<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_01_2131249</id>
	<title>uTorrent To Build In Transfer-Throttling Ability</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257069000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>vintagepc writes <i>"TorrentFreak reports that a redesign of the popular BitTorrent client uTorrent <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-2-0-to-elimininate-the-need-for-isp-throttling-091031/">allows clients to detect network congestion and automatically adjust the transfer rates</a>, eliminating the interference with other Internet-enabled applications' traffic. In theory, the protocol senses congestion based on the time it takes for a packet to reach its destination, and by intelligent adjustments, should reduce network traffic without causing a major impact on download speeds and times. As said by Simon Morris (from TFA), 'The throttling that matters most is actually not so much the download but rather the upload &ndash; as bandwidth is normally much lower UP than DOWN, the up-link will almost always get congested before the down-link does.' Furthermore, the revision is designed to eliminate the need for ISPs to deal with problems caused by excessive BitTorrent traffic on their networks, thereby saving them money and support costs. Apparently, the v2.0b client using this protocol is already being used widely, and no major problems have been reported."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>vintagepc writes " TorrentFreak reports that a redesign of the popular BitTorrent client uTorrent allows clients to detect network congestion and automatically adjust the transfer rates , eliminating the interference with other Internet-enabled applications ' traffic .
In theory , the protocol senses congestion based on the time it takes for a packet to reach its destination , and by intelligent adjustments , should reduce network traffic without causing a major impact on download speeds and times .
As said by Simon Morris ( from TFA ) , 'The throttling that matters most is actually not so much the download but rather the upload    as bandwidth is normally much lower UP than DOWN , the up-link will almost always get congested before the down-link does .
' Furthermore , the revision is designed to eliminate the need for ISPs to deal with problems caused by excessive BitTorrent traffic on their networks , thereby saving them money and support costs .
Apparently , the v2.0b client using this protocol is already being used widely , and no major problems have been reported .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vintagepc writes "TorrentFreak reports that a redesign of the popular BitTorrent client uTorrent allows clients to detect network congestion and automatically adjust the transfer rates, eliminating the interference with other Internet-enabled applications' traffic.
In theory, the protocol senses congestion based on the time it takes for a packet to reach its destination, and by intelligent adjustments, should reduce network traffic without causing a major impact on download speeds and times.
As said by Simon Morris (from TFA), 'The throttling that matters most is actually not so much the download but rather the upload – as bandwidth is normally much lower UP than DOWN, the up-link will almost always get congested before the down-link does.
' Furthermore, the revision is designed to eliminate the need for ISPs to deal with problems caused by excessive BitTorrent traffic on their networks, thereby saving them money and support costs.
Apparently, the v2.0b client using this protocol is already being used widely, and no major problems have been reported.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944826</id>
	<title>Re:TCP regulating congestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bittorrent spawns a huge number of connections.  If the OS (or ISP) gives equal bandwidth to each TCP stream, your connection to youtube gets about as much as each one of your 25 bitorrent connections, which destroys the streaming video, voip, or even normal web surfing.  I would LOVE it if this provides a solution.  (I would be even happier if ToS flags were widely honored, but that has never happened, so I don't know why it would happen now).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bittorrent spawns a huge number of connections .
If the OS ( or ISP ) gives equal bandwidth to each TCP stream , your connection to youtube gets about as much as each one of your 25 bitorrent connections , which destroys the streaming video , voip , or even normal web surfing .
I would LOVE it if this provides a solution .
( I would be even happier if ToS flags were widely honored , but that has never happened , so I do n't know why it would happen now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bittorrent spawns a huge number of connections.
If the OS (or ISP) gives equal bandwidth to each TCP stream, your connection to youtube gets about as much as each one of your 25 bitorrent connections, which destroys the streaming video, voip, or even normal web surfing.
I would LOVE it if this provides a solution.
(I would be even happier if ToS flags were widely honored, but that has never happened, so I don't know why it would happen now).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944906</id>
	<title>Re:Linux client?</title>
	<author>trendzetter</author>
	<datestamp>1257074520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use deluge as a utorrent replacement</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use deluge as a utorrent replacement</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use deluge as a utorrent replacement</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29952722</id>
	<title>Watch Dollhouse on hulu.com!</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1257189600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; a redesign of the popular BitTorrent client uTorrent allows clients to detect network<br>&gt; congestion and automatically adjust the transfer rates, eliminating the interference<br>&gt; with other Internet-enabled applications' traffic.</p><p>Can this guy fix the Seti@home cuda application to allow it to work nicely with 3D games, while he's at it?</p><p>The two options you get are "aways use it" and "use it after 3 minutes of the card being idle".  The first is pointless if you play a 3D game, and the second doesn't recognize starting a 3D game and bailing out to let the game own the card.</p><p>So I have to keep it off all the time, which defeats the purpose.</p><p>What they need is something that recognized a game is using the 3D card, and to the exit out of using the cuda.  That's not one of the options, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; a redesign of the popular BitTorrent client uTorrent allows clients to detect network &gt; congestion and automatically adjust the transfer rates , eliminating the interference &gt; with other Internet-enabled applications ' traffic.Can this guy fix the Seti @ home cuda application to allow it to work nicely with 3D games , while he 's at it ? The two options you get are " aways use it " and " use it after 3 minutes of the card being idle " .
The first is pointless if you play a 3D game , and the second does n't recognize starting a 3D game and bailing out to let the game own the card.So I have to keep it off all the time , which defeats the purpose.What they need is something that recognized a game is using the 3D card , and to the exit out of using the cuda .
That 's not one of the options , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; a redesign of the popular BitTorrent client uTorrent allows clients to detect network&gt; congestion and automatically adjust the transfer rates, eliminating the interference&gt; with other Internet-enabled applications' traffic.Can this guy fix the Seti@home cuda application to allow it to work nicely with 3D games, while he's at it?The two options you get are "aways use it" and "use it after 3 minutes of the card being idle".
The first is pointless if you play a 3D game, and the second doesn't recognize starting a 3D game and bailing out to let the game own the card.So I have to keep it off all the time, which defeats the purpose.What they need is something that recognized a game is using the 3D card, and to the exit out of using the cuda.
That's not one of the options, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945938</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257083940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prefix bits do not indicate location.  2 Class C's can be a long way from each other geographically.  Even if the entire Internet was broken down into Class C spaces, and you prioritised addresses in your Class C, I don't think you would see many hits.  I mean, there may be 50k people on the torrent, but how many of them are in the same neighbourhood as you?</p><p>That's why the Vuze plugin uses a IP-&gt;location mapping database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prefix bits do not indicate location .
2 Class C 's can be a long way from each other geographically .
Even if the entire Internet was broken down into Class C spaces , and you prioritised addresses in your Class C , I do n't think you would see many hits .
I mean , there may be 50k people on the torrent , but how many of them are in the same neighbourhood as you ? That 's why the Vuze plugin uses a IP- &gt; location mapping database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prefix bits do not indicate location.
2 Class C's can be a long way from each other geographically.
Even if the entire Internet was broken down into Class C spaces, and you prioritised addresses in your Class C, I don't think you would see many hits.
I mean, there may be 50k people on the torrent, but how many of them are in the same neighbourhood as you?That's why the Vuze plugin uses a IP-&gt;location mapping database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950100</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont know, i dont seem to have any problems connecting to bittorrens on remote island countries. Then again, if everyone had 26 MBps up/down, like I do, well, there wouldnt be much of an issue....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont know , i dont seem to have any problems connecting to bittorrens on remote island countries .
Then again , if everyone had 26 MBps up/down , like I do , well , there wouldnt be much of an issue... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont know, i dont seem to have any problems connecting to bittorrens on remote island countries.
Then again, if everyone had 26 MBps up/down, like I do, well, there wouldnt be much of an issue....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945636</id>
	<title>Re:TCP regulating congestion</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1257080760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP\_Vegas" title="wikipedia.org">TCP Vegas?</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I remember reading how AT&amp;T's iPhone "zero-packet-loss" was causing network congestion and 8-second ping times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TCP Vegas ?
[ wikipedia.org ] I remember reading how AT&amp;T 's iPhone " zero-packet-loss " was causing network congestion and 8-second ping times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TCP Vegas?
[wikipedia.org]I remember reading how AT&amp;T's iPhone "zero-packet-loss" was causing network congestion and 8-second ping times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944872</id>
	<title>LAN performance also?</title>
	<author>mleugh</author>
	<datestamp>1257074280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this likely to improve LAN performance when using bittorrent on a shared internet connection also?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this likely to improve LAN performance when using bittorrent on a shared internet connection also ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this likely to improve LAN performance when using bittorrent on a shared internet connection also?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946280</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, I see other peers on the same ISP as me and others on another ISP which the ISP are also based in the same city as me and yet it doesn't connect to them.</p><p>Coding a way so you can manually prioritise that peer or domain would be easy to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I see other peers on the same ISP as me and others on another ISP which the ISP are also based in the same city as me and yet it does n't connect to them.Coding a way so you can manually prioritise that peer or domain would be easy to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I see other peers on the same ISP as me and others on another ISP which the ISP are also based in the same city as me and yet it doesn't connect to them.Coding a way so you can manually prioritise that peer or domain would be easy to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946194</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1257085980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In Australia for example, international bandwidth is extremely limited and very expensive, but local bandwidth, even between ISPs, is essentially unlimited, high-speed, and often free or 'unmetered'.</p></div></blockquote><p>No bittorrent client picks one peer, and downloads everything from them...  Instead, it connects to a large number of peers, and downloads from all of them.</p><p>If you can download from your neighbor 100X faster than you can download from someone across the planet...  good.  You'll get 100 chunks from your neighbor, for every 1 you get from the foreign country.  No programming required.</p><blockquote><div><p>What do you think is going to be faster: connecting to your neighbour through at the same fucking router, or some kid's home PC in Kazakhstan over 35 hops away?</p></div></blockquote><p>There's ample opportunity for either to be equally fast.  Crossing an ocean increase latency, but if the link isn't horribly oversubscribed, can provided speeds faster than you can handle.  So, your neighbor might have 100 other people requesting the same torrent as you, for the same reasons, while the kid in Kazakhstan may have a great internet connection, which is barely being utilized, and this while international traffic is down.  This is not international calling...  you don't save money by not fully utilizing that transoceanic link.</p><p>Also, ISPs brought this on themselves.  I've long advocated ISPs allowing unlimited speeds between subscribers, and only limiting the uplink speeds to whatever you've subscribed, but they almost never do.  If they did, see above...  any peer-to-peer protocol would naturally download almost everything from local sources, without any added intelligence on its part.  You wouldn't have to write it in to every single app.</p><blockquote><div><p>A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hour</p></div></blockquote><p>You could implement it easily, if you're willing to restrict yourself to neighboring network addresses in lieu of all else.  If you want some fancy weighting to decide how important locality is versus absolute speed, completeness, etc. then you're talking about a major project.</p><p>Besides that...  A good network admin could do the job in an hour as well, with no need to rewrite any of the applications.</p><blockquote><div><p>They're a group of developers who could, with an hours effort, reduce international bandwidth usage by double-digit percentages and improve torrent download speeds by an order of magnitude, but they just... don't.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's baseless and utterly ridiculous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Australia for example , international bandwidth is extremely limited and very expensive , but local bandwidth , even between ISPs , is essentially unlimited , high-speed , and often free or 'unmetered'.No bittorrent client picks one peer , and downloads everything from them... Instead , it connects to a large number of peers , and downloads from all of them.If you can download from your neighbor 100X faster than you can download from someone across the planet... good. You 'll get 100 chunks from your neighbor , for every 1 you get from the foreign country .
No programming required.What do you think is going to be faster : connecting to your neighbour through at the same fucking router , or some kid 's home PC in Kazakhstan over 35 hops away ? There 's ample opportunity for either to be equally fast .
Crossing an ocean increase latency , but if the link is n't horribly oversubscribed , can provided speeds faster than you can handle .
So , your neighbor might have 100 other people requesting the same torrent as you , for the same reasons , while the kid in Kazakhstan may have a great internet connection , which is barely being utilized , and this while international traffic is down .
This is not international calling... you do n't save money by not fully utilizing that transoceanic link.Also , ISPs brought this on themselves .
I 've long advocated ISPs allowing unlimited speeds between subscribers , and only limiting the uplink speeds to whatever you 've subscribed , but they almost never do .
If they did , see above... any peer-to-peer protocol would naturally download almost everything from local sources , without any added intelligence on its part .
You would n't have to write it in to every single app.A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hourYou could implement it easily , if you 're willing to restrict yourself to neighboring network addresses in lieu of all else .
If you want some fancy weighting to decide how important locality is versus absolute speed , completeness , etc .
then you 're talking about a major project.Besides that... A good network admin could do the job in an hour as well , with no need to rewrite any of the applications.They 're a group of developers who could , with an hours effort , reduce international bandwidth usage by double-digit percentages and improve torrent download speeds by an order of magnitude , but they just... do n't.That 's baseless and utterly ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Australia for example, international bandwidth is extremely limited and very expensive, but local bandwidth, even between ISPs, is essentially unlimited, high-speed, and often free or 'unmetered'.No bittorrent client picks one peer, and downloads everything from them...  Instead, it connects to a large number of peers, and downloads from all of them.If you can download from your neighbor 100X faster than you can download from someone across the planet...  good.  You'll get 100 chunks from your neighbor, for every 1 you get from the foreign country.
No programming required.What do you think is going to be faster: connecting to your neighbour through at the same fucking router, or some kid's home PC in Kazakhstan over 35 hops away?There's ample opportunity for either to be equally fast.
Crossing an ocean increase latency, but if the link isn't horribly oversubscribed, can provided speeds faster than you can handle.
So, your neighbor might have 100 other people requesting the same torrent as you, for the same reasons, while the kid in Kazakhstan may have a great internet connection, which is barely being utilized, and this while international traffic is down.
This is not international calling...  you don't save money by not fully utilizing that transoceanic link.Also, ISPs brought this on themselves.
