digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at computer.howstuffworks.com

How Web 3.0 Will Work

computer.howstuffworks.com — You've decided to go see a movie and grab a bite to eat afterward. You're in the mood for a comedy and some incredibly spicy Mexican food. Booting up your PC, you open a Web browser and head to Google to search for theater, movie and restaurant information.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • frozzenst, on 05/11/2008, -12/+6finally ;)
  • kmotiv1, on 05/11/2008, -3/+97Thats what I do right now.
    • cdigioia, on 05/11/2008, -1/+19I could do all that from my phone...I fail to see how this is "Web 3.0", whatever that means.
      • jgtg32a, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4because web X.0 (alway .0 never continuing releases) is a buzz word to make tech journalists feel important
      • gmatei, on 05/11/2008, -2/+0Web n.m is not the future. In the future, the Internet will be a network of Informational Individual (InfoIndNet).
        I talk about a fundamental invention in software: The Informational Individual the final frontier of the software concepts the unique universal concept of the Informational Society. http://gheorghematei.blogspot.com BRAINERS CLUB
        The current software model is a danger for the human society. We have to start an invention in software: The Informational Individual!!
    • TheWorm, on 05/11/2008, -0/+35But now it will have even more gradients.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Yeah, we all do ... The idea here is that more stuff is done for you without any explicit commands.
      I have my own pet project (a CMS with semantic tagging) in the field that is called Web 3.0 these days, but frankly, the promises in this article are the sames as those made by Apple and IBM in the early 1990s.
      Back then, the same promise (make a natural language request, have products and data sent your way, wherever you may be) was based on the concept of autonomous software agents - little programs that would roam the net and act (research, negotiate, purchase) in your name.
      All this will only work if we either...
      a) get to see consistent semantic markup (good luck with that with regards to the ugly tag soup that is the current web)
      or
      b) strong A.I. (not really likely for the next decades, and if we do, I doubt said A.I. will be eager to do our shopping :)
      • dfeifer, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0The tags are quite irritating, case in point, eBay.
        Always wonderful getting hundreds of hits for a product, when only 3 items out of that batch may be what is actually stated.
    • PaulOwen, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9Web 3.0? Pah.

      All the text used in the comments I post are Web 4.0 compliant, including this one.
    • dfeifer, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Though, I am still waiting for when i can plug my dimensions in to my browser and say, What can i wear.
      • oneoverzero, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Hell, why bother with plugging it in, I'm waiting for my browser to take a picture of me and determine my dimensions from that.
    • zspade, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5It is obvious you didn't even RTFA. It was about centralizing all of these tasks, and not having to visit 3-4 different sites to get it done.
      • r3zonance, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Sounds very Web 2.0
      • troye, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I don't want that. Also, plenty of privacy issues come about if my browser on my mobile knows a crap load of info about Me.
  • swmsvbdotnet, on 05/11/2008, -20/+3Thanks for digging this article. Great stuff.
  • AlwaysAwake, on 05/11/2008, -15/+12With the growing food shortage, and rapidly escalating food prices, the Mexican Restaurant part wii soon be out. Grow your own will be making a comeback quicker than we can imagine, So whip out your laptop, and start learning about gardening, and animal husbandry.
    • DisposableRob, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8Nah, I'm putting on football pads and working on my crossbow skills for the eventual apocalypse you seem to be imagining. I'll just join up with my gang an take what I want from the peaceful communes we pillage.
    • gandhii, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1off topic
    • metapop, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5mexican restaurant wii? is that the sequel to cooking mama?
    • Croecop, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2All of those endless nights of Civ IV will come in handy when I have to use animal husbandry
    • santaliqueur, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5These doomsday scenarios are great. You may be 67, but they usually come from angry college dropouts, living in their mom's basement. Keep em coming.
    • laceration, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Not only that, the go to the movies part wii soon be out as gas wii cost $19 a gallon. This may hard to conceptualize, but people wii be able to download movies via peer to peer networks and watch on large flat panel monitors.
      I only skimmed this article because I read the same crap about 5 years ago. The next generation of the web will be nothing like what's said there.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah, food shortages will prevent you from going out to eat (which means grocery stores will be looted as well), but laptops and the internet will still be readily available.
      Do you even attempt to think before you post??
  • meshman, on 05/11/2008, -4/+152"Many of these experts believe that the Web 3.0 browser will act like a personal assistant."

    *smashes head off desk*

    I'm sorry, I missed the "Web 2.0 Browser". When did that happen?

    "It's true that when Dale Dougherty of O'Reilly Media came up with the term, there was no clear definition."

