I am finally feeling somewhat healthy again. I'm sure the full night's sleep I had last night has made all the difference. As a matter of fact, I need to try to do my best to get to bed at a decent hour every night. My body doesn't bounce back like it used to.

We seem to have emerged unscathed from the Kournikova. Four of our users infected themselves by clicking on an attachment they were told they shouldn't click on, but the virus wasn't really a virus, per se - it was a worm, with no mailicious code, whose intent is to clog up and bring down e-mail servers. That didn't happen here, thankfully. Everyone and everything was cleaned by 6:00 P.M. last night. Not bad.


I've been trying to form an opinion on yesterday's Napster appellate court decision, but possibly because I am not a Napster user, I don't really have very strong feelings on the matter. I think Napster and the service it provides is great, but is it legal? Giving away copyrighted material? Never has been before. And isn't that exactly what makes Napster so much fun - the fact that you're getting something that you should really be paying for, for free? "Contributory copyright infringement" is what they are calling it - that Napster cannot claim that it has no control over what its users do, and that it (Napster) has a responsibility to control or monitor how its system is being used. I tend to agree with the court's decision, I'm afraid. If the recording industry had its act together with regard to technology and the web, users would have been able to download copyrighted material in digital form (for a much lower price than retail) years ago. Artists like David Bowie and Prince ( or TAFKAP, lol) have been making their music available digitally for quite some time now (hell, Bowie even provides his own ISP for crying out loud). I don't think this decision signals the end of Napster. Just the end of the free stuff.