I've long advocated ISPs allowing unlimited speeds between subscribers, and only limiting the uplink speeds to whatever you've subscribed, but they almost never do.
If they did, see above...  any peer-to-peer protocol would naturally download almost everything from local sources, without any added intelligence on its part.
You wouldn't have to write it in to every single app.A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hourYou could implement it easily, if you're willing to restrict yourself to neighboring network addresses in lieu of all else.
If you want some fancy weighting to decide how important locality is versus absolute speed, completeness, etc.
then you're talking about a major project.Besides that...  A good network admin could do the job in an hour as well, with no need to rewrite any of the applications.They're a group of developers who could, with an hours effort, reduce international bandwidth usage by double-digit percentages and improve torrent download speeds by an order of magnitude, but they just... don't.That's baseless and utterly ridiculous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946616</id>
	<title>Re:Clients already do this</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1257089760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is most other clients will throttle to best give *your* connection low latency. uTorrent is facing the other end of the problem. If a hop between you and the seeder is getting congested, uToerrent will throttle down as to help not overload that hop, Even if your connection is fine. The problem with P2P is that it eats up a very large portion of available bandwidth. If an ISP as a whole is getting bogged down, the downloaders will back off and try not to overload that ISP/Hop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is most other clients will throttle to best give * your * connection low latency .
uTorrent is facing the other end of the problem .
If a hop between you and the seeder is getting congested , uToerrent will throttle down as to help not overload that hop , Even if your connection is fine .
The problem with P2P is that it eats up a very large portion of available bandwidth .
If an ISP as a whole is getting bogged down , the downloaders will back off and try not to overload that ISP/Hop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is most other clients will throttle to best give *your* connection low latency.
uTorrent is facing the other end of the problem.
If a hop between you and the seeder is getting congested, uToerrent will throttle down as to help not overload that hop, Even if your connection is fine.
The problem with P2P is that it eats up a very large portion of available bandwidth.
If an ISP as a whole is getting bogged down, the downloaders will back off and try not to overload that ISP/Hop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944774</id>
	<title>But is it working?</title>
	<author>wealthychef</author>
	<datestamp>1257073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary says that the protocol is already out there, and "no major problems are reported."  So how about "and congestion is being reduced, and here is how we know it?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary says that the protocol is already out there , and " no major problems are reported .
" So how about " and congestion is being reduced , and here is how we know it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary says that the protocol is already out there, and "no major problems are reported.
"  So how about "and congestion is being reduced, and here is how we know it?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986</id>
	<title>Proximity Favored Connections</title>
	<author>JakFrost</author>
	<datestamp>1257084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Ono Plug-In</b></p><p>You're absolutely right about how badly implemented the random client connection protocol is for BitTorrent clients.  There is a project and a plug-in called <a href="http://www.aqualab.cs.northwestern.edu/projects/Ono.html" title="northwestern.edu" rel="nofollow">Ono</a> [northwestern.edu] for Vuze (formely Azureus) BitTorrent clients.  I used it before to resolve this problem but I found that the non-stop creation of many ping.exe threads to analyze latency was causing some slow-downs on my own system and additional upstream congestion on my upstream limited broadband pipe.</p><p>I am still surprised that a better protocol for proximity favored peer connections wasn't developed for BitTorrent and other P2P systems to maximize performance by connecting to peers on the same or close-by networks.  I have a feeling that with the huge increases in demand for content there will be a need for optimized connection protocols once we start demanding more than the capacity that we have.</p><p><b>Netmask Flaws</b></p><p>One solution that is simple to implement is the one that you mentioned for netmask calculations but I fear that this is solution won't work reliability since the way that network ranges are created and managed internally by large broadband ISPs is unpredictable and neighboring ranges are owned by different ISPs or are in other countries.  Plus netmask information doesn't tell you anything about closest neighbors to connect to once you exhaust the connections in your own netmask.</p><p><b>Routing Table Solution</b></p><p>I think that the best solution would be one based on information in the routing protocols that the routers have but since this information is not available to the individual clients the applications have no way of looking at the overall routing structure to determine exactly who the closest and best neighbors. are based on latency, bandwidth, cost, and hop count information.</p><p>If there was a way for the application to query the router for a partial list of the routing table (e.g. 5 or 10-hops) and then prioritize the peer addresses from the tracker according to the routing table based an algorithm that takes bandwidth up-and-down, latency, cost, and hop count into account we would have an optimal solution to the order of connections for peers.</p><p><b>Latency and Hop Count Not Enough</b></p><p>The problem is that the routers won't share the routing table information with the clients.  The solution becomes the one like Ono plug-in in that the client has to ping and/or trace route to the peer addresses to determine optimal choices based only on latency and hop count without knowing anything about bi-directional bandwidth availability or cost associated.  Without the bandwidth info the whole thing falls apart because latency isn't enough to determine maximum throughput and there is no practical way of doing a bandwidth check bi-directionally in a meaningful way between peers without taking up a lot of time and bandwidth in the process itself.</p><p><b>Upstream Throttling (Not Choking)</b></p><p>Hopefully, this new uTP protocol will at least give us a benefit and improvement on the upstream bandwidth side by auto-throttling the upstream to prevent choking the connection.</p><p>If only the clients could peek at the routing tables of our routers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ono Plug-InYou 're absolutely right about how badly implemented the random client connection protocol is for BitTorrent clients .
There is a project and a plug-in called Ono [ northwestern.edu ] for Vuze ( formely Azureus ) BitTorrent clients .
I used it before to resolve this problem but I found that the non-stop creation of many ping.exe threads to analyze latency was causing some slow-downs on my own system and additional upstream congestion on my upstream limited broadband pipe.I am still surprised that a better protocol for proximity favored peer connections was n't developed for BitTorrent and other P2P systems to maximize performance by connecting to peers on the same or close-by networks .
I have a feeling that with the huge increases in demand for content there will be a need for optimized connection protocols once we start demanding more than the capacity that we have.Netmask FlawsOne solution that is simple to implement is the one that you mentioned for netmask calculations but I fear that this is solution wo n't work reliability since the way that network ranges are created and managed internally by large broadband ISPs is unpredictable and neighboring ranges are owned by different ISPs or are in other countries .
Plus netmask information does n't tell you anything about closest neighbors to connect to once you exhaust the connections in your own netmask.Routing Table SolutionI think that the best solution would be one based on information in the routing protocols that the routers have but since this information is not available to the individual clients the applications have no way of looking at the overall routing structure to determine exactly who the closest and best neighbors .
are based on latency , bandwidth , cost , and hop count information.If there was a way for the application to query the router for a partial list of the routing table ( e.g .
5 or 10-hops ) and then prioritize the peer addresses from the tracker according to the routing table based an algorithm that takes bandwidth up-and-down , latency , cost , and hop count into account we would have an optimal solution to the order of connections for peers.Latency and Hop Count Not EnoughThe problem is that the routers wo n't share the routing table information with the clients .
The solution becomes the one like Ono plug-in in that the client has to ping and/or trace route to the peer addresses to determine optimal choices based only on latency and hop count without knowing anything about bi-directional bandwidth availability or cost associated .
Without the bandwidth info the whole thing falls apart because latency is n't enough to determine maximum throughput and there is no practical way of doing a bandwidth check bi-directionally in a meaningful way between peers without taking up a lot of time and bandwidth in the process itself.Upstream Throttling ( Not Choking ) Hopefully , this new uTP protocol will at least give us a benefit and improvement on the upstream bandwidth side by auto-throttling the upstream to prevent choking the connection.If only the clients could peek at the routing tables of our routers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ono Plug-InYou're absolutely right about how badly implemented the random client connection protocol is for BitTorrent clients.
There is a project and a plug-in called Ono [northwestern.edu] for Vuze (formely Azureus) BitTorrent clients.
I used it before to resolve this problem but I found that the non-stop creation of many ping.exe threads to analyze latency was causing some slow-downs on my own system and additional upstream congestion on my upstream limited broadband pipe.I am still surprised that a better protocol for proximity favored peer connections wasn't developed for BitTorrent and other P2P systems to maximize performance by connecting to peers on the same or close-by networks.
I have a feeling that with the huge increases in demand for content there will be a need for optimized connection protocols once we start demanding more than the capacity that we have.Netmask FlawsOne solution that is simple to implement is the one that you mentioned for netmask calculations but I fear that this is solution won't work reliability since the way that network ranges are created and managed internally by large broadband ISPs is unpredictable and neighboring ranges are owned by different ISPs or are in other countries.
Plus netmask information doesn't tell you anything about closest neighbors to connect to once you exhaust the connections in your own netmask.Routing Table SolutionI think that the best solution would be one based on information in the routing protocols that the routers have but since this information is not available to the individual clients the applications have no way of looking at the overall routing structure to determine exactly who the closest and best neighbors.
are based on latency, bandwidth, cost, and hop count information.If there was a way for the application to query the router for a partial list of the routing table (e.g.
5 or 10-hops) and then prioritize the peer addresses from the tracker according to the routing table based an algorithm that takes bandwidth up-and-down, latency, cost, and hop count into account we would have an optimal solution to the order of connections for peers.Latency and Hop Count Not EnoughThe problem is that the routers won't share the routing table information with the clients.
The solution becomes the one like Ono plug-in in that the client has to ping and/or trace route to the peer addresses to determine optimal choices based only on latency and hop count without knowing anything about bi-directional bandwidth availability or cost associated.
Without the bandwidth info the whole thing falls apart because latency isn't enough to determine maximum throughput and there is no practical way of doing a bandwidth check bi-directionally in a meaningful way between peers without taking up a lot of time and bandwidth in the process itself.Upstream Throttling (Not Choking)Hopefully, this new uTP protocol will at least give us a benefit and improvement on the upstream bandwidth side by auto-throttling the upstream to prevent choking the connection.If only the clients could peek at the routing tables of our routers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945664</id>
	<title>Re:Clients already do this</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1257081060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can throttle on your end, and your end only.</p><p>If you had say... Cable, and all your neighbours were active too, then this would make your speed drop. Your torrents choke their webpage browsing and youtube streaming, but with congestion control, it doesn't choke them as much. Is it perfect? Nope. Will it affect you negatively? Not really. I'd happily download 20\% slower for 80ms ping instead of 2000ms. (and yes, it can get that bad when networks opt for low or no packet loss.)</p><p>When there is no congestion, it has no effect, so most of the time you won't even notice it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can throttle on your end , and your end only.If you had say... Cable , and all your neighbours were active too , then this would make your speed drop .
Your torrents choke their webpage browsing and youtube streaming , but with congestion control , it does n't choke them as much .
Is it perfect ?
Nope. Will it affect you negatively ?
Not really .
I 'd happily download 20 \ % slower for 80ms ping instead of 2000ms .
( and yes , it can get that bad when networks opt for low or no packet loss .
) When there is no congestion , it has no effect , so most of the time you wo n't even notice it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can throttle on your end, and your end only.If you had say... Cable, and all your neighbours were active too, then this would make your speed drop.
Your torrents choke their webpage browsing and youtube streaming, but with congestion control, it doesn't choke them as much.
Is it perfect?
Nope. Will it affect you negatively?
Not really.
I'd happily download 20\% slower for 80ms ping instead of 2000ms.
(and yes, it can get that bad when networks opt for low or no packet loss.
)When there is no congestion, it has no effect, so most of the time you won't even notice it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944966</id>
	<title>Sweet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now when I illegaly download the newest DVD screeners, I can do it with a clear conscience knowing that I'm not congesting the network!<p>
Seriously though, this is a good thing.  I don't know why the story is tagged "your rights online"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now when I illegaly download the newest DVD screeners , I can do it with a clear conscience knowing that I 'm not congesting the network !
Seriously though , this is a good thing .
I do n't know why the story is tagged " your rights online "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now when I illegaly download the newest DVD screeners, I can do it with a clear conscience knowing that I'm not congesting the network!
Seriously though, this is a good thing.
I don't know why the story is tagged "your rights online"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946036</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THEIR arrogance is astounding?  How about yours?  They are working FOR FREE.  You are merely complaining.  Get your hands dirty and start doing some work yourself.</p><p>You can suggest things all you want, but once you start insulting someone for their free work, you've crossed a line.  Nobody is forced to use their client.  There are dozens of decent clients and probably hundreds of open source ones.</p><p>As for their choices, they will work on what's more important to them, I'm sure.  Since they don't need this 'local' feature, they haven't got much incentive to actually work on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THEIR arrogance is astounding ?
How about yours ?
They are working FOR FREE .
You are merely complaining .
Get your hands dirty and start doing some work yourself.You can suggest things all you want , but once you start insulting someone for their free work , you 've crossed a line .
Nobody is forced to use their client .
There are dozens of decent clients and probably hundreds of open source ones.As for their choices , they will work on what 's more important to them , I 'm sure .
Since they do n't need this 'local ' feature , they have n't got much incentive to actually work on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THEIR arrogance is astounding?
How about yours?
They are working FOR FREE.
You are merely complaining.
Get your hands dirty and start doing some work yourself.You can suggest things all you want, but once you start insulting someone for their free work, you've crossed a line.
Nobody is forced to use their client.
There are dozens of decent clients and probably hundreds of open source ones.As for their choices, they will work on what's more important to them, I'm sure.
Since they don't need this 'local' feature, they haven't got much incentive to actually work on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29953180</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1257191640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hour: simply take the user's own IP address, and then sort the IPs of potential peers by the number of prefix bits in common, then do a random selection from that list, weighted towards the best-matching end.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
It sounds like this scheme would wreak havoc on the stats kept by private trackers, definitely not a one hour job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hour : simply take the user 's own IP address , and then sort the IPs of potential peers by the number of prefix bits in common , then do a random selection from that list , weighted towards the best-matching end .
It sounds like this scheme would wreak havoc on the stats kept by private trackers , definitely not a one hour job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hour: simply take the user's own IP address, and then sort the IPs of potential peers by the number of prefix bits in common, then do a random selection from that list, weighted towards the best-matching end.
