To be perfectly honest, Bittorrent is an example of a half assed technology that caught on and succeeded because of its success. There's nothing particularly innovative in bittorrent, and nothing even particularly interesting technologically. Distributing things in that fashion was not a new idea, and we know the system has its flaws.
Unfortunately at this point bittorrent's success kind of crowds the market, making it harder for better technologies to succeed. Why jump to a different system when a crude hack can make bittorrent almost nearly somewhat just as good?
And the worst part is that we bitch and complain about Microsoft being in the same position!
I wish there was a way to mark a slashdot posting with "uninsightful." Why is it that almost every single bittorrent-related posting to Slashdot is completely lacking in any sort of real advancement?
I think you seriously overestimate the features of this little toy.
There's quite a long step from a program that republishes files it finds on the internet and a global filesystem. In fact, they're almost nothing alike.
Yes, let's just hope Carmack hasn't been overtly working on a nuclear weapons program, threatening other countries, deploying and using other weapons of mass destruction, disobeying multiple UN resolutions, killing thousands of his employees, breaking the terms of a cease-fire agreement, breaking the terms of other serious agreements...
Dijjer is a far more appropriate solution to this type of problem.
When the source doesn't have a web presence at all, doesn't care about any sort of download counting, or is trying to remain somewhat anonymous, then sure, bittorrent is the right solution, but in many of the more legit uses there is more infrastructure to be taken advantage of.
It annoys me to see bittorrent being shoehorned into situations for which it is less than ideal...
I responded to the parent post, but since you brought P2P distribution up I also wanted to respond to you to point you in the direction of Dijjer. It's far better suited to this situation than bittorrent.
Check out Dijjer. It was made for this kind of situation.
It's sort of P2P for distribution of legit material from an actual publisher. No worried about being out of date, as the publisher maintains control of what gets transferred.
WMD was not proven false. In fact, it would be very difficult to prove false, as that would require someone to figure out what the Iraqis did with their stockpiles of WMD. After ten years of dodging the question I doubt it will be discovered anytime soon.
Terrorist ties were also not proven false. In fact, as the US swept through Iraqi officials' offices they discovered more and more documentary evidence linking Iraq to terrorists.
We're not talking about what to do about the situation; we're talking about figuring out what the situation is in the first place.
"Better than having large parts of the planet become impossible to live in"? We don't even know that this will happen, and thanks to the practices mentioned in this article we have no way of knowing what the liklyhood of it actually is!
A much more interesting but similar system is the dijjer project at dijjer.org.
Like this it's a distributed publishing system without any sort of tracker, but without torrent files either. In dijjer you make requests from your web browser through a proxy server that's your interface to the rest of the system.
It's different in that all of the data being distributed exists in a single system, not in grouped systems of people interested in the same file. Therefore there's a lot less concern about there being too few peers signed on to make the system work.
I'm fairly certain that transcript has not been completed, at least as of the date you posted this response.
The Rice statements come near the end of the film, and is, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11," which was excerpted from her full statement of, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."
How about when he played the clip of Condi Rice saying there was a link between Iraq and 9/11 when the full statement was that the link was that, basically, both are bad?
There are many, many things in the movie that are horribly misleading. That's Moore's style. He will say extremely factually correct things, but in a way that implies something that is incorrect.
For example, one of his trademark moves is to say "X is true. If X, Y, and Z are true, then W is true." Y and Z might not be true and so W is false, but then again he didn't actually claim that Y, Z, or W are true.
I remember one scene where he shows Condi Rice saying something like "There is a link between Saddam and 9/11" to support his position that the administraiton ever made such a claim (they didn't). He left off the rest of the comment, though, that was along the lines of "There is a link between Saddam and 9/11 in that both are bad things." This is a terribly different statement.
He also does things like referring to the president in completely irrelevant ways. In the scene with the secret service agents outside of the embassy he makes the remark that they were there even though the crew was nowhere near the white house. This is a completely misdirection.
Moore is just a magician. He might never break the laws of physics (tell lies), but he certainly will make you think he did.
I know this because the logic he presents in each movie before 9/11 (which I have yet to see) is horribly, fundamentally, and I'd assume intentionally flawed.
He has often relied on subjects hanging themselves on the screen in the past. He just never bothered to show that they were standing with both feet planted firmly on solid ground.
That Michael Moore can manage to incriminate people with their own words is meaningless. Enough editing and you can turn Bush into a supporter of gay marriage.
Slashdot Mirror
Rant mode.
To be perfectly honest, Bittorrent is an example of a half assed technology that caught on and succeeded because of its success. There's nothing particularly innovative in bittorrent, and nothing even particularly interesting technologically. Distributing things in that fashion was not a new idea, and we know the system has its flaws.
Unfortunately at this point bittorrent's success kind of crowds the market, making it harder for better technologies to succeed. Why jump to a different system when a crude hack can make bittorrent almost nearly somewhat just as good?
And the worst part is that we bitch and complain about Microsoft being in the same position!
$8.75 million... my ass.
Yawn.
