What is Digg?88 Comments
- inactive, on 10/21/2007, -4/+99Now who didn't figure out that claim was ***** by themselves already?
- Racerx52, on 10/21/2007, -2/+30You're doing it wrong
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/18/2007, -1/+15Well, these claims are possible in theory, but obviously ***** in practice. This is like a claim that given a sufficient amount of time and conditions, a solar sail will outrace an indy car. There are overhead reasons that might lead to their claim being true under certain unrealistic conditions(like, networks using the same packet management systems etc as the ones today but orders of magnitude faster), but who cares? Its like a golf club that performs 99% better than any of the competition, but you have to use it on the moon for the effect to be noticed.
- bhattsan, on 10/19/2007, -2/+12shhhh dont talk about usenet! Let them keep their torrents!
- DietRitePure0, on 10/18/2007, -6/+14I thought it was going to be the whole 50 multiplied by zero is still zero thing.
- inactive, on 10/21/2007, -2/+9Someone needs to take 5 minutes to configure settings - I get faster downloads than you on a 3mb connection.
- Xephyr, on 10/18/2007, -5/+11Umm... asshats?
- fusama, on 10/21/2007, -1/+7Or, its possible you're doing it right and your ISP is screwing you over...
- inactive, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6The content in question was an episode of 24 not a full 2 hour movie. You fail reading comprehension.
- Firehed, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6They're not the same quality. Not even close. They're certainly acceptable, but you're talking about stereo 128k audio and pretty heavily compressed video. Macro blocking is very obvious - especially in a foggy/smoky scene.
- Firehed, on 10/18/2007, -2/+8I max out my internet connection with torrents without problem - a 10/1Mbit line. Hell, I've nearly maxed out a T3 before (~45Mbit bidirectional). I'm sure that had 1500 other people not been using it at the time, I would have succeeded.
Torrents are fine. Fix your damn connection settings. - TRENT310, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5LED Paint? I'm in.
Did you mean 'Lead'? - 1337zork, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4Private torrent trackers, and I download 5 gigs in waaaay less that you ...
- cherwilco, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4um who are you replying to and what question did they ask?
- aelias, on 10/19/2007, -3/+7Bittorrent will scale to use as much bandwidth as it can, that's why it's about as good as it gets. This is utter *****.
- myfilthyheart, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4led paint
- gritta, on 10/21/2007, -4/+7No, they are ***** in theory as well. I don't use bittorrent much, but when I do it maxes out my 20Mbit connection. You cant do more than max out your connection. It's like saying you can get better than 100% efficient solar panels, utter *****.
- Asianwaste, on 10/21/2007, -3/+6If it comes from China it most certainly will contain bugs... as in somehow packaged with a cockroach.
- Firehed, on 10/21/2007, -1/+4Even if that were the case, good luck finding a way to make use of a 5Gbit incoming stream. That would take a crazy RAID to write to the disks that fast. Not to mention spending thousands on a 10Gbit network solution. And an HVAC to cool things down.
- mattassin, on 10/21/2007, -2/+5*****
- fusama, on 10/18/2007, -0/+350x speed over an already maxed connection might fit into that category, though.
- cherwilco, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3so far in my experience Usenet = pain in the ass to use! but maybe im doin somethin wrong. enlighten me?
- troyguy2, on 10/19/2007, -0/+3Well, that's only as fast as my ISP can send it. Some of my buddies get that in under half an hour.
- forceofyoda, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4I'm no BitTorrent expert, but perhaps he means there is a 50x smaller overhead in starting a download and communicating with peers. That's the only way this could really make sense.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3I mean more like, say, 1 Tbit connections, or limit as the bandwidth approaches the theoretical limits imposed by quantum physics. Also, please note a logical error on your part, You presume because your connection is maxed out, that implies 100% utility of the bandwidth. That is not true. Its possible that you could be downloading at, say 17 KB/s, however the effective bulk file transfer based on transfer time would be 15 KB/s. With this new protocol, it might be like 16 KB/s.
Although they aren't claiming this, as an aside to see how it can get worse, if I was being a total jerk, I might claim that was a 50% improvement in efficiency, as the cost of the protocol itself was halved... Note how insane this is, as a 17 TB/s transfer effective at 17 TB/s -2 KB/s compared to 17 TB/s - 1 KB/s would use the same logic. But I think the claim would still be arguably accurate. Amazing how you can make up accurate yet useless claims, eh? - rockandrollmark, on 10/21/2007, -1/+3This dude be trippin'.
- Farticus, on 10/21/2007, -1/+3Anything coming from *.cn is probably *****.
