Slashdot Mirror
Five Reasons Why Web 2.0 Matters
jg21 writes "Dion Hinchcliffe, who is becoming the closest thing outside of Tim O'Reilly to being a Web.2.0 popularizer and evangelist, has summarized what he considers to be the five major benefits of Web 2.0 best practices. Hinchcliffe singles out the tactical potential of aligning with Web 2.0's increasingly ballistic trajectory: 'You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization.'"
Because it's still just hype. Why was this even posted?
"I've been spending a lot of time lately with folks around the mid-Atlantic region and talking to them about Web 2.0."
Firstly that there are a lot of people on Ascension Island. Secondly that there are a lot of web type people there!
Maybe he was referring to the Azores...
See this if you're confused.
You are not the customer.
Is web 2.0 talking about the next version of the web- eg new transfer protocols and browsers, or is this yet another generalization that the internet is the web and theres nothing else?
I seriously have no idea what Web 2.0 is. did I miss something?
Web 1.0 - Documents
Web 1.5 - Documents + Web Applications that pretend to be documents
Web 2.0 - Documents + Web applications acting like the interactive applications they are
Web applications are now free from the "static document" paradigm that previous chained them down. The web is no longer pretending to be static. That's not to say Web 2.0 is "mature" by any means, but the groundwork as certainly been laid.
BTW - There are a bunch of concepts and methods here that truly are revolutionary. The more I use it and understand what it means, the more I think Web 2.0 is not a bad name, and may even be justified.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
That's how I sumamrize this article. There's not a single nugget of real information in this article. It's a lot of marketing, blogging bullshit, which quite honestly, doesn't mean anything. "synergy" and "critical mass" and "collective intelligence" are just buzzwords with as much meaning as "Web 2.0".
Once you find out, you'll realize it's just a bunch of "synergistic ideas."
what you cannot have
Web 2.0(r)(tm)(p) is just another wannabebuzzword solution looking for a problem
Can create uselss marketing value with long over-wrought sentences!
Leverage your mind-share with FirstPost 2.0!
A blog about stuff.
Why exactly did that handwaving sprinkled with buzzwords make the front page?
Feng Shui on a ballistic trajectory, my ass...
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Web 2.0 fundamentally revolves around us and seeks to ensure that we engage ourselves, participate and collaborate together, and mutually trust and enrich each other, even though we could be separated by the entire world geographically. And Web 2.0 gives us very specific techniques to do this and attempts to address the "people problem" directly.
Sweet! It gets rid of trolls, uneducated users, and the typical "Dumbass Element" that prevails on the Internet?
No? Oh, then Web 2.0 sucks just as much as "Web 1.0".
FTFA:
It's when software developers naively use technology to try to solve our problems instead of addressing the underlying issues that people are actually facing.
This is nothing more than marketing hype. First step in marketing hype is to identify with your audience so they feel you're one of them.
Why does this matter? It has to do with critical mass and synergy, two vital value creation forces.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
"You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization."
In other words, hype building on hype. Just what the world needs...
The Focus of Technology Moves To People With Web 2.0. One of the lessons the software industry relearns every generation is that it's always a people problem. It's not that people are the actual problem of course. It's when software developers naively use technology to try to solve our problems instead of addressing the underlying issues that people are actually facing. Then the wrong things inevitably happen...
Or does someone have a link that's translated from PR bullshit to English?
The real 5 reasons why Web 2.0 matters:
1. VCs can make a ton of money
2. People with MBAs who know nothing about technology can make a ton of money
3. VCs can make a ton of money
4. People with MBAs who know nothing about technology can make a ton of money
5. VCs can make a ton of money
The average Joe will get stuck holding stock in companies with AJAX-enabled web sites for pet food sales. Joe's rationale will be the result of all of the hype he read about Web 2.0.
~
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Marketingspeak for the Herd. Useless blather.
has a better 'Web 2.0' summary that I prefer. http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html/
There is truth in humor.
Web2.0, AJAX, DHTML, .NET, Open Source, Frameworks, Standards, Paradigms, SDLC, RIA, SOE, SEO, WMD, etc.
TGIF!
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Another reason why Web 2.0 matters socioeconomically: more people will have jobs!
