Can the Web Survive v3.0 217
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."
2.0 isn't even out of beta yet! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:2.0 isn't even out of beta yet! (Score:5, Funny)
So tech writers have something to write about.
Re:2.0 isn't even out of beta yet! (Score:5, Funny)
Please, please, this time. Please let Web 3.0 include a spelling-checker.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
<rushVoice>This is why we must define marriage as between a man and a woman, otherwise we'll have AI marrying the web!</rushVoice>
Sorry, i'm bored.
Re:2.0 isn't even out of beta yet! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:2.0 isn't even out of beta yet! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:2.0 isn't even out of beta yet! (Score:4, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Is it so continuous? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
To me, the use of AJAXy stuff seems almost peripheral to the contribution model or the general presentat
Re:Is it so continuous? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about BBS and web forums? Seems to me they were around when the web was first popularised..
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
XMLHttpRequest made Web 2.0 (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the web is only 1% [slashdot.org] porn, I'd say we barely have Web 2.0!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, we haven't seen Web 2.0 SP1, Web 2.1b0, etc. How can we be up to 3.0 already?!?
Re: (Score:3)
Gotta love CGI */
printf("WEB 1.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");
System.out.println("WEB 2.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unlimited porn?");
System.out.println("WEB 3.0: WOULD YOU LIKE TO PAY $59.95/month for unli
Let's Nip This in the Bud (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to read the article though. ha! (Score:2)
Yeah, as soon as nudity is acceptable corporate work attire.
Re: (Score:2)
Because with artificial intelligence, all your inbox will belong to p3n15-3n14rg1ng spam from drive-by browser hitchhikers.
I WANT WEB 4.0 (Score:3, Funny)
WAN with the universe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There hasn't been any innovation on the web in the last 5 years anyway.
There has been dramatic innovation. The problem is that you are a tech-monkey without any grasp of the real world, so you imagine the word "innovation" to mean "technological innovation" and thus Gmail, for example, isn't an "innovation" to you because it doesn't do anything that some local mail client couldn't do in '01 already. To the reality of humanity, however, "innovation" doesn't mean that someone invented something. It means
Buzzwork Overkill! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To allow us
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
seems kinda like the pot calling the kettle black
If they were smarter, they could version it. (Score:4, Insightful)
'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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Certainly, but we must first productize new paradigms of scalable efficiencies to deliver best-of-breed solutions to both existing and emerging market segments.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Architecture (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Breaking it down, let's take the TOTAL number of active Internet users at any moment:
Using an estimate of 1B users worldwide (this is the highest number I saw quoted, probably 700M is more realistic for users that do anything interesting), with an average of about 30 hours per month (30/(24*30))=0.042
1,000,000,0
Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Most sites (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT the hell is web 3.0 ? WHAT was 2.0 ? huh ?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:WHAT the hell is web 3.0 ? WHAT was 2.0 ? huh ? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Web 3.0? (Score:3, Funny)
You've got to be kidding me...
BS Marketoids (Score:2)
How long exactly was the "Web 2.0" supposed to last?
As long as they keep selling it doesn't matter what they say.
I for one... (Score:3, Funny)
WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc is a way of selling (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
predition (Score:2, Funny)
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
With apologies to Albert Einstein... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, slow news day (Score:2)
No euphemisms please ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'll go have a look at how my investment is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh
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 use
Hey- I haven't lost all of my (Score:2)
Marriage of artificial intelligence... (Score:2)
Plus it will allow Major Kusanagi to join with the Puppet Master and kick some terrorist ass!
Last I heard... (Score:2)
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.
Isn't Web V3.0 (Score:2)
Re:Isn't Web V3.0 Internet DRM? (Score:2)
A failure to communicate... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:A failure to communicate... (Score:4, Informative)
Zeitgeist
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.
Yahoo is doing some of this, but for special cases (Score:2)
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
Re:Yahoo is doing some of this, but for special ca (Score:2)
no dot oh (Score:2)
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
Hype and buzzwords = vapour (Score:2)
Why are we assigning version numbers to things that don't even have a strict definition?
common misconceptions abound... (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying is that we have real intelligence, and mach
thank god for safari (Score:2)
So, can we mod Taco -1 Troll?
from TFA (Score:2)
won't someone think of the children?!
Web 3.0 - not in the U.S. (Score:2)
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
Damn! (Score:2)
Oh, goody, another stock bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
I proclaim Buzzword 2.0 (Score:2)
I hereby proclaim that Buzzword 2.0 will rule Hype 3.0 of Blogosphere 4.0 of Web 5.0.
Web 7.0 ALPHA (Score:2)
Urrectum (Score:3, Funny)
ob. qdb (Score:4, Funny)
<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
the singularity is near (Score:2)
I'm waiting... (Score:2)
I Wonder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)