The Next Big Thing — Why Web 2.0 Isn't Enough

An anonymous reader writes "TechConsumer has an interesting discussion about what it will take for the next big thing, and why Web 2.0 is only just the beginning. 'Realtors have been giving us the answer for years, although they didn't know it. The next big thing is..."location, location, location". Think of how we access all the information of the Internet. We do it at a desk, where wires keep us attached to a specific location. Laptops help us branch out a bit, but even then we are tied to a wireless connection. Go to far and you no longer have access to information.'"

Comments

Hyperlocal web

[morgan_greywolf]

Bruce Sterling wrote a similar, but even more imaginative article in Wired, about a concept which he called the hyperlocal web. The dept 'long-way-to-go' on this article is interesting in light of Sterling's piece, because in a sidebar, he basically makes the point that Google is already building all the information necessary for this sort of stuff with Google Earth. Combine that with Google's recent interest in the wireless spectrum and GPS and bam! it sorta hits you: Google's already working on this stuff. How far off are they? I guess only time will tell.

Hyperlocality - Wired Magazine

[Gybrwe666]

This month's wired features several articles about Hyperlocality and geospatial interfacing between the web and the world:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/15-07/ff_ maps

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/15-07/loc al

Bill

Re:Where is far?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand but come on it changes the meaning and more importantly makes it difficult to read. Quick proof read next time please. I found his typo much easier to parse than that monstrosity of a sentence you just wrote. Pot, meet kettle.

Some people still aren't on the web...

[benhocking]

Actually, I think the GP's point wasn't that Arby's was trying to lock out Bill's Deli, but rather that Bill (of Bill's Deli) doesn't understand why he should need a web presence, etc. I've often done web searches to try to find the hours of operation on some of my favorite eating places only to find that they don't have a web presence. I can usually find an article on them by the local paper, but those don't always have the hours of operation (or a menu).

Re:Where is far?

[fireboy1919]

The second sentence in the second paragraph is missing an article: Articles are merely clarifying adjectives. In other words, not having it arguably makes the sentence unclear, and occasionally completely changes the meaning, but it isn't wrong. Sometimes you want to be unclear - when you want to distract people from a real mistake, for example.

The third paragraph begins with a coordinating conjunction. This is generally considered poor form. See the above point.

It lacks a verb This could be so. But "the problem shown in bold" is as valid an independent phrase as, "the sun shown in the sky." It's confusing how that bold text, which didn't exist before I wrote it managed to shine in the past, but a valid sentence with a confusing meaning is still a valid sentence. I was of mixed feelings on putting this one in there - on whether I could count it as a faux-mistake like the others.

It also has a semicolon where it should have a comma. That's the only one that is necessarily a real grammar error. There isn't any way that the two phrase comprising that sentence are two independent phrases. A comma would also have been wrong, however, because there is no conjunction joining the two phrases.
A colon or dash would have been appropriate.

All programmers should be good parsers of English before they start working on other things.

Is it possible to be more off-topic?

Re:Where is far?

[GlL]

"Surely pervasive Wifi is the issue here, like meshes and things?" Actually, not just money is the problem with Wifi. I live in Washington state. I support a wifi ISP on the East side of the state. It's pretty flat and no trees around and we still have interference issues from cordless phones and the customer's own access points. (I didn't design the network, I just support it.) It still works pretty well. On the west side of the state a couple of municipalities have learned that trees (of which there are many out here) block wifi signals. You might ask why. Trees are full of water, water absorbs radio signals in the 2.4Ghz range. That incidentally is how your microwave works. So yes, your microwave can interfere with your wireless network if it is improperly shielded. For the above technical reasons, pervasive Wifi is not practical without a change in the direction of the technology. My 2 cents from experience.