Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Can the Web Survive v3.0 217

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the still-waiting-on-the-2.0-bugfixes dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Can the Web Survive v3.0

Comments Filter:
  • Why do we need Web 3.0 now? We barely need Web 2.0!
    • by TodMinuit (1026042) <todminuit&gmail,com> on Sunday November 19, 2006 @12:55PM (#16904774)
      Why do we need Web 3.0 now?

      So tech writers have something to write about.
    • by CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @12:57PM (#16904782) Journal
      You really need to update! I'm currently running Web 6.3.12.004 and its been running great. Well there was that one time my toaster and web server conspired to kill me, but besides that its been smooth sailing!
      • I tried to install Web 7.2 but halfway during the installation the server at Gallifrey stopped responding and gave something about a "Time War error".
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19, 2006 @02:24PM (#16905356)
        Dear fellow Inter-Web freinds,

        Greetings eveyrone. My name is john2913. I have been surfing teh Inter-Web for almost 2 years, and I am confused about this Inter-Web thingy you're talking about.

        You see, I hav been using Inta-Web 6.0 (with this "e" icon) for a long time, until my friend, pengwn1337 helped me install this Web 1.5 with a red burning circle.

        I have haerd that the Inta-Web version has upgraded. Please tell me so I can get updated! Is the latest the Intaer-Web version Web 2.0, or is it Web 7.0 ????????? Why are my cool friends using Web 2.0 instead of the Web 7.0? I heard Web 7.0 was made by Billy gates so it must be good. Hmm...

        Please help me. Thx.

        Yours Truly,

        john2193
      • by nmoog (701216)
        I've been using Web3.1 for Workgroups for a while. It has a great version of solitaire.
    • Re: (Score:3, 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?

      • by tepples (727027) <`tepples' `at' `gmail.com'> on Sunday November 19, 2006 @02:15PM (#16905308) Homepage Journal
        Who decides these arbitrary numbers for a continuous process?

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

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          That's an interesting definition. Ignoring any technicalities about O'Reilly, I would have said that a lot of geeks (since no-one else knows or cares about the phrase "Web 2.0") would associate the term with:

          • the community/blog/open contribution concepts (Myspace, Digg, LiveJournal), and/or
          • the often-related "open" visual style (pale backgrounds, bright colours, rounded corners and fade effects, etc.)

          To me, the use of AJAXy stuff seems almost peripheral to the contribution model or the general presentat

          • by The_Wilschon (782534) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @03:34PM (#16905884) Homepage
            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.
          • by CastrTroy (595695)
            If web 2.0 is rounded corners, then it still hasn't arrived yet. We need CSS3 finallized and implemented to get rounded corners. Judging by the glacial pace IE is taking at implementing CSS 2, it's going to be a while before we get CSS 3 and rounded corners.
          • by neoform (551705)
            How long has slashdot been around for, cause it sure seems like one of those "user contribution" type things.

            How about BBS and web forums? Seems to me they were around when the web was first popularised..
            • In a sense, Slashdot is indeed a forerunner of the Web 2.0 collective contribution model. I think the key distinction is that on Slashdot, the front page stories are still chosen by the editors.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by drew (2081)
            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.

        • Web 2.0 is a buzzword largely perpetrated by people who don't understand the technology involved. Arguing over a definition is fairly pointless.

          I agree, XMLHttpRequest started the revolution. It allowed your javascript to get new information from a server without reloading the page, all other magic fell into place from there.

          I would also lay some of the blame with Gmail and Paul Buchheit [wikipedia.org] showing a lot of people what was possible.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Iron Condor (964856)

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

        This fallacy is exploited in a number of little riddles that kids usually ponder. Where exactly is the line between a tadpole and a frog? There is none, of course. If you give a poor man a penny, he won't be rich - he'll still be poor. But if poverty cannot be removed by acquisition of a penny, then it can't be removed by another penny and another and another...