    And there still isn't so why now try to build on some thing that's inclear in the first place?

    "In brief, the characteristics of Web 2.0 include:"

    Everything we've had since before the term was coined.

    "Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989. He created it as an interface for the Internet and a way for people to share information with one another. Berners-Lee disputes the existence of Web 2.0, calling it nothing more than meaningless jargon "

    No, don't listen to him, wtf does he know? He only invented the freaking thing. God what a tiring pile of garbage that was. Who are these so called "experts" anyway? They don't name anybody, they quote one expert who calls Web 2.0 meaningless jargon. So my question then is, who's paying howstuffworks to hype this garbage?
    • Scaryclouds, on 05/11/2008, -16/+4"*smashes head off desk*"

      Why did you need to smash your head *off* your desk?

      As for the web 2.0 browser, many are now integrating RSS feeds, and social networking tools. Even if there wasn't a true Web 2.0 browser they could be saying that web 3.0 will be more browser based so it is still a legitimate comment.
      • Micktion, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11Web 2.0 was term invented by Oreilly publishing and they used the term to describe the come back of web based business models after the .COM bust of 2000. So yea. In terms of it being an actual technical term its totally meaningless. It relates to nothing technical. It does happen to coincide with the dawning of new approaches like REST services, however, that's purely conincidental.

        The internet has been will continue to be a continuously evolving medium. Try to break that continous evolution into versions... like web 1.0/2.0 etc is really out of the technical domain and definitely a spin/marketing domain.

        As for this article, I think it's flogging a dead horse, the whole magical personal computer assistance that does everything for you before you know you wanted to do it has been floated around since the clippy was born in Office 98. No one liked clippy back then, they still don't like him today. I don't see clippy leading the way into the world of "Web 3.0".
        • Scaryclouds, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I would disagree with that sentiment. There may of been no definite date "web 2.0" came online, but there is a major difference between how the web operates today and how it operated before the dot com bust. Furthermore I never suggested web 2.0 is a technical term, however it is a term to define web applications which typically allow for, on some level, user manipulation of data.

          If we applied your theory of technical evolution to biological evolution we couldn't call ourselves homo sapien because there wouldn't be a definite point when we evolved from homo rhodesiensis.
          • Micktion, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Well you're wrong. There WAS a definite date Web 2.0 "came online".

            http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2 ...

            ...and that date is the 5th of October 2004 the date of the first Web 2.0 conference. Oreilly media invented Web 2.0 as branding for a conference. So it's a marketing term, this is NOT a theory, it is a fact.

            All these "distinctions" between Web 1.0/2.0 were made retrospectively. Anyone who has any real understanding of these technologies, does not take Web1.0/2.0 seriously as technical terms. All of the technologies that are touted as web 2.0 technologies have evolved from standards that were round years before the .com bust. The key to manipulating data for "Web 2.0" technologies such as AJAX, REST etc is XML,

            http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210

            SOAP, RSS, ATOM are all XML this is not an accident, this is EXACTLY what the XML standards were created for. These standards have been around floating around since the mid 90's, XML, HTML originate from Hyptext...

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext

            ...which was invented back in 1965. So what version was hypertext.... a Web CTP or a beta release of the Web?

            It's a joke.
    • JackHarkness, on 05/11/2008, -12/+4" I'm sorry, I missed the "Web 2.0 Browser". When did that happen? "

      I do belive flock would pass all the criteria

      • soogy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Flock is a fork of Mozilla Firefox. It's Firefox with plugins and a theme.


        There is NO SUCH THING as "web 2.0", nor "web 3.0", nor is "Internet2" a faster or newer version of the Internet. Jesus! I want to slap the ***** out of you people right now.
    • houndeyex, on 05/11/2008, -17/+5Buried as inaccurate. Tim Berners-Lee didn't invent *****. Clearly Al Gore invented the internet.
    • bobcrotch, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Marketing people. Duh. Seriously though, marketing people. They have jobs because things that need names need names.
      • gmatei, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1In the future, the Internet will be a network of the Informational individuals.
        I have a fundamental invention in software.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6"I'm sorry, I missed the "Web 2.0 Browser". When did that happen?"
      There is e.g. a FF plugin called BlueOrganizer. I don't use it, but it claims to do some of those semantic 2.0/3.0-ish things: Recognize books, movies, names etc. on a page, offering you related services/links even if they are not part of the original page.
      I'm not saying this is the second coming of Christ - just that people work on these things, and they will probably be added as a kind of software glue and/or another layer on top of what we have now (add-ins, APIs, mash-ups). So there will be gradual changes, as before (video, AJAX) and few "revolutions".
      • jiveturkeyblues, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I was thinking Flock, but, close enough
    • brutalsponge, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5I've been saying this Web 2.0 crap is just a meaningless term for a long time.
      God damn marketing faggotry.
    • jesus8mypoptart, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4I would have to agree with you 100%. Web 2.0 is *****, only marketers and super nerds use the term. Its all the same crappy internet we've had it just obviously has new and maybe some are better features. But nothing has and prob won't for a long time revolutionize the way I look at the internet.

