Anybody heard of this?
What's "Internet 2.0"
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
There is no such thing as an official "Internet 2.0" yet, however it is a name adopted by several attempts to create a next-generation Internet protocol.
"Web 2.0," on the other hand, is used to describe the relatively recent rise of sites dominated by user-driven content, such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Which one are you talking about?
"Web 2.0," on the other hand, is used to describe the relatively recent rise of sites dominated by user-driven content, such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Which one are you talking about?
Forget Internet 2.0, now we are looking forward to Internet 3.0
http://www.physorg.com/news196940134.html
for Internet 2.0 or 3.0 to really take off though IPv6 is going to have to be widely used, and it just isn't yet, IPv4 rules supreme still, and is quite limited
http://www.physorg.com/news196940134.html
for Internet 2.0 or 3.0 to really take off though IPv6 is going to have to be widely used, and it just isn't yet, IPv4 rules supreme still, and is quite limited
Even if they "dispense" with the light to electric conversion factor, there would still be the issue of your connection moving as fast as the slowest point in the chain, no?
One poxy router or server could slow everything down.
One poxy router or server could slow everything down.
Yeah, this would be most beneficial on the backbones. Get all of them on something like this and it would at least reduce congestion there. The nodes at either end would still be a bit slow, but at least part of the trip would take almost zero time.
I wouldn't deny that this new tech would improve the overall experience, but someone, somewhere, will always be using some truly obsolete technology.
Some links on Web 2.0
What is Web 2.0
and
What is Web 2.0, Anyway
From my understanding it's based on the idea that Web 1.0 was basically a one-way street. If you don't know complicated computer progamming, you were basically there to read what others, who did understand things like HTML had to offer.
With Web 2.0 everyone can be a content creator through the use of blogs, social media, comments on blogs/newspapers/websites, etc., without having to know any programming language.
What is Web 2.0
and
What is Web 2.0, Anyway
From my understanding it's based on the idea that Web 1.0 was basically a one-way street. If you don't know complicated computer progamming, you were basically there to read what others, who did understand things like HTML had to offer.
With Web 2.0 everyone can be a content creator through the use of blogs, social media, comments on blogs/newspapers/websites, etc., without having to know any programming language.
...and with Web 3.0, we will have the power to destroy the internet...with our brains!
So, the exact opposite of what we have right now.
Except that without knowing programming all you get is a wider range of options granted you by the technocracy.
...and with Web 3.0, we will have the power to destroy the internet...with our brains!
So, the exact opposite of what we have right now.
That's kind of a cynical perspective, don't you think? There are a tremendous number of tools available completely for free that a non-programmer can use to set up virtually any kind of site they want.
Will it have net neutrality like ol' internet 1.0?
Net neutrality is a policy issue, not a technological one.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Technology drives and enables policy. Like Apple's recent patent application for a computer process whereby they can shut down your computer until you listen to their ad or do some other task they require of you.
And we already have the technology to enforce a very much not neutral 'net. Whether or not we have net neutrality won't be a function of technology, because it will be possible either way.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
^The more the technology enables policy, the more likely it is that policy will be invoked and enforced. Therefore you cannot separate the technical from the political.
Darkwing Duck,
Isn't that a problem if what we can do is the driving factor in policy, not what we should do? There are a lot of things I can do that I don't do because I believe it would be wrong or dangerous to do so.
That's messed up
Isn't that a problem if what we can do is the driving factor in policy, not what we should do? There are a lot of things I can do that I don't do because I believe it would be wrong or dangerous to do so.
That's messed up
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Not everyone has a strong sense of moral principle. The easier you make it to do something, the more likely the average person is to do it.
Let's take the classic example: copyright infringement. With current technology, it is absolutely possible to personally identify everyone who is trading in copyrighted material. Your ISP knows who you are and they monitor your traffic. But due to common carrier/safe harbor laws, they are under no obligation to turn you in.
They can, however, reduce your bandwidth if they feel you are using too much, or throttle certain protocols (e.g. BitTorrent) to cut down on that sort of activity.
Right now, all it would take to eliminate most copyright infringement is automated monitoring of data transfers involving copyright infringement. Your ISP could flag you for going to any known enabling site, then track your traffic and report you to the authorities (or the copyright holders.) The smart people would start encrypting everything (which they already do, I'm sure) and the casual infringement would stop almost instantly.
Notice that all it would take to create this kind of draconian surveillance scenario is a policy change, stripping ISPs of their general immunity to infringement claims.
I fully anticipate that whatever form "Internet 2.0" takes, it will be versatile and flexible. How ISPs and end users make use of it will depend on policy, much as it does now. I seriously doubt ISOC and the IETF will favor a crippled standard. They've always taken the road of having standards that are as general and open as possible, and letting the implementers and policymakers worry about what limits should be placed on their use.
Similar threads
