Evolution Of Internet

Discussion in 'General' started by TheJourney, Mar 30, 2012.

  1. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr0NuCZ2NBE&feature=youtube_gdata_player]The Insane True Story Behind the Birth of the Internet - YouTube[/ame]
     
  2. [quote name='budsmokn420']It would only make it easier to find out info on certain subjects. Like if you're into physics, you would find all different kinds of info on physics a lot easier. /QUOTE]

    StumbleUpon? :confused_2:
     
  3.  

  4. I've come back to this thread for 2 days just to laugh at that hahahaha, Im gonna do that dance at a party lol
     
  5. #25 Danonymous, Mar 31, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2012
    [quote name='"bruce786"']ha the deep internet contains about 90% more information than what googles searches bring up. the so called "common internet" is a small fraction of whats truly out there and like another poster mentioned only shows what google assumes you want to see.

    crazy big ass spider web.[/quote]

    Who came up with the 90% statistic there? For being so unheard of, I don't think it's gonna have that much info compared to normal, there wouldn't be enough people uploading shit

    [quote name='"budsmokn420"']Yea but thats not even close to the whole idea of this concept. All these functions already exist that OP is suggesting. The difference is that it brings it all together in an organized and efficient manner.

    Its basically making an internet account rather than making accounts for separate websites. Its everything all in one and connected.[/quote]

    Yea this is already happening to an extent, with all these websites where you can connect/log on through Facebook.
     

  6. That is barely scratching this surface. Why are you trying to down play the idea? lol
     
  7. #27 Nalian, Mar 31, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2012
    Clearly what you're describing is a great idea...people started implementing it years ago. ;) I've been working on some of the things in your description for the past 4 years, personally.

    Hysterically enough, you described the mission statement of Google, basically. From them directly: "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." Even a number of the things you mentioned are being implemented by them - personalized search, google+ giving you easy access to self-publishing tools, ways to organize your online "persona" - sure they want you to use your real ID but I'm sure people can figure out ways to create multiple ones..somehow. ;) They've also got the +1 system to rank things, and people you add to your circles will show up in your search results when you choose for it to. You also have the options to customized based on a shitload of options if you want. Then there's the whole google local initiative with offers and engaging all sorts of small businesses directly to get them going on google local

    I mean you can say you're thinking beyond the Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc - but be realistic. There is no one controlling domain on the internet, and each of those companies effectively 'own' their data and don't have to share access. A lot of them set up relationships to do it, but to think you can just start seamlessly integrating is..well, highly naive. It'd be wonderful if data moved more freely, but realistically all the big companies know that that's where their relevancy lies.

    As for the idea of all things going into one big database - well lets just say that the evolution of storage is nowhere near what it would need to be to even *start* to think about doing that. There's some really heartening research coming out of hardcore R&D groups, and we're making much bigger leaps than we used to be - but that means we're only starting to utilize exabytes well. We need to be dealing in a few orders of magnitude larger to start to scale for what you're describing.
     
  8.  
  9. ^ THIS is the evolution of the internet.


    Goodbye literacy... :wave:
     
  10. I disagree. Mankind's greatest invention was indoor plumbing. Dispute.
     
  11. [quote name='"budsmokn420"']

    That is barely scratching this surface. Why are you trying to down play the idea? lol[/quote]

    I'm not trying to downplay it, I'm saying it could already be in progress. Chill
     

  12. I'm chill as a cucumber bro :smoke:

    Internet misinterpretations :p
     
  13. Sure it is, in a way, already in progress. Each medium naturally evolves according to its own principles, with certain inevitable results. What I am referring to in OP is the inevitable path that the internet will evolve according to. It's not so much a question of 'if' it's going to happen, in my mind. I'm just trying to work out how exactly it would work, and how it would be best set up and utilized.
     
  14. [quote name='"TheJourney"']

    Sure it is, in a way, already in progress. Each medium naturally evolves according to its own principles, with certain inevitable results. What I am referring to in OP is the inevitable path that the internet will evolve according to. It's not so much a question of 'if' it's going to happen, in my mind. I'm just trying to work out how exactly it would work, and how it would be best set up and utilized.[/quote]

    I guess it would involve one group of people controlling the entire internet to link every site together

    If that were to happen it would be the government
     
  15. #35 TheJourney, Mar 31, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2012
    It would be very important that this be decentralized, and one not be required to submit to any particular heirarchal structure. The entire idea would be for each individual to be completely empowered in hir internet experience, and have the ability to completely customize everything hirself, or select from the categories and customization that another has set up, and is open for review by individuals who have used it. No one entity would ever be too powerful, or even popular, beyond what the people wanted. It would be set up so everything was always shifting to provide the best experience, through this decentralization, and the method of exposure being determined according to the quality as rated by others who are like you.
     
  16. #36 TheJourney, Apr 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2012
    I finally got around to further elaborating upon and writing about my ideas for the internet. I've been brushing up on HTML the last couple days, which I learned when I was younger. I am trying to keep elaborating upon this idea to myself, as well as over time starting to think more and more specifically about how I would like to set this up. Anyways, I will share what I wrote. I'm feeling somewhat anxious, having written this and having noone to share/discuss it with. Now this is quite long, and so perhaps noone will read it. There may be some who are sincerely interested and will read it, however, and if so I welcome all feedback!

