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."
Why do we need Web 3.0 now? We barely need Web 2.0!
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
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!
Will the Web 3.0 be able to leverage Ajax technologies and XML, XSLT, and XAML, technologies to leverage a synergy between forward-thinking strategies and ISO-9000 quality?
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
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.
Someone wake me when the last person to use the phrase "Blogosphere" has been killed.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
We don't even have Web 1.0 (tm?) nailed yet, simple stuff like accessible XML styled with CSS. IMHO, that was where the development reached 1.0 and AFAIK MSIE still doesn't fully implement the 10 year old CSS level 1 spec. Web 3.0, WTF!?
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.
Read radical news here
Web 3.0? Are these people crazy? I mean, Web 2.1 is still in beta testing, BLINK and MARQUEE were only just moved from the trunk to the branch, and these folks expect the Internet to release a 3.0 line already?
You've got to be kidding me...
Will welcome our new flying car driving WEB 3.0 overlords. ;)
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!
Mozilla will propose new standards for CSS4.0 which will be an XML Schema and will have sticky floating flash avertisements that intercept your right mouse button and Javascript 3.0 which will look like python.
Microsoft IE will silently implement the standard because they know that by doing that they achive adoption and besides IE, other browsers will be left behind. Thus, the only existing two browsers will have floating flash ads that intercept your right button and run binary blobs from youtube.
Few major sites with many visitors, likw msn.com and youtube, will start using these features right away. Thus users will be forced to keep a Firefox or IE handy.
Google will give $10M to buy a small company by two israeli students who are doing a word processor in AJAX3. Developers will start using AJAX3 in hope to be bought by google.
Adobe will be rich by selling botnet services by the flash plugins to investors. Mozilla will be rich because google will give it $700M for every accidential adclick by the right mouse button. Microsoft will be bought by adobe. Google will buy Apple. Gabmle and Proctor will buy Levono.
I do not know what web 3.0 will be built with, but I know that web 4.0 will be built with sticks and stones.
"hyper-euphoria" == "investor ignorance"
... and were emptied.
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
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
but nonetheless, a profitable failure. Buzz about things like this are much like the continual buzz leveraged by the political parties to generate donations. Nothing new there.
/. and beyond. They are seeing new and upcoming websites like YouTube and Digg. There's a lot going on right now. Some marketeers decided to memetize the process and deem it an idiotic "2.0"
The difference here is mainly in the public's perception about what the internet is and isn't, and what the web is and isn't. In a lot of ways this stems from something like a meme, but not exactly. I guess a close characterization is an "ambience meme." It is to say, the feel of a time and place. The sixties, the great depression, world war II: these times and places held a special energy in them for those who lived through them and still carry a particular flavor for those of us who hear and read about their history.
So right now the web has a certain shift in ambience that is partly driven by the change in the major players on the web, and also how they do business. It could be claimed that this started with Google's IPO, or earlier, or later. Users are seeing redesigns on everything from Yahoo! to
Really, though, there's not as much going on right now as there seems to be. In a lot of ways the state of things stems from the fact that for awhile there was kind of a sticking point. There wasn't all of this major, visible progress, and then suddenly there was. But that is not '2.0-worthy' in itself. The question is whether there will be a _continual_ surge of changing and newness now, or if it was just a periodic shift. The latter is more likely, but if the former were to be the case it would seem worthy of being called a second version.
Now, what could possibly set a web 3.0 apart? The end of the web. Just like there are major misconceptions due to the ambient meme that has been labeled "web 2.0" there is a very pesky problem with the internet of ours: the dominance of the web; the fact is, for most people the web is the internet. Why is that a problem? Mainly because it seems as though we have an infrastructure capable of more diverse interactions and we limit it to a large extent. And I think that's where web 3.0 will be. There will be the web, but there will be new entities and institutions that will be separate and still connected with the web.
Slowly e-mail has been joining the web (webmail), and so has usenet (google groups). Over time it's come to the point where you can access the majority of the non-web internet via the web. In the future it seems highly likely there will be other interfaces developed to allow you to access equal volumes in different contexts.
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
I want ubiquitous wireless web wired to my brain, so that I can upload my consciousness and be WAN with the universe.
'web 1.0 - the basic 'web. You click on a link and you read the page.
/.)
... ? 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?
'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 -
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.
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.
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).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Finally, someone thought up a way to make people stop using that stupid "Web 2.0" term.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
70545
<Clipsy> There's a review on slashdot of a book called "Creating Web Pages with Ajax," and I was thinking
<Clipsy> I'd like to make a book called "Creating Web2.0 Content for Dummies"
<Clipsy> and then when someone opens the book
<Clipsy> a boxing glove on a spring comes out and punches them in the face
.