Simpy
I like the look of Web 2.0 (from what I have read about it) but I some how doubt we will be using it anytime soon and the reason: M$. Unless they start updating IE on a fairly regular basis Web 2.0 will just never take off. Yeah there will be implimentations of it (probably FF and Opera) but it won't get to got truly mainstream. M$ are playing catch-up with the release of IE7 but I don't see a big driving force for them to then produce an IE8 with Web 2.0 and other new technology. The browser wars are over there just isn't really all that much to fight over any more.
Personally, I'm more interested in Web Forms 2.0 that represents some really needed technology.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Normally, I'd try to be helpful and provide a translation link when TFA isn't in english, but I couldn't find a "Marketing" option on Bablefish....
If "Teh" Web 2.0 is anything like what that guy was saying, it must be all design and process documents; pages upon pages of content free words. I swear to gord I read that 3 times and I have no idea what he said. Aside from Feng Shui. And then how he said he doesn't believe in mystical BS. Which is Ironic, because all he's talking is mystical BS.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Wow - he's actaully worked the bullshit generator into an article!
£5.99 domain registration/transfer: the cheapest in Europe
"You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization."
So in otherwords, you can use new ideas to make your business applications better. Well no shit sherlock!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to take our language back from the marketing people. We keep cramming more and more words in to a sentence while the real information content is falling. People, please, start using English rather than this marketing horse-shit. Language is about communciation and not obfuscation!
Simon
OK, I'm not a theoretical physicist, more of the practical variety (I shoot things). Assuming we're talking about things happening down here on the planet, the term "ballistic" is generally meant to suggest "propelled with an impulse, and not guided" (like a kicked football, or a bullet). The trajectory of such items usually involves:
1) Slowing down
2) Dropping (literally) like a rock
That is not the mental image I'd like to paint of some exciting new IT initiative. Honestly. Might as well say, "We've got to get in on this now! Why, this technology's going postal!"
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Leviathan enthusiam and attention forces the swirling around powerful Web 2.0 enablers to happen, making your organization something important and exciting.
I'm sold already.
Breakfast served all day!
Woo, web 2.0. I hope they fixed all the bugs from the first version.
Rant coming, I got karma to loose :P
:P
:P
All I want to say is, those people who are trying to market things, technologies, products, etc. which already exist in some form are always tagging new names on their stuff and try to sell it as something overly superior. I don't like these kinda guys
To put things straight, I am all and full on the part of the technologies that are converging the web and the web development process towards what buzzworders call web2.0 for a time now. But, just like with AJAX, I just feel the urge to throw things in different directions when I see new names tagged on existing technolgies and say everything else is just stupid and also those are stupid who don't ajax (yes, that's a verb) from now on.
That said, IMHO there are plenty of benefits of the emerging web2.0. But, if someone wanted to sell (as in persuading to use) me a programming/engineering/etc. model with the line "Has Excellent Feng Shui" I would just stand up, throw my tie in the garbage can and go out for a beer
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
This article (and for that matter the writeup) sounds almost like the result of some graduate student AI experiment.
Looks like people are nostalgic for the glory days, when some fictional pseudotechnical concepts no one even understood could echo across boardrooms and bathroom stalls and stir venture capital investments and make you cool at parties.
Is there anything to this, at all, other than taking several unrelated, incremental and entirely unremarkable improvements in user interface and style and putting them in a fancy basket with a bottle of wine and a wedge of cheese?
I hoped we saw the last of that damn hippie-dippy Louis Rosetto school of engineering after the bomb. Powered by bright lights, ignorance and peer pressure.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
In today's fast paced world of e-business, new Web 2.0 technologies such as AJAX and Ruby on Rails are allowing many vendors to leverage the blogosphere easier than ever. Rich client-side applications can benefit greatly from Web 2.0 technologies such as DHTML and Rails.
What we need is a win-win networked tipping-point across the enterprise utilizing feng shui, ballistic trajectories and Web 2.0!
"# The Focus of Technology Moves To People With Web 2.0."
And the technology's been WHERE before? Focused on aliens?
"# Web 2.0 Represents Best Practices."
Yea, that's because it's not the standard. Wait until everyone starts using it, and then it gets raped by developers. If people don't start using it, why do we care?
"# Web 2.0 Has Excellent Feng Shui."
