Slashdot Mirror


Can the Web Survive v3.0

robotsrule writes "The battle lines between skeptic and evangelist are already drawn. Either way, Web 3.0 will either be the new face of the Web that launched a thousand empty business plans, or the tipping point into a vastly more exciting phase of the Web. This Web 3.0 article asserts that the marraige of artificial intelligence to the infrastructure of Web 3.0 will dramatically accelerate our capacity for distributed problem solving. However, it also issues dire warnings on the potential hyper-euphoria that will accompany it."

15 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Let's Nip This in the Bud by jg21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, Web 2.0 Journal is already reporting that it's been "a couple of crazy days in the Blogosphere," but clearly that will be just a ripple compared to the tsunami that this article is certain to unleash. In the month that the Web turned sweet sixteen it is almost obscene to think that anyone should be deluded into thinking that a phenomenon this young could possibly already be moving into its third era. From childhood to le troisième âge, with no adolescence or even middle age. Please, let's bury "Web 3.0...now!

  2. Re:Buzzwork Overkill! by neoform · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm actually surprised to see this on slashdot. "Web 2.0" is a useless buzzword that only gets used by marketters and other clueless internet users who think they're talking about something that actually exists. The web doesn't have versions, why is anyone refering to it as 2.0? The web undergoes evolution and there is no difinable differences between 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 so why is anyone using this ridiculous buzzwords?

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
  3. Architecture by alexhard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we ever want a good web, the current mentality must be disposed of..

    The web today is built on transferring documents and everything else is a hack on that...we need something more unified, easier to code...something that will put the client and server side together in an intuitive way, not the AJAX crap flying around ATM...

    --
    Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
  4. WHAT the hell is web 3.0 ? WHAT was 2.0 ? huh ?! by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just dont get this ! its like someone built and people used web 2.0, and there is now talk of web 3.0

    I dont see anyone around much web 2.0 ? i myself scarcely chance on sites that use this so-called web 2.0 stuff, let the clients who us ask for such 'web 2.0'ish developments are rapidly declining too.

    what i am starting to think is these web 2.0, 3.0 shit are just buzzwords invented to sell more books, courses, certificates and such to the interested community.

  5. Re:2.0 isn't even out of beta yet! by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We barely need Web 2.0!

    We have one?

    Seriously, I never even noticed this supposed Web 2.0. Who decides these arbitrary numbers for a continuous process?

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  6. WTF by Night+Goat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who the fuck came up with Web 2.0? I've never heard any mention of it except for articles off Slashdot. I refuse to acknowledge Web 2.0, or versioning the World Wide Web in general. As far as I can say, Web 2.0 (and now 3.0) is a way for struggling tech writers to have something to write about. The web's not the sort of thing you can assign a version number to. It evolves, but not in such a precise fashion. Tech writers: find a new topic that is meaningful. Here's a free one, encryption. Go!

  7. No euphemisms please ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "hyper-euphoria" == "investor ignorance"

    Every time something big comes along a bunch of idiots with money say "I have a great idea! Let's give a bunch of buzzword-laden high-school dropouts billions of dollars of our hard-earned money in the faint hope they have the slightest idea what they're talking about!". This invariably attracts millions of additional idiots, who cry "Brilliant!" in unison, and proceed to hand over all of their disposable income. In rare cases that works, somewhat (see: Apple Computer) but in most it simply results in vast funds disappearing like smoke up a chimney.

    Of course, the aforementioned idiots are the first to point fingers and start shouting "fraud" and saying things like "how could anyone have known?" when the whole scam comes tumbling down and they're in debt up to their iBalls. Or maybe it wasn't a scam, but just a really stupid idea that didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever earning a profit. Yes, I know, sometimes stupid-sounding ideas do pan out (see: Fed Ex) but it's not common.

    One may call this phenomenon a "tech bubble" if that eases the pain, but it's still another euphemism. Ultimately it is greed and stupidity at work, in roughly equal proportions, tempered by a complete lack of judgment. One aspect of the human mass-psyche that desperately needs work is this: just because a bunch of other people are doing something stupid is no reason to jump in yourself. It's still stupid.

    I prefer to think of it as if millions of checking accounts suddenly cried out in pain ... and were emptied.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:No euphemisms please ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..and what exactly is wrong with what you just described?

      Uh ... what exactly is right about it? Ultimately, the system as it stands is a microcosm of the way our Republic has been operating for some time: the tyranny of the ignorant.

      You're absolutely wrong that it doesn't involve me. It most certainly does involve all of us when significantly bad things happen to such an important sector of our economy. It certainly does involve all of us when substantial funds that could have been used to develop useful goods and services that might help us maintain our competitive edge are dissipated or end up lining some corporate con artist's pockets, and thus aren't available for more viable technology companies. One that might want to hire me, for example.

      So are you suggesting that we outlaw investing as a whole, or just "bad" investments?

