Upload
Login or register

frankiethekneeman

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:7/02/2011
Last Login:9/25/2016
Stats
Content Thumbs: 59 total,  68 ,  9
Comment Thumbs: 589 total,  825 ,  236
Content Level Progress: 80% (4/5)
Level 1 Content: New Here → Level 2 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 157 Comments: Faptastic → Level 158 Comments: Faptastic
Subscribers:0
Content Views:412
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:251
FJ Points:597
Favorite Tags: rage (2)

  • Views: 733
    Thumbs Up 20 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +19
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 07/31/11
    Getting Ready Getting Ready
  • Views: 840
    Thumbs Up 21 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +18
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 07/31/11
    The thought process behind comps The thought process behind comps
  • Views: 796
    Thumbs Up 15 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +13
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 07/18/11
    Grammar Grammar
  • Views: 801
    Thumbs Up 12 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +9
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 09/07/11
    Original Rage Original Rage

latest user's comments

#24 - As it turns out, when you move extremely fast, time slows down…  [+] (2 replies) 12/31/2015 on Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing +3
User avatar
#37 - questionableferret (12/31/2015) [-]
To be fair, Einstein also denied quantum physics. He was a man of limits and boundaries and his faith in mathematics and science was as utter and unshakable as that of most popes. The concept that science couldn't answer all of the questions about quantum mechanics was alien to him and he went to his grave still wrestling with that issue.

It doesn't make him necessarily wrong, but it does make his thinking fallible. His predictions on light may very easily be wrong because we just don't understand science to that level yet. Hell, we've managed to bond photons together... who would've thought that would be possible?

Not saying Einstein is wrong, just that there are things he thought were impossible that even back in the day other more open-minded scientists disagreed with him about.
User avatar
#44 - justanotherusernam (12/31/2015) [-]
He disagreed with the fundamental 'randomness' of some of the theories we have about quantum physics, not the general idea of it.
#73 - Actually, that's where you're wrong - Data Centers are ludicro…  [+] (1 reply) 12/06/2015 on Who would`nt? 0
User avatar
#137 - Shiny (12/06/2015) [-]
I never said they weren't expensive, but the profit they make from selling their services dwarfs the repeating overhead, sometimes greatly. Valve's silly Community Market, for example, is raking in more dough than anyone would have thought before such an idea was tested in the field.

What I was trying to say is that the extra cost of hosting more files diminishes for a given data service, because they already pay for electricity and unlimited data.
#18 - > Because most people who pirate something never would have…  [+] (3 replies) 12/06/2015 on Who would`nt? +4
User avatar
#21 - Shiny (12/06/2015) [-]
That's a pretty poor estimate of the cost of hosting, since the cost of each individual file (i.e. an ebook or music file) decreases rapidly the more files are hosted with a single service. Data center services like that are for much smaller enterprises than what Adobe and Valve are running; they buy their own hardware and get flat rates from ISPs. Even if they use a third party service to maintain the boxes, they still own them.

Think about it. I can download the biggest games in my Steam library and delete them repeatedly and they wouldn't give two shits. Oodles of people browse their and Amazon's site daily while buying nothing. After initial costs, energy and Internet access are pocket change to them.

There's also the fact that most modern piracy takes place with peer-to-peer tools that don't require a central server to get files from. When you torrent a game or a movie, you're downloading it all from other people that are making use of Internet access they already paid for (or from McDonald's, lel).
#73 - frankiethekneeman (12/06/2015) [-]
Actually, that's where you're wrong - Data Centers are ludicrously expensive, and very few companies see the point in them. Netflix, for instance, hosts their entire service in someone else's infrastructure. Namely, amazon: aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/netflix/. I can't say for sure where steam does their hosting, but a cursory check shows that their website uses Akamai as a CDN: www.dnsstuff.com/tools#dnsReport|type=domain&&value=store.steampowered.com, meaning at least part of their infrastructure is rented.

And I can tell you from experience, that the cost of running a website is extremely non-trivial. While yes, you could, if you wanted, delete all the games in your steam library and re download them, the reason Steam wouldn't notice is you're just one person. If every steam user did that, every day, Steam would likely suffer service interruptions and have to decide whether to throttle everyone's usage or spend more money on additional bandwidth. Companies are banking on a specific usage pattern - i.e., that a certain percentage of users are making purchases. It's called a conversion rate - and a shift in that conversion rate can mean huge things for a company.

Besides all of that, even if companies did buy hardware and host themselves, that cost is not trivial. Good System Administrators can make more than USD 100,000 a year, and a data centers can have entire teams of them. The labor cost can easily exceed USD 1 Million. And the energy uses of these places isn't small or cheap: www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/technology/google-details-and-defends-its-use-of-electricity.html In 2011, Google was using 260 million watts of continuous power. That's something like 2.3 billion Kilowatt Hours a year. If they pay just USD 0.01 per KwH of energy (a ludicrously low price), that's still USD 23 million in power costs anually.

The p2p argument cuts out a lot of this cost, but doesn't account for the fact that a game can cost millions of dollars to make: www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-15 . At USD 60 per license, a USD 100 million game needs to sell 1.6 million copies just to recoup costs of development. That doesn't cover infrastructure cost for delivery, or cost to run servers for multiplayer content ad nauseum. Argue all you want for piracy as a noble subversion of a system lacking in consumer rights, or that the lack of demos makes it impossible to know what we're getting and $60 is too much to pay for something sight unseen. There's a lot that could be fixed in the gaming industry - Pay to win games, buggy releases, preorder culture - but we have to acknowledge that making and distributing games is a costly venture. And it's a cost we need major (and minor) companies to keep paying. You can't pirate a game that never got made.
User avatar
#137 - Shiny (12/06/2015) [-]
I never said they weren't expensive, but the profit they make from selling their services dwarfs the repeating overhead, sometimes greatly. Valve's silly Community Market, for example, is raking in more dough than anyone would have thought before such an idea was tested in the field.

What I was trying to say is that the extra cost of hosting more files diminishes for a given data service, because they already pay for electricity and unlimited data.
#115 - Picture 12/05/2015 on (untitled) +1
#9 - Dude, the formula is "n edgy n^n me" So 2 …  [+] (5 replies) 07/16/2015 on Stairway To Hell +2
User avatar
#19 - rhiaanor (07/16/2015) [-]
you even did the math wrong
User avatar
#16 - cheddarcheesestick (07/16/2015) [-]
always thought it was n edgy n+2 me

2spooky4me
3spooky5me
User avatar
#17 - IAmManbearpig (07/16/2015) [-]
^ this is the correct formula
#10 - andywazowski (07/16/2015) [-]
I've never seen anyone use that scaling on that joke
User avatar
#12 - minorian (07/16/2015) [-]
I think he was just (making a hopeless attempt at) being funny
#17 - That water one bothers me every time I see it. "Less tha…  [+] (2 replies) 05/24/2015 on Random Science +18
User avatar
#33 - themajesticsnail (05/24/2015) [-]
This just in: Oceans have a shit ton of water.
Scientist continue their research.
#23 - anon (05/24/2015) [-]
why cant we do that though, like in the future I mean, when we travel space alot and have like some a permanent colonies or whatnot, we can make a capsule or something that could run lines down irrigate crops and provide water for people, we could launch it into space and it'd have filtration and all that stuff, the water sphere..
[ 244 Total ]

user's friends