Associate
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,375
Usenet files have pars which is better than torrents.
BT doesn't need extra files for the purpose of error checking/reconstruction it has its own error checking built in.
Usenet files have pars which is better than torrents.
BT doesn't need extra files for the purpose of error checking/reconstruction it has its own error checking built in.
I've had plenty of failed torrents and if they had pars they would have worked. I don't understand your logic of, it doesn't have a filesafe so it is better. I very rarely actually need to download the pars, they get auto-paused.
I've had plenty of failed torrents and if they had pars they would have worked. ...
BitTorrent does cryptographic hashing (SHA1) of all data. When you see "Download succeeded!" you can be sure that BitTorrent has already verified the integrity of the data. The integrity and authenticity of a BitTorrent download is as good as the original request to the tracker. Checking the MD5/CRC32/other hash of a file downloaded via BitTorrent is redundant
0-sec FTP beats all.
I love this term, since it actually doesn't mean anything
"Affil Sites" as they are actually known are a lot of hard work to keep an account on,
I've had plenty of failed torrents and if they had pars they would have worked..
Pars are not fully magical. If there is too much corruption you can't repair the RAR files.
If there's that much corruption that it cannot be repaired then your connection quality is more of a concern than anything else.
I love this term, since it actually doesn't mean anything
"Affil Sites" as they are actually known are a lot of hard work to keep an account on, unless you are lucky enough to have access to a ratio:[unlimited] account or know a site owner.
Torrents are also hard work to keep a ratio depending of course on your upload speed or if you have a seed box.
All this talk about nntp vs torrents and how they are littered with fakes etc, put it into perspective. You are all comparing a indexing site with a public torrent site. Compare private with private and you will see content wise, they are both the same.
Server logs and user activity
72 comments | create comment law @ 20-02-2010 19:02 GMTSome subscribers are a little concerned about privacy in the light of the current litigation so to put their minds at rest we thought we would explain what the privacy implications are of our logs.
We are currently keeping webserver logs for a period which is sufficient to allow us to defend ourselves against web attacks. However we cannot tell from our logs what NZBs you have downloaded. At all. If we can't do this then neither can any complainant with access to our logs. Furthermore we rotate old logs so that they are deleted.
No request has been made for our logs during the discovery phase of litigation and due to the nature of the legal process that request would have to have been made a long time ago: it wasn't. They cannot now, legally, have it; and moreover they dont actually seem that interested either. The fact is this: they are gunning for Newzbin not you.
Bottom line:
We cannot tell anyone what NZBs you have been using whether those are for Linux distros, porn or just embarrassing lawful material. Don't worry.
Here's an idea for the movie studios: Allow download of HQ movies for a decent price.
Why can't we have this for TV and films? (720p minimum).