Well iTunes is out and boy is it cool. I've used it on the Mac for quite awhile but seeing it on Windows really brings it into the mainstream.

If you haven't tried it yet, I highly recommend giving iTunes a try. The excuse to pirate music is over. At 99 cents a song and seamless integration with CD burning, purchasing, and downloading, it makes dealing with music a snap.

Apple is going to get rich off of iTunes on Windows. Let me just start with that.

I downloaded iTunes for Windows. I've used it on my Mac for awhile and it's basically identical on the PC to its Mac incarnation. And it makes sampling of music, purchasing, and downloading so seamless at such a reasonable price that excuse for pirating music is gone.  This makes it so easy and convenient that people will be buying music in vast numbers. It's a win-win situation that I think will eventually become Apple's main business. In time I can see this being expanded into DVD videos, software, and beyond.

Now, before the email starts pouring in, yes, I've tried some of the other alternatives already. On Windows, I've been using BuyMusic.com. It's nowhere near as seamless an experience. The integration between the player and the store makes a big difference that favors iTune. One click purchase and download is a big deal.

But BuyMusic has some advantages over iTunes that need to be brought up. To do that, let me explain the difference between the "Windows people" vs. Apple.

When you buy a song from BuyMusic.com you download a .WMA file with digital rights management on (i.e. copy protection).  From Windows Media Player, you can burn a CD with it, play it, or copy it to a portable MP3 device that supports Digital Rights Management (none of my portable MP3 players support DRM WMA's -- only standard .WMA files).

What that means is that Apple and Microsoft are actually closer together in the race for mass acceptance of their formats. Sure, .WMA has a lot more support than .m4p/AAC but what you're downloading from places like BuyMusic might as well be called .Whatever because as far as the average user is concerned, DRM protected .WMA files are a totally different format.  They won't play on most portable MP3 players. You can't burn them to CD with most CD ROM burners right now.

So in essence, Apple and Microsoft are starting out at the same point. The question is who will be able to get wider industry support faster? Apple with .m4p/AAC or Microsoft with DRM WMAs? Apple has a leg up because of the iPod and iTunes includes a rather nice CD-ROM burner in it.

The bottom line is that Apple is in very good shape with iTunes. It works fantastically so far (better for me than it does on the Mac where I get weird copying problems and songs aborting early for no apparent reason -- <note to Mac fanatics: Yes, I'm sure I'm the only one who is running into that despite the posts on Dejanews and on Mac tech sites of people having the same problem>). It makes purchasing easy and tempting.

Today is a good day for Apple Computer.

Today there is a report in the UK concerning the largest test on genetically modified crops done so far there.  The  "results" show that genetically modified crop fields have fewer butterflies and bees in them than the non-genetically modified ones. Their conclusion: GM foods scare off "good" insects like bees and butterflies.

Europe has a "Thing" about Genetically modified foods. They would argue that they are being cautionary. This, from a continent that boasts the most nuclear power plants per square mile in the world.  Genetically modified foods aren't some sort of magic.  They can be used to do great things and if used recklessly could do real harm as well. But the Europeans seem to have a problem with all genetically modified foods. Which is a real shame.

For one thing, genetically modified foods tend to not require anywhere near the amount of chemical herbicides and pesticides as "natural" crops do. I can't help but think I'd rather have food with fewer chemicals on them than more. Especially when so many of these chemicals are harmful to people and the environment.

The argument from Europe, which is valid, is that genetically modified plants, like normal plants, can see their genes make their way into the wild. Corn that scares off pests or is resistant to a certain type of herbicide might spread its genes to weeds. That is something that definitely needs to be watched. But at the same time, natural selection takes place every time we dump chemicals on our crops -- resistant insects and weeds are a daily fact of life.

The real loser, in the long run, is the European economy. As time goes on, genetically modified foods will be the norm. Right now, GM foods have problems such as slightly lower yields. But as time goes on, the benefits will become greater and greater. After all, humans have been modifying foods since the dawn of agriculture (for example - there is no such thing as an orange or lemon in the wild, they were created by man). Today's technology simply increases the pace and scope of these modifications.  In short, European farmers will eventually have to go this way to remain economically competitive and that will mean that they will become clients of American chemical companies who already have a long lead on their European counterparts. It is a lead that increases each day.

So who's the bigger hypocrite?

Rush Limbaugh for repeated condemnation for those people who become addicted to crack, heroine, and other illegal drugs.

Or

Members of the left who have preached compassion, understanding, and forgiveness as the answer to everything who demand now that Limbaugh should go to jail for his addiction to prescription pain medication?

