Startup Webaroo to put the 'Web on a Hard Drive'? 340
An anonymous reader writes "A new startup called Webaroo is launching Monday with an audacious proposition: You can search the Web without a net connection of any kind. Initial release consists of 'Web packs' on specific topics such as news, city guides or Wikipedia. Later this year they're promising a full-Web version that you can carry on a laptop -- provided you're willing to devote something in the neighborhood of 80 gig."
Dotcom v3.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone doubted the next dotcom boom is upon us, this should put that doubt to rest.
Copyright infringment. (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this really the right time? (Score:2, Insightful)
Copyright? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the world of citi wide wifi & (Score:1, Insightful)
I see potential educational uses, but not wide spread adoption.
How are they going to handle dynamic things.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dotcom v3.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
1) the web is growing at a phenomenal rate. in a few years, the only thing that you'll be able to fit on even high-density media is very narrow, specific content. is there really such a huge market for that?
2) wifi is nearly ubiquitous. why pay for a static snapshot of the web that will be obsolete in a few days when you can walk into a starbucks with you laptop and get the fresh stuff almost for free??
I'm sure the guys who want to put the web on a disk have thought these points through, but me...I just really want to sigh. and buy some short-term stocks.
AaAAAAaaHH!!!eleventy1 Big brother attacks! (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not going to waste any more time on this. It's just an exercise in paranoia. Nothing to see here, move along.
80 gig web? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dotcom v3.0 (Score:2, Insightful)
in a few years, the only thing that you'll be able to fit on even high-density media is very narrow, specific content.
The thing is that Wikipedia, with all its imperfections and gaps, is still a surprisingly good start.
Re:Surfing is only part of the web... (Score:3, Insightful)
When your argument is based exclusively on your opinions and personal experience, global absolutes like "this idea is bad" come off as arrogance. Phrases like "this is useless to me" are more accurate.
Re:80 gig web? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not enough so's you'd notice. What's the difference between one thimbleful of ocean and 100 thimblefuls of ocean? Besides trying to solve the wrong problem to begin with?
Is this even legal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this even legal? (Score:1, Insightful)
How are they to justify selling other peoples' websites?
In much the same way that ISPs justify selling access to other people's web sites.
I won't "move along" (Score:1, Insightful)
You raise excellent points which warrant discussion.
As many have said, the "point" of the Interent (as I see it) is LIVE contact with (just about) everything.
As many of us understand, 99% of traditional media is owned by the major corps like Disney, Viacom, News Corp, etc. If this is conspiracy theory, then Jon Stewart is a tinfoil hat nut because this is all spelled out in the Daily Show's "America: the book."
Like many of you, I was attracted to the Interent because I assumed it escaped this sort of control paradaigm. I figured, heck, who would even *try* to control this much info?
These days, when I browse the top sites on Alexa for example, I see the same sort of "media mafia" tactic has overrun the web in 2006.
So what? IMO: we are all wrong. My extreme views are just as stupid as yours, however, as my grand-pappy used to say: "somewhere in the middle lies the truth". I feel that the "wackos" on all sides are CRITICAL, and that this "societal average" is the closest we will ever come to "truth". I find anything which threatens this function of the Internet as detrememntal to me, my country, and my fellow man.
Someone around here has a great sig (sorry, but I am terrible with names), something like: "the problem with wikipedia is that it only works in practice, in theory, it can't possibly work." To whomever shared this with me: right on. This is exactly how I felt about the Internet circa 1996, and the reason I am so hurt to se where it is 10 years later.
The Net on a disk is not a net (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if this is doable and legal, it runs entirely counter to the spirit of the Internet. The Internet on a hard disk is no longer a network, it becomes a passive entity with no possibility of interaction.
At the moment, we are seeing a return to the interactive origins of the Internet, prime examples being blogging, Wikipedia, and even Slashdot! If this projects takes off it will be harmful to interaction and will turn the Net into a glorified television.
However, I find it unlikely that Webaroo will gain currency, precisely because we have become dependent on an interactive and living Internet. When I use the Net, I want to be able to read and respond to my emails, to check my bank balance, shop online, and read the latest news. Why on earth would I want to have a static Internet on my laptop?
Re:Dotcom v3.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're way off on this one. On the other hand, I have a suitable substitute:
2. What the hell are they going to do about the copyright issues?
Re:Transoceanic flights? (Score:3, Insightful)
wget (while they're waiting in the airport).
Re:80 gig web? (Score:3, Insightful)
Compression, for one. Force people to use some proprietary browser (or a FireFox extension) and compress html files > xx KB so that the browser opens the archives on the fly. Zip up executables, pdf's, word documents, etc etc etc. Webservers & browsers use gzip to save bandwidth, why can't this archive use it to save space?
Convert bitmaps into jpegs, recompress/resize jpegs greater than xx KB or some arbitrary height x width. (and make people pay more for uncompressed/resized images).
Write up an automated tool to strip the html of links to ads while deleting the ad images/files too.
That's just off the top of my head, but if anyone had 40GB of web pages to sift through, I'm sure they can come up with some other intelligent ways to save space.
Re:Dotcom v3.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoted for truth. I know I'm not the only one who thought "Hey, this would be cool... but the target websites are going to be pissed about losing their ad revenue."
For sites like Wikipedia and others whose goal is the distribution of their content, this isn't as much of a big deal (unless, in the case of Wikipedia, they snapshot a vandalized site...), but a lot of content providers won't be happy about getting their ad revenue stolen.
Re:Dotcom v3.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cache exemption (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pr0n? (Score:2, Insightful)
if(girlfriend.has_sensibilities)
chance_of_lying = VERY_HIGH;
else
chance of lying = HIGH;
Mod parent down (Score:1, Insightful)
Invalid comparison. Internet access, like electricity or water, is a utility. Providers put a large amount of resources in developing their infrastructure, and need a way to recoup those costs. Basic economics.
The development of the Internet would've been set back a couple decades if ISPs weren't allowed to charge for their services.
Re:Hm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hm.. (Score:3, Insightful)