      And who the ***** wants ANOTHER crappy portable device to look like a ***** retard. Id rather sit at home surfing the internet on my 64in HD TV then some cheesy headset like that.
    • jeeky, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1web 1.0 = static information (e.g. books)
      web 2.0 = dynamic information (e.g. bulliten boards, networking)

      That's what my Web teacher taught me, so I'm assuming that...

      web 3.0 = interactivity (e.g. "Personal Assistants")

      Even though the "interactivity" would mean that the browser would have to store the information, not the website itself, which could be economical in it's entirety, but caches could get massive.
      • Papajohn56, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1"bulletin boards"

        was USENET web 2.0 back in the 80's?
    • mabisa, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1It is bizarre that so many in the tech sector are willing and eager to apply this sort of limiting terminology to themselves. No one doubts that the semantic web is near, that distributed and cloud computing are inevitable, or that web technologies will only become more robust, extensible, and user-friendly. But to slap a label on a decentralized set of technologies is completely worthless.
  • Scaryclouds, on 05/11/2008, -7/+2Very interesting article, you can already tell things are heading this way one of the best examples is the google search engine. Type in restaurant plus your zip code and you will get the listings of local restaurants. This works with many other words/terms and a location. I'm working on a senior project and I hope to incorporate something like this into it.
    • dazparkour, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3If you call it web 3.0, I'm not looking forward to when you start work.
      Let's face it, there is no web 2.0, there will be no web 3.0.
      All the things people call web 2.0 EXCEPT ajax were around since the beginning, and AJAX is quite old now.
      • Scaryclouds, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Well I'm already working as a software engineer and I'm not going to suggest I'm Gods gift to web programming, but I'm by no means baffled by how web applications work. Furthermore because I choose to use a term like web 2.0 and 3.0 does not mean I use that term in place of not understanding the technology behind what makes AJAX, web services, or other technologies typically billed as being part of web 2.0 work. It is just much easier to user "web 2.0" instead of says "interactive web media" or some other term that more accurately describes web applications/sites that are referred to as "web 2.0."
  • Feces, on 05/11/2008, -7/+2And I'll be safe in the new Internet, called Freenet :)
    • gmatei, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0The first big technology will be the Universal Network of Informational Individuals.
      In the future, the Internet will be a network of Informational Individual (InfoIndNet).
      I talk about a fundamental invention in software: The Informational Individual
      the final frontier of the software concepts the unique universal concept of the Informational Society. http://gheorghematei.blogspot.com BRAINERS CLUB
      The current software model is a danger for the human society. We have to start an invention in software: The Informational Individual!!
  • kru1e, on 05/11/2008, -4/+18Web 3.0? Doubt it.
  • egonSchiele, on 05/11/2008, -1/+17http://www.stopgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07 ...
  • ndnspongebob, on 05/11/2008, -2/+78HAHAHAHA!! The Internet?!?! that will never catch on, lol good luck with that
    • DeFex, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Nobody will ever need more than 512k of RAM!
      • tehmacuser, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1The original quote from Bill Gates was referring to 512k of hard drive space, not RAM. Back then, 512K of RAM would be unheard of in a PC.
        • r3zonance, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1No it wasn't, that's all an urban myth. But it was allegedly in reference to 640k of RAM (the standard in a PC [not so much unheard of]).
  • boodog, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3What Web evolution is the digital Internet toilet? Upon use of the smart crapper, it analyzes your specimen data and sends it to your doctors computer. If there is any irregularities with your specimen data, you get an email to schedule an appointment. It will save lives and extend our life expectancy.
  • FeelThePain, on 05/11/2008, -7/+24Here is a video detailing more about this (not rick roll, I promise): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NofrlKOTaPU
  • newstart, on 05/11/2008, -0/+65I am not buying your Web 3.0 *****. I am happy with my Web 2.0, Service Pack 2
    • cdigioia, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Web 3.0 is too slow & full of bugs. I let go of Web 2.0 when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
  • killbert24, on 05/11/2008, -5/+3You mean the internet will soon be like it was in Johnny Mnemonic? Sweet!
    • Versh, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Don't you mean, "Whoa." ? :]
      The book Virtual Light expanded on the problems with that type of technological premise...
  • onionbagel724, on 05/11/2008, -1/+49"I want to pick up a local hooker and have her spread cheesewiz on my belly in front of tourists at a farmers market. What are my options?" Search Results: 8,281 pages found
    • houndeyex, on 05/11/2008, -4/+8Hey, Google gets me 6. Your comment is #1.
    • dazparkour, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2That's not web 3.0, it says "Pages" not "Options" when that is clearly what you asked for.
  • metapop, on 05/11/2008, -2/+33and here i am using web 2.0 like a sucker. i can't wait to type full sentences into my web 3.0 browser.
    • chrishirsch, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1just wait for web 4.0. no matter what u do, it instantly redirects you to porn
  • londubh, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4It's like Web 2.1 only better.
  • Klonopin, on 05/11/2008, -7/+7asians are hot
  • slashdotordigg, on 05/11/2008, -7/+0triple number of ads, viruses.
    1/3 operating system speed.
    5 digit number diggs on f.p.
    triple lameness of nerds around the world.
    triple the population below ground level.
  • gandhii, on 05/11/2008, -8/+3***** that... I'm gonna upgrade straight to web 11.0.. way webbier than web 10.0
  • Asianwaste, on 05/11/2008, -1/+24I'm hoping one feature of web 3.0 is that they would stop calling it web + numerical version. There's only been web 2.0 and I'm already sick of that gimmicky name.
    • zdiddy85, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1amen
    • ZeRux, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I thought that there is only one Web/Internet.
      • Macskeeball, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1The Internet is the underlying physical networking infrastructure. The Web is is just one service layered on top of that. They are *not* the same thing. Other services layered on top of the Internet are email, FTP, SSH, IM, VOIP, etc.