    In terms of social networking, there would have to be a comfort in actually engaging with new people. It would facilitate more ‘natural’ interaction. As it currently stands, in the social networking scene, there are three primary possibilities of interaction. One is insignificant crap that has miniscule meaning even on the site, and leads to nothing. Another is interaction with people you already know. Another is awkward attempts at communicating with people you do not know, which has some arbitrary and random possibility of success, usually low. It seems to me that for social networking, in the sense of actually meeting and forming relationships with new people, there MUST BE more depth added to it, and some structure based on interests and the like. Practically the only meaningful relationships I have ever made on the internet have been through forums. It is in this forum setup that people are capable of truly getting to know each other. Social networking is always surface level interaction. A huge part of your feelings about an unknown person on a social networking site are bound to be determined by their pictures, and you’re going to have to say something either awkward, cheesy, or boring to initiate communication. This is not conducive to forming meaningful relationships.

    Now I speak here of meaningful relationships, but I am not implying that in-depth intimate relationships are the only ones of value. For instance, let us consider sexual encounters. In this world of sexual repression, the internet is astounding in its possibilities for facilitating sexual encounters. As it is, it is practically laughable how terribly things are set up in this department. In terms of sexuality, the diversity of possibilities is very sparse. You basically have porn, nearly asexual social networking sites, dating sites, and some more sexually-oriented social networking sites. Porn is nice primarily in that it increases your sexual imagination, and thus sexual energies. It does little in the way of real world fulfillment, however. It’s all people you’ll never meet. One may think that social networking would be great for meeting new people for potential romantic/sexual encounters, and there are millions who wish this was the case, but in reality this does not work out very well.

    Established social networking sites, such as facebook, work almost entirely through interaction with people you already know. It may be useful for improving an established relationship, but it is highly ineffective at facilitating new relationships. The greatest sexual fulfillment on these sorts of sites, beyond potentially improving an established relationship, is someone you find attractive uploading a semi-revealing picture. No nudity is allowed, and there seems to be a fairly widely accepted taboo against intentionally being sexy in pictures. Generally when people put up these semi-revealing pictures, they do it under a guise of innocence, almost as if they are unaware that the picture is revealing. This is the result of the basic fact that social networking sites are nearly asexual. They are not conducive to direct sexuality. There are dating websites, and some of these are fine for attempting to establish long-lasting monogamous relationships, I’m sure, but I’m equally sure that these are far too ‘serious’ for what many people are looking for. Then you have the ‘adult-oriented’ social networking sites, which are failures to the point that they are hardly worth mentioning. These tend to be explicit in their sexual nature, and you seemingly ALWAYS have to pay to be a part. This amounts to people paying in order to have sexual encounters, and this is not the sort of thing that many people are comfortable with.

    So we have here went to two ends of the spectrum. On one hand we have in-depth connections, where you truly get to know and appreciate others. On the other hand we have casual sexuality. Neither of these are being facilitated particularly well on the internet-as-it-is, and I would like to bring this whole spectrum of interaction into one medium. Although they would be a part of one medium, they would not be directly intertwined. There would be the possibility of crossing over between these aspects, but they would be distinct. There would be different ‘sections’ of the site for different sorts of relationships. Looking ahead, from my current point of view, I can break this down into three primary sections. One is where an individual wants to share something SHe has done, and maybe get feedback. With this, it is basically about you. You’re not so much trying to start a dialogue, but rather share. We can tenatively call this ‘blogging.’ Another section would be designed for actual conversation. There would be a whole range of possible depths to these conversations. There could be anything from in-depth philosophic or political discussions/debates to any sort of casual topic of conversation. We can call this the ‘forum’ interface. Next we have the more casual yet personal environment of ‘social networking.’ Here people share any sort of basic things that they may casually share with friends. In the current social networking scene, we would think of this as things like status’, pictures, etc. As I say, this is both the most personal and casual environment. It would be primarily for use of people you wanted to get to know on a ‘real’ or personal level, but for in-depth interaction you would not want to limit yourself to this environment.

    Now, we would attempt to create a system within all of these ‘sections’ where there would be broad categories along with increasingly specific classifications. You would select the broad categories which were of interest, and then proceed to either select more specific classifications or learn over time what specific categories were of primary interest to you. You would be asked to rate things after being shown them, including options like ‘not sure’ or ‘doesn’t fit my interests.’ There could be some sort of tracking system on the site that shows you your most used categories, as well as rating trends within these various categories. This could give you insight into what your favorite categories are, as well as categories that may not be of the level of interest that you had thought. There would be a database of the ratings that all of the various users gave out, as well as each user’s favorite categories. The system would be set up, either through some sort of coding or through human analysis, to track common relationships between various categories. This would be for the purpose of developing a ‘You may also be interested in...’ sort of thing. Potential unknown interests would be recommended to you not only by other categories that other people who share common categories of interest with you are interested in, but it would be further filtered through a process which would favor individuals who have rated things within those categories similarly to you.

    Now as I speak of these ‘categories,’ the most natural interpretation may lead you to think of reading/viewing things in the blogging interface, or topics of conversations in the forum interface, due to the impersonal sound of the word. However, I would seek to employ this same basic system with social interacting. It gets quite interesting and unique here, because in some ways it causes us to question the very nature of our humanity and our interactions. Each individual would determine ‘categories’ of interest for people to interact with. This means basic personality types, various physical traits, whatever. You would determine the ‘types’ of people you were interested in meeting, or your basic feelings about these different ‘types.’ Interactions would be faciliated through the ways in which everyone was categorized by others, as well as the ways they were ‘rated’ in terms of these categories. These would be kept anonymous. This is so that people feel comfortable being honest in their assessment of others, and also so that people are comfortable and confident in being themselves, without needing to conform to others standards. This self-confidence and ease of interaction would continuously be improved, because the social setting would be continuously improved as well, by means of facilitating interaction with ideal people.
     
  17. All I read was semi-nudity.



    Do not want. Needs moar.
     
  18. welcome to the matrix

    [​IMG]
     
Loading...

Share This Page