Oh, great, I found out that Shelly, our PR godess, reads my weblog. I guess I can't talk about her now, huh?

How about this for a self-referential link? Dan Shafer enters the conversation Mark Canter and I were having. Dan asks an interesting question (you'll need to follow the link over there, and then back to see his point): "why hasn't videoconferencing taken off?"

Well, I've had videoconferencing capabilities since 1995. Even decent ones since I worked at Winnov which made really nice video capture cards (Microsoft bought several thousand) and since I was a NetMeeting freak back then (I started the first Web site for NetMeeting users).

I have a theory: there really isn't much that we actually need to see -- at least for extended periods of time. Think about it. Your grandson's face is cute for a while, but after a few seconds, is there much to be added by video communication? I've found that I usually turned off the video after a while. Partly cause the audio and video wasn't sync'ed back then (that problem has largely been cured) but mostly because it was just annoying to watch a talking head video.

We've been suckered into believing that seeing the other person is important. Well, I've had tons of conversations today via phone and via email and to tell you the truth, those exchanges weren't dramatically different from when my boss came over to talk about an idea he had today. The real truth about videoconferencing is that it really is only important when you have something you need to look at. I've always been amazed that eCommerce types haven't used it more. Imagine trying to buy a diamond over the Internet. Not gonna happen, but with videoconferencing it is far more likely to.

The technology is there today for videoconferencing, although it still isn't TV quality (and I don't expect that it will anytime soon). Cameras are $80 and give a decent 15-frame-a-second 320x240 image (although NetMeeting works better when you use a 160x120 image size) over the Internet. Is seeing a face worth $80? For some people it is, but for most voice is good enough (and most times I don't even wanna deal with my mom over voice -- I'd far rather talk with my family over instant messenger unless we're doing something together like going to Fleet Week

Oh, I see Dan says that he's a blog addict today. Welcome to the club!

You know Microsoft has a marketing problem when none of us (Dave Winer, or the MVPs) can figure out what XDocs are for. I've been looking at the Web page and I still don't understand. Maybe this is why they didn't leak this stuff to the MVPs before they talked with eWeek. And that's sad, because I actually am probably a potential customer for XDocs. What it looks like is some sort of super dooper forms engine. I need to make forms here at NEC. I'm looking for ways to automate my work. I use Excel, Word, Outlook, PowerPoint, and occassionally Access, so am a hard-core user. But, since the marketing team hasn't done a good job of explaining XDocs, I wonder if this technology will be harder to use than Access. Oh well, we won't find out until it gets released next year, I'm sure. Today was just a play to see if Microsoft could get mentioned on the front of eWeek. I'm sure the marketing types get a bonus based on how many times eWeek and news.com writes about them. Mission accomplished. Maybe their bonuses should be structured by how many new products actually get sold.

Interesting that Microsoft's MVPs aren't given any advance notice of new Microsoft technologies that'll be announced. I asked the MVP group about the just announced XDocs (MVPs have a private newsgroup where we can talk to each other and Microsoft folks) and a Microsoft employee chimed in and said "heck, I didn't even know about it until this morning." Remember when Ballmer said he'd like to build a community around the MVP program, much like what the Linux community has going over on Slashdot and other places? Well, what he really meant is "I wanna use you guys as photo ops when it's convenient for us, but I won't bother letting you know about our secret sauce before Eweek learns about it."

There's a rumble going on in search-engine land. Times like this when competitors can swoop in and grab share of developer's hearts and minds. C'mon Teoma, remember what Steve said: Developers! [Adam Curry: Adam Curry's Weblog] Um, I've been watching Google too. So far I've seen some negative stuff that I hadn't seen before -- a search for Dave for instance, brings up an obviously bad result in #1 spot. But, for 99% of my searches I see Google as still being the best. I hope they fix their algorithm even more, too. Oh, and I'm still listed high on far too many Google searches. I'm getting as much traffic from Google as I used to before (if not more -- I think that my changes to my templates have made my site more Google-friendly).

Why Microsoft caved in on copy protection. ZDNet Oct 8 2002 11:06PM ET... [Meerkat: An Open Wire Service]

Current Editorials: Spongebob Squarepants...Gay?. I give it three days before Jerry Falwell calls for a boycott of Nickelodeon... [Morons Dot Org] My comment: this is my son's favorite show. I always suspected this, though.

Dan Barker. "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits." [Quotes of the Day]

Calendar Blogging - Clogging [Meerkat: An Open Wire Service]My comment? Hey, here's my "clog:" come to Fleet Week with my angel and me this Saturday. We'll meet at the Ferry Building at 10 a.m. in San Francisco. Bring comfortable shoes.

Ernie the attorney is tracking the Eldred v. Ashcroft case. [Adam Curry: Adam Curry's Weblog]

Digital ID World Conference [Slashdot]