Conceptually Diligent: Web 5.0 Is Repackaging Hello

Finally a sane voice. Who is Mike? Hello Mike. (from the NY Tech MeetUp mailing list discussion)

Web 5.0 - Wikipedia

Defining Web 4.0
Web 5.0: Face Time
A Web 3.0 Manifesto

Message 13: Michael Mellinger

Web 4.0 isn't on wikipedia yet. Nice write up on 3.0, which isn't here yet. Start the wikipedia article, blog about it or invent it. There really isn't much value unless you do the latter.

-Mike
Sent from my iPhone

Message 12: Andy Badera

Attacking me for my primary physical location is about as insightful and effective as your laughable, pitiable effort at self-promotion by discussing a topic that is not only cliche, but even so, seems also beyond your ability to offer value in discussing.

Message 11: Paramendra Bhagat



Andy. I just checked. You are in Albany. No wonder you don't get the Silicon City vision. You don't "get" the city.
http://technbiz.blogspot.com/2009/01/mitch-kapor-now-following-me-on-twitter.html

Message 10: Paramendra Bhagat

In your original post it is DNFFT.

Message 9: John Campbell

http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=DNFFT

Message 8 : Paramendra Bhagat

What do you mean by DNFTT?

Message 7: John Campbell

DNFTT

Message 6: Andy Badera

I don't subscribe to people posting meaningless self-promotional non-insightful blogspam without bringing some sort of value -- did that really need to be spelled out for you? Web n.0 has been beaten to a bloody pulp, and your piece offers nothing new in that arena. Really, it's not even that good at covering the same ground covered many times before.

Message 5: Paramendra Bhagat

You mean other than that 90% of the traffic at this discussion forum is less conceptually meaningless?

Instead getting into name calling, why don't you try a different tack? You could say you don't subscribe to the Web 2.0 terminology, or that you do, but you don't see why anyone would build on it, as in thereis no room for Web 3.0 and beyond concepts, or that you see room for all that but you think my classification is off the mark, and you could try and say why.

Then we are talking. Right now we are not.

Message 4: Andy Badera

There's nothing new or original or insightful here, so why are you posting it?

Message 3: Paramendra Bhagat

Andy. My Web 1.0, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Web 4.0, Web 5.0 classification sounds vague, nebulous, amorphous, pie in the sky, abstract, cloudy to you. To me it feels rather concrete. Let me ask you something. There are people who think even the term Web 2.0 is pie in the sky. There is a web, and that is all. There is no 2.0. How do you feel about that? Is Web 2.0 a term you use? Or what? And if Web 2.0 is real to you, what is your disagreement with Web 5.0, for example.

I feel like there is a comprehensivity to my classification that makes it rather poetic.

Message 2: Andy Badera

Another nebulous Web n.0 piece, fantastic. Was there something of particular value here you were trying to share with us, or is this just a link to another run-of-the-mill pie-in-the-sky pointless Web n.0 enumeration piece?

Message 1: Paramendra Bhagat

Defining Web 4.0
http://technbiz.blogspot.com/2009/01/defining-web-40.html

"One million seconds comes out to be about 11½ days. A billion seconds is 32 years. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years. I like to say that I have a pretty good idea what I'll be doing a million seconds from now, no idea what I'll be doing a billion seconds from now, and an excellent idea of what I'll be doing a trillion seconds from now."