digital locker, like Amazon, without a licence (though they are reportedly, nevertheless, in talks with the labels).

It is thought Apple are hoping to avoid any possible litigation by persuading the labels to extend their existing iTunes licences so to allow some sort of digital locker – though probably one that will only allow users to upload music bought from the Apple download store. Amazon are also incentivising users of its new locker service to buy tracks via its MP3 platform (you get free locker use if you buy MP3s), so they would probably argue that their locker is really just a tool to help the music companies sell more tunes, another reason they shouldn’t have to pay an additional licence fee (though Amazon users will be able to upload music acquired from anywhere to their lockers).

Either way, expect the licensing of digital lockers debate to rumble on throughout the summer, and possibly until EMI v MP3tunes reaches its conclusion. Though, actually, perhaps this whole debate (and expensive legal squabble) is redundant. For labels to get all hot and bothered about digital lockers assumes that consumers actually want such a service. I wonder whether they do.

Since the first digital lockers appeared on the market, something bigger has arrived in the digital music domain: streaming services like Spotify and We7, and in the States Rhapsody and MOG. In the UK, Spotify is already the third most dominant digital service, behind iTunes and Amazon MP3, and it is still growing. And when you can access almost any song you want via any net-connected device (provided you’re willing to pay for mobile access) through a streaming service, why would you want to upload your limited MP3 collection anyway? In essence, Spotify is a digital locker which already has access to all your music and more, and you don’t have to go to the trouble of uploading everything yourself. And, for the record companies, there’s the added benefit Spotify et al pay a licensing fee everytime a song is played.

Okay, there are some reasons why a user might rather access their own MP3 collection via a locker rather than Spotify or We7. Firstly, a fully mobile streaming service will likely cost you more to use each year than a fully-mobile locker. Secondly, your own music collection doesn’t come with adverts which, if you go with the PC-based free versions, Spotify and We7 do. Thirdly, these services don’t have every song ever recorded in their catalogues yet, so depending on your taste they could be missing large chunks of what you like (and what is in your personal MP3 collection). Plus, of course, you might fear that, in an unpredictable market, your streaming service of choice could go offline at anytime leaving you with no music, whereas your backed up MP3 collection is yours forever.

But given just how far these streaming services have come in the last few years, while digital lockers remained very much in the backgroud, I wonder if there is that much demand for music storage any more. Especially if the labels win the licensing debate and locker providers are forced to add licensing fees or adverts to their storage systems to make things add up. So, in a world where Spotify, We7 et al do exist, is the digital locker already a redundant proposition?

If you’re very quiet and listen very closely, you might even hear a few people trying to tell you that the music industry is far from dead, that it’s actually very healthy, but that some methods of making money that had been profitable over the last 50 or 60 years are becoming less so (they’ll also whisper that the time when all musicians earned a living off their music never actually existed).

But for Jon Bon Jovi, there is only one person responsible for the death of the music industry: Steve Jobs.

Actually, in fairness, JBJ (as I’ve now decided to call him) wasn’t talking about the death of the industry in a business sense, more that he thinks the youth of today are missing out on the joyous experience of buying records. You know, heading down to the record shop on the day of release, handing over your pocket money to a man who sneers at your choice, taking it home, unwrapping it, playing it for the first time not knowing if it’ll be good or not, discovering it’s not, reading the liner notes anyway. That sort of thing.

Bon Jovi told The Sunday Times: “Kids today have missed the whole experience of putting the headphones on, turning it up to ten, holding the jacket, closing their eyes and getting lost in an album; and the beauty of taking your allowance money and making a decision based on the jacket, not knowing what the record sounded like, and looking at a couple of still pictures and imagining it. God, it was a magical, magical time”.

He added: “I hate to sound like an old man now, but I am, and you mark my words, in a generation from now people are going to say: ‘What happened?’ Steve Jobs is personally responsible for killing the music business”.

Basically, what Jon’s saying is that there’s no excitement surrounding new releases any more, because ‘the kids’ are picking and choosing the tracks they want off iTunes. How he thinks they know which tracks to pick, I don’t know. I suppose they’re either just downloading the singles they heard on the radio, or they’re listening to the whole album either legally or illegally beforehand. This doesn’t matter, because in this situation, Steve Jobs is still to blame for everything because it is he who allows people to decide not to buy a complete album.

This is not entirely the new situation it is purported to be, though. Okay, the ability to select album tracks as standalone items is, but as a teenager I spent much of my pocket money on singles. And I had friends (let’s call them ‘heathens’) who would listen to an album once before recording the tracks they liked most onto tape to listen to on their Walkmans. None of this is new, it’s just easier in the digital age. The sort of people who get excited about new albums still do so.

Okay, the days of running down to Our Price on the day of release and queuing up to buy a new album were fun and exciting, and may now be behind us (not only because Our Price no longer exists). And you could argue that this has been replaced by rushing to file-sharing networks to download a leaked album weeks before its release, meaning the anticipation during the build up to a new record’s official launch is lessened.

But if you’re looking for someone to blame for making music boring and predictable, well, I think Jon might want to look a little closer to home.

This was a bit of a surprise, as I only signed up two weeks ago to find out what all the fuss was about. Okay, I’d not taken up any of their offers (I was tempted by the vajazzling, obviously), but after just two weeks it seemed a bit much for the company to be pleading for contact. I mean, that’s a bit needy isn’t it? And I’ve seen films where people are overly needy, and they normally end in a certain amount of stabbing.

But this reminded me of another rather needy email I received recently. And this one was from someone I’d had a much longer relationship with.

Now, MySpace has taken a bit of a kicking over the last couple of years, not least from CMU, but my decision to close my account was not down to the site’s rubbishness. Actually, I’ve never had a personal MySpace account, but one day last month I received an email notification that someone had posted a message on a MySpace page I’d set up years ago for a website I used to run, and which I had long forgotten about.

Not wanting a load of out of date information sitting on a redundant MySpace page, I quickly moved to get the profile taken down. To complete this process, you have to click a link which is emailed to you. The text in that email is a painful exercise in desperation.

“Sure you’re ready to let go of your friends, music, and that profile design you spent so much time creating?” It begins. Why, yes. Yes I am. “Cancelling your account means your profile and all your content will be removed from MySpace and you can’t get it back!”

To be fair, I suppose MySpace didn’t know for certain that that’s exactly what I wanted. Presumably they feared I’d slipped, fallen on my mouse and accidentally clicked through the complicated menu system that hides the option to delete your account.

After questioning the nature of my intent, the dying social networking site – whose slogan used to be “a place for friends” remember – suggested an alternative to me deleting my profile and further downgrading their user stats. Just delete all your friends and then change your privacy settings so no one can see your page they suggested. Very friendly.

“Why not preserve your profile, playlists and photos”, the MySpace email asked, “by deleting your friends and changing your privacy setting to ‘only my friends’?”

So, not only is this website incredibly needy, now it wants me all for itself. Forget about the others, let’s run away together. It’ll just be you and me. We don’t need them. I’ve always been suspicious of them, if we’re being honest. I think they’re out to get us. They whisper behind our backs. I hate them. HATE THEM HATE THEM HATE THEM!!!!!!

So, I deleted my MySpace profile, shut down my computer and headed home. Where my pet rabbit was boiling on the stove. Bloody needy websites. In the future I’m keeping my distance.

Taken from this week’s, CMU Weekly. Click to listen to me yabber on in the CMU podcast, too.