GOOGLE!
What search engine do you use the most? I use google but ChaCha for videos.
I added 5 poll options??
I use Google, AOL, and MSN.
Sure you added 5?
Google for me
GOOGLE!
GOOGLE!
Post it in the bugs board if the poll screwed up.
I see what i did wrong.
Google for me. Very rarely use any other. It's also my browser's default home page.
Google for me. Very rarely use any other. It's also my browser's default home page.
Quoted for truth. xD
@ ©Copyright : You spelled use wrong.
No he didn't!
No he didn't!
You edited the title.
I use Google.
Another search engine I used in the past, I forget it's name of. It had SO MUCH potential but the owner just disappeared and gave up. I cannot believe how awesome it was. Fully used a light load of AJAX, simplicity and the rankings were AWESOME.
I see what i did wrong.
Fixed it for you
What was wrong?
What was wrong?
Don't know
AND you broke the scores... thanks Ross! >.>
Yea, i know why i messed up.
I am a n00b!
114%
Ross, I would never trust you with handling the voting part of an election xP
I use dogpile.com It's like Google, MSN, Yahoo and Ask.com combined into one search.
I love Google. The home page especially is so minimal yet awesome. web 2.0 right there.
I love Google. The home page especially is so minimal yet awesome. web 2.0 right there.
effin 3.0 man. 2.0 sucks and is cluttered
2.0 is all over the web and is not cluttered at all. 3.0 is the semantic web and is still sometime away.
2.0 is all over the web and is not cluttered at all. 3.0 is the semantic web and is still sometime away.
Ohoho! Think we know everything do we?
One: it is now
B: it is uber cluttered!
4: how is it semantic if it hasn't even happened yet? 3.0 is going to be entirely different. Every web page will feel entirely different than the one you were last on. I have drawn up some 3.0 concepts myself
do u even understand what web 3.0 means?? or what web 2.0 means for that matter??
WEB 3.0 has been called the "semantic web" at several occasions.
Web 2.0 stresses on clear uncluttered navigation and layouts - if you've seen something thats cluttered, then that is most certainly not following the concept of web 2.0 - and no, web 2.0 does not only imply the trend of glossy designs.
just because something says what 3.0 is going to be doesn't mean that's what it will be. And just because you think 2.0 is uncluttered doesn't mean I do as well. Minimalists ftw. 3.0 will happen when 3.0 happens. I highly doubt that everyone will enjoy huge lists of things over something that would be fun and interactive.
to each his own. however, i haven't been stating my opinions at all -those are facts that just are. think what you will.
Msn = crap
Yahoo = pornz
Google = some pornz but better searches
Aol = they have one?
I use Google.
Msn = crap
Yahoo = pornz
Google = some pornz but better searches
Aol = they have one?
I use Google.
Ha in a way that's my theory.
114%
Ross, I would never trust you with handling the voting part of an election xP
I use dogpile.com It's like Google, MSN, Yahoo and Ask.com combined into one search.
I keep adding a line break when editing the polls in the database which makes it think there was 1 more vote then there really isI'll go and fix it...
do u even understand what web 3.0 means?? or what web 2.0 means for that matter??
WEB 3.0 has been called the "semantic web" at several occasions.
Web 2.0 stresses on clear uncluttered navigation and layouts - if you've seen something thats cluttered, then that is most certainly not following the concept of web 2.0 - and no, web 2.0 does not only imply the trend of glossy designs.
I agree there. No-one actually knows how web 3.0 will turn out. Only because 2.0 was more minimalist than it's predecessor, doesn't mean 3.0 will follow
I never said that 2.0 was minimalist at all, more clutterific IMO... And I said it was going to take a completely different turn from 2.0 cause everything in 2.0 looks exactly the same
Of course it's all personal opinion, but in my view 2/0 isn't cluttered - it's not what 2.0 is about, really
Of course it's all personal opinion, but in my view 2/0 isn't cluttered - it's not what 2.0 is about, really
well are you a minimalist?
I wouldn't say so, no. When it comes to design i don't feel the need to fill up a space with something that i don't think is needed. I appreciate the work of the De Stijl artists as much as i do people like Dali, who are at either ends of the scale.
I wouldn't say so, no. When it comes to design i don't feel the need to fill up a space with something that i don't think is needed. I appreciate the work of the De Stijl artists as much as i do people like Dali, who are at either ends of the scale.
o,o
You don't even know what minimalism is then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism
I wouldn't say so, no. When it comes to design i don't feel the need to fill up a space with something that i don't think is needed. I appreciate the work of the De Stijl artists as much as i do people like Dali, who are at either ends of the scale.
o,o
You don't even know what minimalism is then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism
Funny, i was reading that earlier on
Sigh. My room is pretty much empty space, but my house's living room which is controlled by my mom, is filled. There is this one empty space which I enjoy, but she is filling it with a keyboard >,<
At least you can use it creatively! Better than a useless ornament or something
At least you can use it creatively! Better than a useless ornament or something
True...
http://www.elitistsnob.com/
That is a web 2.0 design - pray tell me in what way does it look cluttered?
its all just stuck in there... especially the side...
how else can you have a layout?? it can't have three words and a ton of white space??
its all just stuck in there... especially the side...
I wouldn't call it cluttered though, it's well laid out and looks clean and organised.
its all just stuck in there... especially the side...
So you're saying the proper way to do it is make each page contain so little that the site has 2000 pages, just to not be "cluttered" ?
precisely!
how else can you have a layout?? it can't have three words and a ton of white space??
http://theubergooglers.com/web30.html
That looks more cluttered to me...
Shoving everything within 200px and leaving 2/3 of the page blank doesn't look minimalistic...it looks ugly.
while that is a very neat design - it packs away all the text into two rectangular blocks that in the end does more damage to the aesthetics of the page than not
That looks more cluttered to me...
Shoving everything within 200px and leaving 2/3 of the page blank doesn't look minimalistic...it looks ugly.
Aye, and the fact that it automatically resized my browser to fit the page did my head in
me too!! I thought Opera had gone crazy
Yeah, that was very annoying.
It's not finished, cause Wrighty is supposed to recode it. The arrows will be clickable and one will incorperate a radio, and one an affiliates thing. It'll look good when finished. It's supposed to look OSXish
Yes it probably will but the layout as such doesn't look too promising if it stays as "minimal" as you intend for it to be.
Yes it probably will but the layout as such doesn't look too promising if it stays as "minimal" as you intend for it to be.
it will be wonderfully interactive once Wrighty gets the easy parts done.
Aye what is this Web 2.0 and 3.0? I only thought there was just a Web, meaning Internet, meaning Online, >_<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3.0
That can explain it better than i can
2.0 = bad
1.0 = good
3.0 = we'll see
1.0 = sucked.
2.0 = awesome (theres too many brilliant sites not to like it)
3.0 = will only get better
how did one point oh suck?
it was new
it was different
it was innovative.
two point oh is a bunch of copy cats
In what way are they "copy cats"? Just because they are following the "guidlines" and characteristics of 2.0?
Personally, 2.0 is rather fantastic, but there are changes that could be made,and if web-based applications take off, like Adobe's AIR then 3.0 can be better.
How 1.0 could be "different" when it was the first incarnation is just confusing
how did one point oh suck?
it was new
it was different
it was innovative.
two point oh is a bunch of copy cats
1.0 was what the internet originally was. It wasn't really innovative. It was how people had started to design. Cluttered layouts, disorganized pages, horrible color scheme, terrible icons, disarray in the real sense of the word. Things got better over several years - then came Web 2.0
Web 2.0 strives for organization and innovation. Web 2.0 is more than just a type of glossiness used that people commonly misconceive as its true definition. It is more of a set of principles for web design and web development. Its more about interaction and convenience and clear and neat designs. The development of RIAs (Rich Internet Applications) follows on that path.
