San Francisco, 11:41 AM
Tue Dec 1
28 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Just to add another $.02, I really, really like Pattern Recognition and think it's Gibson's best writing. But I cannot find a way into Spook Country and having just recently finished The Difference Engine, cannot understand why that book is popular. But I'll buy anything by Gibson.
As far as Rainbow's End, I think it's a good look at the future--I do think we'll be wearing soon enough--but the whole tragic devouring of books plot line left me cold. And I am a bibliophile.
I love Vinge, and I have Rainbow's End on my to-read list. I'm trying to read Infinite Jest right now, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth it? I may have to read some Hitchhiker's Guide just to flush my brain out.
Infinite Jest is soooo worth it, though the ending takes some time to sink in. And Dave was right on about the rise of HD and what it means for actors and why videophones won't realy work--IJ is scifi.
really? Pattern Recognition? I mean, it was okay but by no means is it a MUST-READ book. There's got to be something out there more "must-read"-ish than Pattern Recognition.
@Pope John Peeps II: I couldn't stand Pattern Recognition, and not the least because i work in video post-production, and nothing about that whole viral video production process made any sense. Not even on a 'this isn't possible yet' level, it just read like he'd never spoken to someone who does it. Maybe i'm being too pedantic, but i wasn't feeling it.
@worrytron: I haven't read it, since the reviews didn't make it sound like I'd really like it, and this makes me even more wary. I used to do a skosh of video editing myself so I'd probably hate it too.
@Pope John Peeps II: Something I've noted about Pattern Recognition is that it has a high "conversion" factor. I know a number of people, who are nominally adverse to science fiction, but devoured Pattern Recognition with serious speed and fervor.
So I think the title for this article is a great headline, but not accurate :)
The title for Bruce's presentation was "The Short but Glorious Life of Web 2.0, And What Comes Afterward" - it was more in the nature of a eulogy than a hate. It was also very nuanced and will repay listening to again. [Note: full video and audio of Webstock presentations, including Annalee's(!), will be available on the site within the next few weeks.]
Another of the Webstock presentations, by Nat Torkington, was about failing. Failing well and learning from it. I had the distinct impression Bruce thought well of the intent and effort of Web 2.0, and one of his points was that if it fails, it clears the way for what comes next. Incidentally, he talked about a "transition web" coming next, before the "internet of things".
What seemed to me his warning: that we take at our peril the solidity of Web 2.0. Just as we've taken at our peril the solidity of the global banking system. The "black hole of finance" is at the heart of Web 2.0, and as that fails, it will pull a lot (most?) of what we've built down with it. In one of his (many) great lines, "It's turtles all the way down!" An example he gave - Amazon is built on "user contributions". If push comes to shove and falling profits and shareholder cries demand action, what hope the safeguarding of user interests, contributions and data?
@maupuia: Absolutely - he talked about how he admired Web 2.0, but that it was headed to a failpoint. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that he did spend a lot of time talking about what there is to dislike about Web 2.0, even though that wasn't the title of his talk.
why does someone always have to fuck up people getting something they actually like from people willingly doing it for free by pointing out there's no money in it?
I never thought I'd say this, but Bruce Sterling needs to think more deeply. For all of the fortunes riding on "Web 2.0" it's just the latest 'net-related meme to reach the top of the buzz pile. The real revolution happens a layer or two down, as we continue to develop and grow protocols that allow easier sharing of information. There's been a kind of Cambrian explosion of network communication methods in the last several years...everything from RSS to vendors providing open RESTful APIs to the lingua franca of XML...that makes all of this possible. Web 2.0 is just the weird life form that happens to be high up on the food chain. And just as in the Cambrian explosion, predicting what life form will be the winner next is impossible.
I think Bruce should just sit back and enjoy the natural selection.
@cspurgeon: Heh. I think he is enjoying it. And he seemed to have some inkling of the Cambrian explosion you mention (nice use of that term BTW), since he ultimately advocates for ubicomp - which is based on new protocols and network structures.
@braak: I think by asking the question you're making it meta, and therefore Web 3.0, where there's user-generated content based on user-generated content that originally came from a hobo pissing on a napkin in a backalley dumpster.
And my plant tells me when to water it, and the house tells me where my keys are....
Let the store tell me what to buy, the television what to watch, the library what to read, the school what to learn, the government whom to vote for, only let them all use computers, those magic multimedia muscles of the body politic, and I'll be happy!
Um, java might not help if a trawler snaps the internet cable to New Zealand, but ... um ... neither would anything else, other than under-sea repair. What was his point?
@SeeingI: what I get from that statement is that there are real issues and problems with the internet that cannot be solved with clever implementation of code...
02/27/09
As far as Rainbow's End, I think it's a good look at the future--I do think we'll be wearing soon enough--but the whole tragic devouring of books plot line left me cold. And I am a bibliophile.
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/27/09
I think Vinge is in the PKD range--always great ideas and some good to great writing, but often not.
02/26/09
02/26/09
Yes, it's worth it.
02/27/09
Infinite Jest is soooo worth it, though the ending takes some time to sink in. And Dave was right on about the rise of HD and what it means for actors and why videophones won't realy work--IJ is scifi.
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
02/27/09
02/26/09
02/26/09
I'm Twittering this right now....
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
The title for Bruce's presentation was "The Short but Glorious Life of Web 2.0, And What Comes Afterward" - it was more in the nature of a eulogy than a hate. It was also very nuanced and will repay listening to again. [Note: full video and audio of Webstock presentations, including Annalee's(!), will be available on the site within the next few weeks.]
Another of the Webstock presentations, by Nat Torkington, was about failing. Failing well and learning from it. I had the distinct impression Bruce thought well of the intent and effort of Web 2.0, and one of his points was that if it fails, it clears the way for what comes next. Incidentally, he talked about a "transition web" coming next, before the "internet of things".
What seemed to me his warning: that we take at our peril the solidity of Web 2.0. Just as we've taken at our peril the solidity of the global banking system. The "black hole of finance" is at the heart of Web 2.0, and as that fails, it will pull a lot (most?) of what we've built down with it. In one of his (many) great lines, "It's turtles all the way down!" An example he gave - Amazon is built on "user contributions". If push comes to shove and falling profits and shareholder cries demand action, what hope the safeguarding of user interests, contributions and data?
I think this was an important speech.
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
I think Bruce should just sit back and enjoy the natural selection.
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
The primeval mooze, is what it is.
02/25/09
Let the store tell me what to buy, the television what to watch, the library what to read, the school what to learn, the government whom to vote for, only let them all use computers, those magic multimedia muscles of the body politic, and I'll be happy!
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09
02/25/09