I was at a bit of a loose end today. Had a look at Rip's blog. The man requires help, this much is certain. I also found this, which left me temporarily paralysed.

In the spirit of random searching, I entered the words "random searching" into Google and pulled the trigger.

Interesting: The use of random searches as a source of inspiration.

Any writers out there looking for an offer they can't refuse?

Library Journal's Web site is pleasant and informative. Why is that?

More than you ever wanted to know about hummingbird foraging patterns.

I just find it amazing what there seems to be a market for on the web.

Interesting Web page with pretty pictures and some interesting content.

Actually, I had some qualms about that link. I disagree with some of the host's positions. But the page is often well-written and cogent, so why should I censor it?

I'm messing about like this because I'm awaiting a rather lengthy download of a tune I've been looking for. Because of my 'net configuration, downloads are very slow on this machine. I keep meaning to fix that.

Yeah, I'm downloading music. I have extremely mixed feeling about this: One one hand, are Aerosmith going to miss another three cents in royalties for yet another copy of Sweet Emotion, for example? Will the theft of Eleanor Rigby leave the surviving Beatles in the poorhouse? (Especially since Michael Jackson apparently owns most of the copyrights).Will the music empires of Sony and Warner Music crumble when I light-fingeredly acquire CW McCall's Wolf Creek Pass? Doubt it.

Author's note: A grand illustration of the difference between friendly, interesting and usable, and just so-so.

On the other hand, there are lots of bands out there that have just released their first CD. It's going to be their last and only, because right now, someone is copying that CD to their file-sharing library, and once the hit single from that album gets any radio play at all, a large number of listeners who would otherwise have had to tape the CD from a friend (remember--home taping is killing music!--and it's illegal.) will simply point and click that hit into their libraries.

The loss of revenue (much of which will actually be scarfed by a music management company) will leave the band with a pleasant warm feeling and just enough money to buy a bus pass so that they can find other employment (which in the cases of many bands is a fine idea).

But as someone who has copyrighted material on the Web (yeah, like anybody'd want to steal it--I wish!), I do feel a bit queasy about it. So I make my usual centrist accomodation with myself: It's bad and it's wrong. But who really gives a $#!₤ if I'm downloading #1 hits thirty years old?

This is little different form the usual thing people do, ie:

"Talking on a cell phone in a theatre is just rude. . .Oh, hang on--I gotta take this, it's important. Could you hold the wheel? I have to take a note."

"Stealing is wrong young man. By the way, hand me another handful of those after-dinner mints out of the bowl. What? Well they're free, aren't they?"

"Never, ever lie to a person young lady! Oh, hang on, there's the phone. Hello? Oh--hi aunt Maggie. Yes, we loved your parsnip and fish-scale cheesecake. No, I'm not just saying that [wince]! Oh sure! Take the wheel honey, Mother has to write down a recipe."

Generally, most people's moral attitude towards something interesting and fun but morally questionable is only if I really, really, want to.

Witness Gary Hart.

But in this case, the strongest argument against downloading music on the 'net is that fact that at the moment I'm in a queue several dozen folks long, waiting to download something I could buy at a used record store for junk price. There are many, many copies of this album to be found, both on vinyl and CD.