        Most people grow up at some

        • That would be nice if we were talking about tadpoles. I'm talking about the web, of which I have noticed no real transformation (which is what going from a tadpole to a frog is), even considering the javascript request object. A request is still being made a and packets are still being received.

          So, I'm going to suggest that we call Web 2.0 Web 3.0 and backdate Web 2.0 to when the blink tag was introduced.

    • by sedyn (880034)
      We barely need Web 2.0!


      Considering that the web is only 1% [slashdot.org] porn, I'd say we barely have Web 2.0!
    • by kinnell (607819)
      I'm going to wait until Web 3.1 before I upgrade - give them a chance to iron the bugs out.
    • Not to mention, we haven't seen Web 2.0 SP1, Web 2.1b0, etc. How can we be up to 3.0 already?!?

    • by syousef (465911)
      /*Web 1.0
      Gotta love CGI */
      printf("WEB 1.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?"); //Web 2.0 //Insert about 600 lines of Java in about 12 classes using 6 patterns to finally execute. //Oh and don't refresh the whole screen. Use JSP as a shell.
      System.out.println("WEB 2.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?"); //Web 3.0 //Finally move web 2.0 into JSP and don't refresh the whole screen.
      System.out.println("WEB 3.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unli
  • by jg21 (677801) * on Sunday November 19, 2006 @12:49PM (#16904716)
    Well, Web 2.0 Journal [web2journal.com] 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 [slashdot.org] 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!
    • For example, imagine a game where players compete to clothe a runway model that will be judged in a contest by other players. This game could very well be a job requisition submitted by a major fashion company that wants to get advanced market research on what clothers buyers will prefer. The virtual clothes in the game could be detailed in-game 3D objects that are exact duplicates of the fashion company's artwork for their clothing.

      Yeah, as soon as nudity is acceptable corporate work attire.

  • by Slithe (894946) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @12:50PM (#16904726) Homepage Journal
    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?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by neoform (551705)
      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?
      • by VJ42 (860241)
        why is anyone using this ridiculous buzzwords?

        To allow us /.ers to tag articles like this "buzzwordhype" ?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by glimmy (796729)
        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
      • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday November 19, 2006 @01:42PM (#16905104)
        '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.
        • 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?

          This question itself shows a shade of business thinking: we've done the information-access thing, we're in the middle of the information-structure thing and the "social web" -- what's the next thing that'll earn s

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by andphi (899406)
      Buzzwork? Is that labor that is trendy but useless? Congrats on a new coinage. Just be sure to patent it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by rk (6314) *

      Certainly, but we must first productize new paradigms of scalable efficiencies to deliver best-of-breed solutions to both existing and emerging market segments.

  • Architecture (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alexhard (778254) <alexhard.gmail@com> on Sunday November 19, 2006 @12:53PM (#16904762) Homepage
    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...
    • by TubeSteak (669689)
      I don't think Web 2.0 is only about architecture. When journalists are talking about 2.0, they're also discussing business plans/methods & other such things.

      "Web 2.0" is more than XML or AJAX, it includes stuff that may have been doable/done, but was not neccessarily monetized under "Web 1.0"

      At some point, they're going to want have to draw a line between "old" ways of doing business online and "new" ways... though it isn't usually considered "new" until some large company picks up on it and starts proc
    • by TeknoHog (164938)

      The web today is built on transferring documents and everything else is a hack on that...

      Yeah, it's funny that we use a file access metaphor [bgu.ac.il] to work with complex, dynamic entities.

      Seriously, I think the web is a nice example of Unix philosophy in action. You have the idea of files as a transport medium, which makes things rather simple, even though you're not really dealing with files. Besides, even Windows servers and browsers use forward slash as the directory separator, so it looks like we got the

  • Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @12:53PM (#16904764)
    Someone wake me when the last person to use the phrase "Blogosphere" has been killed.
    • by Tx (96709)
      Maybe they'll all shoot themselves when Web 3.0 turns out to be a damp squib.
  • Most sites (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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!?
  • by unity100 (970058) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @01:03PM (#16904820) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • [W]hat 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.