I wish there was a way to mark a slashdot posting with "uninsightful." Why is it that almost every single bittorrent-related posting to Slashdot is completely lacking in any sort of real advancement?
I think you seriously overestimate the features of this little toy.
There's quite a long step from a program that republishes files it finds on the internet and a global filesystem. In fact, they're almost nothing alike.
Yes, let's just hope Carmack hasn't been overtly working on a nuclear weapons program, threatening other countries, deploying and using other weapons of mass destruction, disobeying multiple UN resolutions, killing thousands of his employees, breaking the terms of a cease-fire agreement, breaking the terms of other serious agreements...
Boy, Carmack better watch out!
Dijjer is a far more appropriate solution to this type of problem.
When the source doesn't have a web presence at all, doesn't care about any sort of download counting, or is trying to remain somewhat anonymous, then sure, bittorrent is the right solution, but in many of the more legit uses there is more infrastructure to be taken advantage of.
It annoys me to see bittorrent being shoehorned into situations for which it is less than ideal...
The problem, of course, is that just about any physicist can answer the question as to why cold fusion is probably impossible.
I responded to the parent post, but since you brought P2P distribution up I also wanted to respond to you to point you in the direction of Dijjer. It's far better suited to this situation than bittorrent.
Just, you know, FYI.
Check out Dijjer. It was made for this kind of situation.
It's sort of P2P for distribution of legit material from an actual publisher. No worried about being out of date, as the publisher maintains control of what gets transferred.
WMD was not proven false. In fact, it would be very difficult to prove false, as that would require someone to figure out what the Iraqis did with their stockpiles of WMD. After ten years of dodging the question I doubt it will be discovered anytime soon.
Terrorist ties were also not proven false. In fact, as the US swept through Iraqi officials' offices they discovered more and more documentary evidence linking Iraq to terrorists.
We're not talking about what to do about the situation; we're talking about figuring out what the situation is in the first place.
"Better than having large parts of the planet become impossible to live in"? We don't even know that this will happen, and thanks to the practices mentioned in this article we have no way of knowing what the liklyhood of it actually is!
A much more interesting but similar system is the dijjer project at dijjer.org.
Like this it's a distributed publishing system without any sort of tracker, but without torrent files either. In dijjer you make requests from your web browser through a proxy server that's your interface to the rest of the system.
It's different in that all of the data being distributed exists in a single system, not in grouped systems of people interested in the same file. Therefore there's a lot less concern about there being too few peers signed on to make the system work.
Your sarcasm is misplaced.
If you had a paper proving that there is such thing as an invisible pink unicorn, then there WOULD be a problem with the rejections and the consensus.
I think the majority of us would prefer to get something we want and let Google make money off of it especially when it costs us nothing.
Which is the situation here.
And seriously, what's wrong with making a lot of money from your personal browsing records?
You talk like you're somehow hurt by this.
If they can make money off of me without harming me in the slightest, and in fact while giving me something I want, then by all means!
*shrug*
XP runs slower on my machine.
That's all the substantiation I need.
Probably just one of those ~50% of Americans who don't know they're paying taxes in the first place...
So basically what you're saying is that we all should suffer under crummy laws because otherwise your business will fail.
Got it.
And no thank you.
...and therefore the parent is wrong?
Personally my experiences mirror his. There are so many things that Just Work under Linux that take an hour to set up under WinXP.
I'd say "Kerry" and "eccentric" are nearly synonymous...
I'm fairly certain that transcript has not been completed, at least as of the date you posted this response.
The Rice statements come near the end of the film, and is, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11," which was excerpted from her full statement of, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."
How about when he played the clip of Condi Rice saying there was a link between Iraq and 9/11 when the full statement was that the link was that, basically, both are bad?
This was a fairly drastic contextual problem...
There are many, many things in the movie that are horribly misleading. That's Moore's style. He will say extremely factually correct things, but in a way that implies something that is incorrect.
For example, one of his trademark moves is to say "X is true. If X, Y, and Z are true, then W is true." Y and Z might not be true and so W is false, but then again he didn't actually claim that Y, Z, or W are true.
I remember one scene where he shows Condi Rice saying something like "There is a link between Saddam and 9/11" to support his position that the administraiton ever made such a claim (they didn't). He left off the rest of the comment, though, that was along the lines of "There is a link between Saddam and 9/11 in that both are bad things." This is a terribly different statement.
He also does things like referring to the president in completely irrelevant ways. In the scene with the secret service agents outside of the embassy he makes the remark that they were there even though the crew was nowhere near the white house. This is a completely misdirection.
Moore is just a magician. He might never break the laws of physics (tell lies), but he certainly will make you think he did.
What exactly is it supposed to mean that 9/11 made a lot of money or sales in the first place?
I know this because the logic he presents in each movie before 9/11 (which I have yet to see) is horribly, fundamentally, and I'd assume intentionally flawed.
He has often relied on subjects hanging themselves on the screen in the past. He just never bothered to show that they were standing with both feet planted firmly on solid ground.
That Michael Moore can manage to incriminate people with their own words is meaningless. Enough editing and you can turn Bush into a supporter of gay marriage.
Um...