Re: Graphic converter query - transparency

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 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.

My point is that although broadband lines are indeed subject to variable
download conditions, the only person who can say if it's "significant"
is the person using it. To you an average download rate of only 50% your
rated maximum might be fine and dandy and "just one of those things". To
me it would be cause for concern.

> 
> > >  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

I'm questioning it.

> - but
> your opinion is that the correctness of my conclusions is not relevant
> to your point of view, which is a different matter.

I regularly use three different broadband lines, at three different
connect rates, from two different providers. In all cases I can max out
the bandwidth with a single download. Consistently.

> 
> > > > 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.

Then there is likely something wrong with your line or router, you're
getting a lot of contention, or the servers you're downloading from are
regularly swamped.

> 
> > 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.

And you would be wrong, assuming we're talking fairly well connected net
servers such as iTMS.
 
> So far, experience matches my assumptions and I remain quite happy with
> the download speeds I normally see.

Based on a sample rate of what? In other words, how many different
broadband lines have you used as your link to the net?
 
> > 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.

Which can, of course, be caused by a lot of factors. Some of which may
not be 'normal'.
 
> > > (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.

[shrug]

 
> > > 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.

Please also keep in mind that I'm talking about _single_ downloads here,
not several at the same time.
 
> > > 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.

I max out my line with a single download most days - podcasts, mostly.
 
> > > 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.

Because I don't happen to accept it. You claim that close to 50% of a
given data rate is 'normal'. I say it isn't.

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

REPEAT
        JIM: IT IS
        ROWLAND: IT ISN'T
UNTIL (HEAT_DEATH_OF_UNIVERSE == TRUE)

> 
> > 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.

Then you may have to remind me what they are, because I seem to have
missed them.
 
> > >  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.

Reeeeeally? Let's see now - on all the occasions where I *have* seen
significantly reduced data rates (50-60% or nominal) I've gone looking.
And you know what? I've almost always been able to fix it. Almost
always. Sometimes it's by simply rebooting my router, sometimes it's by
contacting my ISP, but I've always got it fixed or it's something beyond
my equipment or my ISP's. Wasting my time? I think not.
 
> > > >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.

You've yet to demonstrate that though.

Jim
-- 
'Cloverfield' in nine words: "What is it?!" "We're gonna die!" BOOM!
Roll credits.

http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk
  http://twitter.com/greyareauk