Blogs

There are many things I do not know, many of which I am ignorant and many others of which I am indifferent. There is a big difference between these concepts.

To be indifferent is to realize that I have no interest -- not now, not yet or maybe ever -- in something I have become aware of and spent some time prioritizing. To not know is to realize how futile self-importance is. Ignorance however represents a procrastinization of thought. Ignorance is the substitution of belief for knowledge. Where continuing ignorance would curtain with darkness, realization provides the ubiquity of sun light. The bliss of ignorance is ironic -- I'm giving away my bliss to the rapturous.

How do we explain some of the most egregiously ignorant things we see and hear on a regular basis? The daily talk show co-host who denies the ascendancy of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome before that of a certain middle Eastern faith. The politicians that deny science, ignorantly demising themselves from apes with the intellectual fortitude of town cryers. The practice of profligate spending and abject lending in the name of principle. The radio and video gurus with the bad habits pontificating on the absolutes of morality.

While ignorance has always provided volatility to history, in our times we have seen many ignorantly held beliefs pricked like a needle to a balloon and yet, many hold on to the shards of latex that remain. With the decentralization of media that is occurring there seems to be a greater ability for many of us to find exactly what it is that we think we want to see, hear and believe.

Some web sites now serve content -- your next story, your next search result, your next movie option -- on the basis of your preferences. These are the preferences of ignorance. What contentment there is in having your predilections chosen for you.

Beyond now it may be a good idea to seek more, contemplate more, know more. While I may become indifferent to many things, I should become less ignorant.

Over a year ago I wrote about how "Software Stinks" in the "Activity or Action" series. That was a few months before I got my Macbook and my HP TC 4400 Tablet and... Well, let's just say that it is getting harder and harder to like most of the software I get to try.

Despite some great experiences playing with the likes of the Jello Dashboard for Outlook (now in a new and highly interesting version 4 Alpha), Vmware's Fusion and a handfull of others; only one program in the past year has completely blown me away (more on that in another post). I try too many programs and the industry is just not mature enough for that to be happening. Something is wrong with software and it's participants had better figure it out. Where's the passion? (And don't tell me how complex it is; Buzz and Neil strolled on the moon in 1968.)

Some of the biggest updates of the year seem -- more than ever -- to be robust exercises in activity rather than genuine advances resulting from focused action. I'm underwhelmed by Vista. I have played with Leopard and I cannot find more than $29 worth of value in it -- let alone $129. I'm still waiting for them to get the most egregious bugs out of that one.

Office 2003 got a facelift with Office 2007 but there seem to be very few functional or operational improvements. Unbelievably, you still cannot schedule an Outlook mail rule. Outlook's cosmetic attempt to represent email on the task list does not actually instantiate what I really need. So the old right-click and drag an email to the task folder is really the only real way to move the email to a scheduled task. The ribbons are cute but on a small tablet screen there is less space than before if you want to use the full "functionality" of the ribbon.

File formats and silos are bigger than ever. Try getting task data between programs -- it's inefficient, time consuming and frought with error. On the web, some sites don't allow you to gracefully quit your membership and erase your data. That kind of trade is not fair and something has got to give.

With software, we don't get to own what we buy for our computers and we give too much away for free on web sites. Shame on us all for allowing this to happen. It's no wonder that open source draws more and more attention.

I did not post in August but it's time to be boring again.

I've been on the road a fair amount of the time over the last 3 months but no trip has been more anticipated than the one I'm currently on. I'm in San Antonio for the 2nd Manager Tools Conference.

If you haven't got aspirations to do better at your life or your career (why the heck are you reading this?), then Manager Tools from Mark Horstman and Michael Auzenne has not shown up on your radar screen. If you are interested in leadership, teamwork and individual initiative that can lead to stronger collective collaboration then get on over to what is surely a revolution in management. It's a virtual re-discovery of the basics for a new generation of office bound boot-strappers.

For M & M there are no secrets. Okay, so that's not sexy but basics build businesses and I'm down with these guys for the sheer vitality and impact of their teaching approach. At this Conference we're going to talk about things like actually communicating -- in meaningful ways -- with co-workers, providing useful feedback and developing coaching techniques that are non-manipulative, realistic and effective.

Between in-office work committments and my travel schedule I had to choose between either spending 20 hours in a room listening to Horstman this autumn or darting off to another back-slapping Podcast and Portable Media Expo. My money's with Horstman.