        There is actually another *Internet*, called Internet 2, which is much faster but only used by the government, some universities, etc. As for there being only one *Web*, I agree; Web 2.0 is a meaningless buzzword and nothing more.
  • Papajohn56, on 05/11/2008, -2/+24can we stop this stupid buzzword from continuing, my god
  • davidbond, on 05/11/2008, -2/+27Here's the problem with this article: DO YOU REALLY NOT KNOW WHERE YOUR CINEMA IS?
    "Ah," I hear you cry, "but what about when I'm in another town for some reason."
    What reason - you're there on business/holiday? (Ask the hotel clerk). You're there with a friend (ask them). When have you EVER been in another town and thought "I am utterly incapable of asking a local where the cinema is. I know, I'll open my mobile phone and spend 5 minutes staring at a screen."
    "But, but what about the restaurant?". Ask a member of the cinema staff.
    Local knowledge. Sometimes technology is not the right answer.
    • bobcrotch, on 05/11/2008, -0/+15Why use social skills when you can use the Internet!
    • Wade, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Hint: who doesn't ask for directions and uses the internet?
    • dmazzoni, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3You only have one cinema?
      There are at least 9 cinemas within 5 miles of my house, and any given movie is probably only playing in at most 2 of them. Most of the theaters are in different shopping/dining/entertainment "neighborhoods", so if you want dinner and a movie, it matters which one you pick.
      I think this is a big city vs suburb thing. In the suburb you have one megaplex with 20 screens. When you're in a major city (I'm in west L.A.) there tend to be lots of neighborhoods with a couple of smaller cinemas, 4 or 6 screens each.
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6This works with generic requests and small data sets: "Where is the ONE (good) cinema/bar in this ***** little town?"
      When you are in a big city and have specific interests ("small theatre with foreign movies and a great pasta restaurant within walking distance which will still be open 1 a.m."), you might have to ask a lot of locals. Just saying.
    • Corrosionx, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I don't want to know where it is, I want to know the time the movie plays, skip the box office, take my popcorn see the movie and get the hell out.
    • TremorX, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Nothing will get you a date faster than asking a local girl where stuff is. You can easily segue that into "Would you care to join me?"