      I don't recall saying that government intervention was needed. I was commenting on the essential incompetence (and shortsightedness) of the modern American investor. So far as I'm concerned, anyone that could vote for a Bill Clinton because he "looks the most Presidential" (I had a girlfriend who did exactly that) or a George W. Bush because of his, well, whatever it is that he has, probably won't do any better investing their money wisely. In either case (casting your vote for your leadership, or deciding where to vote with your dollars) you need to make the effort to learn how to make a wise choice. I don't see that happening anymore.

      In either case.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  8. "Web 2.0" == Bubble 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Web 2.0" == Bubble 2.0

    It's a way for people to score some easy money off investors that have short memories when it comes to hype about the internet.

    Web 3.0? That's a word that people started using because they wanted be the first using it, even though it means nothing. At least there is some description of "Web 2.0", albeit vague and rather silly. Web 3.0 can't even say that much.

  9. Re:Buzzwork Overkill! by glimmy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I like the opening of the article

    many in the blogosphere screaming "Stop the keyword hype!"

    seems kinda like the pot calling the kettle black
  10. If they were smarter, they could version it. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'web 1.0 - the basic 'web. You click on a link and you read the page.

    'web 1.5 - the basic 'web + databases. You can post your comments to someone else's web site. (yay /.)

    'web 2.0 - online sales. Amazon.com, eBay.com, PayPal.com, etc. The drive was to get out of the "brick and mortar" business model and get online.

    'web 2.5 - because personal selling such as eBay could be considered a step above corporate selling such as Amazon.

    'web 3.0 - LiveJournal, MySpace, etc. The drive to get your diary online. Pages for everyone, without the need to maintain your own website. The 'web is opened up to the angst-ridden ravings of hundreds of thousands of teenagers (and people who are still, emotionally, teenagers).

    'web 4.0 - ... ? What's next? Almost everyone is online socially and professionally. They can do just about everything online that they do in real life. Aside from the direct neural interfaces and "consensual reality", what is left? And who is left off-line who would need to get online to do it?

    I don't think the applications the author is talking about are really valid. They're much more easily addressed by simply chatting with the people you'd already talk to, and you're probably already chatting with them online anyway.

  11. Is it so continuous? by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Who decides these arbitrary numbers for a continuous process?

    Web 2.0 is considered to have begun with the introduction of XMLHttpRequest and Dynamic HTML. Their introduction in IE 5 was a discrete event.

    1. Re:Is it so continuous? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From my POV, AJAX has made the web usable as a dynamic thingamajigger rather than a static doohicky. (How's that for buzzwords? good grief. (vitriol directed at tech writers, not you)) I detested, loathed, and desired to eradicate web email interfaces, because they were so slow, what with the page reload on every click. Web-based word processors, calendars, etc. etc. etc. were in the same boat prior to AJAX. Blog and social networking sites, otoh, don't really require ajax, nor do wikis. So, you've got at least two mostly independent novel (novel in widespread-ness, anyway) concepts here, AJAX (usable dynamic-ness) and bazaar-style content, which are collectively the driving things behind ``Web 2.0''.

      I hadn't really thought about it before, but it is interesting that these two don't really inform each other that much. Wikis and blogs are maybe a little bit more fun to use with AJAX (barring the nastiness about URLs not really being URLs anymore, and suchlike things), but the lack of AJAX certainly isn't even close to a showstopper for these. Web apps can be slightly more useful with the collaborative/open stuff, but again, the lack thereof is no showstopper. Certainly, there are projects which use both, but even in those cases, one is really the interesting thing about it, and the other is just icing.

      So Web 2.0 is two concepts, one technological and one sociological. It is interesting that these two areas are also where the Web (1.0?) made its biggest splashes. However, in Web 1.0 (barf barf), the technological was the driving force, and the sociological was the result. You could even look at Web 2.0 as a similar thing, where the sociological aspect is really just the next development resulting from Web 1.0 technology (and from the ideals of Open Source Software?, but those ideals are sociological too, and were only really enabled by Web 1.0 tech.), but AJAX is really something new, which may wind up driving another sociological change.

      This is almost turning into a proto-essay. Good grief. Sorry for my rambling.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:Is it so continuous? by drew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A better definition of Web 2.0:
      A trademark created by O'Reilly Associates so that they could create a corresponding new conference to charge money for.

      It goes right along with AJAX, which is a term made up by consultants so that they could charge more money to do the same work they've been doing for the past five years, by giving it a buzzwordy name.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  12. Oh, goody, another stock bubble by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At last, the secret to wealth without work has been found.

    Yes, Virginia, there IS such a thing as a free lunch.

    True, the Web was a bubble, but that was then, this is now. This is totally different. You see, there's been a paradigm shift. The old fogeys who just don't "get it" are going to be left in the dust, but you, you can be in on the ground floor. This bubble is going to expand forever.

    Benjamin... pssst... just two words: "Web 3.0."

    (And if that doesn't work, I have an incredible deal involving arbitraging international postal reply coupons).