here's a futurama clip that's supposed to represent the future of the internet


marriedtothesea.com
and this is just funny because years ago, when I was in elementary school, I could have never imagined the internet or what role it would play in my life. so it's hard to think I'll be spot-on with my current predictions.

Web 3.0

I looked on Wikipedia for a little help in envisioning what Web 3.0 will look like, although you could argue it's another nebulous label.

One of the new developments predicted in Web 3.0 is "geoweb," which merges the abstract information of the internet with location-based information, making some sort of cyber spatial organization. Apparently, things like GoogleEarth and maps (and probably the creepy GoogleStreets, if that's still up) are helping to propel this. Eventually, I guess, there will be some kind of virtual reality world that more closely resembles our own. There will also be a shift towards artificial intelligence. I expect the internet will be more intuitive and actively guide you toward things in a more nuanced way.

Apparently the CEO of Google was asked to define Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 and he said, "Web 2.0 is a marketing term, and I think you've just invented Web 3.0" so I guess he thinks these terms are pretty arbitrary.

If I could invest in a Web 3.0 company...well, they don't necessarily exist yet but I think I'd invest in something like Secondlife or World of Warcraft because that seems to be the direction the internet is going in, in terms of full immersion. Although I think it will probably expand beyond games or entertainment and become more totalizing, and like the above, more "intelligent" and adaptive to the user. We can already see things becoming more physical and interactive in the gaming industry...like Wii and Guitarhero and Nintendo DS which uses that weird pen thing. These things also seem more social.

digital aesthetics - second thoughts

Now that it's clear to me this is just a digital application of aesthetics I can see the implications. I think digital art changes our perception of art since there is no tangible piece or performance (in the case of digitally composed music) and it is always easily alterable. How does one display a painting created in Adobe photoshop? Is it just a print? (that kind of reminds me of benjamin's aura...here there is no original authentic object in the first place! everything is a copy, the original file does not hold the same aura as the original "Starry Night") What about digitally altered photography's place in the art of photography? Does that blur the distinction between taking an image of reality and creating a reality? What about web design or other "new" forms of creation? There are a lot of confusing implications that are also exciting for the art world, though traditionalists might thoroughly disagree. Personally, as an artist, I don't feel threatened by the digital era because it's just another medium to work with and each medium, whether it be paint or photoshop, poses its own problems, limitations and meanings.

virtual aesthetics? wha?

This reading is confusing...I think I need an entire class on aesthetics and computers before I can fully grasp it. This guy is throwing out terms and concepts every which way without very tangible examples. What it sounded like it was describing, in very academic/theoretical terms was something like artificial intellegence and/or a video game. (visual communication + speculative technology). Maybe something like educational software?

However, I could be completely wrong so I think I'll wait until this is explained before writing a comprehensive blog post. Anyway, I watched the CNN YouTube Republican debate. Some people come up with interesting, tricky questions. Others come up with rather pointless ones like "How many guns do you own and what kind are they?" Still, a more entertaining format than the usual.

politics as usual

With the '08 election, I'm sure political blogs are chomping at the bit. Usually I don't read them. Maybe I haven't found the right one but they seem to get way more partisan than other forms of media. From what I saw in tomorrow's reading, it just seems very slanted...and not in a good way. This is why Democrats can't win, say the Republicans. This is why the Republicans can't win, say the Democrats. To an independent like me, it just translates into meaningless sniping. Usually it just seems like they take content from CNN or something then add their own little commentary. Combined with CNN's own blogs and endless analysis on the 24 network, the political discourse in this country just seems like an echo chamber.

That sounds overly cynical but...YouTube is good for watching debates and such. Maybe it's made politics more available because, let's face it, if someone misses a debate they aren't going to set their VCR to record it (maybe if you have a DVR). One thing is for certain, the internet does have some effect on the political process now that information can be dispersed instantly and constantly. One slip-up caught on someone's cell phone camera can be online the same night and immediately ruin that person's career.

broadcasting!

I'm not sure internet broadcasting could take over the status quo without a change in technology. Internet television is great for cheapskates who don't want to pay for cable but you pay for it in loss of quality. Finally, when it's easier to connect your internet to television screens, I think cable companies will find a way to exploit this (since generally cable companies and internet companies are one and the same and cable companies certainly don't want you skirting around ads or skipping out on expensive cable packages), probably through pricing or download control. This is somewhat similar to what the RCIAA (I believe) did with royalties for internet radio.

Internet radio is a little different. Unlike old-fashioned radio, generally I have found I can avoid the 30 minutes of commercials which is great. Then, unlike an iPod playlist, you can be exposed to new or obscure music, expanding your tastes and discovering new artists. This is generally beneficial for both artist and listener. And radio programs can afford to be highly specialized since they are not targeting the masses, unlike traditional radio. Programs like Pandora and LastFM are very "web 2.0"...that is, interactive and customizable. Personally I find internet radio to be of more use than internet television.



this is not very representative, since I don't listen to music on my computer much and haven't used this for awhile but it should give an idea of the services available.