It sounds like this scheme would wreak havoc on the stats kept by private trackers, definitely not a one hour job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29960394</id>
	<title>Re:Linux client?</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1257188400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've tried it, but it just didn't feel as responsive as uTorrent, although I did like the daemon/client design. uTorrent seemed to have faster transfer speeds as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tried it , but it just did n't feel as responsive as uTorrent , although I did like the daemon/client design .
uTorrent seemed to have faster transfer speeds as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tried it, but it just didn't feel as responsive as uTorrent, although I did like the daemon/client design.
uTorrent seemed to have faster transfer speeds as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29962788</id>
	<title>utorrent for Linux?!</title>
	<author>vsanjay</author>
	<datestamp>1257260100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather see a version of utorrent for Linux, than have more unnecessary features..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather see a version of utorrent for Linux , than have more unnecessary features. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather see a version of utorrent for Linux, than have more unnecessary features..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945030</id>
	<title>Re:TCP regulating congestion</title>
	<author>Don Negro</author>
	<datestamp>1257075360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Short answer, No.  TCP doesn't back off until packets are lost.  uTP looks for latency increases which happen before packet loss (and therefore, before TCP congestion control kicks in) and throttles itself preemptively.  Put another way, TCP treats all senders as having an equal right to bandwidth.  uTP doesn't want to assert an equal right to bandwidth, it wants to send and receive in the unused portion of the available connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Short answer , No .
TCP does n't back off until packets are lost .
uTP looks for latency increases which happen before packet loss ( and therefore , before TCP congestion control kicks in ) and throttles itself preemptively .
Put another way , TCP treats all senders as having an equal right to bandwidth .
uTP does n't want to assert an equal right to bandwidth , it wants to send and receive in the unused portion of the available connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short answer, No.
TCP doesn't back off until packets are lost.
uTP looks for latency increases which happen before packet loss (and therefore, before TCP congestion control kicks in) and throttles itself preemptively.
Put another way, TCP treats all senders as having an equal right to bandwidth.
uTP doesn't want to assert an equal right to bandwidth, it wants to send and receive in the unused portion of the available connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29955000</id>
	<title>My testing shows it's still not friendly to nets</title>
	<author>George\_Ou</author>
	<datestamp>1257156480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/analysis-of-bittorrent-utp-congestion-avoidance/" title="digitalsociety.org">http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/analysis-of-bittorrent-utp-congestion-avoidance/</a> [digitalsociety.org]
BitTorrent&rsquo;s new uTP protocol claims to be &ldquo;network friendly&rdquo;, but testing suggests that it&rsquo;s just as nasty to web surfing, online gaming, and VoIP as before. BitTorrent still consumes 90\% of the network and causes very high jitter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/analysis-of-bittorrent-utp-congestion-avoidance/ [ digitalsociety.org ] BitTorrent    s new uTP protocol claims to be    network friendly    , but testing suggests that it    s just as nasty to web surfing , online gaming , and VoIP as before .
BitTorrent still consumes 90 \ % of the network and causes very high jitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/analysis-of-bittorrent-utp-congestion-avoidance/ [digitalsociety.org]
BitTorrent’s new uTP protocol claims to be “network friendly”, but testing suggests that it’s just as nasty to web surfing, online gaming, and VoIP as before.
BitTorrent still consumes 90\% of the network and causes very high jitter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712</id>
	<title>reason 1 down. reason 2 in que.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure ISPs such as Comcast will find another reason to suggest they need in interfere with network management. just give them a little bit of time to put their heads together with the guys at RIAA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure ISPs such as Comcast will find another reason to suggest they need in interfere with network management .
just give them a little bit of time to put their heads together with the guys at RIAA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure ISPs such as Comcast will find another reason to suggest they need in interfere with network management.
just give them a little bit of time to put their heads together with the guys at RIAA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947022</id>
	<title>Already been done...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Azureus aka Vuze has had this in for a long time now. Why is it such big news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Azureus aka Vuze has had this in for a long time now .
Why is it such big news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Azureus aka Vuze has had this in for a long time now.
Why is it such big news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945364</id>
	<title>Re:Clients already do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most clients have you set a fixed upload speed.  Some try to do this automatically, while most have you set it manually.  This isn't perfect - if you set it to use 80\% of your upload, and you are using more than 20\%, things will get slow.  If you use less than 20\%, you'll have some amount idle and being wasted.  Some rely on something like monitoring ping to some specific service.. if ping is higher, throttle back.  If ping is low, increase speed.  Again this isn't perfect because it relies on a single host and route to determine your speed.</p><p>uTorrent's new protocol requires no action from the user, no automatic bandwidth tests, and no outside service.   It is designed to always use the optimal speed, while never interfering with foreground tasks.</p><p>It has been a while since I read it, and when I read it I was very very tired, but my understanding is that it tags each packet with a high-precision send time.  So if we have two packets, A and B, A will sent at 100ms and B will be sent at 300ms.  So you know they were sent 200ms apart.  The \_receiver\_ then notices that he receives them 400ms apart, so there is 200ms of lag which means it should be throttled back.  It tries to keep the amount of lag 50ms.  Again, I could be completely wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p><p>Since it is based on UDP and not TCP, it also solves the problem of Comcast sending fake RST packets to make each client think they wanted to disconnect from eachother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most clients have you set a fixed upload speed .
Some try to do this automatically , while most have you set it manually .
This is n't perfect - if you set it to use 80 \ % of your upload , and you are using more than 20 \ % , things will get slow .
If you use less than 20 \ % , you 'll have some amount idle and being wasted .
Some rely on something like monitoring ping to some specific service.. if ping is higher , throttle back .
If ping is low , increase speed .
Again this is n't perfect because it relies on a single host and route to determine your speed.uTorrent 's new protocol requires no action from the user , no automatic bandwidth tests , and no outside service .
It is designed to always use the optimal speed , while never interfering with foreground tasks.It has been a while since I read it , and when I read it I was very very tired , but my understanding is that it tags each packet with a high-precision send time .
So if we have two packets , A and B , A will sent at 100ms and B will be sent at 300ms .
So you know they were sent 200ms apart .
The \ _receiver \ _ then notices that he receives them 400ms apart , so there is 200ms of lag which means it should be throttled back .
It tries to keep the amount of lag 50ms .
Again , I could be completely wrong : DSince it is based on UDP and not TCP , it also solves the problem of Comcast sending fake RST packets to make each client think they wanted to disconnect from eachother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most clients have you set a fixed upload speed.
Some try to do this automatically, while most have you set it manually.
This isn't perfect - if you set it to use 80\% of your upload, and you are using more than 20\%, things will get slow.
If you use less than 20\%, you'll have some amount idle and being wasted.
Some rely on something like monitoring ping to some specific service.. if ping is higher, throttle back.
If ping is low, increase speed.
Again this isn't perfect because it relies on a single host and route to determine your speed.uTorrent's new protocol requires no action from the user, no automatic bandwidth tests, and no outside service.
It is designed to always use the optimal speed, while never interfering with foreground tasks.It has been a while since I read it, and when I read it I was very very tired, but my understanding is that it tags each packet with a high-precision send time.
So if we have two packets, A and B, A will sent at 100ms and B will be sent at 300ms.
So you know they were sent 200ms apart.
The \_receiver\_ then notices that he receives them 400ms apart, so there is 200ms of lag which means it should be throttled back.
It tries to keep the amount of lag 50ms.
Again, I could be completely wrong :DSince it is based on UDP and not TCP, it also solves the problem of Comcast sending fake RST packets to make each client think they wanted to disconnect from eachother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29952382</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257187800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In essence, uTorrent connects to clients randomly, and makes no attempt to prioritize "nearby" clients. </i></p><p>You might be interested in <a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/bittorrent/2005-July/001543.html" title="ibiblio.org">this thread</a> [ibiblio.org] I started on the topic in '05 - it covers some pros and cons.  My intent at the time was to avoid the whole problem we wound up with at Comcast (that took the FCC to fix).  Somebody mentioned to me once that there was a problem with traceroute on Windows, not sure if that's really true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In essence , uTorrent connects to clients randomly , and makes no attempt to prioritize " nearby " clients .
You might be interested in this thread [ ibiblio.org ] I started on the topic in '05 - it covers some pros and cons .
My intent at the time was to avoid the whole problem we wound up with at Comcast ( that took the FCC to fix ) .
Somebody mentioned to me once that there was a problem with traceroute on Windows , not sure if that 's really true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In essence, uTorrent connects to clients randomly, and makes no attempt to prioritize "nearby" clients.
You might be interested in this thread [ibiblio.org] I started on the topic in '05 - it covers some pros and cons.
My intent at the time was to avoid the whole problem we wound up with at Comcast (that took the FCC to fix).
Somebody mentioned to me once that there was a problem with traceroute on Windows, not sure if that's really true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946058</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keeping traffic completely local would make it much easier to snag a bunch of file sharers in a massive "three strikes and you're out" campaign, don't you think?  Since mere use of torrent software seems to be associated with illicit activity in the minds of the ignorant (ie. the authoRIAAties), I'm not sure that "I was just downloading the latest Ubuntu ISO" would be enough to avoid being threatened by the ISP.  Lots of local inter-ISP torrent traffic might also cause them to alert local law enforcement to take a closer look.  This could increase one's risk significantly, particularly if any 'infringing' content is ever shared (by an occasional, less enlightened, user of the connect, for example).  Seems safer to not have to worry about local/non-local bandwidth, to be honest.  Might be smarter to prefer connections that are as non-local and non-concentrated as possible.  It's not always just about data transfer speed and bandwidth saving - there are other factors to consider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeping traffic completely local would make it much easier to snag a bunch of file sharers in a massive " three strikes and you 're out " campaign , do n't you think ?
Since mere use of torrent software seems to be associated with illicit activity in the minds of the ignorant ( ie .
the authoRIAAties ) , I 'm not sure that " I was just downloading the latest Ubuntu ISO " would be enough to avoid being threatened by the ISP .
Lots of local inter-ISP torrent traffic might also cause them to alert local law enforcement to take a closer look .
This could increase one 's risk significantly , particularly if any 'infringing ' content is ever shared ( by an occasional , less enlightened , user of the connect , for example ) .
Seems safer to not have to worry about local/non-local bandwidth , to be honest .
Might be smarter to prefer connections that are as non-local and non-concentrated as possible .
It 's not always just about data transfer speed and bandwidth saving - there are other factors to consider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeping traffic completely local would make it much easier to snag a bunch of file sharers in a massive "three strikes and you're out" campaign, don't you think?
Since mere use of torrent software seems to be associated with illicit activity in the minds of the ignorant (ie.
the authoRIAAties), I'm not sure that "I was just downloading the latest Ubuntu ISO" would be enough to avoid being threatened by the ISP.
Lots of local inter-ISP torrent traffic might also cause them to alert local law enforcement to take a closer look.
This could increase one's risk significantly, particularly if any 'infringing' content is ever shared (by an occasional, less enlightened, user of the connect, for example).
Seems safer to not have to worry about local/non-local bandwidth, to be honest.
Might be smarter to prefer connections that are as non-local and non-concentrated as possible.
It's not always just about data transfer speed and bandwidth saving - there are other factors to consider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949166</id>
	<title>Re:Proximity Favored Connections</title>
	<author>bytta</author>
	<datestamp>1257168660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about adding "favorite netmasks", where you can (manually) give extra priority to some netmasks that you know are near you (by looking at the country flags in bittorrent, random guessing, or by downloading lists off the intertubes).

Wouldn't that solve 99\% of your problem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about adding " favorite netmasks " , where you can ( manually ) give extra priority to some netmasks that you know are near you ( by looking at the country flags in bittorrent , random guessing , or by downloading lists off the intertubes ) .
Would n't that solve 99 \ % of your problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about adding "favorite netmasks", where you can (manually) give extra priority to some netmasks that you know are near you (by looking at the country flags in bittorrent, random guessing, or by downloading lists off the intertubes).
Wouldn't that solve 99\% of your problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945386</id>
	<title>Re:Linux client?</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1257078480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me too. I've always thought of it as superior to utorrent. Never tried the windows port though, so I don't know how good it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me too .
I 've always thought of it as superior to utorrent .
Never tried the windows port though , so I do n't know how good it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me too.
I've always thought of it as superior to utorrent.
Never tried the windows port though, so I don't know how good it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945160</id>
	<title>Re:Linux client?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DD-WRT router with OoS and KTorrent FTMFW</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DD-WRT router with OoS and KTorrent FTMFW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DD-WRT router with OoS and KTorrent FTMFW</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945840</id>
	<title>ISPs don't give a crap</title>
	<author>7-Vodka</author>
	<datestamp>1257082920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Furthermore, the revision is designed to eliminate the need for ISPs to deal with problems caused by excessive BitTorrent traffic on their networks</p></div><p>How wrong this is. ISPs don't give a crap about this and it's never going to work.</p><p>
1. They don't give a crap because the real reason they throttle is because they don't want you using your bandwidth. You know the bandwidth you actually paid for. Whether you are supposedly clogging up their pipe or not is not the point. The point is that you are using more bandwidth than another user and they could kick your ass and sell their internets to 1000 old ladies instead.
</p><p>
2. It's never going to work because of (1) and because the problem it's trying to solve was never a problem for the ISP it was always a problem for the end user anyway. You think that the ISPs have big download pipes and small upload limits like you do? They don't. Their shit is equilateral. You can stop clogging your tiny upload allocation as much as you want, it's never going to affect the ISP. They never had an UP shortage because they have equal up/down bandwith and provide you with tiny up limits. It may help the end user, but only if it's already better than existing solutions, which if you already know what your ISP castrates your up bandwidth to, it's not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , the revision is designed to eliminate the need for ISPs to deal with problems caused by excessive BitTorrent traffic on their networksHow wrong this is .
ISPs do n't give a crap about this and it 's never going to work .
1. They do n't give a crap because the real reason they throttle is because they do n't want you using your bandwidth .
You know the bandwidth you actually paid for .
Whether you are supposedly clogging up their pipe or not is not the point .
