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. . . .
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
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.
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.