The other day I was talking about just how precarious life on this planet is. Modern human civilization is a tremendous logistical achievement. The amount of uninterrupted energy and food production to sustain it is enormous. Even the slightest interruption can cause the deaths of thousands if not millions.

This past summer, the American north east experienced a 24 hour black out. I don't know how many people died (if any) but it caused a massive economic hit.  Imagine the results of something that caused a power outage for say a week? Or a month? How well would you do? Do you have enough food to last for more than a few days? How much fresh water do you keep stocked in your home?

If you're like most people, the answer is, you probably have enough drinking water for maybe 2 or 3 days and enough food to last a bit longer if rationed. But beyond that, you'd be out of luck. Which is amazing, if you think about it. The modern world has only had universal electrical power for less than a 100 years. Yet now we are totally dependent on it. Hence, it wouldn't really take a major natural catastrophe to bring about a human catastrophe. Maybe a major volcanic eruption, a massive solar flair, a huge earth quake would cause week or two long power outages across an entire continent.

Consider this: Ever been to Yellowstone national park? The geysers and pools of boiling water are pretty neat. Ever wondered what their source is? It turns out, Yellowstone national park -- all of it, is the mouth of a gigantic volcano that happens to erupt on occasion. And it's overdue. When it blows, it sends millions of tons of ash into the atmosphere. If you're in the United States, don't worry, you'd likely die quite early on. But if you're in Europe, things get less fun due to massive food shortages from a year or two of darkness that causes massive crop failures and goodness knows what.  Less developed areas would suffer too but their lower dependence on the modern logistical miracle would enable more survivors -- though millions would still die.

And so 80 or so years of reliable electrical power have turned the industrialized world into dependents. We make the assumption that it will always be reliable -- 24/7 or nearly.  In fact, we don't just make that assumption, we have literally bet our lives on it.  But history has shown that over the long haul (i.e. centuries) that periodic minor natural disasters occur. Disasters that would certainly disrupt the kind predictable we have grown accustom to.

Meanwhile over at http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/1003/101303.html, Lileks has a great fisking of the FBI whistle blower who exceeded her grasp by writing a fairly incoherent article trying to argue that we are losing our freedoms.

Before you take a position on whether we are indeed losing our freedoms, check out Lileks's response in his blog (it's down a few paragraphs). His response is compelling.

What, if anything, can be done to keep IT jobs from going overseas?

Inte's Andy Grove warns that the US IT industry could go the same way as the US steel industry.

Read The Register article for the full story.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/33339.html

Last night on Tim Russert (CNBC) Tucker Carlson and Al Franken battled it out. If you get a chance, look for it as they repeat the show regularly. It really highlights the difference between American conservatives and liberals.

I would argue most people on the left would certainly have no problem having Franken be one of their champions. He's quite intelligent, witty, full of "facts", and at least on paper, makes seemingly compelling arguments. I would even go as far as to say that those on the left, who watched the show, would argue that Franken more than held his own against the young conservative, Tucker Carlson.

Similarly, those of us who fall right of center would probably have no problem with Tucker Carlson generally representing the right's point of view. He's articulate, witty, intelligent, and decent.

Which is why the on-air battle, which became surprisingly belligerent, between Tucker and Franken was so revealing of both sides.

Here are some of the bullet points of that engagement:

• In Franken's universe, liberals make mistakes, conservatives lie. That is, conservatives never misspeak or commit an error. Instead, those things are considered lies. If it turns out that there were no significant WMD in Iraq, it isn't that Bush/Blair were mistaken, no, they "lied to us" about the war. By contrast, the left, who loudly claimed that hundreds of thousands of people would die in an invasion weren't lying, they were mistaken. When challenged on this and asked for names of dishonest liberals he has to go back to LBJ. LBJ? Hello?? Clinton? Franken just dismissed that as a sex thing apparently forgetting the various justifications for attacking countries during the Lewinski scandal (remember the Sudan "chemical weapons plant" that got bombed which turned out to be nothing of the sort, apparently Franken's memory on liberal "mistakes" is pretty short term). It was on this point Tucker scored his home run. By demonstrating the tendency of Franken and people like him to paint mistakes by opponents as lies rather than honest mistakes, Franken, unintentionally I suspect, made his irrational hatred of his opponents clear.  From that point on, everything Franken said was fatally weakened. How can you trust someone who is this partisan?