"...critical mass and synergy, two vital value creation forces. Taken individually, Web 2.0 techniques like harnessing collective intelligence, radical decentralization, The Long Tail..."
What? Feng Shui? Synergy? In SOFTWARE? You lost me there...
# Quality Is Maximized, Waste Is Minimized. The software world is going through one of its cyclical crises as development jobs go overseas and older, more bloated ways of building software finish imploding as the latest software techniques become more agile and lightweight (sometimes called lean). The guys over at 37Signals say it best... Using Web 2.0 you can build better software with less people, less money, less abstractions, less effort, and with this increase in constraints you get cleaner, more satisfying software as the result. And simpler software is invariably higher quality.
Ok, aside from the obvious grammar nazi alert (FEWER people, FEWER abstractions), "Using Web 2.0 you can build better software with less people, less money, less abstractions, less effort, and with this increase in constraints you get cleaner, more satisfying software as the result." Ok, so we've got fewer people working on it ANYWAY. Great. We're still outsourcing, just outsourcing fewer jobs. Of course, that doesn't matter, because if we're really reducing the total number of people, there are fewer jobs at home too. I don't see how this combats outsourcing.
# Web 2.0 Has A Ballistic Trajectory. Never count out the momentum of a rapidly emerging idea. For example, I'm a huge fan of Eric Evans' Domain Driven Design but it's so obscure that it will probably never get off the ground in a big way. There's no buzz, excitement, or even a general marketplace for it. This is Web 2.0's time in the sun, deserved or not. You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization. Use this opportunity to seize the initiative, ride the wave, and build great software that matters.
Err... I may be living under a rock, but I really haven't heard a lot of hype about Web 2.0. TFA makes it seem like it's the household buzzword.
Don't get me wrong, I hope good technologies succeed. I just think that TFA is overhyping the abilities of Web 2.0, and he should look at the benefits in terms of actual users - 2/5ths of that article is comprised of discussion of Web 2.0's Feng Shui and Ballistic Trajectory. As a user, I don't see how these things improve my experience.
As a fairly uninformed reader with regards to this topic, I really wish TFA would focus more on concrete examples of what Web 2.0 can do.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
To address this, I've thought fairly long and hard, and come up with a starting point at least. I've tried to create the most distilled, direct explanation of the benefits that Web 2.0 best practices can provide in using and building engaging, useful software on the Web.
I found this article lacking. Lacking in details, lacking in explanation, and especially lacking in specifics. I have addressed my complaints inline:
The Focus of Technology Moves To People With Web 2.0. - One of the lessons the software industry relearns every generation is that it's always a people problem. It's not that people are the actual problem of course. It's when software developers naively use technology to try to solve our problems instead of addressing the underlying issues that people are actually facing....
As he says, problems are caused when developers naively use technology. How does Web 2.0 address this problem? This has been an issue with all software development using all technologies, and I don't understand how a single technology can fix what is essentially a "people problem".
Web 2.0 Represents Best Practices.
Best practices have existed in many other forms before Web 2.0. I don't see how allowing developers to make use of "best practices" is any different from current models.
Web 2.0 Has Excellent Feng Shui.
He lost me with this one...
Quality Is Maximized, Waste Is Minimized.
This is another claim that has been around for a long time: "Use technology X and develop more complex applications in less time!". Sometimes it pans out, but sometimes the technology makes the whole process more complex (buggier, slower, more time spent in testing, etc.)
Web 2.0 Has A Ballistic Trajectory.
Translation: Use these management-speak bullet points if you want to use a Web 2.0 technology or concept at your company.
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
Bullshit detector ... overheating ... must stop reading article ... must stop ... reading ... help ... me ... help ...... aarrghghghghghg (sound of brain frying) ...
Web 2.1
01/20/09
We're better off waiting for Web 3.11.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
BTW, I will also use this moment to state that Web 2.0 is a terrible name for this new vision...
Okay, how about
Network Interlaced Complex Entaglement 2.0
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization.
In other words, "Pleeeeease Mommy! All the other kids are going to the party! Why can't I?"
I wish I had that sorta time to meta-wank all day.....
If the web isn't broken don't fix it. Period.