The point is that you are using more bandwidth than another user and they could kick your ass and sell their internets to 1000 old ladies instead .
2. It 's never going to work because of ( 1 ) and because the problem it 's trying to solve was never a problem for the ISP it was always a problem for the end user anyway .
You think that the ISPs have big download pipes and small upload limits like you do ?
They do n't .
Their shit is equilateral .
You can stop clogging your tiny upload allocation as much as you want , it 's never going to affect the ISP .
They never had an UP shortage because they have equal up/down bandwith and provide you with tiny up limits .
It may help the end user , but only if it 's already better than existing solutions , which if you already know what your ISP castrates your up bandwidth to , it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, the revision is designed to eliminate the need for ISPs to deal with problems caused by excessive BitTorrent traffic on their networksHow wrong this is.
ISPs don't give a crap about this and it's never going to work.
1. They don't give a crap because the real reason they throttle is because they don't want you using your bandwidth.
You know the bandwidth you actually paid for.
Whether you are supposedly clogging up their pipe or not is not the point.
The point is that you are using more bandwidth than another user and they could kick your ass and sell their internets to 1000 old ladies instead.
2. It's never going to work because of (1) and because the problem it's trying to solve was never a problem for the ISP it was always a problem for the end user anyway.
You think that the ISPs have big download pipes and small upload limits like you do?
They don't.
Their shit is equilateral.
You can stop clogging your tiny upload allocation as much as you want, it's never going to affect the ISP.
They never had an UP shortage because they have equal up/down bandwith and provide you with tiny up limits.
It may help the end user, but only if it's already better than existing solutions, which if you already know what your ISP castrates your up bandwidth to, it's not.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948940</id>
	<title>Users don't need this protocol</title>
	<author>raynet</author>
	<datestamp>1257165300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is somewhat pointless to throttle the speeds beyond your connection to the ISP. Usually (always?) your upload bandwidth is the limiting factor. Azureus has had a autospeed plugin for ages that monitors your latency and adjusts the upload speed based on that. It is responsive enough to detect when you are watching streaming video etc and lower the upload speed when needed. And just to spite the ISP I usually make Azureus (not rTorrent) to open 4000+ connections and run 10-100 torrents simultaneously just to make sure I get to use all my bandwidth I pay for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is somewhat pointless to throttle the speeds beyond your connection to the ISP .
Usually ( always ?
) your upload bandwidth is the limiting factor .
Azureus has had a autospeed plugin for ages that monitors your latency and adjusts the upload speed based on that .
It is responsive enough to detect when you are watching streaming video etc and lower the upload speed when needed .
And just to spite the ISP I usually make Azureus ( not rTorrent ) to open 4000 + connections and run 10-100 torrents simultaneously just to make sure I get to use all my bandwidth I pay for : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is somewhat pointless to throttle the speeds beyond your connection to the ISP.
Usually (always?
) your upload bandwidth is the limiting factor.
Azureus has had a autospeed plugin for ages that monitors your latency and adjusts the upload speed based on that.
It is responsive enough to detect when you are watching streaming video etc and lower the upload speed when needed.
And just to spite the ISP I usually make Azureus (not rTorrent) to open 4000+ connections and run 10-100 torrents simultaneously just to make sure I get to use all my bandwidth I pay for :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944822</id>
	<title>Re:god-fucking-awful summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's a little confused, but the facts are about as correct as one would expect.....  Presumably uTorrent is the first client to take advantage of the new protocol.  </p><p>Sounds like a useful feature -- our upload bandwidth is limited to 128kb/s by our ISP, so any vaguely reasonable torrent upload rate will make web browsing basically impossible.  I wonder if this function will work under Wine.....  IIRC, the 'Auto upload speed' function in uTorrent does not...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's a little confused , but the facts are about as correct as one would expect..... Presumably uTorrent is the first client to take advantage of the new protocol .
Sounds like a useful feature -- our upload bandwidth is limited to 128kb/s by our ISP , so any vaguely reasonable torrent upload rate will make web browsing basically impossible .
I wonder if this function will work under Wine..... IIRC , the 'Auto upload speed ' function in uTorrent does not.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's a little confused, but the facts are about as correct as one would expect.....  Presumably uTorrent is the first client to take advantage of the new protocol.
Sounds like a useful feature -- our upload bandwidth is limited to 128kb/s by our ISP, so any vaguely reasonable torrent upload rate will make web browsing basically impossible.
I wonder if this function will work under Wine.....  IIRC, the 'Auto upload speed' function in uTorrent does not...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947798</id>
	<title>Re:TCP regulating congestion</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1257102000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong. You are thinking of the earliest versions of TCP. There is a lot better congestion management controls in recent TCP implementation stacks (recent = 90s).</p><p>What this does is regulate bit torrent traffic only. So while TCP will cut down all your traffic, this will cut down bit torrent at the first signs of danger, before it gets to TCP throttling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
You are thinking of the earliest versions of TCP .
There is a lot better congestion management controls in recent TCP implementation stacks ( recent = 90s ) .What this does is regulate bit torrent traffic only .
So while TCP will cut down all your traffic , this will cut down bit torrent at the first signs of danger , before it gets to TCP throttling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
You are thinking of the earliest versions of TCP.
There is a lot better congestion management controls in recent TCP implementation stacks (recent = 90s).What this does is regulate bit torrent traffic only.
So while TCP will cut down all your traffic, this will cut down bit torrent at the first signs of danger, before it gets to TCP throttling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950054</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1257176520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Get your hands dirty and start doing some work yourself.</i></p><p>Sure, where can I get the uTorrent source code so I can add this feature?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get your hands dirty and start doing some work yourself.Sure , where can I get the uTorrent source code so I can add this feature ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get your hands dirty and start doing some work yourself.Sure, where can I get the uTorrent source code so I can add this feature?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948004</id>
	<title>Re:Proximity Favored Connections</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wut?</p><p><b>Netmask Flaws</b> - I guess you are talking about cidr?  Not really sure.  You say <i>netmask</i> which implies that you may actually be talking about a <i>broadcast domain</i>; but the rest of your comment speaks to an allocation.  eg: If your ISP has a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/8 then you will not be using 255.0.0.0 for your netmask - and if you are then run away from them as quickly as possible.</p><p><b>Routing Table Solution</b>/<b>Latency and Hop Count Not Enough</b> - This <i>\_IS\_</i> published data.  This information is in BGP and you may query many different databases (route-views, bgplay, et al).  If your ISP does not have a looking glass then you should stir the waters until you find a clueful network engineer that can hook you up.  You may find remote nodes that are within 5 hops by simply looking at the TTL, which is very very simple math.<br>
&nbsp; <br>- And, ohhh, come on now.  Companies like <b>Internap</b>, and others, have products that do this for policy based routing.  These network appliances, such as the <a href="http://www.internap.com/internet-services/network-performance/premise-based-services/flow-control-platform" title="internap.com" rel="nofollow">FCP</a> [internap.com], send out hundreds of thousands of packets per second.  I do not think that you really want to be doing this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Just mirror the <a href="http://www.irr.net/docs/list.html" title="irr.net" rel="nofollow">Routing Registries</a> [irr.net] at a central site, create a sqlite database and distribute daily via some sort of distributed method(heh) for a very broad policy, pad on TTL, pad on latency(adjusting over time), attempt to pad on ptr rr(lower metric), do the hokey pokey... </p><p>Oh, well, hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wut ? Netmask Flaws - I guess you are talking about cidr ?
Not really sure .
You say netmask which implies that you may actually be talking about a broadcast domain ; but the rest of your comment speaks to an allocation .
eg : If your ISP has a /8 then you will not be using 255.0.0.0 for your netmask - and if you are then run away from them as quickly as possible.Routing Table Solution/Latency and Hop Count Not Enough - This \ _IS \ _ published data .
This information is in BGP and you may query many different databases ( route-views , bgplay , et al ) .
If your ISP does not have a looking glass then you should stir the waters until you find a clueful network engineer that can hook you up .
You may find remote nodes that are within 5 hops by simply looking at the TTL , which is very very simple math .
  - And , ohhh , come on now .
Companies like Internap , and others , have products that do this for policy based routing .
These network appliances , such as the FCP [ internap.com ] , send out hundreds of thousands of packets per second .
I do not think that you really want to be doing this .
: ) Just mirror the Routing Registries [ irr.net ] at a central site , create a sqlite database and distribute daily via some sort of distributed method ( heh ) for a very broad policy , pad on TTL , pad on latency ( adjusting over time ) , attempt to pad on ptr rr ( lower metric ) , do the hokey pokey... Oh , well , hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wut?Netmask Flaws - I guess you are talking about cidr?
Not really sure.
You say netmask which implies that you may actually be talking about a broadcast domain; but the rest of your comment speaks to an allocation.
eg: If your ISP has a /8 then you will not be using 255.0.0.0 for your netmask - and if you are then run away from them as quickly as possible.Routing Table Solution/Latency and Hop Count Not Enough - This \_IS\_ published data.
This information is in BGP and you may query many different databases (route-views, bgplay, et al).
If your ISP does not have a looking glass then you should stir the waters until you find a clueful network engineer that can hook you up.
You may find remote nodes that are within 5 hops by simply looking at the TTL, which is very very simple math.
  - And, ohhh, come on now.
Companies like Internap, and others, have products that do this for policy based routing.
These network appliances, such as the FCP [internap.com], send out hundreds of thousands of packets per second.
I do not think that you really want to be doing this.
:)Just mirror the Routing Registries [irr.net] at a central site, create a sqlite database and distribute daily via some sort of distributed method(heh) for a very broad policy, pad on TTL, pad on latency(adjusting over time), attempt to pad on ptr rr(lower metric), do the hokey pokey... Oh, well, hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948636</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1257159420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's a much bigger issue with uTorrent that the developers seem to refuse to solve, or even acknowledge.</p></div></blockquote><p>This issue has been <a href="http://www.superjason.com/archive/2007/08/14/local-peer-discovery-best-new-utorrent-feature.aspx" title="superjason.com">fixed</a> [superjason.com] since version 1.7x. </p><blockquote><div><p>One of the features that I've been anxiously awaiting is the "Local Peer Discovery" feature in uTorrent 1.7x. Basically, it uses a multicast to discover bittorrent clients that are active on your local network. It can determine if they are seeding or leeching a torrent that you're interested in. If it's available on the network, it will try to use it as a peer, and download it at massive speeds.
</p><p>
[...]
</p><p>
I can think of a couple of really great uses for this. The first is a scenario that I run into at work occasionally. I'll try to download a video or file that a co-worker wants to see as well. Instead of competing for bandwidth, we can now both download it at the same time, and share the pieces quickly and automatically.</p><p>
The other great use that I'm really excited about is LAN parties. For those of you that don't know, a common LAN party problem is that everyone wants to get a copy of a game off of one computer. Everyone tries to copy it at one time, effectively rendering the network and the hard drive useless. The current solution is to copy it to some computers, and then have people get it from the copies. It works, but it's manual, and it's not fun. </p><p>...</p></div></blockquote><p>



You can also do it this <a href="http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=49005" title="utorrent.com">other</a> [utorrent.com] way if you want.</p><blockquote><div><p>enable peer.resolve\_country</p></div></blockquote><p> And then, there is always PeerGuardian if you're looking for something else still.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a much bigger issue with uTorrent that the developers seem to refuse to solve , or even acknowledge.This issue has been fixed [ superjason.com ] since version 1.7x .
One of the features that I 've been anxiously awaiting is the " Local Peer Discovery " feature in uTorrent 1.7x .
Basically , it uses a multicast to discover bittorrent clients that are active on your local network .
It can determine if they are seeding or leeching a torrent that you 're interested in .
If it 's available on the network , it will try to use it as a peer , and download it at massive speeds .
[ ... ] I can think of a couple of really great uses for this .
The first is a scenario that I run into at work occasionally .
I 'll try to download a video or file that a co-worker wants to see as well .
Instead of competing for bandwidth , we can now both download it at the same time , and share the pieces quickly and automatically .
The other great use that I 'm really excited about is LAN parties .
For those of you that do n't know , a common LAN party problem is that everyone wants to get a copy of a game off of one computer .
Everyone tries to copy it at one time , effectively rendering the network and the hard drive useless .
The current solution is to copy it to some computers , and then have people get it from the copies .
It works , but it 's manual , and it 's not fun .
.. . You can also do it this other [ utorrent.com ] way if you want.enable peer.resolve \ _country And then , there is always PeerGuardian if you 're looking for something else still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a much bigger issue with uTorrent that the developers seem to refuse to solve, or even acknowledge.This issue has been fixed [superjason.com] since version 1.7x.
One of the features that I've been anxiously awaiting is the "Local Peer Discovery" feature in uTorrent 1.7x.
Basically, it uses a multicast to discover bittorrent clients that are active on your local network.
It can determine if they are seeding or leeching a torrent that you're interested in.
If it's available on the network, it will try to use it as a peer, and download it at massive speeds.
[...]

I can think of a couple of really great uses for this.
The first is a scenario that I run into at work occasionally.
I'll try to download a video or file that a co-worker wants to see as well.
Instead of competing for bandwidth, we can now both download it at the same time, and share the pieces quickly and automatically.
The other great use that I'm really excited about is LAN parties.
For those of you that don't know, a common LAN party problem is that everyone wants to get a copy of a game off of one computer.
Everyone tries to copy it at one time, effectively rendering the network and the hard drive useless.
The current solution is to copy it to some computers, and then have people get it from the copies.
It works, but it's manual, and it's not fun.
...