• Tucker doesn't like partisans. Specifically, he doesn't like people who will twist facts to meet a pre-determined outcome. In short, Tucker doesn't like behavior like that of Al Franken.  Tucker believes that people like Franken and Moore marginalize themselves because they are incapable of influencing the mainstream or their opponents. He believes that because he feels the left's arguments are so over the top and often obviously not in line with reality that non-partisans will reject them.

• Franken, like many liberals, has fallen into the trap of playing games with statistics that he thinks bolsters his case but in actuality discredit him because they fail the test of common sense. For example, Franken likes to argue that if Bush had been our only President that no jobs ever created. Gee, how witty. Tucker didn't hide his disgust over these kinds of witticisms. Can Franken name a single piece of legislation that either Bush President supported that he feels caused job loss? Any? Franken argues against people. Tucker argues against principles. Rather than pointing out a policy of one of the Bush's that he feels caused such job loss, he attacks people personally.

• Tucker is a conservative because, simply, he doesn't like people telling him how he should live. He believes Americans should make their own decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions. He's a conservative because he wants the government to leave us alone. "I already had a mommy, I don't need another one."

• Franken, like many liberal commenters, demonstrates a depth of intelligence, but a shallowness of understanding.  After Tucker made an eloquent statement on why he's a conservative, Franken's reason for being liberal was essentially a list of anti-Bush talking points. No statements of principle. Just a listing of specific issue talking points that have nothing to do with any set of principles. And usually they're incredibly disingenuous talking points.

• Franken really likes to let statistics (especially ones he's manipulated) do his talking. "You can't argue with the numbers..." he says as he tries to say that Bush I and II have not created any jobs. Except that his numbers don't actually argue a case at all. That's because Franken seems to lack the depth to argue against a principle or policy. He argues against people.  What is it he believes Bush did to cause job loss?

• Tucker counters that sort of talking point nonsense by pointing out that it's not convincing. It may fire up other partisans but it's just intellectually dishonest. Which I totally agree with. I mean come on, only a total partisan would blame the current economic sluggishness on George W. Bush.

• Franken, working hard to be a two-dimensional characterture of the left, even lamely brought in the whole "top 1% are getting most of the tax cuts." Which, to a non-partisan with an ounce of common sense would indicate that the top 1% must be paying the vast majority of taxes. But Franken is addicted to playing with statistics as much as his most reviled opponents. As a percent of taxes cut, the middle class benefited most. But in raw dollars, sure, the top few percent benefited the most because they pay the most.  In a country in which 60% of the population pays nearly 100% of the taxes with the top 10% of the wealthiest people paying 90% of the taxes, it's pretty hard to have any tax cut that doesn't benefit those people. Franken demonstrated clearly that in the name of petty partisanship he'd stoop to saying essentially  "nearly half the population got no tax cut at all!" (because they don't pay taxes, they can't actually get a tax cut).  Which Tucker's point held true: Partisan crap like this won't convince anyone. It'll just make other partisans of your kind jump up and down. Franken, like Moore, is the kind of guy who would write a book arguing for 4 day work weeks and say "People already take off Friday in huge numbers anyway. 20% of sick days are on Friday alone!" (think about that for a second).

And so they battled it out on the air. In my view, Tucker not only came across as more convincing, he came across as more decent. Franken seemed full of anger and hate and carried an irrational dislike of his opponents. He even labeled Bush on air as "radically right wing". Yea right, the guy who wants to give prescription drugs is a "Radical" right winger. Get a grip.

The exchange really, for me, showed just how intellectually bankrupt the left has become. Franken, reduced to just parroting talking points put together by others seemed unable to think on his feet.  Bereft of any philosophical political ideals, Franken is forced into playing games with statistics that even a below average blogger could fisk.

I must say, I was truly disappointed with Franken. About half way through the exchange I realized that Franken is not much different than a mediocre left wing blogger on the net. That is, he offered no more insight than the typical venomous spew that can regularly be seen in the comments area on a blog site.  He's become popular either because his SNL fame overwhelmingly carried him or the left has become so incapacitated that they have no vigor left to put forth a set of basic principles worth fighting for.

Just got back from visiting Western Michigan University.  Next Spring will be the 10th year since I graduated. And here is one thing I learned from a day of walking campus:  I AM WAY OUT OF SHAPE.

I used to walk all over campus, every day, all day. No problem. My wife and I (we met there), were in bad shape after 2 hours. Just tired and achy.

Ironically, next Sunday we're playing paint ball with friends (both my wife and I). That's for 4 hours. If walking at a leisurely pace on campus made us tired in 2 hours, we're doomed next weekend!