What is Digg?66 Comments
- pondster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36web 3.0? I think he's jumping the gun a little too fast. The phrase web 2.0 is in reference for the way the web formed after the bubble burst, it was a rebuilding of how companies and people interacted with the web. Now inorder to have a web 3.0 we would probably see another crash of some sort - maybe a drastic decline in online socialization like myspace or digg and I dont see that coming anytime soon, and god forbid we dont need bubble 2.0!
- kenwestin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29What happened to Web 2.1? What no bug fixes first? Microsoft must be behind this.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27the guy is just trying to be a smart arse and become the first to do something.
I think he's a total ***** tbh. Web 2.0 (if you want to call it that) did not come about because somebody named it and then everybody changed how they made websites. It was the evolution of the net not something you can force or own.
this guy is just an unimaginative pompous ass trying to make a name for himself. - supergwiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Since all fads come full circle, I predict web 3.0 will usher the return of HTML marquee & blink tags.
- chrishaney, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Web 3.0 == end of T.V.
- chickenpants, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23too soon.. besides.. this internet thing is just a fad.
- kenwestin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20So wet and glossy your cursor slips off of them.
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Web 3.0: The web becomes self aware. In otherwords it becomes one big myspace emo that cuts its own circuits and spends all its resources scanning for porn backdoors.
- Four20, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"I wouldn't say we emerged from the session with a clear picture of this third generation..."
Of course not, we haven't even come close to even the peak of Web 2.0. We don't know if anything will fail, and if so. . .what fails. . .and why it failed.
I fear Net Neutrality may be the end of web 2.0. - kingace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10That can't be, this update came in under half a decade...
- seventoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Nah. With web 3.0, now the big word is "alpha"!
- moyness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Don't forget to sign my Guestbook!
- m0laria, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Your website is so retro.
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Don't forget the abundance of animated gifs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"the guy is just trying to be a smart arse and become the first to do something."
perfect statement :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Web 3.0 - Extra glossy banners!
- dkbg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Web 2.0 as a concept is not necessarily a bad thing (that concept being the evolution of the web, which happens anyway). Giving it a name, although somewhat inaccurate, satiates our desire to place logical titles to concepts, it's what it has become which is the problem. People are just riding the buzz, "web 3.0" isn't even close to occurring and I'm sure that when it "does" happen, this versioning crap will be abolished in favour of another piece of hype.
- chickenpants, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5sweet.. thank god i saved all those animated email and under construction gifs.
we're all cool with 18pt bolded red comic sans on a blue background as the internet standard.. right? - cubejockey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Marking this as lame, for all the good that does. This article is extremely light on anything resembling content and it seems that the journalist basically thinks that web 3.0 consists of extending what we are already doing to a larger community? That's abuse of marketing buzzwords if I ever saw it.
- theOster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4could someone please post a link to this internet thing?
- jonashwing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ chris9902
you summed up my thoughts exactly. - appleswitch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3WTF is all this serious discussion? I thought this was digg, where any mention of Web 2.0 meant you were a n00b who got hypnotized by a salesman... did someone kill off all the trolls?
- pardonmedoug, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Pffft, I'm already working on a beta of Web 16.4, it records your dreams, develops its own AI, and cooks meals before you know you even want them.
Plus the porn is great. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Speaking of animated Gif's, I remember back in the days of Prodigy Internet e-mailing a website owner asking him how he did his animated logo. I spent hours re-saving image after image in paint doing copy & pasting trying to achieve it.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@supergwiz: Don't forget in-line MIDI playback
- reeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Anyone who looks to business week for answers in the tech world is plain foolish. They are way, way behind in their understanding of how the web works, prolly due to their complete lack of anyone under 40 doing any writing on the subject for them.
Case in point:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Yahoo_s_Strategy_Growth_by_Acquisition - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Web 2.0 means site implementations devoid of real content
Logically Web 3.0 would mean buzzwords devoid of site implementations - iAlex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2LMAO, it is just too bad!! When we get even faster internet (which is 100 mbit and more) then we can call it web 2.0, but already web 3.0? Don't play with the version numbers.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3hot damn! myspace is leading web three-oh and we didn't even realize it! ;-)
- wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone want to trademark Web 3.0 and then sue the rest of the world?
- vezquex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey! Inline MIDI is still cool as long as it's not on auto play and repeat.
- WorldGroove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Skynet?
- dbug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Will there be a Web 3.0 alpha RC 1 soon?
- jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ah marketing reps. The reason geeks should learn to shoot!
- Four20, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@chris
actually O' Reilly named it - dasil003, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Web 2.0 is already a meaningless term. It literally refers to anything that's become popular on the web within the last 5 years, whether it be AJAX, social sites, blogs, shiny-floor reflections, whatever. That's not to say there's no substance to Web 2.0, just that it's not strictly defined enough to be distinct from Web 3.0. Any new ideas that you come up with at this point will just be more Web 2.0. "Defining Web 3.0" is ridiculous. The best you can do is make wild predictions about what the Web will be like in 10 years. Anyone can do that, and it's all worthless punditry.
- chadell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would like to think the web will just be the web without thrills. Make it simple!
- MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ROFL Myspace Emo.
"Hope Is Emo"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMvMzQ4Vu-8 - 1021, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This Monaco committee must be pretty dumb...
Anyone realize that the founder of the internet, Tim Berners-lee has already defined Web 3.0 as the semantic web??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web - ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1aren't most of the 'tubes' already fiber? by most, i mean the important ones, not the ones leading to your house.
- Crossing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think it's way too early to be talking about Web3.0 yet. Why not just work on improving Web2.0?
- e03179, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I suggest we work on Web 2.1 first.
- ronin2040, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1a release candidate for an alpha? o.0
- mykel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let's Just skip ahead to Web 8.0 so we can catch up with our competitors numbering scheme.
- Wisgary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hot flame backgrounds that make text unreadable and force you to select-all will come back too. Those are awesome.
- Lobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1. . . and on to Web 4.0 (I have already made a name for myself - a stupid one at that)
Web 4
- The first internet not backward compatible with web2 or closed source scams (did you like that bit?)
- First Net sponsored by the worlds biggest computer company - Nokia
- No keyboard or mouse, voice activated only
- Quantum-Wikipedia enabled
- GPS security. We know who we are and where. Open Security Democracy Movement finally releases its own chip
If I think of any more I will add them to the Borg Collective - wait that is Web 5 - eulergamma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0God browses the Web Aleph_Null, we're way behind.
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm trademarking "Web 6.9".
- origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If web 2.0 is basically asynchronous pull. Then Web 3.0 can only be an actual "pushh".
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is