I don't know actaully, I spend little time around MAC computers because I can't quite stand them. I prefer my old 95 over a MAC, it took 10 minutes to load one page of a website with that.
keep in mind that that spike in january was my single-segment run, which was probably three times larger in size than even your longest segment in the 1:00. the exponential law of bandwidth consumption says that the bandwidth used by a file grows exponentially with its size, so you need to take the third root of that spike (is that right?) to compare it properly to yours. also, i yanked your run after only a few days (iirc three), and let fileplanet take the rest of the bill, because it used over 2/3 of my monthly allowance in those three days. the demand for my single seg fell off as you see there on the graph.
HBA is going to pwn both of your pathetic little spikes!! >:O...
Half Life 2..you know..one of those computer game things that Macs get jipped on.
That was an extraordinary display of my mac-ness...
Quote from mangadood:
I know. Is there a paint program that coms with MAC?
Yeah. It is part of AppleWorks. It works exactly the same as MSPaint. I'm sure there are third party drawing programs too. I wonder if they still make KidPix, back in the day that art program was awesome.
Yeah. It is part of AppleWorks. It works exactly the same as MSPaint. I'm sure there are third party drawing programs too. I wonder if they still make KidPix, back in the day that art program was awesome.
It came with Windows 3.0 I think. I was 8 or 9 way back then.
Yeah. It is part of AppleWorks. It works exactly the same as MSPaint. I'm sure there are third party drawing programs too. I wonder if they still make KidPix, back in the day that art program was awesome.
It came with Windows 3.0 I think. I was 8 or 9 way back then.
Is this re: Kidpix? Just making sure we're on the same playing field...
Also, I found that it indeed is still being produced.
I would post mine, but it changes every fifteen minutes... between some 500-600 pics of anything that suits my fancy, from game stuff to attractive females (Samus included in this catagory?), to pics from the hubble telescope... just whatever.
keep in mind that that spike in january was my single-segment run, which was probably three times larger in size than even your longest segment in the 1:00. the exponential law of bandwidth consumption says that the bandwidth used by a file grows exponentially with its size, so you need to take the third root of that spike (is that right?) to compare it properly to yours. also, i yanked your run after only a few days (iirc three), and let fileplanet take the rest of the bill, because it used over 2/3 of my monthly allowance in those three days. the demand for my single seg fell off as you see there on the graph.
Why does the bandwidth used by a file grow exponentially with its size ? Is it because the larger a file is, the more people muck up the download and have to start again from scratch ?
keep in mind that that spike in january was my single-segment run, which was probably three times larger in size than even your longest segment in the 1:00. the exponential law of bandwidth consumption says that the bandwidth used by a file grows exponentially with its size, so you need to take the third root of that spike (is that right?) to compare it properly to yours. also, i yanked your run after only a few days (iirc three), and let fileplanet take the rest of the bill, because it used over 2/3 of my monthly allowance in those three days. the demand for my single seg fell off as you see there on the graph.
Why does the bandwidth used by a file grow exponentially with its size ? Is it because the larger a file is, the more people muck up the download and have to start again from scratch ?
If 15 people download a 5 MB file, it will take a total of 15x5 MB bandwidth, but if 15 people download a 20 MB file it'll take 15x20 MB bandwidth (+ corrupted data that has to be sent from the server again).
That's a multiplicative effect rather than an exponential one, but I see what you're saying.
Pretty sure Nate would need to just divide by 3 and not take the cubic root (provided you're interested in the number of downloads). Also, what you're interested in is the area under the spike for the total data transfer (bandwidth x time), not the height of it.