| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 74390 | 2006-11-21 00:03:00 | Any Pedantics In Here? Hello?....Hello?...... | SurferJoe46 (51) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 500738 | 2006-11-21 00:03:00 | New York Times launches Web 3 . 0, the "Pedantic Web" for all those of like ilk . " . . . . . . . If the defining characteristics of Web 2 . 0 are hobbies masquerading as businesses, cheap access to dumb capital, and start-up brands with a reclusive letter "e," what will define the Web 3 . 0 epoch? Business plans based on recurring dreams and company names with no vowels at all? I ask only because we're reportedly on the cusp of 3 . 0 -- at least according to the New York Times, which equates it with the semantic Web envisioned by Tim Berners Lee and Co . . . . . " :dogeye: And, Now . . . . . . the high contrast version for our slight-sighted readers::dogeye: " . . . . . . . If the defining characteristics of Web 2 . 0 are hobbies masquerading as businesses, cheap access to dumb capital, and start-up brands with a reclusive letter "e," what will define the Web 3 . 0 epoch? Business plans based on recurring dreams and company names with no vowels at all? I ask only because we're reportedly on the cusp of 3 . 0 -- at least according to the New York Times, which equates it with the semantic Web envisioned by Tim Berners Lee and Co . . . . " CLICK HERE -> Here ( . dailymail . co . uk/pages/live/articles/news/news . html?in_article_id=398161&in_page_id=1770" target="_blank">www . dailymail . co . uk) <-NO! OVER THERE! |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 500739 | 2006-11-21 21:48:00 | I think you mean 'Any pedants in here?' :) | mmmork (6822) | ||
| 500740 | 2006-11-21 23:22:00 | I think you mean 'Any pedants in here?' :) I c/p'd it...it aint my terminology. |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 500741 | 2006-11-22 00:37:00 | I think you mean 'Any pedants in here?' :)English language is a living, evolving thing. If someone wants to call a pedant a pedantic, (as I mistakenly once did and was shot down to Earth for), then it's fine by me. :thumbs: | Greg (193) | ||
| 500742 | 2006-11-22 01:02:00 | Yikes! I agree the English language is an evolving thing, and change is inevitable. However what I really dislike is "lazy" use of language - e.g. txt-speak etc when it's not needed. Txt-speak does have its place (in SMS messages, which have a 160 character limit) but in other settings I think people should make the effort to get their point across in a clear and concise way that can be easily understood by all parties involved. Perhaps txt-speak will become the standard at some point in the future (although I really hope not) but at this point it seems like a simple issue of respect. A good analogy would be a person who speaks English insisting on speaking in pig-latin all the time - while most people can understand it with some additional effort, most people would hate being talked to in such a manner. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 500743 | 2006-11-22 06:03:00 | I was being ironical. | mmmork (6822) | ||
| 500744 | 2006-11-22 06:08:00 | I was being ironical. ..and I, irreverantish. |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 1 | |||||