- heathuff23, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2sweet! I love firing up my email client and dropping an email to abuse@digg.com! thanks!
- freebit50, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2At this point in time, I believe that safety from the RIAA, security, and anonymity are more important than raw speed.
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2who are these asshats? Do they understand how digg works?
- cherwilco, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2I have cox cable with a down speed of 12 megs per sec. when I am downloading a well seeded file from a private tracker like leacherslair or whatever the torrent I am downloading will usually max out my connection. if I had a 50 megs per sec connection the torrent would still max out my connection on a well seeded file. this is because bittorrent isnt capped at any set speed it just uses whatever you have as long as you have bandwidth to spare and seeds that share their bandwidth. what this breaks down to is if you want something faster than bittorrent then get a faster connection and still use bittorrent (or use a better tracker)
- techAU, on 10/23/2008, -0/+2Ah... 1 big flaw in this article... the size of a DVD is NOT 700MB, rather 4 - 9 GB depending on layers. This completely changes the download rates / times / speed calculated.
- fusama, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1lead painted cockroach
- DaneTrain, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1How can argue it isn't superior? You get speeds that max out your connection almost the instant you start downloading, and it doesn't fluctuate the whole download. Sure it may cost money to use, but you get what you pay for.
- snowbusiness, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Uhh What? Get on a private torrent site and you'll see what decent speeds are. I get 700KB/s, which is as fast as my connection goes right now.
- gmillerd, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Well there are some new up and coming techniques that will detect hashes in existing files and use them rather than downloading. So for example if you have 3000 PDFs on your disk and you download a collection of 20 PDFs and 3 of the PDFs you already have it will only download the 17 missing ones. This is without actually having the 3000 PDFs in a torrent. Basically making EDK hashes for all your downloads, music, etc.
The one featured on Slashdot a while ago that did this also did file fragments. - evvad, on 10/19/2007, -7/+82.2% of a SEASON of 24 in 3 mins, not an episode. Thats what the original 'article' said.
Thats about 2mbps or something. *shrug* - clos, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2and if i got it correctly, it was streaming, it didn't even download the file to the computer
- Abdo375, on 10/18/2007, -3/+4I hate it when people judge a new technology when it hasn't been out yet. This article is full of *****, a 700MByte movie isn't DVD quality dumb-ass.
- ronin2040, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2>> that's why it's about as good as it gets
Glad to hear you have the authority and wisdom to make that statement. All technological progress can stop, we're at the peak! hooray!
I really doubt that there will never be anything better. - mrmacky, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2You guys are reading it wrong. It was a typo, it should read 50% faster speeds.
- seraph582, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1i've sustained over a meg a second -- not 100kbps, *1000* on a ***** 6MB comcast connection. Their "burst technology" helps ***** on torrents.
- SteveMax, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1You didn't read the small text. It says:
"Our protocol is 50x faster than BitTorrent*
*=comparing the speed of a download using our software on a local network of 100Mbit/s with the speed of the exact same download on a 2 MBit/s connection using BitTorrent. Results can vary" - prth8machine, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2"Impossible of course"....sound like famous last words to me. There is very little in technology that I would say is impossible.
- themastersb, on 10/19/2007, -2/+3Who would actually believe that? The speed at which someone downloads a torrent is based on the seeders and the speeds they're seeding at as well as other leechers, etc.
- ThreeDee912, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Depending on compression and codecs and whatnot. H.264 is very high-quality. It's also a part of the open MPEG4 standard. Not exactly sure what size a DVD-quality H.264 movie would be, though. The iTunes store only had semi-good quality movies to save bandwidth, I guess.
- inactive, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Ahaha, nice find. Oh Torrentfreak. :(
- cherwilco, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1commented on your blog,
blatant spamming on digg articles that have NOTHING to do with your website is downright inconsiderate and immature. go away now - j0keR, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Torrents do suck on public trackers, but things were much worse on older forms of P2P. On various private trackers, I've seen speeds of 2.5 MB/s on a 20 megabit line. A friend of mine who's on what's essentially a 28 megabit line can max out his connection on private trackers as well. People use dedicated boxes to pimp their ratios on private trackers, so there's even a chance that you could max out a 100 megabit line. If you're already a member of one of these sites, just go on their forums and look for a seed box topic. You'll find plenty of screen shots of ridiculous speeds.
- sn00kie, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I think the 3 minute claim was that from the moment she downloaded the software and had 2.2%, 3 minutes had past. But I'll probably get dugg down for trying to negate something in an article...
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is