      Just starting to think that?

      Shit. I first heard the term "Web 2.0" back in 1997. And it was used then as marketing hype. Of course then the terms being hyped were VRML, frames, Shockwave, and push.
    • No shit sherlock!

      Congratulations Slashdot... yet another low, this would have to be one the worst articles I've read off here. Is this a piss take or did you seriously think this crap warranted any attention what so ever?

      Or maybe you just didn't even bother reading the article before posting it...

      imagine a game where players compete to clothe a runway model that will be judged in a contest by other players. This game could very well be a job requisition submitted by a major fashion company that
  • Web 3.0? (Score:3, Funny)

    by DevelopersDevelopers (1027018) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @01:08PM (#16904834)
    Web 3.0? Are these people crazy? I mean, Web 2.1 [designlaw.org] is still in beta testing, BLINK [blartwendo.com] and MARQUEE [amu.edu.pl] 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...
  • I'm amazed how people make a living coming up with this nonsense.

    How long exactly was the "Web 2.0" supposed to last?

    As long as they keep selling it doesn't matter what they say.

  • by Bohemoth2 (179802) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @01:11PM (#16904858)
    Will welcome our new flying car driving WEB 3.0 overlords. ;)
  • WTF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Night Goat (18437) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @01:17PM (#16904884) Homepage Journal
    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!
    • It's one way to sell dumb fucks the same thing twice. Didn't you know that?

      Look what you do is make trivial changes, break an existing API slightly, call the new version of whatever 2.0 and then sell it to the same muppets who bought 1.0. You double your revenue.

       
  • predition (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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
  • by glimmy (796729) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @01:18PM (#16904898) Journal
    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.
  • Is everyone playing with their wii instaed of posting on slashdot?
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @01:22PM (#16904926)
    "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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by kfg (145172)
      Thank God I have invested my life savings into real goods that shall always increase in value. That's right I put everything I have into tulips.

      KFG
      • by Surt (22457)
        This year, I invested in pumpkins. They've been going up the whole month of October and I got a feeling they're going to peak right around January.

        I think I'll go have a look at how my investment is doing.
      • I put my into tulips, roses and buttercups. This is called "diversification."
  • money investing in Web 2 yet! At least wait until my personal bankruptcy is finalized. Sheesh
  • 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.

    Plus it will allow Major Kusanagi to join with the Puppet Master and kick some terrorist ass!
  • This was called "the Semantic Web". Why must we invent a new buzzword when we have a perfectly good old one?

    I wonder if they're still using OWL. A few hours of that is enough to turn an evangelist into a skeptic.

  • Internet DRM?
  • by HobophobE (101209) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @01:33PM (#16905032) Homepage
    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.

    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 /. 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"

    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.
    • by d34thm0nk3y (653414) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @04:19PM (#16906226)
      he 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.

      Zeitgeist
      /tsatgast/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tsahyt-gahyst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun German.

      the spirit of the time; general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time.

      Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
  • I went to a talk by the V.P. of Yahoo search R&D [sjsu.edu] last Thursday, who had something to say about this. The current new thing in search is recognizing certain classes of common queries and understanding them at a deeper level than word matching. The main examples were performers, for which the search engine offers ways to view, listen, and buy their works, and cities, which brings up map and location related information. Sports related queries bring up current sports scores. There are a few tens of spec

    • The best feature I'd seen like that was about 6 months ago when next to each result in a Google search there was an "exclude results from this site" link. It was great for blocking out for-pay sites like Experts Exchange. Unfortunately, it went away and I have no idea how to make it show up again.
  • Isn't computer science supposed to teach us to distill our thinking down to clear, unambiguous statements that can be executed by profoundly dumb computers?

    anything dot-oh does not compute

    take some technology that most people barely understand in the first place, and condense it down to Something x.0? Plus which, there isn't even consensus on what Something x.0 is.