This is a snap of the Yahoo.com homepage back in the web 1.0 era (2000). That was the exact kind of crap (by today's design standards) that was floating around the web.
There's really no need for this debate cos it is clearly going nowhere. And its not really a debate. The web is always developing towards a brighter future. Its just gonna get better. Everyone knows it. O'Reilly knows it. If you don't know who that is, then maybe you shouldn't bother to opine anymore. You can believe what you will. For the rest of us, it is a fact. period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3.0
That can explain it better than i can
Wow weird, and I thought that the internet, was just the internet
okay, I just thought of another thing on the way home from school,
all these point-ohs aren't just on the internet, they are everywhere. With lives, cars, houses, everything
1.0 was basically the 90s. Which rocked.
2.0 is the the MySpace era. Which sucks/sucked. Period
3.0 is where everything is slowly morphing into samness, hopefully I can prevent that.
okay, I just thought of another thing on the way home from school,
all these point-ohs aren't just on the internet, they are everywhere. With lives, cars, houses, everything
1.0 was basically the 90s. Which rocked.
2.0 is the the MySpace era. Which sucks/sucked. Period
3.0 is where everything is slowly morphing into samness, hopefully I can prevent that.
MySpace era? Nobody I know uses MySpace anymore; hasn't for a while...
Your statement is completely false, and I have no idea where you even came up with it...
you've never heard that term before... sigh
http://www.google.com/search?q=myspace+era
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4782118.stm
okay, I just thought of another thing on the way home from school,
all these point-ohs aren't just on the internet, they are everywhere. With lives, cars, houses, everything
1.0 was basically the 90s. Which rocked.
2.0 is the the MySpace era. Which sucks/sucked. Period
3.0 is where everything is slowly morphing into samness, hopefully I can prevent that.
MySpace era? Nobody I know uses MySpace anymore; hasn't for a while...
Your statement is completely false, and I have no idea where you even came up with it...
Aye, i'm not sure about it either - comparing 1.0 to the 90's simply because "it rocked" is a bit weird, as everyone will have a differing view: some may hate it, whilst some loved it. The 2.0 is partly right as, it is the era in which social networking websites have become more prominent but to base it one just one is fallcacious as it's all subjective
I'd like to quote a portion of one of your posts:.just because something says what 3.0 is going to be doesn't mean that's what it will be.
So how do you know that it'll "morph into sameness"?
Aye, i'm not sure about it either - comparing 1.0 to the 90's simply because "it rocked" is a bit weird, as everyone will have a differing view: some may hate it, whilst some loved it. The 2.0 is partly right as, it is the era in which social networking websites have become more prominent but to base it one just one is fallcacious as it's all subjective
90s = most revolutionary time... like ever really. For computers and lives both.
I'd like to quote a portion of one of your posts:.just because something says what 3.0 is going to be doesn't mean that's what it will be.
So how do you know that it'll "morph into sameness"?
that's the way life is looking right now, unless I can change it. Everyone wants to be the same as the other, every building is slowly beginning to look like the one next to it. Every car is slowly beginning to feel like the one you drove before.
Somehow it feels safer, but its really a thing that could make one go insane from all the same
90s = most revolutionary time... like ever really. For computers and lives both.
I can see where you're coming from, but i find it very hard to say which is best, considering i've only lived in 3 decades (80's, 90's and the...whateverthehellthisdecadeiscalled) and i couldn't say how revolutionary the 70's, the 60's and even further back were as i didn't experience the changes first hand.
Anyway, methinks we're beginning to drift off topic here.
beginning??
I thought you lost the topic about 3 pages ago!
I left it alone as it was a sensible discussion!
Good point
Xero, I'm sure that earlier decades were much more revolutionary. In 1969, the internet was born. What's more revolutionary in computers than that? Also, computers being invented in the first place; extremely revolutionary, took place long before the 90's.
From a viewpoint on changing of lifestyle; that was also earlier decades.