      I'm an awkward social retard and even *I* can get that to work.
  • jhandfield, on 05/11/2008, -0/+12I can make random, wild predictions too! Where do I sign up to become one of their experts?
  • headband, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13they tried this years ago, it was called ask jeeves.
  • UGM2099, on 05/11/2008, -5/+23If the internet ever becomes that ghey, I'm leaving.
  • Khast, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2"I am looking for torrents which aren't tracked by RIAA or MPAA what are my options?" -web 3.0
    Peer Guardian. - web 2.0
    Who gives a crap, they didn't... - web 1.0
  • Photokon, on 05/11/2008, -7/+3I for one welcome our Web 3.0 overlords.
    • mijelh, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1The "I for one welcome..." meme is getting really old, be a little creative!
      • lougoose, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1If it's said at the right time, it's good.
    • lougoose, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Not a good time for that.
  • dagamer34, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3The Web 3.0 is location-based services that come to YOU. Laptops and phones will have built-in GPS.
    • dazparkour, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3There. Is. No. Web anypointanything!
  • DarthDiabetes, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0Web 3.0 = SEO Spammer Heaven.
    They're just going to logjam Web 3.0 with keywords that trick your browser into going to monetized blogs and adbait sites.
  • GDOG5, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7Its been a while since i visited "How Stuff Works". Its looking allot better now. Still has multiple short pages though. Why cant they just put all that information on one page, it'd be so much easier.
  • feshmania, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3this article completely misses what Web 3.0 is REALLY going to be

    http://elvis.rowan.edu/~feussj83/icw3/ [ICW3]
  • DigitAl56K, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11What is this "point oh" thing all about? Why not just call it "Web 3"?

    Heck, why not stop attaching stupid meaningless names to something that is in a state of perpetual change?

    I guess the world needs more buzzwords.
  • Licurgo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4in the web 3.0 you never have to go out, you can download the tacos and the taste will be sent to your mouth trough wifi connection while a tube send a tastaless mass trough your throath and then the 2 hours movie will be downladed directly to your mind in 2 seconds and the reviews
  • craterburnsu, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5pfft everyone knows the wave of the future that will be Web 3.0 is internet suppositories.
  • dbarefoot, on 05/11/2008, -1/+21Will Web 3.0 have less pagination. Did that article really need eight separate pages?
  • fuxjoey, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Web3.0 doesn't really existed yet, how they gonna explain how it works.
  • Planets, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Gah, are we still throwing around useless terms like "Web 3.0"?
  • jordan314, on 05/11/2008, -0/+17Words cannot express how much I hated this article. It was written like a children's textbook with no grasp on the technology other than jargon.
  • lostngone, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It will work with lasers of course...
  • thailand1972, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Web 2.0, Web 3.0 etc are meaningless, but I'm slightly interested : why ".0" anyway when there's never a .1 to .9? It's like saying this year is 2008.0.
    • dlite922, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2I get your point, but invalid comparison:

      Years have sub divisions obviously, months, years, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds.

      For example right now the date/time is: 39579.4777491

      According to Excel, Google search proves there's more than one way to calculate it than the excel one. Excel is controversial, but it proves my point here.

      You should use....uh.....integers? I can't think of something that you can't break down into sub versions....oh wait. WEB 2.0!!
      • thailand1972, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Web 2.0, 3.0 whatever is never broken down into 2.1 or 3.1 or whatever. Whatever dude.
  • steveoco, on 05/11/2008, -0/+14Web 2.0 = Users make the content, owners take the revenue.
    • grimward, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2And ironically, by posting that comment, you're making digg money too ! :D
  • hitdrumhard, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Isn't that article really about the 'semantic web?'

    why must we always adopt ***** names for idiots in MSM to latch onto?
  • doctordbx, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Web360 has more games.
  • sbga420, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5this article is ***** there is no web 1.0 or 2.0 or 3.0, its media jargon
    there is just the web
    • saxreturns, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1There is no web, there is only Zool.
  • larsonc, on 05/11/2008, -2/+0tl;dr

    Lame.
  • mitch37, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5"I want to find a story about what the web will be like in 30 years, just make sure it is made up of 76% bullcrap. What are my options?"

    Please help me Web3.0 Search!
  • yellowfish04, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7does anyone else think this sounds ***** scary? I don't want web fcking 3.0 knowing my likes and dislikes....because if web fcking 3.0 knows everything about me, that means some ***** company over in california knows them too....***** that. LEAVE ME ALONE
    • tolgafiratoglu, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2yes...this article is "internet for dummies"
  • socivitus, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7Will my browser know what kind of porn I like?! That would be AWESOME! ^_^
  • RodneyJason, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5by time web 3.0 is common i want to have the movie broadcast into my brain, order from the Mexican restaurant and have the taste of the food simulated by the computer... and after finish it off with some virtual pornography.

    wait just forget the movie & dinner... lets get to the important part!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.