What is Digg?107 Comments
- Lawrencesss, on 07/07/2008, -4/+57I for one, am not impressed. Bring on web 4.0!
- nicolaa, on 07/07/2008, -5/+57This article is high on hype and low on content.
- nafai, on 07/07/2008, -4/+54I'm using Web 2.9 beta, but it still needs some work before releasing to the general public ...
- eighties, on 07/07/2008, -2/+48Skynet will be born from the ashes of Google.
- silver26, on 07/07/2008, -3/+31*head explodes*
- laserdog, on 07/07/2008, -10/+28I am shocked that Microsoft assumes that people want Microsoft to surf the web for them. It is exactly that sort of "we know better than you, that's why we've rearranged where all our toolbars are" arrogance that I think makes a lot of people dislike Microsoft.
And, beyond that, Web 3.0 will more likely be defined by mobile devices, not anthropomorphic office supplies which book my flights for me. - Darmichar, on 07/07/2008, -0/+17I believe it's leaving vowels out of your name and using Ajax in your site.
- appleseed1234, on 07/07/2008, -2/+19Another .0?
***** that. - kystorms, on 07/07/2008, -1/+15Good idea, but I am not entirely sure that I would want some agent thinking for me, my whims sometimes make what I am seeking vastly different from other times I am searching.
all in all , exciting stuff - inactive, on 07/07/2008, -4/+17GOOGLE FOREVAAAA!!!!
maaammraaaaaa!!!! - AmyVernon, on 07/07/2008, -6/+19i'm still trying to wrap my brain around Web 2.0!
- TheGreatBelow, on 07/07/2008, -4/+17God damn, shut up with these buzzwords.
- Chaotix, on 07/07/2008, -0/+13This was my first thought. I've always thought Autonomous A.I. would be born from the Internet, not some lab - this just confirms my theory.
- Rahodeb, on 07/07/2008, -1/+10Better than the "Symantec Web". We don't need any worse support and random application conflicts that crash your system.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -2/+10This is an interesting concept which will have its time. The next generation of computing will allow for incredible things.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -4/+12Haha, the "Semantic Web". I love that.
- erranttv, on 07/07/2008, -5/+12The "semantic web" is a fundamental tenant of web 2.0. I call marketing bs.
- bleutuna, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7This all sounds great, but just like the first guy who created email never thought about Spam, this concept doesn't factor in all the ***** that use the web to trick people into going places and doing things they don't want or never meant to do.
If the web could be trusted, and sites, portals, etc. could be relied on, then this technology isn't hard to figure out or decide how to implement it. But how do you keep your 'web 3.0 doctor appointment maker' from being tricked into making an appointment at a place that's spammed up the channels with crap?
This technology will be REAL useful for oh, say, the first day or two of implementation. Then it'll be a crapass as everything else is. - DarkShroud, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5Every little site doesn't need their own forum or "social network."
- Chalks777, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6BRAAAIIIINSSS
- ConceptJunkie, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6Actually I'm waiting for Web NT. It will be much better and not built on crappy technology like Flash. Web 2010 will be even better. Web XP will be a little bloated but still pretty decent. Websta, however, will be a huge bloated mess, although Emmanuel Lewis will make some nice scratch as a spokesman.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Web 1.0 - Webmaster create content for end users.
Web 2.0 - Webmaster create a place for end users to create content.
Web 3.0 - Webmasters create a place for end users to allow other end users to create content. - TheFuzzyOne, on 07/07/2008, -3/+7There's a whole lot of text in that article, but it didn't say anything at all. Of course computers can search and index text files, they've been doing it for over 20 years.
- iDoraemon, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6Add me to the list of people who aren't buying this Semantic Web idea. While the idea seems interesting in marketing speak, I don't know if it will be as big a leap as it was that Web 2.0 (e.g., YouTube, Facebook) was. The idea seems quite effective in smaller domains like academia or some other field, but one of the main things that the Semantic Web is supposed to promise the ability for computers to interpret data on the web in an effective manner much like humans do.
The problem is that humans already have enough problems locating data. Want to find information on someone whom happens to have a common or celebrity name? Want to find relevant research data on all animals with sonar capabilities but aren't bats or marine animals? That's not a trivial process, and it requires web pages to be efficiently annotated. If people can't easily find data that effectively when they're in charge of that annotating, I'm not buying yet that machines can do the process better on markup tags designed for human readability. While it's still a nice idea on paper, I just don't see it happening anytime soon. - WomensUnderwear, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5That'll be the Web 3.0 effect
- greevar, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5As soon as they put semantic and buzzword in the same sentence, I stopped reading.