I don't know about you, but those 2 sentences alone completely clogged up my bullshit filters! And isn't a "ballistic trajectory" what a bomb usually follows?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
This sounds more like a pump-job for venture capital financing than a distinguished advocacy of a new paradigm. The thing about Web2.0 is that you don't need people to "buy into" Web2.0. If it's so damn great, your Web2.0 application will sell itself. See LiveJournal, Blogger, Flikr, MySpace and others for examples.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Paul Graham has a new essay on this:
Does "Web 2.0" mean anything? Till recently I thought it didn't, but the truth turns out to be more complicated. Originally, yes, it was meaningless. Now it seems to have acquired a meaning.
He's resistant to buzzwords, so I found this interesting.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
The blathering Windoze and Xbox fanboys are enough to deal with, now we have to deal with marketing morons? With stories like this one and "Building Intelligent .NET Applications", no wonder Slashdot is going down the gutter. Could the editors lower the brain damage quotient, please?
A few weeks back The Register ran a reader poll on Web 2.0. Say what you want about El Reg and their brand of satire, but there are some pretty amusing readers' responses in that article.
i didn't read the article, the comments already showed my that it was BS...
:%s/web 2.0/cheap bandwidth/
basicaly, when i was doing games with javascript and php in 1999, i had to choose beetween latency and bandwidth. bandwith was the most expensive thing back then.
now, everywhere we got plents of bandwith... or will soon. people are calling THIS as web 2.0.
I'd cut my leg if ANY market person has the right definition in mind, and by the comments, even the article writter didn't had a clue, he was just talking about bandwith avaibility allowing for better apps. period.
so, when you hear this crap just
....and for one reason.
The word "synergy" was used.
Yech!
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
It seems that the swirling masses of underinformed bloggers, Thoughtworks employees, their sycophants, "web developers", Dave W(h)iner, the Fowlerites, Ruby on Rails fanboys, AJAX, AHAH, DHH, DSLs, and Tim O'Reilly's ego are beginning to coalesce into a supermassive (but very tiny) Web 2.0 Buzz Star.
I await the Big Crunch (and the Big Ego Deflation that will follow) with great enthusiasm.
Having the useful bits of Web 2.0 evenly dispersed throughout the new universe will hopefully reduce the noise level.
1. New book sales! Everyone who wanted a copy of Learning Perl has one.
2. It makes him look like a visionary
3. Something to talk about in Foobar camp
4. It sounds better than AJAX
5. Cowboy Neal
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Still, as long as it's not a world where every site is some Flash-laden excrescence that claims to offer 'a rich user experience' while trying to sell me things I don't need rather than, you know, actual useful information...
You must think in Russian.
the DotCom Bubble v2.0!!!
Act now! No one is standing by!
This is the most overblown bullshit craze since Microsoft (read: Ballmer) claimed .NET was nothing like the JVM.
In other words - BULLSHIT!
Is that were all the money from those expensive conferences go; to some marketing think-take that wants to generate buzz for more expensive conferences?
WEAK!
I'm somewhat confused. Is Web 2.0 the movement towards building interactive applications on the Web (Ajax, Web services)... or is it gathering information in a more collaborative fashion (wikis, blogs, etc)?
I find people define Web 2.0 in both of these ways, and I don't understand how they are necessarily related. It seems to me that Web 2.0 is just a blanket term that covers however things are done now, Web 1.5 is however things were done before the bubble burst, and Web 1.0 is however things were done in the very beginning. I don't see cohesive paradigms that we can assign to the web as a whole; it seems to be more of a collection of general trends and technologies.
1. The profession of faith in RSS - the declaration that there is nothing worthy of worship except RSS and that Dan Libby is its messenger.
2. Syndication - establishing of the five daily RSS Channel Subscriptions.
3. The Paying of alms - Paypal micropayments to bloggers who overuse the term "Web 2.0"
4. Fasting - Fat people are sooo Web 1.0
5. The Pilgrimage to Web 2.0 Conference - this is done during the month of November, and is compulsory once in a lifetime for one who has the ability to do it. If the dweeb is in ill health or in debt, he or she is not required to perform the Pilgrimage.
It has to do with critical mass and synergy, two vital value creation forces. Taken individually, Web 2.0 techniques like harnessing collective intelligence, radical decentralization, The Long Tail are quite powerful ... You need a core set of Web 2.0 techniques in order to be successful and then the value curve goes geometric. This is why the ROI of software built this way is so much greater. ...