Here's the thing. The most successful podcast I know is not getting multiple millions from VC wannabes, running obnoxious pre-roll ads or extolling the virtures of Gotomeeting or Godaddy. It's not pre-packaged with a "How to be successful in podcasting" book and it doesn't come with a maze of multi-level marketing hype. It's not out to sell at all costs and it gives away most of its product. It focuses on topics and techniques; not "content". It is intent on listener satisfaction and it's customers help the business owners come up with ways to develop revenue. Oh; and they know management backwards and forwards.

Stay tuned.

I recently commented that perhaps heat stroke was affecting a major tech blogger. Bing, bang, click! I don't monitor his feed anymore; no big deal. Sometimes it just makes sense to move on.

I probably monitor as many feeds as Scoble but so what? He could read more too but he has probably stopped reading more feeds than I ever have. I think it's likely that Robert has a low tolerance for feeds or podcasts that don't remain interesting when they originate from strangers or acquaintances. With friends, Robert Scoble is truly more accomodating and forgiving; it's a real measure of the man and I only got a glimpse of that when we spent some time together last February.

In the past few days, my belief system has been tested by another blogging and podcasting original, someone I've come to know fairly well. In a manner that took me by surprise because of its sudden graduality; I found myself stung by a calm and graceless piece on his moderately popular podcast. I was struck by how affected I was at the commentary I was hearing as I drove down the road. I felt chastened by the sense that I had even bothered to download the podcast.

And now I don't because I've stopped downloading from his feed and I've stopped listening. In the back of my mind I knew this was coming and I knew that he was losing an affinity for his listeners.

What I am discovering about my tolerance for opinion is that it should never be disguised by a belief that it is fully substantiated by fact. Opinion should be a sampling of the known and the surmised at a point in time. That makes opinion fungible and it allows regular folks to be able to grow, change and develop. Denying oneself of growth by not utilizing reason and education seems kind of lazy to me. Sure; you will never know everything, but that's hardly an excuse to not try to know more. The thing that really turns listeners on to podcasts is the opportunity to know more -- that's a real winner for audio. Visual media can do that too but the effort requires far more work because great visuals require great poetry and vice versa. That's a rare combination as we know from watching decades worth of TV and films.

Very few things are immutable -- maybe someday I'll even listen to that guy's podcast again -- but it's rarer than a lightning strike that you will get a chance to have a listener come back once they have stopped listening. It's okay to lose listeners by being uninteresting; people change. It's another thing altogether to lead them down a road of contempt and disrespect. If you didn't start podcasting, in part, for the listeners then please get out of the business. If you don't feel a growing respect for your listenership with every piece you produce then consider stamp collecting rather than podcasting. If you really want to know what a tree sounds like when it falls in the forest then don't be around... Your podcast is a crazy rant in the shower if you have no listeners and good listeners are not interested in crazy rants.

CBC Radio 1 "Sunday Edition" had Andrew Keen on on the show recently. Keen is author of the book The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture .

Having listened to Keen and not having read the book -- which will go on my summer reading list -- I was intrigued by his hypothesis that the internet "amateur" is swamping "credible" content. Keen's polemic speaks to the supposed legitimacy of commercial or government sponsored media outlets because they utilize professionals. In attempting to draw a distinction between low brow content and presumbly what he considers good stuff he spoke of Youtube. While Youtube is rife with low quality videos it is also a source for a potentially good material. Television is no different. There are no quality filters in the world of television, just a limit on the total volume delivered due to bandwidth and schedule restraints.

Why should the internet be treated with contempt when all that it does is extend bandwidth, deliver more content and free the creator and consumer from schedule restraints? And don't forget that possibility of opening markets and minds in far away places. Nice bonus.

Keen's biggest gripe may come down to the fact that it gets harder to figure out who is credible when there are so many more voices adding to the din. It gets really hard when there are more than 57 channels to listen to, watch or read. Keen may be on to something in discerning that "professional" writers do have a tendency to know what they should write about and where they should contribute that "what". Some bloggers, web journalists and podcasters figure they should write about, speak about or investigate anything. Some bloggers take the stance that we cannot tell them "what I can and cannot write about in my personal blog". That stance is wrong and perhaps fundamentally untrustworthy. In some respects it gives credence to the narrowness of Keen's vision of a few good writers.