All throughout the 1900's women were fighting for [and winning] more rights, more respect, and more opportunities.
World War II; that was FAR more revolutionary; much of the technology we've had for years would only just be coming out now had it not been for WWII. Fighter jets, increased radar, atomic bombs, women's work rights [again], better computers, etc.
The industrial revolution is self explanatory, so I won't even get into that.
The 90's may have been revolutionary, but other points in history were much more revolutionary than that decade.
okay, I just thought of another thing on the way home from school,
all these point-ohs aren't just on the internet, they are everywhere. With lives, cars, houses, everything
1.0 was basically the 90s. Which rocked.
2.0 is the the MySpace era. Which sucks/sucked. Period
3.0 is where everything is slowly morphing into samness, hopefully I can prevent that.
Are u kidding me?? Do u even know what you are talking about?? Design and structure at the start of the Internet in the nineties was ridiculously bad as compared to today. It had nothing to do with the nineties. That statement up there was ridiculously stupid. What does the development of the internet have to do with how people lived and the world was in the nineties??!
MySpace may be a social networking site but is most certainly NOT a very shining example of Web 2.0. There's so much awesome stuff today - MySpace is as shitty as the web 1.0 sites. Did you not see the yahoo snap I showed on the last page?? (what the website looked back in web 1.0 in 2000)
Nothing is going to morph into sameness with Web 3.0. It is about enhanced RIAs and enhanced interactivity - concepts such as a web OS and stuff. Design and organization will only get better.
You don't even know who O'Reilly is - you really have no idea what you're debating about and you're talking total nonsense. After that, if you think that YOU can save the internet with that design you showed us in the last page, then I feel sorry for you. That is a very average design - definitely not even web 2.0, let alone web 3.0 - forcing website to resize the browser window was common in web 1.0 and is a strict no-no for even web 2.0.
This is just pointless. Its like trying to explain how the sun works to a 2 year old.
okay, I just thought of another thing on the way home from school,
all these point-ohs aren't just on the internet, they are everywhere. With lives, cars, houses, everything
1.0 was basically the 90s. Which rocked.
2.0 is the the MySpace era. Which sucks/sucked. Period
3.0 is where everything is slowly morphing into samness, hopefully I can prevent that.
Are u kidding me?? Do u even know what you are talking about?? Design and structure at the start of the Internet in the nineties was ridiculously bad as compared to today. It had nothing to do with the nineties. That statement up there was ridiculously stupid. What does the development of the internet have to do with how people lived and the world was in the nineties??!
MySpace may be a social networking site but is most certainly NOT a very shining example of Web 2.0. There's so much awesome stuff today - MySpace is as shitty as the web 1.0 sites. Did you not see the yahoo snap I showed on the last page?? (what the website looked back in web 1.0 in 2000)
Nothing is going to morph into sameness with Web 3.0. It is about enhanced RIAs and enhanced interactivity - concepts such as a web OS and stuff. Design and organization will only get better.
You don't even know who O'Reilly is - you really have no idea what you're debating about and you're talking total nonsense. After that, if you think that YOU can save the internet with that design you showed us in the last page, then I feel sorry for you. That is a very average design - definitely not even web 2.0, let alone web 3.0 - forcing website to resize the browser window was common in web 1.0 and is a strict no-no for even web 2.0.
This is just pointless. Its like trying to explain how the sun works to a 2 year old.
Hah! I have the mind of a three year old!
Soooory I suck at coding. Just because it looks stupid to you doesn't mean it would be sucky in the end. The real idea behind it is an online OS. As in all the files would be accessed through the web. In fact, you wouldn't even need a Hard Drive, because it would all be accessed on the web, or some other accessment. And it would involve some uber fast internet, or whatever the future is called. But back to the main idea.
An online OS, where everything is accessed and avalaible on the .. okay I need to make a beta word for this real quick.. UNI. Universal Network Interface. Works. All your pictures and everything, of course those such files are not public, unless you want them to be or you could have a password. i don't know.
