Internet Crash in 3... 2...

[lupin]

Ladies and gentlemen boys in girls here is what you need to know:

We are currently at the height the peak if you will of Web 2.0 New sites popping up every day, the wiki is seeing an insane ammount of changes, everyone and their dogs mom has a blog, and forums for literally everything from eating fancy cheese to cleaning up your dogs poop (and the dog will later blog about you writing about the exploits). Hmm... what does this sound like? Oh yes just how it was months for the first internet crash.

Thats right I am here to say that '07 will see us yet another internet crash. There will be 2 driving forces behind this:

1. This will be the year the Net Neutrality Act will pass (series of tube guy for all you idiots out there) in Congress

2. Companies behind hosting nearly every blog of users will start to get greedy and charge a fairly steep fee for its typically free services

All of this will cause the internet to die a very slow death. The difference this time? There will be no Web 3.0 in fact the net as we know it will be gone. As it has been said for years now the way the Internet functions now is so horrible. DNS and the structure in place was meant to be nothing more then a hot patch or set up to prove it was possible. But it grew and grew so fast to a point where the underlying structure (weak as though it was) could not be change due to the massive amount of money it would cost.

No, in theory there will be no Web 3.0 because it is not just the WWW that will crash, but the internet itself. I believe that in 07/08 Internet 2 will slowly start to become the uniform standard for anything outside of businesses.

This post and others can be found on my blog:
www.junk-news.blogspot.com

No this isnt spam or just a plug. Please post here and I will discuss it with you. Just my blog (hehe I have a blog and I think they are part of the demise of the net maybe I am actually excited by the change) needs some hits and we will eventually be changing it over to its own domain name. Look for www.junknews.net soon.

[striker1211]

I'm sure the US government wouldnt let the internet crash. I'm not saying we wont lose connections to places every once in a while... but it will never be like oh shit no ip connects. I do hear what you are saying though... kinda like the New York brownout. Too much new shit layered on top of old foundations. IPv6 might help though. If anything i feel companies are giving away hosting too cheap. With no cost comes no responsibility to content. If they host all kinds of stupid shit there is no way to track them or charge them for their mistakes.

[ariastar]

Wow. What a cheery post. I am now depressed.

[tokenuser]

The internet as it has become really DESERVES to die.

Estimates put the amount of spam email to be about 80%.
Every man and his dog has a blog that is cross linked and clogging search engines - and who REALLY cares about reading someone diary?
Youtube is the "jackass" or "americas funniest home video" of new media.
The Wiki has become the collective mind - and is riddled with mistakes.

Noone has an original thought anymore. Step away from the keyboards, and experience life through your own eyes, make REAL friends and not just have links to friend that is a balding 45 yo man that is lurking in myspace, pretending to be a 16yo girl from the valley.

We have hit a cultural low.

===
Oh the irony, this was my 1337 post :)

[gavilan1010]

Ladies and gentlemen boys in girls here is what you need to know...

How about not spamming the forum? why you copy things off your blog?
http://junk-news.blogspot.com/2006/12/internet-crash-in-3-2-1.html

[masherscf]

Oh dear, I better get my shopping done before the internet crashes. Thanks for the heads up, buddy!

BTW, how do you expect something to crash that was designed to withstand a nuclear attack?

[lupin]

I belive I wrote this first then copied it to my blog Well I know I did but i cant remember which one I pressed post on first lets see what the time stamps say... nope this one was 2 minutes later. Well all I can ask is that you trust me. I started just wanting to talk about it, but then I ended up writing something so good I thought "Hell I guess I should put it on the 'ol Blog as well". Sorry for the confusion whoever you are Gavilian1010

Oh dear, I better get my shopping done before the internet crashes. Thanks for the heads up, buddy!

BTW, how do you expect something to crash that was designed to withstand a nuclear attack?

Hehe

[noonebutme]

Estimates put the amount of spam email to be about 80%.
Every man and his dog has a blog that is cross linked and clogging search engines - and who REALLY cares about reading someone diary?
Youtube is the "jackass" or "americas funniest home video" of new media.
The Wiki has become the collective mind - and is riddled with mistakes.
~Good spam filters exist as well.
~If someone has a right to do something, then let em - just dont visit their site if you dont want to, its not like its hurting your interwebs in any way/shape/form
~The good stuff in Youtube exists as well as the bad stuff. If it was all 'please watch this to be informed about x or y' then Youtube wouldnt be nearly as popular as it is now and ya wouldnt know about it to complain about it.
~Wikipedia's as accurate as Encyclopeida Britannica is. Which is fairly accuate i'd assume.

[tokenuser]

~Good spam filters exist as well.Absolutely. I use SpamBayes. BUT filtering at the end point is one thing, the bandwidth used to get it there is another.
~If someone has a right to do something, then let em - just dont visit their site if you dont want to, its not like its hurting your interwebs in any way/shape/formAgain, absolutely agree. The search engines should just be set to ignore blog entries, BUT people also put a lot of personal information into a blog that they would never tell a person in real life. Things that could have repurcussions in the future.
~The good stuff in Youtube exists as well as the bad stuff. If it was all 'please watch this to be informed about x or y' then Youtube wouldnt be nearly as popular as it is now and ya wouldnt know about it to complain about it.Again no argument. You take the good with the bad. Unfortunately along with the cool stuff on Youtube, you get the PSA warnings like the guys jumping off the roof onto a table doing a piledriver ... and wondering why they are hurt so bad.
~Wikipedia's as accurate as Encyclopeida Britannica is. Which is fairly accuate i'd assume.That the Wiki is as accurate as EB is still a matter for debate (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6442.html) (or did you drink the Wiki Coolaid about the Nature article??).

[noonebutme]

Absolutely. I use SpamBayes. BUT filtering at the end point is one thing, the bandwidth used to get it there is another.
I suppose spam would be one of the reasons that most teenagers look at email as something 'only old people do' - besides, unless you get over 1k spam messages a day, it cant use that much bandwidth oO


Again, absolutely agree. The search engines should just be set to ignore blog entries, BUT people also put a lot of personal information into a blog that they would never tell a person in real life. Things that could have repurcussions in the future.
Thats the lesson people seem to be learning with myspace as it goes on. but the psychological aspect - that the internet is anonymous (as incorrect as that is) - is pretty big for most non-technical users on computers.


Again no argument. You take the good with the bad. Unfortunately along with the cool stuff on Youtube, you get the PSA warnings like the guys jumping off the roof onto a table doing a piledriver ... and wondering why they are hurt so bad.
You'd get that even without youtube.


That the Wiki is as accurate as EB is still a matter for debate (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6442.html) (or did you drink the Wiki Coolaid about the Nature article??).
Nah, just hadnt heard much about it since the Nature article - so i (incorrectly it'd seem) assumed that was the end of it

[de3po]

I suppose spam would be one of the reasons that most teenagers look at email as something 'only old people do' - besides, unless you get over 1k spam messages a day, it cant use that much bandwidth oO

I get almost 900 spam messages a day in my bulk mail alone, But thats my Yahoo account my Gmail account gets 0 a day. I love Gmail! :)


Anyways I don't think the Interwebs are going to crash anytime soon. Maybe in 2009-2010 but not this coming year or the next.

[noonebutme]

I get almost 900 spam messages a day in my bulk mail alone, But thats my Yahoo account my Gmail account gets 0 a day. I love Gmail! :)
Thats cause Yahoo's spam filters suck horribly.

[de3po]

Thats cause Yahoo's spam filters suck horribly.
Yeah I know thats why I hardly use it anymore. :p