You can also do it this other [utorrent.com] way if you want.enable peer.resolve\_country And then, there is always PeerGuardian if you're looking for something else still.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945218</id>
	<title>not the bandwidth it's the number of connections</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problems are not with the bandwidth usage but with the shear number of connections being opened, if enough connections are there it can act like a DDoS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems are not with the bandwidth usage but with the shear number of connections being opened , if enough connections are there it can act like a DDoS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems are not with the bandwidth usage but with the shear number of connections being opened, if enough connections are there it can act like a DDoS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946510</id>
	<title>TcpAckFrequency allows more traffic</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1257088860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slightly Offtopic. But here's how to get smoother and faster<br>traffic. So that Upload distrupt Download far less.</p><p>[HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\parameters]<br>"TcpAckFrequency"=dword:9</p><p>dword:d also works. But above that things probably becomes too smooth.</p><p>Compare the 'Before' and 'After' real-world download speeds.<br>Especially how online gaming and interactive things behave.</p><p>Linux dont seem to have this tweak. Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slightly Offtopic .
But here 's how to get smoother and fastertraffic .
So that Upload distrupt Download far less .
[ HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE \ System \ CurrentControlSet \ Services \ Tcpip \ parameters ] " TcpAckFrequency " = dword : 9dword : d also works .
But above that things probably becomes too smooth.Compare the 'Before ' and 'After ' real-world download speeds.Especially how online gaming and interactive things behave.Linux dont seem to have this tweak .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slightly Offtopic.
But here's how to get smoother and fastertraffic.
So that Upload distrupt Download far less.
[HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\parameters]"TcpAckFrequency"=dword:9dword:d also works.
But above that things probably becomes too smooth.Compare the 'Before' and 'After' real-world download speeds.Especially how online gaming and interactive things behave.Linux dont seem to have this tweak.
Right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944892</id>
	<title>Re:reason 1 down. reason 2 in que.</title>
	<author>arbiter1</author>
	<datestamp>1257074460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They will, it will give them another reason NOT to upgrade their networks like they should of 3 years ago</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will , it will give them another reason NOT to upgrade their networks like they should of 3 years ago</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will, it will give them another reason NOT to upgrade their networks like they should of 3 years ago</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946178</id>
	<title>Re:But is it working?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or better yet, will this get AT&amp;T to stop disconnecting me like clockwork every ten minutes even when I limit my down/up speed both to half what they could be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or better yet , will this get AT&amp;T to stop disconnecting me like clockwork every ten minutes even when I limit my down/up speed both to half what they could be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or better yet, will this get AT&amp;T to stop disconnecting me like clockwork every ten minutes even when I limit my down/up speed both to half what they could be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945052</id>
	<title>Re:Linux client?</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1257075600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there any particular features that you particularly want uTorrent for, or are you just wanting it because you are already familiar with it in a Winwos environment?</p><p>There are a great many Linux native clients you could chose from and while many are text based (which might not be your cup of tea), such as the excellent <a href="http://libtorrent.rakshasa.no/" title="rakshasa.no">rtorrent</a> [rakshasa.no] which I tend to use, there are quite a few that are GUI based, of which <a href="http://deluge-torrent.org/" title="deluge-torrent.org">deluge</a> [deluge-torrent.org] seems very popular, or are GUI wrappers for working with text based clients (there are several such wrappers for the basic clients, and for recent rtorrent versions too.</p><p>Some offer web-based interfaces too, which some find handy if they download to an external machine to reduce the impact on bandwidth quotas and traffic shaping that may be imposed by their ISP.</p><p>See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_BitTorrent\_clients" title="wikipedia.org">this page</a> [wikipedia.org] for a list of clients that you might want to look into.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any particular features that you particularly want uTorrent for , or are you just wanting it because you are already familiar with it in a Winwos environment ? There are a great many Linux native clients you could chose from and while many are text based ( which might not be your cup of tea ) , such as the excellent rtorrent [ rakshasa.no ] which I tend to use , there are quite a few that are GUI based , of which deluge [ deluge-torrent.org ] seems very popular , or are GUI wrappers for working with text based clients ( there are several such wrappers for the basic clients , and for recent rtorrent versions too.Some offer web-based interfaces too , which some find handy if they download to an external machine to reduce the impact on bandwidth quotas and traffic shaping that may be imposed by their ISP.See this page [ wikipedia.org ] for a list of clients that you might want to look into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any particular features that you particularly want uTorrent for, or are you just wanting it because you are already familiar with it in a Winwos environment?There are a great many Linux native clients you could chose from and while many are text based (which might not be your cup of tea), such as the excellent rtorrent [rakshasa.no] which I tend to use, there are quite a few that are GUI based, of which deluge [deluge-torrent.org] seems very popular, or are GUI wrappers for working with text based clients (there are several such wrappers for the basic clients, and for recent rtorrent versions too.Some offer web-based interfaces too, which some find handy if they download to an external machine to reduce the impact on bandwidth quotas and traffic shaping that may be imposed by their ISP.See this page [wikipedia.org] for a list of clients that you might want to look into.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.30014492</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257612540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I&rsquo;m twenty-one years old and made my first million already, how cleaver are you?<br>Here are the instructions that worked for me. &ndash;Why am I shearing this with you is clear and simple I already took my shear and ran to safety today.All you need is a computer, a net banking account to access and you&rsquo;re on your way to the riches.<br>1.Sign in to your netback account.2.Make payment to 562060-521894  amount to be made is 6,75 of your own currency.&ndash;If this did not work shoos overseas payment, same amount.3.Make payment to the end but, do not sign out of your bank yet.  Point your pointer to FILE at the top left of your page DUPLICATE TAB now you will see the deference between the two tabs. In the duplicate tab you should find a list of bank numbers at the account details section. Naturally first you return to the first tab and sign out of your own account and return to the second tab to first return the money you sent to it, continue the same system, but make bigger payments from the never ending list of accounts as new ones appear every time you enter a new account. Bee quick the weekend is short banks are open on Monday. PS. The amount mentioned is the key to enter the first bank, the rest according to your continence.best  wishes to all =)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I    m twenty-one years old and made my first million already , how cleaver are you ? Here are the instructions that worked for me .
   Why am I shearing this with you is clear and simple I already took my shear and ran to safety today.All you need is a computer , a net banking account to access and you    re on your way to the riches.1.Sign in to your netback account.2.Make payment to 562060-521894 amount to be made is 6,75 of your own currency.    If this did not work shoos overseas payment , same amount.3.Make payment to the end but , do not sign out of your bank yet .
Point your pointer to FILE at the top left of your page DUPLICATE TAB now you will see the deference between the two tabs .
In the duplicate tab you should find a list of bank numbers at the account details section .
Naturally first you return to the first tab and sign out of your own account and return to the second tab to first return the money you sent to it , continue the same system , but make bigger payments from the never ending list of accounts as new ones appear every time you enter a new account .
Bee quick the weekend is short banks are open on Monday .
PS. The amount mentioned is the key to enter the first bank , the rest according to your continence.best wishes to all = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I’m twenty-one years old and made my first million already, how cleaver are you?Here are the instructions that worked for me.
–Why am I shearing this with you is clear and simple I already took my shear and ran to safety today.All you need is a computer, a net banking account to access and you’re on your way to the riches.1.Sign in to your netback account.2.Make payment to 562060-521894  amount to be made is 6,75 of your own currency.–If this did not work shoos overseas payment, same amount.3.Make payment to the end but, do not sign out of your bank yet.
Point your pointer to FILE at the top left of your page DUPLICATE TAB now you will see the deference between the two tabs.
In the duplicate tab you should find a list of bank numbers at the account details section.
Naturally first you return to the first tab and sign out of your own account and return to the second tab to first return the money you sent to it, continue the same system, but make bigger payments from the never ending list of accounts as new ones appear every time you enter a new account.
Bee quick the weekend is short banks are open on Monday.
PS. The amount mentioned is the key to enter the first bank, the rest according to your continence.best  wishes to all =)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946412</id>
	<title>route around the problem</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1257088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a seedbox.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a seedbox .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a seedbox.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846</id>
	<title>Linux client?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1257074100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my experience, uTorrent only runs on Linux through Wine, and even then, only a few particular obsolete versions of uTorrent are Wine-compatible.  Is there someway for me to run a uTorrent-2 client on Linux right now?  I've wasted a lot of time trying to get bittorrent to play nice on my home network, to little avail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , uTorrent only runs on Linux through Wine , and even then , only a few particular obsolete versions of uTorrent are Wine-compatible .
Is there someway for me to run a uTorrent-2 client on Linux right now ?
I 've wasted a lot of time trying to get bittorrent to play nice on my home network , to little avail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, uTorrent only runs on Linux through Wine, and even then, only a few particular obsolete versions of uTorrent are Wine-compatible.
Is there someway for me to run a uTorrent-2 client on Linux right now?
I've wasted a lot of time trying to get bittorrent to play nice on my home network, to little avail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949792</id>
	<title>Re:reason 1 down. reason 2 in que.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hearby copyright and/or trademark the word "Bitterrorism".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hearby copyright and/or trademark the word " Bitterrorism " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hearby copyright and/or trademark the word "Bitterrorism".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945146</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1257076440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why can't it just be "the article" most of the time?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Someone forgot to RTFM...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't it just be " the article " most of the time ?
      Someone forgot to RTFM.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't it just be "the article" most of the time?
      Someone forgot to RTFM...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950176</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Write an extension for a FOSS client, or quit whining.</p><p>&gt; This may not be a huge issue for Americans</p><p>Right, because it isn't 35 hops when Americans connect to some PC in Kazakhstan. I have no idea why you think this doesn't happen often, because it does.</p><p>You dare to accuse others of arrogance? Re-read your post, and then get over yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Write an extension for a FOSS client , or quit whining. &gt; This may not be a huge issue for AmericansRight , because it is n't 35 hops when Americans connect to some PC in Kazakhstan .
I have no idea why you think this does n't happen often , because it does.You dare to accuse others of arrogance ?
Re-read your post , and then get over yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Write an extension for a FOSS client, or quit whining.&gt; This may not be a huge issue for AmericansRight, because it isn't 35 hops when Americans connect to some PC in Kazakhstan.
I have no idea why you think this doesn't happen often, because it does.You dare to accuse others of arrogance?
Re-read your post, and then get over yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948340</id>
	<title>uTP's value is dubious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257153840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the RFC-like document (http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep\_0029.html) you'll see they're trying to implement their own TCP-like transport protocol over UDP.  Why they will do a better job than TCP, or  speed-limiting functionality in existing BT clients is unclear; they have no data nor have they published any technical papers for anyone to review.</p><p>It's also not true that this is a new implementation of the BitTorrent protocol. TCP Vegas was a new implementation. This is a new protocol because it breaks compatibility.</p><p>What's more, as broadband speeds and availability continue to grow, network management will only become more important.  Consumers are increasing their bandwidth utilization, and ISP's will continue to react.  BitTorrent is only the first symptom.  Good network providers will continue to invest in tools for analyzing their network, whether or not they desire to shape it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the RFC-like document ( http : //www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep \ _0029.html ) you 'll see they 're trying to implement their own TCP-like transport protocol over UDP .
Why they will do a better job than TCP , or speed-limiting functionality in existing BT clients is unclear ; they have no data nor have they published any technical papers for anyone to review.It 's also not true that this is a new implementation of the BitTorrent protocol .
TCP Vegas was a new implementation .
This is a new protocol because it breaks compatibility.What 's more , as broadband speeds and availability continue to grow , network management will only become more important .
Consumers are increasing their bandwidth utilization , and ISP 's will continue to react .
BitTorrent is only the first symptom .
Good network providers will continue to invest in tools for analyzing their network , whether or not they desire to shape it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the RFC-like document (http://www.bittorrent.org/beps/bep\_0029.html) you'll see they're trying to implement their own TCP-like transport protocol over UDP.
Why they will do a better job than TCP, or  speed-limiting functionality in existing BT clients is unclear; they have no data nor have they published any technical papers for anyone to review.It's also not true that this is a new implementation of the BitTorrent protocol.
TCP Vegas was a new implementation.
This is a new protocol because it breaks compatibility.What's more, as broadband speeds and availability continue to grow, network management will only become more important.
Consumers are increasing their bandwidth utilization, and ISP's will continue to react.
BitTorrent is only the first symptom.
Good network providers will continue to invest in tools for analyzing their network, whether or not they desire to shape it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947800</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone else see 60 Minutes tonight?</title>
	<author>awall222</author>
	<datestamp>1257102060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thought the demonstration of BT was interesting (at ~5:00):

"...and you're downloading the movie right now?"
"that's right"
"the bits moving away...are pieces we have and are sharing with someone else."

So CBS was participating in the very activity their program was out to show is illegal...interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought the demonstration of BT was interesting ( at ~ 5 : 00 ) : " ...and you 're downloading the movie right now ?
" " that 's right " " the bits moving away...are pieces we have and are sharing with someone else .
" So CBS was participating in the very activity their program was out to show is illegal...interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought the demonstration of BT was interesting (at ~5:00):

"...and you're downloading the movie right now?
"
"that's right"
"the bits moving away...are pieces we have and are sharing with someone else.
"

So CBS was participating in the very activity their program was out to show is illegal...interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947862</id>
	<title>Re:reason 1 down. reason 2 in que.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it doesn't cost them money I'm pretty sure they really won't give a damn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it does n't cost them money I 'm pretty sure they really wo n't give a damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it doesn't cost them money I'm pretty sure they really won't give a damn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944706</id>
	<title>god-fucking-awful summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ugh. TFA is all about Torrent (or uTorrent if Slashdot can't print a mu).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh .
TFA is all about Torrent ( or uTorrent if Slashdot ca n't print a mu ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh.
