Yeah, you'll have to forgive me for gawking like I've never seen the internet before. I'm just unfamiliar with P2P and never bothered finding out how BitTorrent actually worked.
Firstly, the really large content often consists of videos, compressed files or other stand-alone files you would save and then open in another application anyway.
However, from what I've understood of how BT works, webbrowsing might already work with an BT browser plugin. The plugin would take the URL of a.torrent metafile, use it to download the content and then display it within the browser. This "extra step" of getting content via the metafile would happen beneath the surface, so it would look as if the page were loaded directly over HTTP. This would only be necessary for large in-line resources (Flash, images, etc). Or a website could rely on it entirely, using HTTP only to serve the torrent metafiles.
The process could be improved even further if there is already a standardized URI scheme in place for BitTorrent content - but I don't know if there is.
"I hope you are satisfied when your actions cause some poor Chinese person to be executed."
Are you sure this is not exaggerated? I have yet to see a mention of people being prosecuted (let alone executed) for viewing a page that links to a site that provides advice on how to do something illegal - even less so when said site is apparently blocked itself. If someone is going to take the risk (and knowingly so) of using the information, they can find it in other ways. I included the link here as a reference for the discussion.
There are still many ways to bypass the block. Assuming one knows that the web page exists. Thanks to this "optimization", this is no longer the case.
If the effect of this "filter that is no censorship" is merely cosmetic, then why was Google forced to include it or face being banned from operating in China?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you'll have to forgive me for gawking like I've never seen the internet before. I'm just unfamiliar with P2P and never bothered finding out how BitTorrent actually worked.
Firstly, the really large content often consists of videos, compressed files or other stand-alone files you would save and then open in another application anyway.
.torrent metafile, use it to download the content and then display it within the browser. This "extra step" of getting content via the metafile would happen beneath the surface, so it would look as if the page were loaded directly over HTTP.
However, from what I've understood of how BT works, webbrowsing might already work with an BT browser plugin. The plugin would take the URL of a
This would only be necessary for large in-line resources (Flash, images, etc). Or a website could rely on it entirely, using HTTP only to serve the torrent metafiles.
The process could be improved even further if there is already a standardized URI scheme in place for BitTorrent content - but I don't know if there is.
A system whose efficiency increases with the traffic load that is put on it - clever idea.
(I'm European. Heh.)
"I hope you are satisfied when your actions cause some poor Chinese person to be executed."
Are you sure this is not exaggerated? I have yet to see a mention of people being prosecuted (let alone executed) for viewing a page that links to a site that provides advice on how to do something illegal - even less so when said site is apparently blocked itself. If someone is going to take the risk (and knowingly so) of using the information, they can find it in other ways. I included the link here as a reference for the discussion.
There are still many ways to bypass the block. Assuming one knows that the web page exists. Thanks to this "optimization", this is no longer the case.
If the effect of this "filter that is no censorship" is merely cosmetic, then why was Google forced to include it or face being banned from operating in China?