- roamzero, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Sounds more like Google 2.0 than Web 3.0. To make a useful large-scale service semantic data still needs to be spidered and indexed. And what company does that better than all the others?
- woxidu, on 07/07/2008, -3/+7Buried for "Web 3.0"
- daengbo, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3You do understand that the "semantic web" is a concept that's been talked about and desired after years, right? It's not some new term coined for "Web 3.0."
- JasonCox, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6I'm still waiting for 99% of websites to go Web 2.0
- Scaryclouds, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Also keep in min that people who fawn about Web 2.0 use the word Ajax very loosely. You have a box that slides down? Ajax! You make a letter spin? AJAX!! You have a shiny button on your site?! AJAX!!!!!
- chamberlanderic, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5All that just for porn. It brings tears to my eyes.
- alostreflection, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6call me anti-semantic, but i dont really think this is all that amazing. more content less hype.
- Knowltey, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Only then will computers be able to take over tasks we now have to do ourselves, such as find the nearest restaurant, book the best flight, or buy the cheapest video game.
Computer: I've set you up to go to Las Vegas tomorrow, you have a hot date at Olive Garden in 30 minutes, and Rock Band is on it's way via FedEx.
Um... yeah, I think i'd rather stay out of debt thank you very much. - FredFredrickson, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Tears of joy, I hope.
- B3N3, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2I'm sure you'll probably go out of business when all the scarily intelligent and self-aware nanotechnology invades your office and...
- cotaskmemalloc, on 07/07/2008, -5/+7You're an idiot, laserdog. First, who said that Microsoft will surf the web for them? The article didn't state that. The article (which was a bunch of hyped up *****) effectively said that Microsoft would be building tools to help with day to day tasks. No one said anything about Microsoft shoving something down your throat.
Second, rearranged toolbars is your example of a gripe with Microsoft? Really? Boo ***** hoo. Go cry about it. Name me a software package anywhere that doesn't change it's GUI from release to release. But no, Microsoft is EVIL! THEY CHANGED MY TOOLBARS GOD I'M SO PISSED! ***** idiot.
Quit speculating about "Web 3.0" - you don't know any more than the ***** who wrote the article. - chesscat, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Coming soon to Microsoft Surface (aka, big ass table) for just 10K. Your very own blue screening coffee table.
- erranttv, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Ha, anti-semantic!
- Hermmunster, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2First, we don't want a company like Microsoft controlling the web nor defining the future of it. They just are not progressive and innovative enough--easily proven buy their need to purchase rather than develop. Second, it won't touch Google in any discernible way. What we'd have to have a Google sitting with their thumbs up their butts through it all and that is not likely to happen. Google is out to unseat Microsoft. They are moving close to that and getting closer. Thank goodness we have Linux to use.
- slayernine, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4sheesh come on guys move out of the past, I'm already on version 8.1
- jonshipman, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2I'm waiting for Web/0
- JoeVerrone, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Exactly. I actually can't ever see this working. Computers can only do so much, the rest is up to us. Whether you use an actual human assistant or this Web 3.0 the individual that started the request will always have to finalize it.
- stutimandal, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Given the quality of Internet Explo'der (Explorer), I doubt if Microsoft will ever be able to move beyond Web 1.0; it cannot even display position: absolute and position: fixed properly in HTML pages. Forget web 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0. All the developers and the developer articles focus 1/4th on a nifty trick, and 3/4th on how to hack it for IE and its multiple versions.
- skimmas, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Does it come as an update? I don't feel like downloading all the internet all over again
- gnarbuckets, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2I dunno about you guys, but I'm still using HTTP 1.1
- Myztry, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Has anyone else tried Powerset (and others) and notice that they are nothing but a glorified keyword searches. If anything Microsoft brought Powerset for the patents rather than any actual technological achievement.
We are a long way from Sentient Search. Simple concepts such as the Queen's Son don't even resolve to Prince. Even if they could achieve understanding in the Search Engine, the people will need to be taught to give up using keywords, and ASK for what they want. - dukeochutney, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4meh
- aquadoctorbob, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You mean you aren't excited about "software agents" "roaming" the "Semantic Web"?
- spiderworm, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Seriously... I guess the concept of DHTML is too difficult for some people to understand.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is