TFA is all about Torrent (or uTorrent if Slashdot can't print a mu).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</id>
	<title>Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a much bigger issue with uTorrent that the developers seem to refuse to solve, or even acknowledge.</p><p>In essence, uTorrent connects to clients randomly, and makes no attempt to prioritize "nearby" clients. This may not be a huge issue for Americans, but <i>everywhere else</i>, you know, like the rest of the fucking <i>planet</i>, this is hugely inefficient, for both the end users, and most importantly, ISPs. This is why they're throttling bittorrent: because it tends to make connections to peers outside the ISP's internal network, which costs ISPs <i>money</i>. In Australia for example, international bandwidth is extremely limited and very expensive, but local bandwidth, even between ISPs, is essentially unlimited, high-speed, and often free or 'unmetered'.</p><p>What do you think is going to be faster: connecting to your neighbour through at the <i>same fucking router</i>, or some kid's home PC in Kazakhstan over 35 hops away? Even connections from here to America have to go through thousands of miles of fiber optic cable over an <i>ocean</i>.</p><p>Note that some other clients like Azureus have already implemented weighted peer choices, where peers with similar IP addresses are preferred over other peers. It's not hard. Heck, it's a <i>trivial</i> change to make, as no changes need to be made to the protocol itself. A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hour: simply take the user's own IP address, and then sort the IPs of potential peers by the number of prefix bits in common, then do a random selection from that list, weighted towards the best-matching end. How hard is that?</p><p>The arrogance of the uTorrent devs is simply staggering. They're a group of developers who could, with an hours effort, reduce international bandwidth usage by double-digit percentages and improve torrent download speeds by an order of magnitude, but they just... don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a much bigger issue with uTorrent that the developers seem to refuse to solve , or even acknowledge.In essence , uTorrent connects to clients randomly , and makes no attempt to prioritize " nearby " clients .
This may not be a huge issue for Americans , but everywhere else , you know , like the rest of the fucking planet , this is hugely inefficient , for both the end users , and most importantly , ISPs .
This is why they 're throttling bittorrent : because it tends to make connections to peers outside the ISP 's internal network , which costs ISPs money .
In Australia for example , international bandwidth is extremely limited and very expensive , but local bandwidth , even between ISPs , is essentially unlimited , high-speed , and often free or 'unmetered'.What do you think is going to be faster : connecting to your neighbour through at the same fucking router , or some kid 's home PC in Kazakhstan over 35 hops away ?
Even connections from here to America have to go through thousands of miles of fiber optic cable over an ocean.Note that some other clients like Azureus have already implemented weighted peer choices , where peers with similar IP addresses are preferred over other peers .
It 's not hard .
Heck , it 's a trivial change to make , as no changes need to be made to the protocol itself .
A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hour : simply take the user 's own IP address , and then sort the IPs of potential peers by the number of prefix bits in common , then do a random selection from that list , weighted towards the best-matching end .
How hard is that ? The arrogance of the uTorrent devs is simply staggering .
They 're a group of developers who could , with an hours effort , reduce international bandwidth usage by double-digit percentages and improve torrent download speeds by an order of magnitude , but they just... do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a much bigger issue with uTorrent that the developers seem to refuse to solve, or even acknowledge.In essence, uTorrent connects to clients randomly, and makes no attempt to prioritize "nearby" clients.
This may not be a huge issue for Americans, but everywhere else, you know, like the rest of the fucking planet, this is hugely inefficient, for both the end users, and most importantly, ISPs.
This is why they're throttling bittorrent: because it tends to make connections to peers outside the ISP's internal network, which costs ISPs money.
In Australia for example, international bandwidth is extremely limited and very expensive, but local bandwidth, even between ISPs, is essentially unlimited, high-speed, and often free or 'unmetered'.What do you think is going to be faster: connecting to your neighbour through at the same fucking router, or some kid's home PC in Kazakhstan over 35 hops away?
Even connections from here to America have to go through thousands of miles of fiber optic cable over an ocean.Note that some other clients like Azureus have already implemented weighted peer choices, where peers with similar IP addresses are preferred over other peers.
It's not hard.
Heck, it's a trivial change to make, as no changes need to be made to the protocol itself.
A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hour: simply take the user's own IP address, and then sort the IPs of potential peers by the number of prefix bits in common, then do a random selection from that list, weighted towards the best-matching end.
How hard is that?The arrogance of the uTorrent devs is simply staggering.
They're a group of developers who could, with an hours effort, reduce international bandwidth usage by double-digit percentages and improve torrent download speeds by an order of magnitude, but they just... don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948600</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1257158940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hour</p></div><p>I don't agree or disagree with the rest of your statement, but these kinds of statements really bother me.</p><p>A reasonably competent plummer could fix my sink in an hour. I'm not counting the time he has to drive to me, the time it takes to fetch repair parts, the time it takes to talk with me, the time it takes to write me a bill, and the time to get me to pay said bill because I store bills in a drawer that gets opened every month or three.</p><p>Do I need to explain to you that your pet bug does not take an hour to implement? But instead will probably take a week?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hourI do n't agree or disagree with the rest of your statement , but these kinds of statements really bother me.A reasonably competent plummer could fix my sink in an hour .
I 'm not counting the time he has to drive to me , the time it takes to fetch repair parts , the time it takes to talk with me , the time it takes to write me a bill , and the time to get me to pay said bill because I store bills in a drawer that gets opened every month or three.Do I need to explain to you that your pet bug does not take an hour to implement ?
But instead will probably take a week ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reasonably competent programmer could implement this in an hourI don't agree or disagree with the rest of your statement, but these kinds of statements really bother me.A reasonably competent plummer could fix my sink in an hour.
I'm not counting the time he has to drive to me, the time it takes to fetch repair parts, the time it takes to talk with me, the time it takes to write me a bill, and the time to get me to pay said bill because I store bills in a drawer that gets opened every month or three.Do I need to explain to you that your pet bug does not take an hour to implement?
But instead will probably take a week?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949032</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1257166860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If ISPs want to keep their traffic local they should own a large server with massive storage for their users. Maybe have a file retention of 10 days to keep the size down. Maybe sell extra retention time to users who want it. Imagine the download speeds when connected to your ISP, who might only be 5 hops away! Imagine not having to upload anything either!<br><br>If only ISPs bought into this model, we'd all be sorted.<br><br>I'm surprised no universities have experimented with something like this already.<br><br>(I know the first rule, I know it used to happen like this, I know ISPs are stupid as mud)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If ISPs want to keep their traffic local they should own a large server with massive storage for their users .
Maybe have a file retention of 10 days to keep the size down .
Maybe sell extra retention time to users who want it .
Imagine the download speeds when connected to your ISP , who might only be 5 hops away !
Imagine not having to upload anything either ! If only ISPs bought into this model , we 'd all be sorted.I 'm surprised no universities have experimented with something like this already .
( I know the first rule , I know it used to happen like this , I know ISPs are stupid as mud )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If ISPs want to keep their traffic local they should own a large server with massive storage for their users.
Maybe have a file retention of 10 days to keep the size down.
Maybe sell extra retention time to users who want it.
Imagine the download speeds when connected to your ISP, who might only be 5 hops away!
Imagine not having to upload anything either!If only ISPs bought into this model, we'd all be sorted.I'm surprised no universities have experimented with something like this already.
(I know the first rule, I know it used to happen like this, I know ISPs are stupid as mud)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949912</id>
	<title>Re:Proximity Favored Connections</title>
	<author>emarock</author>
	<datestamp>1257175560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am still surprised that a better protocol for proximity favored peer connections wasn't developed for BitTorrent and other P2P systems to maximize performance by connecting to peers on the same or close-by networks.</p></div><p>It is actually being developed, in the <a href="http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/alto-charter.html" title="ietf.org" rel="nofollow">IETF ALTO working group</a> [ietf.org]. And BitTorrent Inc. is actually <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-alto-protocol#appendix-A" title="ietf.org" rel="nofollow">an active contributor of the current draft</a> [ietf.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am still surprised that a better protocol for proximity favored peer connections was n't developed for BitTorrent and other P2P systems to maximize performance by connecting to peers on the same or close-by networks.It is actually being developed , in the IETF ALTO working group [ ietf.org ] .
And BitTorrent Inc. is actually an active contributor of the current draft [ ietf.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am still surprised that a better protocol for proximity favored peer connections wasn't developed for BitTorrent and other P2P systems to maximize performance by connecting to peers on the same or close-by networks.It is actually being developed, in the IETF ALTO working group [ietf.org].
And BitTorrent Inc. is actually an active contributor of the current draft [ietf.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130</id>
	<title>Clients already do this</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1257076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFAIK most bittorent clients throttle connections already, some automatically like vuze, others like transmission only manually.</p><p>Or am i missing the point ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK most bittorent clients throttle connections already , some automatically like vuze , others like transmission only manually.Or am i missing the point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK most bittorent clients throttle connections already, some automatically like vuze, others like transmission only manually.Or am i missing the point ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945538</id>
	<title>Intra-ISP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257079740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are any clients other than Azureus using tech which finds other people nearby, which tends to reduce traffic outside an ISP?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are any clients other than Azureus using tech which finds other people nearby , which tends to reduce traffic outside an ISP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are any clients other than Azureus using tech which finds other people nearby, which tends to reduce traffic outside an ISP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949962</id>
	<title>Already solved.  See: BitTyrant.</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1257175920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTyrant" title="wikipedia.org">BitTyrant</a> [wikipedia.org] does something like this.  Essentially it prioritizes connections to peers that have the best response rates.</p><p><i>In essence, uTorrent connects to clients randomly, and makes no attempt to prioritize "nearby" clients.</i></p><p>The problem isn't simply proximity.  If, for example, Kazakhstan upgraded their capacity and you <i>really could</i> get better transfer speeds than, say, your neighbor next door, well then they <i>should</i> be prioritized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BitTyrant [ wikipedia.org ] does something like this .
Essentially it prioritizes connections to peers that have the best response rates.In essence , uTorrent connects to clients randomly , and makes no attempt to prioritize " nearby " clients.The problem is n't simply proximity .
If , for example , Kazakhstan upgraded their capacity and you really could get better transfer speeds than , say , your neighbor next door , well then they should be prioritized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BitTyrant [wikipedia.org] does something like this.
Essentially it prioritizes connections to peers that have the best response rates.In essence, uTorrent connects to clients randomly, and makes no attempt to prioritize "nearby" clients.The problem isn't simply proximity.
If, for example, Kazakhstan upgraded their capacity and you really could get better transfer speeds than, say, your neighbor next door, well then they should be prioritized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950098</id>
	<title>Re:Clients already do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on noticing that this is *not* TCP, but a UDP issue. However, you still fail: reset is inapplicable to UDP. You can drop a UDP packet so it never gets there, but reset is meaningless as UDP is sessionless.</p><p>The problem with dropping UDP packets is that they still consumed the bandwidth getting to the point where they were dropped. Still, better than nothing for those with a need to apply traffic shaping rules. I don't live in my parents basement and am responsible where I work for traffic flow. You better believe we apply traffic shaping (sadly, only through dropped packets) and this has, in practice, greatly helped even out the bandwidth usage. P2P is, IMO, evil. The *only* people it is good for are the distributors -- it is far less efficient than any other file sharing protocol (that is, it consumes significantly more bandwidth to transfer the same number of bytes in a file), all the connections impose a significant burden on routing (many home/personal routers -- such as sold to consumers for use on cable -- roll over and then the user blames their ISP), and is predominately used to support copyright infringing activities.</p><p>While I don't care so much for the last (I'd just as soon copyright and related imaginary property laws were abolished), it removes the moral high ground the proponents and defenders of P2P often try to take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on noticing that this is * not * TCP , but a UDP issue .
However , you still fail : reset is inapplicable to UDP .
You can drop a UDP packet so it never gets there , but reset is meaningless as UDP is sessionless.The problem with dropping UDP packets is that they still consumed the bandwidth getting to the point where they were dropped .
Still , better than nothing for those with a need to apply traffic shaping rules .
I do n't live in my parents basement and am responsible where I work for traffic flow .
You better believe we apply traffic shaping ( sadly , only through dropped packets ) and this has , in practice , greatly helped even out the bandwidth usage .
P2P is , IMO , evil .
The * only * people it is good for are the distributors -- it is far less efficient than any other file sharing protocol ( that is , it consumes significantly more bandwidth to transfer the same number of bytes in a file ) , all the connections impose a significant burden on routing ( many home/personal routers -- such as sold to consumers for use on cable -- roll over and then the user blames their ISP ) , and is predominately used to support copyright infringing activities.While I do n't care so much for the last ( I 'd just as soon copyright and related imaginary property laws were abolished ) , it removes the moral high ground the proponents and defenders of P2P often try to take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on noticing that this is *not* TCP, but a UDP issue.
However, you still fail: reset is inapplicable to UDP.
You can drop a UDP packet so it never gets there, but reset is meaningless as UDP is sessionless.The problem with dropping UDP packets is that they still consumed the bandwidth getting to the point where they were dropped.
Still, better than nothing for those with a need to apply traffic shaping rules.
I don't live in my parents basement and am responsible where I work for traffic flow.
You better believe we apply traffic shaping (sadly, only through dropped packets) and this has, in practice, greatly helped even out the bandwidth usage.
P2P is, IMO, evil.
The *only* people it is good for are the distributors -- it is far less efficient than any other file sharing protocol (that is, it consumes significantly more bandwidth to transfer the same number of bytes in a file), all the connections impose a significant burden on routing (many home/personal routers -- such as sold to consumers for use on cable -- roll over and then the user blames their ISP), and is predominately used to support copyright infringing activities.While I don't care so much for the last (I'd just as soon copyright and related imaginary property laws were abolished), it removes the moral high ground the proponents and defenders of P2P often try to take.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946226</id>
	<title>Re:LAN performance also?</title>
	<author>wolrahnaes</author>
	<datestamp>1257086280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless your LAN is slower than your WAN (remember that wireless never achieves its advertised rate) there should be no way BitTorrent is slowing down your LAN.</p><p>Basically unless you have FiOS or similar and are using 802.11 to access it, something is wrong with your LAN if torrents break it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless your LAN is slower than your WAN ( remember that wireless never achieves its advertised rate ) there should be no way BitTorrent is slowing down your LAN.Basically unless you have FiOS or similar and are using 802.11 to access it , something is wrong with your LAN if torrents break it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless your LAN is slower than your WAN (remember that wireless never achieves its advertised rate) there should be no way BitTorrent is slowing down your LAN.Basically unless you have FiOS or similar and are using 802.11 to access it, something is wrong with your LAN if torrents break it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948316</id>
	<title>Proposed solution</title>
	<author>Erik Corry</author>
	<datestamp>1257153480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that this is a huge problem with BitTorrent.  The calls for the preservation of net neutrality should go hand in hand with efforts to fix the one protocol that is causing most pain for ISPs.  BitTorrent is 'efficient' from the point of view of the person hosting (seeding) the content.  That's great, especially if the hoster isn't making any money from hosting (perhaps because they don't own the rights!).  But from the point of view of the ISPs bittorrent is horrendously inefficient, sending the same file fragments across expensive undersea connections again and again.</p><p>I think any solution is going to involve the ISPs proving some way for the Bittorrent client to judge the proximity (in terms of $$) of a peer.  Since the ISP controls your DNS that could be as simple as downloading an XML file from a server with a fixed name.  Eg http://network-config/proximity-ipv4.xml</p><p>It could be implemented in clients now.  If it was enabled  by default I think ISPs would soon start providing the info.  There's money involved after all.  It would probably improve download speeds too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that this is a huge problem with BitTorrent .
