Isn't it obvious? #
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 10:15 GMT
"Interesting to see ebooks are bigger in the middle east. Whats that all about?"
Terrorist training manuals and the Jolly Rogers cookbook :p
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 01:22 GMT
Why so low on the number of users encrypting they're data I wonder?
Apparently France are going to "Ban" pirates, facilitated via monitoring done by ISPs, (watch everyone churn to the ISPs who don't monitor overnight) so I think users awareness of encryption features will increase.
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 09:27 GMT
Another case of the their illiteracy. Why is it that no one knows these things? It's like it's and its. Little lesson...
- There = positional ("it's over there")
- Their = possesive ("that's their ball")
- They're = they are ("they're coming tomorrow")
There, I said it.
/Rant
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 09:27 GMT
How do they know who is using encryption?
It should just be random data.
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 09:27 GMT
I don't mind being pedantic. Someone has to do it.
Gower, this is BASIC stuff.
"their data" (they're=they are)
"users' (users) awareness"
Try http://eatsshootsandleaves.com/
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 09:27 GMT
It is in ISP's interests, no one would want the top range broadband except for games and file sharing.
Why pay over the odds for 8 Meg if you just browse and watch TV, that can stream onto a 1 Meg line.
Interesting to see ebooks are bigger in the middle east. Whats that all about?
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 10:15 GMT
I applaud the sentiment - but the word is spelt "possessive"
Glasshouses - bricks and all that!
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 10:15 GMT
"Interesting to see ebooks are bigger in the middle east. Whats that all about?"
Terrorist training manuals and the Jolly Rogers cookbook :p
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 10:35 GMT
The traffic may be encrypted so you can't see the payload (it will be random data). However if the traffic still uses the same TCP port you can be fairly sure it's bittorrent. If you use a random port it's harder to tell.
If you can run your p2p encrypted using the same port as HTTPS (443), not only can providers not see the content, but they can't block the port without stopping all e-commerce at the same time. I'm not sure there are any clients that do this yet, but the idea has been around for a while.
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 10:47 GMT
Good to see Skitt's law is still affective. Or is that effective?
/gets coat
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 11:56 GMT
Well its not BitTorrent but UseNext do it. Damn handy too I can get around filters thanks to it. Also I have wireless broadband and they block all p2p already but its the only option I have (countryside arrrgh). Dont suppose anyone has any other ideas for p2p on a network like this. Tried http tunnelling. It works with limewire but not bittorrent?
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 12:59 GMT
I like your style mate, but if you're on a one-man mission to correct every grammatically-challenged post on the Internet, you're in for a long night.
(Did you like the way I sneaked your / you're in there?)
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 16:51 GMT
Is "spelt" a word? I thought it was "spelled".
Posted Thursday 29th November 2007 23:20 GMT
> Is "spelt" a word? I thought it was "spelled".
As I understand it, either "spelled" or "spelt" can be used - rather like "burned" or "burnt".
Or maybe not. I'll get me lead apron anyway.
Posted Friday 30th November 2007 00:47 GMT
Sounds like an ISP to name and shame - who is it?