I just tried using Amazon Prime Photos and couldn't get it to work. I also notice that David's Amazon photo back on the first page also no longer works. Maybe he changed something? Or maybe Amazon took some action to prevent an onslaught. Or maybe I just can't find the option for making photos public. It looks like Amazon wants you to set up third-party sites to allow them access, but they must use your Amazon login. Or something.
The most foolproof solution is simply to allow photos to be uploaded. It's Photobucket today and another service tomorrow.
The forums that allow uploading haven't been decimated and their threads still have the photos in place and therefore the threads are still useful.
In reply to carguy123:
I think we had mentioned this to the powers that be in the past. The main issue is that it incurs a not inconsiderable cost for the host (ie, GRM) due to the need for both more storage space and more bandwidth.
Web hosting is a lot of performance cars. It can be cheap, fast, or reliable. Choose two. I would think be that GRM places reliability and fast as the priorities as they should.
BoxheadTim wrote: In reply to carguy123: I think we had mentioned this to the powers that be in the past. The main issue is that it incurs a not inconsiderable cost for the host (ie, GRM) due to the need for both more storage space and more bandwidth.
A website is only as good as it's weakest link and obviously photo hosting is the weak link.
In reply to carguy123:
We hear you.
maschinenbau wrote: I'm all about some imgur. I find it easiest to upload, does all the formatting for forums, links, etc and gives you multiple sizes of thumbnail to choose from.
I use imgur too. Plus after uploading you can browse for some dank memes.
I didn't read all of this other than the OP....I'm not sure what Photobucket has done lately but its always a pain in the ass to figure upload and download pics (Never sure what option I'm supposed to select so I end up trying them all) but then again I'm not as technical as many of you. I just hate their site, that's all.
I just use tumblr, but it isn't very mobile friendly
Given photobuckets ownership.....probably no surprises The elephant in the room for all communication technologies is electricity usage, in that context small diversified site specific hosting makes a lot of sense. We are approaching 10% of world electricity consumption for the 'cloud' streaming, hosting etc. with that figure showing a trend of doubling every two years. 1 hour of streaming video is estimated to use the same as two domestic refrigerators for a year.
carguy123 wrote:BoxheadTim wrote: In reply to carguy123: I think we had mentioned this to the powers that be in the past. The main issue is that it incurs a not inconsiderable cost for the host (ie, GRM) due to the need for both more storage space and more bandwidth.A website is only as good as it's weakest link and obviously photo hosting is the weak link.
Often I wonder if the weakest link and operator error aren't one and the same.
Also, In reply to Stampie:
Id be interested in being a guinea pig. I have done a number of small projects that Ive posted here. Some of my images have become tachometers lately.
acheron64 wrote: Given photobuckets ownership.....probably no surprises The elephant in the room for all communication technologies is electricity usage, in that context small diversified site specific hosting makes a lot of sense. We are approaching 10% of world electricity consumption for the 'cloud' streaming, hosting etc. with that figure showing a trend of doubling every two years. 1 hour of streaming video is estimated to use the same as two domestic refrigerators for a year.
Interesting....
stan wrote:acheron64 wrote: Given photobuckets ownership.....probably no surprises The elephant in the room for all communication technologies is electricity usage, in that context small diversified site specific hosting makes a lot of sense. We are approaching 10% of world electricity consumption for the 'cloud' streaming, hosting etc. with that figure showing a trend of doubling every two years. 1 hour of streaming video is estimated to use the same as two domestic refrigerators for a year.Interesting....
Its because its not true. This was a claim from a pro-coal "report" on internet usage. The data was cherry picked and source material, although foot noted heavily, is thin on pinned down data points.
Don't believe it.
EDIT: I am gonna do this much simpler. Because I was comparing total lifecycle costs between the two and it just got silly. Like had to use scientific notation difference silly. Think 7 orders of magnitude MORE for the fridge.
Average fridge uses 438kwh
Average Netflix power is 7.9 MJ/GB (quick conversion goes to 2.19kwh/GB) So Netflix stream 1-3GB per hour depending on SD or HD so the netflix server to home, not including TV, is 2.19kwh to 6.57 kwh. TV is ~135 so 2.2~6.6 + 135 is ~140kwh, so half of the fridge
So the report was only off by a factor of 4.
In reply to FlightService:
Um, not sure I follow... You say a fridge burns 438 kwh per year, and Netflix streaming burns half of that in one hour? Sounds like an issue to me!
Unless you meant Netflix is 2 kw per GB, but that doesn't seem to make sense.
Also, no berking way does a tv burn 1/3 of what a fridge burns in a year every hour.
You'll need to log in to post.
