The last line from Jobs’ commencement speach to Stanford last year hasn’t left my head for the past 48 hours.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

It’s an exciting time right now.

[If you missed reading the speach when it circled the net last year, you need to give read it now]

When it first came out I was excited about a headache of mine that coComment was going to solve – tracking my conversations.

I tried it out and found that it… sort of solved my headache, but produced a number of other ones. In the end I decided the headache trade-off wasn’t worth it.

In the past two days I’ve received two nudges to give it another try – one from Fred and another from coComment themselves via a tidy little email.

Turns out they’ve fixed a number of major issues I had with it and I’m giving it another go. I’ll keep you posted, but so far so good. The integration directly into Firefox is a huge improvement.

If you want a good way to track your conversations online give the service a try.

Update: TechCrunch agrees that coComment is now relevant. Expect it to become more relevant as its user base increases.

I’m experimenting with vlogging. First one is up – my about video. Expect more to come in the weeks ahead as I continue to experiment and test the medium.

[Reason? There are a few - always wanting to push my comfort levels, lots of exciting things happening in the space, ... and I thought I'd dip my toe in now that I can get the representation that I deserve ]

This paragraph in a post from Fred on VCs charging fees has bothered me since I read it:

Also, most VC firms ask the companies to pay the legal expenses associated with closing the transaction. Those fees are often taken out of the proceeds of the financing. I know of a few entrepreneurs, like my friend Steve, who find that very distateful and I certainly understand why, but it is customary and has been the industry practice for years.

While I agree with the main advice in Fred’s post – that the VC shouldn’t charge a due dilligence fee – I’ve found the thought within the above paragraph unsettling.

“but it is customary and has been the industry practice for years

If this is the strongest arguement for something entrepreneurs find distasteful (and you “can see why”) then I’m unsettled.

Wouldn’t it be great if VCs did to their problematic processes what you say they’ve done since the industry was created – invest in change?

[VCs] are in the business of investing in change.

And have been since the industry was created.

And that hasn’t changed.

Not only would it create a nice point of differentiation, it would get rid of a crummy excuse.

Howard’s bang on with his post, Web 2.0 – Not an Inflated Bubble but a Deflator of 1.0 Companies.

Do you think Flickr , Bubbleshare , YouTube and the rest of the photo and video sharing sites are irrelevant?

Think again!

Let’s look at image leader Getty Images… This year [Getty Images] has had about 40 percent of it’s market capitalization disintegrate. That is $2 plus billion for you home gamers. I would say Getty is the company least happy with Web 2.0 at the moment. More Getty’s to come.

More Getty’s to come.

Howard’s right… and that should shake your core if you’re an established player within content.

Getty plugs one hole by purchasing istockphoto (aside: we fell in love with their site/options/prices when we needed stock photos). But when you consider what crowdsourced sites will do to content providers, the purchase of istockphoto seems as useless as trying to right a sinking boat with a simple bail bucket.

(humerously that was the first result when you google “bail boat”)