Using Web 2.0 you can build better software with less people, less money, less abstractions, less effort, and with this increase in constraints you get cleaner, more satisfying software as the result. And simpler software is invariably higher quality.
Yeah, right.
What really matters, if you're selling stuff on the web, is that people can 1) find what they want, 2) order it without much hassle, and 3) get what they ordered without delays or screwups. It's 2) and 3) that matter, because they determine repeat business. Serious retailers talk about the "abandoned shopping cart" ratio, or how many people started the process of buying something but never finished the transaction. One screwup in the fulfilment process usually loses the customer. Most profit is on repeat customers, remember.
The "Web 2.0" stuff is mostly about the front end, the advertising/marketing part of the operation. That only matters in attracting first-time customers.
In the end, all the "Web 2.0" stuff gives you roughly the capabilities Flash has now. If that was so great, we'd see more all-Flash sites.
Scorched Earth.
Where do these people come from?
Web 2.0 - A term for the technically illiterate denoting the passage of time
Best Practices - A term describing what the technically inept do to avoid getting fired
Web 2.0 Best Practices - What the technically illitate ask the technically inept do to, giving rise to the world's worst, bug-ridden software.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
What kind of bullshit generator produces this and why does this guy try to take credit for saying it??? It means nothing!
Enthusiatic people will make exciting and/or important things happen in an organization without Web 2.0. Please kill this ridiculous concept NOW.
Really.
I see online games that seem very "interactive". I see online stores that interact with me. What is the difference between now and "Web 2.0"?
"Ballistic Trajectory" is what happens when an object is given an initial thrust and completes it's motion only under the influence of gravity.
Toss a ball up and you'll see "Ballistic Trajectory" as it comes crashing to Earth at 32 feet per second squared.
http://www.huhcorp.com/
5 better reasons why Web 2.0 matters: 1) Dylan 2) Dylan 3) Dylan 4) Dylan and 5) Dylan. ... because I spit hot fire. :)
(sorry, couldn't resist)
See this if you're confused.
And it was at this very moment of RTFA that I realized I cannot take this author seriously for even another instant. Anyone who has only five points to make his case, and proceeds to express them in such empty vacuous feel-warm-and-fuzzy terms such as this has lost me entirely. He has convinced me there's no beef in this burger, and that Web 2.0 is a bunch of intellectual ideas that will never leave the university campus for any serious home in the real world in its present form.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
In the good old days, the techincal people designed the web, and they built it.
Now, it will probably be the marketing and commercial people who will drive the design of the next generation 'web'.
The thing that worries me is that the people who write viruses, worms, spyware etc are *so* much more technically savy than the kind of people who are going to drive the next generation systems. Those guys & girls are going to have a field day.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
Have you tried Babelfish?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well, I'm exaggerating a little. But I *am* sick of people trying to shoe-horn every possible computer application into a web page. I'd much rather see network-aware desktop applications. The user interface can be better adapted to the task and the speed is about 10x better. And with a little bit of careful encapsulation of your network layer from your content layer you can create a network-aware app that also works offline, for those times when the net isn't available.
I think Google Earth is a good example of what I mean.
Can we let the Web mature into a one-of-many ways to use the 'net, and get back to the days when you had lots of different apps that worked with the internet?
Certainly there are other reasons why Bathroom Tissue is important and you're welcome to list them here, but I think this captures the central vision in a way that most anyone who craps can grasp and access.
BTW, I will also use this moment to state that Bathroom Tissue is a terrible name for this new vision of paper-based people-centric product. Except that is for every other name we have at the moment (for example, like "next generation of the arsewipe"). So I will continue to use Bathroom Tissue until something better comes along.
OK, don't agree? Please straighten me out. Why does bathroom tissue matter (or not) to you?
Toilet paper anyone?
'You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization.'
/s/Web 2.0/in this mixed drink
/s/organization/pants
Fixed?
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Notwithstanding the booster drivel, it both amuses and saddens me that "Web 2.0" is indeed turning out to be just another exit strategy and hype spew for tool makers, as many people said all along.