People would buy Unispace, not hard drives. Wouldn't have to go buy them, or install it or anything fancy. Every computer would come with like a gig, cause that space is free nowadays. And you can go find a server you like, and it tells you your UP addy, and all you have to do is type it in on the back of your comp and you can add more and stuff </run on sentence>
Sure, there are gonna be sucky servers, but there's always going to be some technical error everyone will worry about. I'm sure a future Enron is going to make a huge uServer and say everyone has tons of teras but they only have a few. People shut them down, etc. And other companies will get hacked and people will be pissed because they bought a sucky server but that can even happen today (Net Movie Reference)
So therefore. Hah!
okay, I just thought of another thing on the way home from school,
all these point-ohs aren't just on the internet, they are everywhere. With lives, cars, houses, everything
1.0 was basically the 90s. Which rocked.
2.0 is the the MySpace era. Which sucks/sucked. Period
3.0 is where everything is slowly morphing into samness, hopefully I can prevent that.
Are u kidding me?? Do u even know what you are talking about?? Design and structure at the start of the Internet in the nineties was ridiculously bad as compared to today. It had nothing to do with the nineties. That statement up there was ridiculously stupid. What does the development of the internet have to do with how people lived and the world was in the nineties??!
MySpace may be a social networking site but is most certainly NOT a very shining example of Web 2.0. There's so much awesome stuff today - MySpace is as shitty as the web 1.0 sites. Did you not see the yahoo snap I showed on the last page?? (what the website looked back in web 1.0 in 2000)
Nothing is going to morph into sameness with Web 3.0. It is about enhanced RIAs and enhanced interactivity - concepts such as a web OS and stuff. Design and organization will only get better.
You don't even know who O'Reilly is - you really have no idea what you're debating about and you're talking total nonsense. After that, if you think that YOU can save the internet with that design you showed us in the last page, then I feel sorry for you. That is a very average design - definitely not even web 2.0, let alone web 3.0 - forcing website to resize the browser window was common in web 1.0 and is a strict no-no for even web 2.0.
This is just pointless. Its like trying to explain how the sun works to a 2 year old.
Hah! I have the mind of a three year old!
Soooory I suck at coding. Just because it looks stupid to you doesn't mean it would be sucky in the end. The real idea behind it is an online OS. As in all the files would be accessed through the web. In fact, you wouldn't even need a Hard Drive, because it would all be accessed on the web, or some other accessment. And it would involve some uber fast internet, or whatever the future is called. But back to the main idea.
An online OS, where everything is accessed and avalaible on the .. okay I need to make a beta word for this real quick.. UNI. Universal Network Interface. Works. All your pictures and everything, of course those such files are not public, unless you want them to be or you could have a password. i don't know.
People would buy Unispace, not hard drives. Wouldn't have to go buy them, or install it or anything fancy. Every computer would come with like a gig, cause that space is free nowadays. And you can go find a server you like, and it tells you your UP addy, and all you have to do is type it in on the back of your comp and you can add more and stuff </run on sentence>
Sure, there are gonna be sucky servers, but there's always going to be some technical error everyone will worry about. I'm sure a future Enron is going to make a huge uServer and say everyone has tons of teras but they only have a few. People shut them down, etc. And other companies will get hacked and people will be pissed because they bought a sucky server but that can even happen today (Net Movie Reference)
So therefore. Hah!
Personally, the idea of having an entire OS (personal files included) stored online worries me a lot - my step-dad works for the MOD and there are some files/folders that are highly protected and are more than his job's worth to lose (as anyone may have heard about the data disks being lost recently in the UK) - knowing they are stored on a server where the owner would possibly have the ability to see the info is a worrying concept
I understand that with a HD based OS that is still possible (hackers etc) but if you don't have it there to begin with, it won't get lost
i use google all the time im to uste to it now so i could never see me switching to another
Hah! I have the mind of a three year old!