The calls for the preservation of net neutrality should go hand in hand with efforts to fix the one protocol that is causing most pain for ISPs .
BitTorrent is 'efficient ' from the point of view of the person hosting ( seeding ) the content .
That 's great , especially if the hoster is n't making any money from hosting ( perhaps because they do n't own the rights ! ) .
But from the point of view of the ISPs bittorrent is horrendously inefficient , sending the same file fragments across expensive undersea connections again and again.I think any solution is going to involve the ISPs proving some way for the Bittorrent client to judge the proximity ( in terms of $ $ ) of a peer .
Since the ISP controls your DNS that could be as simple as downloading an XML file from a server with a fixed name .
Eg http : //network-config/proximity-ipv4.xmlIt could be implemented in clients now .
If it was enabled by default I think ISPs would soon start providing the info .
There 's money involved after all .
It would probably improve download speeds too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that this is a huge problem with BitTorrent.
The calls for the preservation of net neutrality should go hand in hand with efforts to fix the one protocol that is causing most pain for ISPs.
BitTorrent is 'efficient' from the point of view of the person hosting (seeding) the content.
That's great, especially if the hoster isn't making any money from hosting (perhaps because they don't own the rights!).
But from the point of view of the ISPs bittorrent is horrendously inefficient, sending the same file fragments across expensive undersea connections again and again.I think any solution is going to involve the ISPs proving some way for the Bittorrent client to judge the proximity (in terms of $$) of a peer.
Since the ISP controls your DNS that could be as simple as downloading an XML file from a server with a fixed name.
Eg http://network-config/proximity-ipv4.xmlIt could be implemented in clients now.
If it was enabled  by default I think ISPs would soon start providing the info.
There's money involved after all.
It would probably improve download speeds too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948398</id>
	<title>Re:TCP regulating congestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257154800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is it with foreigners, and their various and sundry prose.  For example:  There is a clear trend for some of them to write a message which is primarily a statement, and to always end it with a question mark?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with foreigners , and their various and sundry prose .
For example : There is a clear trend for some of them to write a message which is primarily a statement , and to always end it with a question mark ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with foreigners, and their various and sundry prose.
For example:  There is a clear trend for some of them to write a message which is primarily a statement, and to always end it with a question mark?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947202</id>
	<title>Anyone else see 60 Minutes tonight?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a crock. Objectively biased, and subjectively a crock of shit.</p><p><a href="http://www.veoh.com/collection/CBS-60-Minutes/watch/v19306351MbfMTNw4" title="veoh.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.veoh.com/collection/CBS-60-Minutes/watch/v19306351MbfMTNw4</a> [veoh.com]</p><p>Watch starting at 4:25:</p><p>"Gee whiz technology called Bit - torrent"</p><p>This shows who is influencing the discussion on piracy, and how the movie industry is trying to demonize it by that woman Leslie Stall acting shocked and appalled at everything "He brought his CHILDREN to the theatre while committing this crime?" [taping a movie at the theatre]. Comparing pirates to drug dealers, child sex freaks, etc. The one credit the report has is that it mentioned that Bittorrent clients are legal. Also, some director guy admitted that the only thing that can be done in the fight against piracy is to slow it down; it's not a winnable war for the movie industry.</p><p>Just thought it was a really shitty show that deserved mentioning. Andy Rooney was spot on in his article, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a crock .
Objectively biased , and subjectively a crock of shit.http : //www.veoh.com/collection/CBS-60-Minutes/watch/v19306351MbfMTNw4 [ veoh.com ] Watch starting at 4 : 25 : " Gee whiz technology called Bit - torrent " This shows who is influencing the discussion on piracy , and how the movie industry is trying to demonize it by that woman Leslie Stall acting shocked and appalled at everything " He brought his CHILDREN to the theatre while committing this crime ?
" [ taping a movie at the theatre ] .
Comparing pirates to drug dealers , child sex freaks , etc .
The one credit the report has is that it mentioned that Bittorrent clients are legal .
Also , some director guy admitted that the only thing that can be done in the fight against piracy is to slow it down ; it 's not a winnable war for the movie industry.Just thought it was a really shitty show that deserved mentioning .
Andy Rooney was spot on in his article , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a crock.
Objectively biased, and subjectively a crock of shit.http://www.veoh.com/collection/CBS-60-Minutes/watch/v19306351MbfMTNw4 [veoh.com]Watch starting at 4:25:"Gee whiz technology called Bit - torrent"This shows who is influencing the discussion on piracy, and how the movie industry is trying to demonize it by that woman Leslie Stall acting shocked and appalled at everything "He brought his CHILDREN to the theatre while committing this crime?
" [taping a movie at the theatre].
Comparing pirates to drug dealers, child sex freaks, etc.
The one credit the report has is that it mentioned that Bittorrent clients are legal.
Also, some director guy admitted that the only thing that can be done in the fight against piracy is to slow it down; it's not a winnable war for the movie industry.Just thought it was a really shitty show that deserved mentioning.
Andy Rooney was spot on in his article, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947762</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>crossmr</author>
	<datestamp>1257101520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you say it doesn't, but I say it does<br>on private tackers I'm routinely shunned, even as the initial seed as soon as other seeds become available that are very likely geographically closer.</p><p>Almost every torrent I've added to private trackers shows a consistent max up speed until someone else hits seed and then my up basically stops. Fine when I'm the initial seed, terrible if I'm just jumping on a random torrent since 95\% of the people out there won't take anything from me. I've seen plenty of people on the same trackers making the same complaint. utorrent is making decisions about that somehow already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you say it does n't , but I say it doeson private tackers I 'm routinely shunned , even as the initial seed as soon as other seeds become available that are very likely geographically closer.Almost every torrent I 've added to private trackers shows a consistent max up speed until someone else hits seed and then my up basically stops .
Fine when I 'm the initial seed , terrible if I 'm just jumping on a random torrent since 95 \ % of the people out there wo n't take anything from me .
I 've seen plenty of people on the same trackers making the same complaint .
utorrent is making decisions about that somehow already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you say it doesn't, but I say it doeson private tackers I'm routinely shunned, even as the initial seed as soon as other seeds become available that are very likely geographically closer.Almost every torrent I've added to private trackers shows a consistent max up speed until someone else hits seed and then my up basically stops.
Fine when I'm the initial seed, terrible if I'm just jumping on a random torrent since 95\% of the people out there won't take anything from me.
I've seen plenty of people on the same trackers making the same complaint.
utorrent is making decisions about that somehow already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764</id>
	<title>TCP regulating congestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>shouldn't TCP do that by itself?</p><p>Anyway, I consider this is a good thing, it'll probably increase goodput (less outdated, duplicate packets, preferring "closer" networks).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>should n't TCP do that by itself ? Anyway , I consider this is a good thing , it 'll probably increase goodput ( less outdated , duplicate packets , preferring " closer " networks ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shouldn't TCP do that by itself?Anyway, I consider this is a good thing, it'll probably increase goodput (less outdated, duplicate packets, preferring "closer" networks).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944786</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do articles always have to be referred to as "TFA," as in "The Fucking Article?"  Why can't it just be "the article" most of the time?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do articles always have to be referred to as " TFA , " as in " The Fucking Article ?
" Why ca n't it just be " the article " most of the time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do articles always have to be referred to as "TFA," as in "The Fucking Article?
"  Why can't it just be "the article" most of the time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944718</id>
	<title>Yeah But...</title>
	<author>vintagepc</author>
	<datestamp>1257073080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much do you want to bet ISPs will suddenly have numerous other non-bandwith reasons to justify traffic shaping practices?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much do you want to bet ISPs will suddenly have numerous other non-bandwith reasons to justify traffic shaping practices ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much do you want to bet ISPs will suddenly have numerous other non-bandwith reasons to justify traffic shaping practices?
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944866</id>
	<title>Re:reason 1 down. reason 2 in que.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They won't. They'll  just say the way it is implemented in v2.0 is still wrong and not many clients really use it. See? They don't even need to come up with anything new!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't .
They 'll just say the way it is implemented in v2.0 is still wrong and not many clients really use it .
See ? They do n't even need to come up with anything new !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won't.
They'll  just say the way it is implemented in v2.0 is still wrong and not many clients really use it.
See? They don't even need to come up with anything new!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945152</id>
	<title>Next: ISPs develop automatic throttling...</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257076440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your router will throttle you, take your wallet and run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your router will throttle you , take your wallet and run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your router will throttle you, take your wallet and run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29954844</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257155640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Need a +1 Troll option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Need a + 1 Troll option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Need a +1 Troll option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944814</id>
	<title>Re:reason 1 down. reason 2 in que.</title>
	<author>nate11000</author>
	<datestamp>1257073800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This probably isn't so much for avoiding the eye of your ISP as it is for personal network management.  I know I don't want bittorrent interfering with my internet usage, particularly when my wife is at the computer.  Not having a router that can prioritize my internet traffic, this is a welcome feature to avoid either slow-downs or having someone else turn off my downloads so they can use the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This probably is n't so much for avoiding the eye of your ISP as it is for personal network management .
I know I do n't want bittorrent interfering with my internet usage , particularly when my wife is at the computer .
Not having a router that can prioritize my internet traffic , this is a welcome feature to avoid either slow-downs or having someone else turn off my downloads so they can use the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This probably isn't so much for avoiding the eye of your ISP as it is for personal network management.
I know I don't want bittorrent interfering with my internet usage, particularly when my wife is at the computer.
Not having a router that can prioritize my internet traffic, this is a welcome feature to avoid either slow-downs or having someone else turn off my downloads so they can use the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949888</id>
	<title>Re:Linux client?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1257175440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have linux, you can set up QoS yourself.  Or you can just set rTorrent to use 5 or 10 K/s less than your max upstream, and it should work fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have linux , you can set up QoS yourself .
Or you can just set rTorrent to use 5 or 10 K/s less than your max upstream , and it should work fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have linux, you can set up QoS yourself.
Or you can just set rTorrent to use 5 or 10 K/s less than your max upstream, and it should work fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945690</id>
	<title>Re:reason 1 down. reason 2 in que.</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1257081360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure ISPs such as Comcast will find another reason to suggest they need in interfere with network management. just give them a little bit of time to put their heads together with the guys at RIAA.</p></div><p>Really?  I for one am certain that they will continue with the exact same rhetoric.  It's a good scapegoat for them, and they don't have a problem with overlooking facts to avoid spending money.</p><p>Comcast: "No, we don't need to spend money to relieve congestion, the slowdown is all caused by bittorrent.  We need to regulate it."<br>Us: "No it isn't, bittorrent isn't causing the problem, it's now self-regulating.  The problem is on your end."<br>Comcast: "The slowdown is all caused by illegal bittorrent transfers!  We need to regulate it!<br>Us: "No, see, here's a breakdown of traffic..."<br>Comcast" "THE SLOWDOWN IS ALL CAUSED BY ILLEGAL BITTORRENT TERRORISM!  WE NEED TO REGULATE IT!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure ISPs such as Comcast will find another reason to suggest they need in interfere with network management .
just give them a little bit of time to put their heads together with the guys at RIAA.Really ?
I for one am certain that they will continue with the exact same rhetoric .
It 's a good scapegoat for them , and they do n't have a problem with overlooking facts to avoid spending money.Comcast : " No , we do n't need to spend money to relieve congestion , the slowdown is all caused by bittorrent .
We need to regulate it .
" Us : " No it is n't , bittorrent is n't causing the problem , it 's now self-regulating .
The problem is on your end .
" Comcast : " The slowdown is all caused by illegal bittorrent transfers !
We need to regulate it ! Us : " No , see , here 's a breakdown of traffic... " Comcast " " THE SLOWDOWN IS ALL CAUSED BY ILLEGAL BITTORRENT TERRORISM !
WE NEED TO REGULATE IT !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure ISPs such as Comcast will find another reason to suggest they need in interfere with network management.
just give them a little bit of time to put their heads together with the guys at RIAA.Really?
I for one am certain that they will continue with the exact same rhetoric.
It's a good scapegoat for them, and they don't have a problem with overlooking facts to avoid spending money.Comcast: "No, we don't need to spend money to relieve congestion, the slowdown is all caused by bittorrent.
We need to regulate it.
"Us: "No it isn't, bittorrent isn't causing the problem, it's now self-regulating.
The problem is on your end.
"Comcast: "The slowdown is all caused by illegal bittorrent transfers!
We need to regulate it!Us: "No, see, here's a breakdown of traffic..."Comcast" "THE SLOWDOWN IS ALL CAUSED BY ILLEGAL BITTORRENT TERRORISM!
WE NEED TO REGULATE IT!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945142</id>
	<title>We don't need more acronyms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that we already have huge amounts of acronyms and they are confusing enough by themselves. We shouldn't add more when we don't need those.</p><p>RTFM is an old, well known acronym. RTFA and RTFS can directly be led from it and TFA from those. Changing the pattern to just TA wouldn't win anything but it would add a new acronym when there is no need for such. (A quick google search showed that it means, among other things, Tera Ampere, Technical Assistance, Terminal Adapter... TFA has a lot less other meanings.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that we already have huge amounts of acronyms and they are confusing enough by themselves .