"When you are old, you become impatient with the way in which the young applaud the most insignificant improvements - the invention of some new valve or sprocket - while remaining heedless of the world's barbarism"
(Julian Barnes - Flaubert's Parrot)
The young and the naive at least have an excuse for credulous optimism. Those old enough to know better usually *do* know better, but have a vested interest in the whole bubble boosterism.
Da Blog
Yes my heads starts to spin when I read this stuff. My bullshit detectors go off too. But if someone with bags of money decides to start a dotcom 2.0 company in San Francisco and pay me $120,000 per year to go slap together a few applications, I'll pretend I believe.
I feel like I am reading Wired or Mondo 2000 circa 1997 when I read about Web 2.0.
Honestly, though, what novel and useful things have happened lately? The only thing I can think of is the potential that SVG (vector graphics) in mozilla offers. RSS, blogs, myspace, and most everything else I can think of just isn't exciting. VoIP has some potential. Wifi has done a lot, but I wonder if the rate of improvement in it will slacken. What else is there?
I think I'll stay with good old Internet (Web 1.3.55.89) for now, thanks.
I must go now. I can take no more.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Why is it that everything bad that COULD happen is M$ fault and anything good that COULD happen is because of open source. I know all of you are going to scream and whine that open source rules and everything with it is great.. if it was.. M$ would not rule the world they do. I admit. SOME things are better when its open source... but sometimes I would like to have someone responsible for the problems.
Don't hate me because i'm windows....
Wow, I am behind the times here. I'm still using the words innovative and innovation. Why didn't anyone tell me we have Web 2.0 now?
So where do people stand on Web 2.0 vs. Internet Mark II?
Sounds like Fluff 2.0 When am I going to see a like to an example and will i notice or care if its 2.0. Maybe thay should start an image link campaign.
Good read thanks for the link
more
Interesting that only 2 people according to the Reg, liked Web 2.0. Maybe that's why it's called Web 2.0?
"Web 2.0". Sheesh. When people say that I dissolve into fits of laughter.
Advice: on VPS providers
That's http://flocksucks.wordpress.com/.
:D
hitcount++
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Holy shit, I have to wait 5 minutes between posts?! This is BULLSHIT!
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
EOF
Oh. Dear. God.
Can it be used for dowsing water in poverty stricken Third World nations as well?
You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization. Use this opportunity to seize the initiative, ride the wave, and build great software that matters.
So basically you wave a Web 2.0 sign in front of VC and investment bankers and wait for one to be duped and give you loads of cash so you can go off and do something real?
--
Q
says it's 6.0.2900.2180
"22 astronauts were born in Ohio. What is it about your state that makes people want to flee the Earth?" Stephen Colbert
Oh, I had really hoped that the one upside of the bubble bursting would be that people would finally see the leveraged synergistics of empowered, paradigm-shifting, buzzword groupthink, as the load of con-man fast talk it really is. My rectum gets all in a bunch at the very concept that these out-of-the-box, emergent asshats will be once again squaring off for the mindshare of our collective intelligence, so that they can capture eyeballs to secure a solid ROI in their VC funding!
You know, you would think that after losing tons of money in the last dotcom bust, people would figure out that if you have to make up words to describe your idea, it probably isn't a very good one. It is funny to me how the most successful businesses out of the last buzzword feeding frenzy had descriptions like "You use it to find information" or "it is an auction, on the computer" or "you pay to see nude women, on the computer" or "you buy things, and they are shipped to you."
But no, now we have Web 2.0, and all the English mangling, linguistically garbage spewing, criminal bottom feeders who missed out on their last chance to bilk investors out of millions of dollars, will have another shot at it! And all the rest of us will have to hear all over again how we just "don't get it" because we lack the vision to see the future. Oh joy!
"increasingly ballistic trajectory"
So the thing in question is running out of propulsive power, becoming more like an inert object thrown in the air, soon to reach it's apogee and begin its inevitable, uncontrolled downard acceleration, attaining its maximum velocity just as it impacts with the ground. Is that supposed to be good? Do I want to be part of that?
Aside from that, this article doesn't really say anything. Sure some of those sites offer neat apps that I'm sure a few people out there might find useful for a couple weeks/months, but it is entirely not where I see the web going. Also, I am not willing to disclose where my vision of where I think the internet will take us, but if these predictions are any indicator as to what the average joe is expecting, then they will be very, VERY surprised. It's closer than we all think, too. All I can say is "The singularity is near."