Soooory I suck at coding. Just because it looks stupid to you doesn't mean it would be sucky in the end. The real idea behind it is an online OS. As in all the files would be accessed through the web. In fact, you wouldn't even need a Hard Drive, because it would all be accessed on the web, or some other accessment. And it would involve some uber fast internet, or whatever the future is called. But back to the main idea.
An online OS, where everything is accessed and avalaible on the .. okay I need to make a beta word for this real quick.. UNI. Universal Network Interface. Works. All your pictures and everything, of course those such files are not public, unless you want them to be or you could have a password. i don't know.
People would buy Unispace, not hard drives. Wouldn't have to go buy them, or install it or anything fancy. Every computer would come with like a gig, cause that space is free nowadays. And you can go find a server you like, and it tells you your UP addy, and all you have to do is type it in on the back of your comp and you can add more and stuff </run on sentence>
Sure, there are gonna be sucky servers, but there's always going to be some technical error everyone will worry about. I'm sure a future Enron is going to make a huge uServer and say everyone has tons of teras but they only have a few. People shut them down, etc. And other companies will get hacked and people will be pissed because they bought a sucky server but that can even happen today (Net Movie Reference)
So therefore. Hah!
Personally, the idea of having an entire OS (personal files included) stored online worries me a lot - my step-dad works for the MOD and there are some files/folders that are highly protected and are more than his job's worth to lose (as anyone may have heard about the data disks being lost recently in the UK) - knowing they are stored on a server where the owner would possibly have the ability to see the info is a worrying concept
I understand that with a HD based OS that is still possible (hackers etc) but if you don't have it there to begin with, it won't get lost
The whole idea of everything being online is risky, cause if you hack one part you hack all of it. But by then algorithms will probably be a lot harder to crack and the like, mostly hacking is the people's fault. What's your password.. hmm something easy.. dog? sure no one will guess that. Even my oldest password (daredevil) would be hard to guess cause I was really neutral about him, not my favorite or hated.
I think if I had a virtually unlimited amount of money I could come up with some better stuff. In fact I think I will. Tomorrow, that is what I shall do.
XeroCint, saying we won't need hard drives, but will instead buy "UniSpace", is a bit pointless.Servers [which are just computers with DDNS] store to hard drives. Thus, buying "UniSpace" would just be like buying a VPS; when yet it's much easier to just buy a computer, download Apache, and away you go.
Google, it's become a cultural reference and instead of saying "I'll search it" most people will say "I'll Google it". I suppose it's just easier, especially with having the Google Search Bar.
[/ontopic]
XeroCint, saying we won't need hard drives, but will instead buy "UniSpace", is a bit pointless.Servers [which are just computers with DDNS] store to hard drives. Thus, buying "UniSpace" would just be like buying a VPS; when yet it's much easier to just buy a computer, download Apache, and away you go.
internet is a medium, mediums die out, servers will die.
I'm just throwing the name UniServer for my UNI idea.
I will write up an entire idea tomorrow
I don't think the internet is going to die anytime soon. It will continue to grow and evolve. Heck, Nasa predicts that once it has outposts running on Mars and the Moon and more, then a data transit network might exist between Earth and all those stations - the internet's new avatar.
I think Google will be out with an online OS asap. They seem most likely to, seeing as they already have a massive number of web applications and services. But I would never want anyone to get a hold of my personal info, my files, my internet tracks and eveyrthing. I value my anonymity (not so anonymous to my online frnds who know me or have seen me) and I'd much rather not be a public showcase just in case Google decides to make all that data public like AOL did a while ago >.<
I don't think the internet is going to die anytime soon. It will continue to grow and evolve. Heck, Nasa predicts that once it has outposts running on Mars and the Moon and more, then a data transit network might exist between Earth and all those stations - the internet's new avatar.
