While I respect Ray Ozzie's creativity and intelligence, I disagree with his, hopefully temporal, view that publishing is dead.  This is why:

1. Technology will take at least 40 more years to reach the level of availability and convenience necessary to kill off publishing: 10 years to emerge and mature, another 10 years to be cheap and convenient enough, and 20 years of deathwatch (old habits die hard).  Rising cost of paper will obviously become a major fudge factor.
   
   
   
   
2. There is no clear business model for weblog-based journalism.  Paying for something you can hold in your hand is a no brainer, paying for a view is more difficult to sell.  Paying for two hours of sharable entertainment via Pay-per-View is also different from paying pennies per weblog articles for casual reading.  Likely only top 1% of commercial weblogs will be profitable, leaving the rest to be simply 'emotionally rewarding'.
   
   
   
   
3. Technology and the practice of weblogs are still in their infancy.  There are so much yet to be invented particularly in collaboration and security areas.  Most of blogging phenomenon is due to group dynamics and not technology which is actually pretty thin bridge of convenience.

I have yet to figure out why, but most weblogs seems to use smaller fonts than non-weblog sites and its too damn small!  I don't mind and actually like small fonts for extraneous features like calendars and bookmarks, but the meet of weblog needs to be reasonably size as well as resizable.  With Radio's default settings, only the headings (h1, h2, ...) are resizable.  I am sure Dave has a hack somewhere that gets around this because Scott Loftesness' weblog is resizable (gosh, a payment guru and a Radio hacker).

One of these weekends, I'll write a utility to let me selectively control the font size as well as automatically resizing fonts for my viewing pleasure.

Extremism can be useful when used appropriately, but is not normally effective in its usual form which attempts to pull opinions from the middle toward one of the two edges or extremes.  More effective form of extremism is Inverse Extremism which attempts to push opinions away from the opposite extreme.  Inverse Extremism is effective because it relies on [negative] emotions to repulse subjects instead of logic or inference to attract subjects.

For example, instead of lobbying against abortion, one could form an Inverse Lobbying organization that propagates extreme abortionist views.  In religious terms, this is equivalent to becoming the demon instead of demonizing others.

disclaimer: Inverse Extremism, as I have described it here, is entirely of my imagination.  If this concept has already been describe somewhere else before, please let me know.