Here's the reality:
And BTW web applications have always been free from any "static document" paradigm; they were never "chained down". The WWW was never static and never "pretended" to be static.
Quit trying to make sense of nonsense.
Does this qualify as dynamic and get a 2.0 Star?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Here's the reality:
And BTW web applications have always been free from any "static document" paradigm; they were never "chained down". The WWW was never static and never "pretended" to be static.
Quit trying to make sense of nonsense.
I immediately changed that to: 'Went over the madness horizon and is still accelerating'.
:)
Ain't pop culture great
Nothing to see here, please move along...
Ballistic trajectory? Feng Shui? Unbeleivable.
Fanboy dipshits like this will totally screw up any meaningful advancement of HTML 5, webforms 2, or the like. Probably some stupid underemployed californian with nothing better to do than get too many colonic cleansings, go to oxygen bars, and yogurtlates (that's doing pilates in a organic yogurt bath).
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
My favorite use is the word leviathan. Now, where I come from, leviathan, is another word for a very large turd. Now, comparing web-2.0 to a leviathan on a ballastic trajectory would be something I could agree with. Which reminds me of something my dad told me when I bought my first car and I wanted to get a shiny new paint job before getting the engine and tranny overhauld...it went something like this: "Son, you can paint polish and wax a turd, but in the end..."
Microsoft couldn't innovate their way out of a paper bag. Granted, xmlHttpRequest is being used because MSFT included it in their script engine, however, the functionality is obvious. The problem would be getting MS to include the functionality in their web client, the 1 that's held back the web several years already (full CSS1 support a mere 10 years after the standard was published). It doesn't matter what OS you run when the application is delivered over the web and MSFT's business model relies on locking people into the Windows platform. Look at the way Microsoft 'eradicated' Netscape and deliberately broke Java for an idea of how much web based apps threaten them.
Microsoft were asleep at the wheel when they let xmlHttpRequest loose, it's not innovation, it was an oversight that is being exploited by their competitors to brake their ill gained monopoly. Let's have less of this 'Microsoft invented AJAX', the reality is a little different and you only have to study their history to understand why.
"Sweet! It gets rid of trolls, uneducated users, and the typical "Dumbass Element" that prevails on the Internet?"
Give it up. The elite computer priesthood died when the personal computer came about. We no longer worship you. We are now enlightened, and see that geeks are as flawed as everyone else.
"No? Oh, then Web 2.0 sucks just as much as "Web 1.0".
To borrow an analogy; geeks are the "old and busted". Web 2.0 is the "new hotness". Evolve or Die, geeks!
"...I've thought fairly long and hard, and come up with a starting point..."
Yup, I figured as much, he's really talking putting a turb into ballistic trajectory...involving the correolis effect.
'You can use the leviathan forces of attention and enthusiasm that are swirling around Web 2.0 these days...
...as a powerful enabler to make something important and exciting happen in your organization.'"
i.e., the hype.
i.e., you can do stuff.
In summary: Web 2.0: You can use The Hype to Do Stuff!
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
My wife is like Unix. Lots of commands. Lots of arguments.
Like these! http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://web2.wsj2 .com/five_reasons_why_web_20_matters.htm
But yes, sadly few people realise that Microsoft *invented* AJAX, they just didn't call it that.
Uhm... there were several developers that used a similar technique without the XMLHTTPRequest. They would load html from the server in an invisible frame, and access the document in that frame using Javascript. It was a neat trick, one that I played with, but discovered was of little real use. It had the *exact* same effect as XMLHTTPRequest, and was used a while before XMLHTTPRequest was implemented in IE. In fact, that is the technique used at Microsoft before they created XMLHTTPRequest, according to your link.
The worst part was the Javascript incompatibilities. You had to access the hidden document elements using different symantics based on the browser. But that wasn't anything new, especially at the time.
XMLHTTPRequest made the process a little less of a kludge, but it's the same damned process. Microsoft didn't "invent" anything, in this case. They just formalized something that was already being done.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Wheres the foot icon? This is the funniest thing I've read in a while. I've heard people mention web 2.0, but I had no idea that it was complete bull****.
Back on earth, the real "web 2" is the google-verse.
Seriously... umm... what the fuck?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?