While this web site is mine, I cannot write about anything here. I cannot violate personal or professional confidences, agreements, or understandings. I cannot break laws. I cannot deliberately seek to injure or cause hurt. Here's something else; you have a part to play. Your interests and expectations have narrowed and, sometimes, broadened the scope of what I contribute. Over time, the content here defines general and specific themes that are only hinted at by the tags in the left hand margin. That thematic rendering of the content's own impact -- it's "medium is the message" imprint defines a kind of branding that, were I to tamper with it, would betray my readership.

So what if one wants to write about UFO's or conspiracy theories instead of tech business or computer media? What then? I think one way to do that would be in a new forum, a new blog, a new site or some other themed area. Let that person develop a new reputation as an alien abduction expert with a new set of readers in a place called "start again". 

Maybe it's the heat that has a major tech blogger babbling incoherencies about a fringe US political candidate. Everyone has to have some kind of political philosophy; the trouble is that it should not corrupt the mainline message of a themed web site.

You want to know something else? Political blogging has about as much impact as running a fan by an ice cream cone for air conditioning. Nobody who reads me for tech business opinion or current views on computer applications wants to read about my politics. Heck; I don't want to read about my politics. I'm no guru and you're not a follower. That's why I stopped posting the odd political piece here a long time ago.

The fastest way to marginalize years worth of great posting is to leave it alone. I cull and edit and weed from this site all the time. Growth is about change and thought. Written declamations posing as insights are jarring and disconnecting experiences.

I tuned up my satellite dish yesterday so that I could catch Derek K Miller and his wife Airdrie on CBC Vancouver. Derek my man; you made it to Drive Time! That's big.

What could be bigger? Getting through the next few months and beyond. Derek, every day I read your stuff and get inspired. You and Airdrie are leaders and your strength is inspiring. Happy Birthday from Calgary and thanks for making it out for a short night at the last Northern Voice.

Suppose I told you the headline of this article was my own. Would you believe me? Could it be possible that I invented the calculus of my headline at roughly the same time as Ethan Johnson and then posted a little later with the only difference being that he utilized an extra, and optional, comma? Well it's possible but clearly I'm not telling the truth. You picked that up didn't you?

If you read regular web writers -- call 'em bloggers if you must -- then everyday you read the egomaniacal, the heart felt, the goofy, the cogent, the sycophantic, the miserable, the sublime, good, bad and indifferent. Regular reading instills a discipline of thought instantiation. By that I mean that you shape your thought patterns around arguments that are coincident, similar, suggestive or altering. For instance, some days blogger A may make sense to you and other days you'll wonder why you bother clicking the mouse on her feed. Always, one hopes, you are looking for new ideas, new feeds, new writers; weeding out the ones that don't seem to provide the value of positive or negative thought mathematics. If you read and move on most of the time, then the writing is no longer stimulating anymore; stimulation can be agreeable or disagreeable. The thing about writing is that it should provoke thought. Genuine writing is a rendering of perceived understanding, a creative act because it attempts to capture and convey; in turn it may incite more thought and more writing by others.

That is not conversation.

Having occasionally written about and accepted the written thoughts of Ethan over the years, as well as having had actual conversations with him -- you know with the full duplex, talking thing going on in real time -- he and I know there is a difference. There is no more a conversation taking place in the wider blog space than there is in the wider marketplace. The passage of time has shown us that markets are not conversations and there is no such thing as a real community embedded in any web site or grouping of sites. How ridiculous would it sound if somebody declared that "Newspapers are conversations". Sometimes literal meanings are really good for what they are; a conversation is about talk; not about words. Community is about people engaged in living in an area of reasonable proximity or familiarity. Community is not about reflective affinity; that's called empathy.

The empathetic nature of modern media causes certain thought leaders to attract followings of the like minded with the occasional sprinkling of the caustic. Mayhem ensues. While most of these people would never get in a street fight, they tend to slag each other in writing without a second thought. Could that be because the norms of standard conversation invoke a social protocol that leads to a shared attempt, at least initially, to get to an understanding? Has that happened during any part of the current A-list blogger dust-up? They're not having a conversation, they're having a turf war. It's a bunch of blather about ego that's worth several thousand dollars. We needn't waste any more time on the fiction of community or conversation in the web space.

But we will.