I think Google will be out with an online OS asap. They seem most likely to, seeing as they already have a massive number of web applications and services. But I would never want anyone to get a hold of my personal info, my files, my internet tracks and eveyrthing. I value my anonymity (not so anonymous to my online frnds who know me or have seen me) and I'd much rather not be a public showcase just in case Google decides to make all that data public like AOL did a while ago >.<
the radio grew and evolved, now it's hardly used and has predecessors like CDs, mp3s, and so on
Looking at Live Image search, my god it's beautiful with a hispeed connection.Which I have. But I can see it as a lagfest for users with slower computers or internet connection. But I think Web 3.0, our internet connection being hispeed will be a big part of it.
So far I am liking Google for text based search. Yahoo for...er nothing. Live for images. ChaCha is fun just to be nice to their guides. =)
eventually the 56K of now will be the cable speed of the future, therefore geeks will be reaching impossible speeds, such as Tbits?
I have a t4ish connection at my dad's work.eventually the 56K of now will be the cable speed of the future, therefore geeks will be reaching impossible speeds, such as Tbits?
lovely
Comcast is supposedly updating there stuff... hopefully it will be noticeably faster
I don't think the internet is going to die anytime soon. It will continue to grow and evolve. Heck, Nasa predicts that once it has outposts running on Mars and the Moon and more, then a data transit network might exist between Earth and all those stations - the internet's new avatar.
I think Google will be out with an online OS asap. They seem most likely to, seeing as they already have a massive number of web applications and services. But I would never want anyone to get a hold of my personal info, my files, my internet tracks and eveyrthing. I value my anonymity (not so anonymous to my online frnds who know me or have seen me) and I'd much rather not be a public showcase just in case Google decides to make all that data public like AOL did a while ago >.<
the radio grew and evolved, now it's hardly used and has predecessors like CDs, mp3s, and so on
I think you've got a word mixed up.
And the radio's hardly used anymore?
The radio is still used a lot; I listen to the radio more than I watch TV, as do quite a few people I know.
the radio grew and evolved, now it's hardly used and haspredecessorssucessors like CDs, mp3s, and so on
The radio hasn't been replaced by CDs or MP3 Players, if it had a replacement it would be Television. On the other hand CDs & MP3 Players replaced Tapes. Radio has been around for a very long time, and is now found on the internet and almost everywhere, giving it more popularity if anything. Sort of like how the internet has evolved and is now found on phones and other gadgets, not only on computers.
the radio grew and evolved, now it's hardly used and haspredecessorssucessors like CDs, mp3s, and so on
The radio hasn't been replaced by CDs or MP3 Players, if it had a replacement it would be Television. On the other hand CDs & MP3 Players replaced Tapes. Radio has been around for a very long time, and is now found on the internet and almost everywhere, giving it more popularity if anything. Sort of like how the internet has evolved and is now found on phones and other gadgets, not only on computers.
well I meant like the audio sort...
Google! I actually found that it does give me the best results. I tried Yahoo once, and it sucked.
Hint for Google. IF you type in Google Goth,Google Linux, or Google Firefox and click 'I'm Feeling Lucky it changes completely.
Some may already know.
I been keeping an eye on Tafiti for a bit now. They use Microsoft's silverlight and done an amazing job with it. http://www.tafiti.com/ Though the downside of them using silverlight is the load time. Really slow. I doubt a 56ker would come along and think their features are cool. Live.com's image search is amazing, but I will say the same thing for 56kers.
Web 2.0 is still here, web 3.0 probably would make hi speed required, but these people are forgetting 56kers now. My mom is still a 56ker, why? She doesn't want to cough a hundred bucks a month just for internet.
I been keeping an eye on Tafiti for a bit now. They use Microsoft's silverlight and done an amazing job with it. http://www.tafiti.com/ Though the downside of them using silverlight is the load time. Really slow. I doubt a 56ker would come along and think their features are cool. Live.com's image search is amazing, but I will say the same thing for 56kers.
Web 2.0 is still here, web 3.0 probably would make hi speed required, but these people are forgetting 56kers now. My mom is still a 56ker, why? She doesn't want to cough a hundred bucks a month just for internet.
that tafiti is a perfectly good example of 3.0 though