"Oh we're getting quite close to cracking the secret to immortality"

So we hear anyway from scientists who are exploring the secrets of anti-aging. Basically there are a handful of theories on what causes aging and how we might stop it. One of the more promising ones is gene therapy. Through gene therapy we can restore our tissues to the healthy adult level and hence delay or completely stop the onset of old age.  I have a number of books around here that talk about various strategies, today, that can be used to slow down aging (caloric intake being the biggest - those empty calories will wear you down my friends).

Many on-line sellers are now selling human growth hormone (HGH) as a mechanism to delay the onset of old age.  I don't know if they work or not. There's a site dedicated to keeping up with news on whether we will be able to eventually stop aging or at least slow it down to live hundreds if not thousands of years.

But according to a neurologist friend of mine, don't expect to live more than 120 years. The reasons are ones that rarely get talked about. What he said was that the brain begins to break down pretty rapidly in most people around 80 years (with a few exceptions). What we call Alzheimer's is just one of an entire world of forms of dementia waiting for us. 

He contends that it's quite likely that we'll figure out some way at some point to make it so that we're no longer dying of organ failures, heart disease, or even cancer. But in the end, dementia will get us. To that I asked, "Well, don't you think we'll cure Alzheimer's?" Which he responded, "Oh sure of course. And then something else will pop up similar to Alzheimer's that will take decades to cure. And then something after that, and another after that, and so on with each one getting harder and harder to treat."

Or put another way, we may solve our heart problems but our brains are going to be the death of us yet. So if you're thinking you may live to 150 years due to medical technology, think again. At best, your body may last to 150 years but your mind won't.

For fun, last night I started putting together my own iTunes like desktop.  I used Object Desktop. Object Desktop is a suite of several programs that allow you to totally customize Windows. There were 4 programs from Object Desktop that I used together to create this not counting ObjectDock (at the very top).

First, I made use of ObjectBar. ObjectBar is one of the lesser known Object Desktop components. It currently suffers from a severe case of featuritis. Let me explain:  Sometimes programs gain so much flexibility and features that they become unwieldly. This is where we are with ObjectBar. ObjectBar can make any kind of desktop UI. Which sounds cool but it means that creating these bars is a pain in the butt. For users, ObjectBar works pretty well but even there, it has the problem of trying to make it "easy" to modify it which only serves to makes it that much more complicated for people who just want to use the finished thing (for example, when I right click on an item I get a huge menu of options).  This is something we're working on with ObjectBar 2 which is due out later this year.

That said, ObjectBar is a fantastic piece of technology that can work very well.  For one thing, it can automatically use any WindowBlinds visual style. This can save a lot of work.  So I downloaded a Longhorn ObjectBar theme from WinCustomize. I modified it up a little bit for my use.  Notice how ObjectBar (it's the bar part on the left) displays my most frequently used programs, my system tray, and tasks seamlessly together. Only ObjectBar can do this anywhere nearly this well.   

Then I used WindowBlinds to handle skinning the Windows GUI. I found a skin that looks something like iTunes and used that.  I also used DesktopX to provide the enhanced Windows icons (I'm using icons made by Foood applied via IconPackager which is also part of Object Desktop).  And then used WindowFX to provide the shadows to my windows. I have mine set to only show when I'm not dragging the window. I'm pretty performance sensitive so I don't want this stuff slowing me down.

And then I used the freeware program, ObjectDock. ObjectDock is really just a program launcher. But you can download skins and themes and icons for it to dress it up and make it look and behave however you want (I usually have mine dressed up to look and act like my OS/2 program launcher).

So there you have it, my iTunes desktop. Have fun!

I really think Apple has a winner with iTunes. Going around the office today, Apple made over a $100 in the first day just from Stardock employees via iTunes. I also think that iTunes is going to make people take a serious look at the Mac. Its sleek interface is both polished and well designed. I've used it on my Mac for over a year but on Windows, its good UI just stands out immensely when compared to its competitors.

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