    Web 3.0 is maybe the semantic web. No, it's artificial intelligence. No, it's a web of human intelligence, performing mechanical turk tasks

  • Web 2.0 barely exists. It's a nebulous term given to some vague graphic stylings and a more social/interactive nature.

    Why are we assigning version numbers to things that don't even have a strict definition?
  • The dot com bubble was fulled by an influx of investment money that was generated by the Trillion dollar bet first half payoff.
    see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stoc k market.html [pbs.org]

    It was a case of easy and fact come, easy and fast go.

    Losers of that gamble also made the news. Worldcom, Enron and the likes.

    Such an influx of finances into empty product/service ideas will NOT happen again.

    Artificial Intelligence at best is what each word is defined in the dictionary, then put together. Simply put,
    • Such an influx of finances into empty product/service ideas will NOT happen again.

      Why do you think that?
      • by 3seas (184403)
        a question or an expression of denial of the explaination?
        • Such an influx of finances into empty product/service ideas will NOT happen again.

          Not a denial as such but I'd be amazed if it never happened again in my lifetime never mind never again ever. I was just wondering what the basis for that definite statement actually was.
          • by 3seas (184403)
            follow the money.

            trillion dollar bet, read the transcript and know money comes and goes but never just appears and disapears.

            That will never happen again and as such, neither will such a thing result in such a large free flow of money to invest in mindless ventures.
    • Artificial Intelligence at best is what each word is defined in the dictionary, then put together. Simply put, NOT REAL, an imitation!

      And that is exactly what artificial Intelligence is, an imitation we create, a part here, a part there. And of course it can be said that its an image of ourselves as we are the programmers, and the machine is in essence made out of what is in essence stone material of various types (not biological material.)

      So, what you're saying is that we have real intelligence, and mach

  • That is an obnoxious popup. Had to turn off blocking to see it in action, but that is not nice

    So, can we mod Taco -1 Troll?
  • stop the keyword hype!

    won't someone think of the children?!
  • Regardless of what form the Web takes in its 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0 variations, if the U.S. doesn't get off its ass and stop coddling the telecos and cable companies, we won't be seeing any of it. Our series of connected pipes are *slow*. The U.S. is ranked 20th in the world in broadband penetration, and the FCC definition of broadband is 200kbps or better. So when we talk about a thriving, competitive market for broadband, we're talking about an average download speed of 1-1.5 Mb. In Europe and Asia, broadband m

  • by Wolfier (94144)
    It always happens! I *just* installed 2.8 last night! @#$!^#^!#$
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @02:29PM (#16905404) Homepage
    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).
  • ffs - has the use of buzzwords become so anemic that it's simply a matter figuring out which major revision is next?

    I hereby proclaim that Buzzword 2.0 will rule Hype 3.0 of Blogosphere 4.0 of Web 5.0.
  • how cool will that be? Hunh? I dare you to come up with something even more techno-hip than that, because both you and I know it's impossible.
  • Urrectum (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sloppy (14984) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @02:54PM (#16905590) Homepage Journal
    Finally, someone thought up a way to make people stop using that stupid "Web 2.0" term.
  • ob. qdb (Score:4, Funny)

    by threephaseboy (215589) on Sunday November 19, 2006 @03:22PM (#16905800) Homepage
    70545 [qdb.us]

    <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
  • Web 3 is when the rants like this will only be read by machines and posted on slashdot by machines so that enough other machines will access it and bring the blog down. In other words: Web 3 is an indication that the singularity is near [singularity.com]. And you can bet that that the singularity itself will be announced as Web 4 in the blogosphere!
  • ... for Web95.
  • Reading the blurb, I just wondered: with techies being so convinced that Web 2.0 is just a load of empty buzzwords, and the general public being mostly ignorant of what goes on in the tech world, ... who's actually spreading the Web 2.0 buzz?

Overdrawn? But I still have checks left!

Working...