He's doing extremely interesting shit (follow the links) that has had huge buzz here. I'm sitting talking to him right now. One quotable line: "We should make it a mandate of the IETF to remove control points from protocols. The review process should remove the control points from the protocol, or at least make them explicit." [Doc Searls Weblog]

This is some cool stuff.

 

Infrastructure  [Doc Searls Weblog]

dth=11 border=0>

Bruce Baugh has been writing about the evolution of Weblogs.

Not exactly related, but I've been thinking about the expression "trial and error." Much more useful than "trial and success," no? Reminds me of a Garrison Keillor line from one of his Prairie Home Companions of many years ago. Addressing his talk to graduating high school seniors, he wished them failure. "Success doesn't teach anything," he said. Failure does.

My question/whatever-it-was at Steven Johnson's keynote on Weblogs yesterday was pretty much a failure. I'd be surprised if it made even partial sense, beyond one good laugh line.

Steven had some rovocative and interesting things to say. People were talking about some of them later. And I didn't know enough of what they were talking about because during Steven's talk I was busier blogging and coping with technology than I was with listening to him. Usually blogging a talk makes me listen more closely, but in this case it didn't happen. It showed when I went up to the microphone.

I had another experience like that, just before I drove up here. In excpetionalhaste (even for me, an exceptionally hasty guy) about something Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times. The post was full of both factual and copy-editing mistakes. Friedman responded by email (through an intermediary), saying I had read him wrong, which was partly true. I also thought he had read me wrong. But what he read wasn't what I really wanted to write in the first place. I also didn't have time to correct, explain or banter about it (which would have been terrific, since that was the original idea behind the post). So I took the post down, and an opportunity had to be tabled, if it wasn't lost altogether.

Bruce writes,

It is indeed early days in this, and we are all collectively figuring what the heck it is we want to do with this stuff. Some people have a very strong, clear sense of what they want logs for and how they want to go about it. Others are noodging.

I think we're all noodging, no matter how clear we are about what we're noodging toward.

The day that was 

Still at the O'Reilly thing. Spent a lot of yesterday writing and then recovering from losing the main thing I had been working on. Got some terrific help from Rael on the matter, but to no avail. Files I know I modified during the day didn't show up anywhere. I didn't finish rewriting the main piece until a few minutes ago, and I'm wasted.

While I crash for a few hours, dig how Rob Flickenger made montages out images culled from everybody else's Web traffic, without their knowledge. Brilliant and scary. The software involved was EtherPEG.

This montage should warm Locke's & Weinberger's hearts.

[Doc Searls Weblog]