I believe in web 2.0
Feb 25th
As you may know I’m pretty excited about the term web 2.0 I know it’s on the chopping board because frankly people think it’s a fake term. Well I don’t, I love the term and have embraced it like a cozy blanket. I love that it seems to wipe everything pre 2.0 out and sets a new standard for web functionality and design. I truly believe the sites responsible for kicking off web 2.0 in all it’s glory is Twitter, Face-book, and Google. They have defined that simplicity is more important then flash and a smarter design means it’s easier for people use.
If I had a mantra for web design it would be 2.0, I know some people are about to throw up on their computers that read this lol
Here are some bullet points I like in Web 2.0:
Simplicity – With websites like Twitter, Google and Facebook patheing the way for simple but smart designs. I definably see a great trend coming from this.
Less stuff on a web page – I think more people are getting multiple domains and splitting up what used to drown a single domain.
Visitor involvement – I know about you but I’m opinionated and appreciate being heard.
No we all know opinions differ. There are those who see the term Web 2.0 as a fatuous buzzword without weight behind it, while others acknowledge it as a name synonymous with a 2nd generation of online capabilities and utilities in terms of web development and design. So what’s the reality? Well, while everyone is entitled to his or her opinions on what Web 2.0 is or isn’t, it is lately recognized as the term people use to describe the more communicative and widely used, people-friendly online environment that is globally embraced today. The term is used to refer to the means that communicating, the sharing of data, interoperability and associations are implemented on the World Wide Web. It is reflective of the era of Web 2.0 that the progression of web-based communities, host services and web-based applications has been so rapid. Since its inception (after the year 2000) there has been an upsurge in the popularity of social-network sites, media-sharing sites, wikis and blogs.
The person accredited with coining the phrase Web 2.0 is Darcy DiNucci, who made the reference in an article entitled Fractured Future. In her text, DiNucci described the web as it we knew it then to be in embryonic form which she predicted to evolve from a series of static screens to something more in the vein of a ‘transport mechanism’. She envisioned how the web would indeed spread and be made accessible through TV sets and cell phones, joking that even the microwave might one day be equipped with web connectivity. While DiNucci’s observations were incipient and at the time thought by some to be on the whimsical side we can see now that much of what she said has become reality. So much so that the reference Web 2.0 which we attribute to her has since been embraced by others, most famously in 2004 by Tim O’Reilly during the O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference. The general consensus is that Web 2.0 refers to the collective revolutionizing of the ways developers of software and web users utilize the World Wide Web.
Distinguishing features of what is widely termed Web 2.0 are:
- Easier searching — Web searching is now easier and more productive due to the efficacy of keyword searching.
- Relevancy — Effective and valuable link building from one relevant site to another — both in and outgoing.
- Ad-hoc guides to pertinent information and authoring — The ability to create and constantly update content using a platform that experiences rapid evolution — an originally small amount of content is in a continual state of renewal and expansion due to updated and interlinked submissions. In wikis, for example, the content is open to reiteration. Users see fit to upgrade, edit and alter each others’ contributions, resulting in informative collective works. In the case of blogs, content has a cumulative quality — posts and comments build up over time, attracting both visitors and active subscribers.
- Tags — The categorization of content by creating tags: these are simple, one-word user-determined descriptions put in place to facilitate effective searching. The greatest advantage of tags is the avoidance of rigid, pre-assumed categories. In short, the creator or administrator can decide on numerous categories, some of which he or she may invent, under which to tag content.
- Domain extensions — In the beginning there was DOT COM. Now there are ever more extensions to choose from. Some will bear relation to the geographical location of a given business, such as .co.uk or .de extensions, (the United Kingdom and Germany respectively). Others have more convoluted connotations, but all have their value.
- Algorithmic power — Powerful algorithms that leverage the World Wide Web as an application platform as well as a matured collaboration environment.
- Signals — The facilitation of RSS technology allows users to be informed of online content changes with immediacy.
Theory of Gravity?
Feb 24th
The theory of Gravity is still just that, a theory. Like all mysteries of the world I like to wonder why with all the brains in this world there is still no solid answers to obvious questions like what is gravity and how is it caused. I have many other questions but for now let’s stick on this topic. Before I start I also would like to say this is my Theory and I have not trouble shooted, cross-checked, or contacted Einstein from the grave to get a professional second opinion.
The first popular theory of gravity was Isaac Newton’s theory which is based on the amount of mass is what defines the strength of gravity. So the more dense a object the more gravity it has. In this theory all particles and asteroids in space and all particles and objects here on earth have gravity. The amount of gravity is depending on their density.
Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity is based on space and time working together to shift the fabric of that moment. Somehow the in-balance of time and space creates a vacuum that connects objects together.
Charles Yarbrough’s theory of gravity is something new but growing on the internet. My theory is that gravity is created by the core of planets. In the center of our planet is a spinning core that to this day has no popular explanation to why it exists. I believe simply as planets die the core dies and gravity dies down.
My contest to Newton:
If density was the main reason for gravity then the largest planet Jupiter would have more matter gravitating around it. But as we all know Saturn has the rings of matter gravitating around it. I think simply Saturn has a bigger more active core.
Another example is the size of the SUN, it’s huge compared to the earth and in matter much more dense. So if density was the only factor for gravity then the Sun would suck us into it about a million times over. I think more logically the Sun is a core just like what’s in each planet and slowly losing it’s power hence why mars was a habitat at one time. The sun’s dwindling gravity has allowed mars to drift to far for life to survive there. Next Earth will drift someday (if the Sun doesn’t implode first) and Venus we will be the lucky one. In fact I think the suns fading core will end earths life support faster then Earth losing it’s own core. I base this on Mars and other planets still having their core active beyond the life support distance tot he sun.
But I also wonder if oil is a lubricant for the earths core and we are sucking it dry. This of course would mean fossil fuels are a myth and oil comes from the earth’s lava core and simply grabs fossils and junk on the way to the earths service. If this is true then we might kill our core before the Sun allows us to drift out of the life supporting distance to the sun.
I also question why asteroid’s do not have gravity, they only have trails which are caused from the vacuum of flying though space. I base this on comets only having trailing matter if it had gravity you would see matter off to the sides or even in front.
As for Einstein’s theory, it’s still a little to heavy for me to challenge. Once you enter the world of Quantum mechanics ideas can get really out there and have no proximity for cross or fact checking. I have watched the secret, but I have my own explanation for self manifestations.
So if my theory is true then the Earth has a deadline three different ways (Sun Core Loss, Natural Earth Core Loss, Unnatural Earth Core Loss), and eventually life will ultimately lose support either way. In which case we will need to move to a new planet. Now whether god will re-locate us or we will need to master space travel we will just have to decide when time is more of the essence.
As for now I just wanted try and close two questions we should of figured out long ago.
- The core of the planet is a generator for gravity.
- Gravity simply exists on planets and stars because their cores are still active.
- The sun is one big exposed super-core.
Henry Ford
Feb 24th
Recent Comments