We should n't add more when we do n't need those.RTFM is an old , well known acronym .
RTFA and RTFS can directly be led from it and TFA from those .
Changing the pattern to just TA would n't win anything but it would add a new acronym when there is no need for such .
( A quick google search showed that it means , among other things , Tera Ampere , Technical Assistance , Terminal Adapter... TFA has a lot less other meanings .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that we already have huge amounts of acronyms and they are confusing enough by themselves.
We shouldn't add more when we don't need those.RTFM is an old, well known acronym.
RTFA and RTFS can directly be led from it and TFA from those.
Changing the pattern to just TA wouldn't win anything but it would add a new acronym when there is no need for such.
(A quick google search showed that it means, among other things, Tera Ampere, Technical Assistance, Terminal Adapter... TFA has a lot less other meanings.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945096</id>
	<title>Re:reason 1 down. reason 2 in que.</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1257075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fear that you're right.  With our luck, ACTA will probably kill net neutrality stone dead with provisions allowing for perhaps even mandating throttling by ISPs to protect various corporate interests regarding copyright law.  The FCC's position on net neutrality supports this view strongly.  Allowing for exceptions where activity is deemed illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fear that you 're right .
With our luck , ACTA will probably kill net neutrality stone dead with provisions allowing for perhaps even mandating throttling by ISPs to protect various corporate interests regarding copyright law .
The FCC 's position on net neutrality supports this view strongly .
Allowing for exceptions where activity is deemed illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fear that you're right.
With our luck, ACTA will probably kill net neutrality stone dead with provisions allowing for perhaps even mandating throttling by ISPs to protect various corporate interests regarding copyright law.
The FCC's position on net neutrality supports this view strongly.
Allowing for exceptions where activity is deemed illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945598</id>
	<title>Re:Clients already do this</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1257080340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but what happens if your network speed is dynamic?</p><p>For example, if you've got a 10megabit/s upload coming to your home but the line is saturated so at times it might bounce down to 6megabit/s for a minute or even in heavy load could go below 5megabit/s. How do you limit your upload speed to not kill your net when your upload speed is variable? Try limiting it to 5megabit/s and you'll be find but only using half of your max connection when it is available. Try limiting it to 8megabit/s and you're fine 90\% of the time but still not utilizing everything properly. Also, QoS doesn't work properly because the speed is being limited via the cable modem so that isn't an option either. And finally, the auto upload max features on most bt clients have a delay so if your upload spikes down to 5megabit/s from 10 for 5 seconds your ping will jump up regardless.</p><p>uTP only utilizes what is available and does an extremely good job so if your 10megabit/s connection spikes down to 2megabit/s for half a second your ping will not even jump up for that. Currently using uTP my upload rate is bouncing all over the place in a crazy fashion yet my net is not being hit at all. It is kinda like those stop lights on freeway on ramps to keep to many vehicles from entering the freeway at once. The effect works really well in my particular case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but what happens if your network speed is dynamic ? For example , if you 've got a 10megabit/s upload coming to your home but the line is saturated so at times it might bounce down to 6megabit/s for a minute or even in heavy load could go below 5megabit/s .
How do you limit your upload speed to not kill your net when your upload speed is variable ?
Try limiting it to 5megabit/s and you 'll be find but only using half of your max connection when it is available .
Try limiting it to 8megabit/s and you 're fine 90 \ % of the time but still not utilizing everything properly .
Also , QoS does n't work properly because the speed is being limited via the cable modem so that is n't an option either .
And finally , the auto upload max features on most bt clients have a delay so if your upload spikes down to 5megabit/s from 10 for 5 seconds your ping will jump up regardless.uTP only utilizes what is available and does an extremely good job so if your 10megabit/s connection spikes down to 2megabit/s for half a second your ping will not even jump up for that .
Currently using uTP my upload rate is bouncing all over the place in a crazy fashion yet my net is not being hit at all .
It is kinda like those stop lights on freeway on ramps to keep to many vehicles from entering the freeway at once .
The effect works really well in my particular case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but what happens if your network speed is dynamic?For example, if you've got a 10megabit/s upload coming to your home but the line is saturated so at times it might bounce down to 6megabit/s for a minute or even in heavy load could go below 5megabit/s.
How do you limit your upload speed to not kill your net when your upload speed is variable?
Try limiting it to 5megabit/s and you'll be find but only using half of your max connection when it is available.
Try limiting it to 8megabit/s and you're fine 90\% of the time but still not utilizing everything properly.
Also, QoS doesn't work properly because the speed is being limited via the cable modem so that isn't an option either.
And finally, the auto upload max features on most bt clients have a delay so if your upload spikes down to 5megabit/s from 10 for 5 seconds your ping will jump up regardless.uTP only utilizes what is available and does an extremely good job so if your 10megabit/s connection spikes down to 2megabit/s for half a second your ping will not even jump up for that.
Currently using uTP my upload rate is bouncing all over the place in a crazy fashion yet my net is not being hit at all.
It is kinda like those stop lights on freeway on ramps to keep to many vehicles from entering the freeway at once.
The effect works really well in my particular case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948412</id>
	<title>Re:Linux client?</title>
	<author>NorQue</author>
	<datestamp>1257155040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>uTorrent 1.8 works with Wine here and it already brings support for the uTP protocol, you just have to switch int on manually in the advanced settings. There any other reason you want to use 2? Because I wouldn't recommend that, as some private trackers don't allow using it yet.<br> <br>For 1.8.x, in advanced settings, set bt.transp\_disposition to:<br> <br>

0: attempt only TCP<br>
1: attempt both TCP and uTP, drop TCP if uTP is successful<br>
2: attempt uTP if supported, TCP otherwise<br>
3: attempt only uTP</htmltext>
<tokenext>uTorrent 1.8 works with Wine here and it already brings support for the uTP protocol , you just have to switch int on manually in the advanced settings .
There any other reason you want to use 2 ?
Because I would n't recommend that , as some private trackers do n't allow using it yet .
For 1.8.x , in advanced settings , set bt.transp \ _disposition to : 0 : attempt only TCP 1 : attempt both TCP and uTP , drop TCP if uTP is successful 2 : attempt uTP if supported , TCP otherwise 3 : attempt only uTP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uTorrent 1.8 works with Wine here and it already brings support for the uTP protocol, you just have to switch int on manually in the advanced settings.
There any other reason you want to use 2?
Because I wouldn't recommend that, as some private trackers don't allow using it yet.
For 1.8.x, in advanced settings, set bt.transp\_disposition to: 

0: attempt only TCP
1: attempt both TCP and uTP, drop TCP if uTP is successful
2: attempt uTP if supported, TCP otherwise
3: attempt only uTP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946706</id>
	<title>This is not new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Azureus has been doing this for years. There are actually three built-in methods (only one of which I find effective).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Azureus has been doing this for years .
There are actually three built-in methods ( only one of which I find effective ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Azureus has been doing this for years.
There are actually three built-in methods (only one of which I find effective).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944726</id>
	<title>Throttling ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the first post! boooyaaa</htmltext>
<tokenext>the first post !
boooyaaa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first post!
boooyaaa</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945614</id>
	<title>Excellent idea</title>
	<author>InsurrctionConsltant</author>
	<datestamp>1257080580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming the summary isn't completely wrong, this is an excellent idea. In the UK we are under severe threat of a draconian three-strikes law. This is without question due to the behind-the-scenes lobbying of the record and movie industries. And also, of course, the general attitude of compliance of the government towards those interests at the expense of the original, liberal copyright law that benefits culture and the public.</p><p>Convincing the ISPs that the filtering/monitoring requirements of the draconian-copyright brigade are <i>worse</i> than having to deal with P2P traffic may be the only hope.</p><p>Reference: <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/103009-talktalk-will-resist-net-piracy.html" title="networkworld.com" rel="nofollow">TalkTalk will resist net piracy plans</a> [networkworld.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming the summary is n't completely wrong , this is an excellent idea .
In the UK we are under severe threat of a draconian three-strikes law .
This is without question due to the behind-the-scenes lobbying of the record and movie industries .
And also , of course , the general attitude of compliance of the government towards those interests at the expense of the original , liberal copyright law that benefits culture and the public.Convincing the ISPs that the filtering/monitoring requirements of the draconian-copyright brigade are worse than having to deal with P2P traffic may be the only hope.Reference : TalkTalk will resist net piracy plans [ networkworld.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming the summary isn't completely wrong, this is an excellent idea.
In the UK we are under severe threat of a draconian three-strikes law.
This is without question due to the behind-the-scenes lobbying of the record and movie industries.
And also, of course, the general attitude of compliance of the government towards those interests at the expense of the original, liberal copyright law that benefits culture and the public.Convincing the ISPs that the filtering/monitoring requirements of the draconian-copyright brigade are worse than having to deal with P2P traffic may be the only hope.Reference: TalkTalk will resist net piracy plans [networkworld.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950046</id>
	<title>Re:Much bigger issue with uTorrent still unsolved</title>
	<author>BForrester</author>
	<datestamp>1257176460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Azureus has the Ono Plugin that you might want to try.  It uses CDN redirection information to identify and give connection priority to geographically nearby peers.  I haven't heard of any similar efforts for other clients.</p><p><a href="http://azureus.sourceforge.net/plugin\_details.php?plugin=ono" title="sourceforge.net">http://azureus.sourceforge.net/plugin\_details.php?plugin=ono</a> [sourceforge.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Azureus has the Ono Plugin that you might want to try .
It uses CDN redirection information to identify and give connection priority to geographically nearby peers .
I have n't heard of any similar efforts for other clients.http : //azureus.sourceforge.net/plugin \ _details.php ? plugin = ono [ sourceforge.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Azureus has the Ono Plugin that you might want to try.
It uses CDN redirection information to identify and give connection priority to geographically nearby peers.
I haven't heard of any similar efforts for other clients.http://azureus.sourceforge.net/plugin\_details.php?plugin=ono [sourceforge.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945942</id>
	<title>Re:But is it working?</title>
	<author>Klaus\_1250</author>
	<datestamp>1257083940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Major problems HAVE been reported, especially with people already using their own Traffic Shaping solutions. I've never gotten v2 to work properly. Uploading fluctuates and uses only half of my upstream on average. Even though 100\% of the upstream is available without congestion issues. eMule otoh has absolutely no issues using 99\% of my upstream bandwidth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Major problems HAVE been reported , especially with people already using their own Traffic Shaping solutions .
I 've never gotten v2 to work properly .
Uploading fluctuates and uses only half of my upstream on average .
Even though 100 \ % of the upstream is available without congestion issues .
eMule otoh has absolutely no issues using 99 \ % of my upstream bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Major problems HAVE been reported, especially with people already using their own Traffic Shaping solutions.
I've never gotten v2 to work properly.
Uploading fluctuates and uses only half of my upstream on average.
Even though 100\% of the upstream is available without congestion issues.
eMule otoh has absolutely no issues using 99\% of my upstream bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945754</id>
	<title>Re:TCP regulating congestion</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1257082080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think of it as Apples Grand Central Dispatch for your network.<br>
If you have the bandwidth and nothing else is requesting it, your torrents will fly.<br>
Want to watch youtube HD on your low end consumer grade adsl, your torrents will slow and overall networking will still seem responsive.<br>
When done viewing, BT will reclaim the bandwidth.<br>
BT is not just aware of your hard coded BT app max settings, but also your OS networking demands and can adjust?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of it as Apples Grand Central Dispatch for your network .
If you have the bandwidth and nothing else is requesting it , your torrents will fly .
Want to watch youtube HD on your low end consumer grade adsl , your torrents will slow and overall networking will still seem responsive .
When done viewing , BT will reclaim the bandwidth .
BT is not just aware of your hard coded BT app max settings , but also your OS networking demands and can adjust ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of it as Apples Grand Central Dispatch for your network.
If you have the bandwidth and nothing else is requesting it, your torrents will fly.
Want to watch youtube HD on your low end consumer grade adsl, your torrents will slow and overall networking will still seem responsive.
When done viewing, BT will reclaim the bandwidth.
BT is not just aware of your hard coded BT app max settings, but also your OS networking demands and can adjust?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946340</id>
	<title>Re:TCP regulating congestion</title>
	<author>\_KiTA\_</author>
	<datestamp>1257087300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>shouldn't TCP do that by itself?</p><p>Anyway, I consider this is a good thing, it'll probably increase goodput (less outdated, duplicate packets, preferring "closer" networks).</p></div><p>It would, if Bittorrent et all weren't designed to break TCP's regulating.  By default uTorrent starts up with like 800 max connections at a time.  The TCPIP spec was never really designed to handle this kind of shotgun flooding.  The Bittorrent spec is designed to not care about fragmentation, QoS, et all.  It <b>is</b> designed to break through college dorm QoS throttling, which is why this kinda discussion is kinda amusing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>should n't TCP do that by itself ? Anyway , I consider this is a good thing , it 'll probably increase goodput ( less outdated , duplicate packets , preferring " closer " networks ) .It would , if Bittorrent et all were n't designed to break TCP 's regulating .
By default uTorrent starts up with like 800 max connections at a time .
The TCPIP spec was never really designed to handle this kind of shotgun flooding .
The Bittorrent spec is designed to not care about fragmentation , QoS , et all .
It is designed to break through college dorm QoS throttling , which is why this kinda discussion is kinda amusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shouldn't TCP do that by itself?Anyway, I consider this is a good thing, it'll probably increase goodput (less outdated, duplicate packets, preferring "closer" networks).It would, if Bittorrent et all weren't designed to break TCP's regulating.
By default uTorrent starts up with like 800 max connections at a time.
The TCPIP spec was never really designed to handle this kind of shotgun flooding.
The Bittorrent spec is designed to not care about fragmentation, QoS, et all.
It is designed to break through college dorm QoS throttling, which is why this kinda discussion is kinda amusing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29952382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29954844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29960394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29953180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_2131249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29954844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29952382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29953180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29947800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29946616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29950098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_2131249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29948412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29949888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29944906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29960394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_2131249.29945160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
