Re: Graphic converter query - transparency

Jim <jim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> > Jim <jim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > <very puzzled again>  No, 600+kB/s is around about 338kB/s as far
as
> > > > handwaving regarding this sort of thing goes.  Double or half the
data
> > > > rate is `about the same'; ten times or a tenth isn't.
> > > 
> > > That's subjective of course.
> > 
> > <puzzled>  No, it's conventional scientific *****sment of numbers.
> 
> I don't care. If I'm only getting half my download bandwidth, that's
> significant. I don't care what the overall magnitude is.

That's your subjective opinion, of course.  I was eschewing subjectivity
in that sense.

> >  I'm
> > just using the sort of conventional hand-waving judgements that any
> > scientifically knowledgeable person would use when faced with the
> > variations that exist in reality - in this particular case, I'm
looking
> > at the variations that exist in typical internet downloads using a
> > broadband connection, assuming that what I see is typical (and it is
> > typical, from what I've gathered reading here and talking to a few
other
> > people).
> 
> Very nice, but your conclusions are incorrect for me. 

My conclusion (singular) is unquestionably correct in this matter - but
your opinion is that the correctness of my conclusions is not relevant
to your point of view, which is a different matter.

> > > To me, double-or-half isn't "about the
> > > same" at all, 
> > 
> > What I say on this subject is indubitably true - although for a given
> > context.  What context?  One in which the numbers vary by orders of
> > magnitude.  When you're dealing with variations that large, double and
> > half are `about the same'.
> 
> Except we're not dealing with orders of magnitude, are we?

Yes I am - I see order of magnitude (base 10) variations in download
speed as a matter of routine.

> The average
> broadband rate in the UK is roughly 3MBps. I personally get about that.

I get more than double that as my `link to the 'net' - I assume that any
given 'net connection to a server will not provide me with that much
bandwidth due to other limitations.

So far, experience matches my assumptions and I remain quite happy with
the download speeds I normally see.

> I do not, however, occasionally switch my router off and connect via a
> 1200/75 modem, which *would* be an order of magnitude different.

That would be many orders of magnitude slower.

> So if I
> start to download rates that mimic that, it's a problem.

Indeed - however, it's not unheard of for me to be downloading something
at only about ten times that sort of speed.

> > (Do rememeber that I'm the one who wanted to be an experimental
> > physicist and did the degree to do so and I was pretty damned good in
> > the lab though I say so myself)
> 
> Irrelevant.

<pained>  The point is that I've got a good feel for this sort of
handwaving comparison.

> > And that's what we get with internet data rates, innit?
> > 
> > Since no download I've seen has ever had a rate that's stayed put to
> > within 20% while it's been happening, I don't see how you can think
> > you've got it right on this one.
> 
> I regularly have downloads that max out my download bandwith for the
> entire duration of the download, sometimes lasting in excess of several
> hours. So you're wrong.

I've never met that - never.

> > I see download speeds varying from less than 1 kB/s to several hundred
> > kB/s, depending.
> 
> That's nice. So do I from time to time (depending on what I'm
> downloading, where from, and what the time of day is) but I also see
> downloads that make full use of my bandwidth.

I've never seen a download doing that - never.  I can stack 'em up so
that multiple downloads use pretty much all the available bandwidth -
but one download has never done it.

> > Your +/-20% band for `about the same' is clearly not quite right.
> 
> That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

It's a correct judgement - not a mere subjective opinion, but correct
given a particular point of view which you are wilfully refusing to
accept as having any validity at all.

> As I said to begin with,
> it's subjective.

And as I said to begin with, it's not.

> To me +/- 20% is about the same for a typical (for me)
> download. For someone else it might not be.

You seem to have ignored my significant points on this matter.

> >  I'd
> > say that if you had two downloads, and they arrived at an average data
> > rate within 20% of each other, that'd count as `practically identical
> > data rates' from the `broadband internet download' point of view.
> 
> Yes, for me. Someone else might want to investigate where the bottleneck
> was.

With a normal domestic internet connection, anyone so doing would be
wasting their time.

> > >it's significantly different. +/-20% would be "about the
> > > same" to me (where typical broadband speeds are concerned), but no
more
> > > than that.
> > 
> > That might be your particular point of view, but it's not the general
> > one and it's certainly inappropriate for this kind of thing.
> 
> I don't think you know what "the general one" is.

I think I've got a better idea than you have.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org
                            http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking