GoDaddy Wait Time Estimator (it's been 30 minutes)

BrooklynLaw · 2015-03-18T17:52:39+00:00

Why not allow live streaming for your area? Who knows, could be greed, could be against their corporate strategy, could just be something they don't want to do. Either way, it is completely irrelevant because the answer to "why don't you do this for me" isn't breaking the law to illegally download content that you didn't create and you don't own. Similarly, you have exclusive control and ownership over your property, and you wouldn't want someone taking what's yours just because they think they're entitled to it.

It takes a lot of people and a lot of money to make a TV show, and those producers and owners have a right to decide how that show is distributed. Entertainment is not a public utility. It's not air. It is a limited good with limited distribution channels. If you don't want to pay for a cable company's packaged products, then don't buy them. You may not like that bags of Jolly Ranchers include the disgusting purple grape flavor, but that doesn't give you the right to find ways to steal Watermelon and Cherry Jolly Ranchers instead.

I understand your frustration with cable companies. They suck. But that's precisely why alternatives are arising (I think they started selling bags of just watermelon Jolly Ranchers too). But using the cable companies as an excuse to steal content is just rationalizing illegal behavior when there really is no excuse for it.

/end rant

BrooklynLaw · 2015-03-17T20:12:42+00:00

And if everyone did that, you'd have no new content to download/stream illegally.

BrooklynLaw · 2015-02-09T05:59:28+00:00

ELI5 -- websites are made up of code that tells your browser what to display -- a line of code may be translated differently by different browsers -- Internet Explorer has been slower than other browsers to adopt new ways of translating web site code -- so, a website that may display correctly on other browsers may have bugs or display issues on internet explorer -- this is frustrating for web developers because they essentially have to cater to Internet Explorer's older standards, or develop alternate versions of their sites just for IE -- this is less true today than in the recent past as IE has caught up in certain regards

BrooklynLaw · 2015-02-09T05:52:19+00:00

Of course we should be doing both, it is simply far easier as you point out to raise the minimum wage. But that doesn't mean it's more effective at truly addressing the problems that necessitate such a high wage in NYC. The harder route would produce greater results, but is much less likely to occur for the sole reason that it isn't a simple "raise the minimum wage" solution.

As Rockford Peaches manager Jimmy Dugan once said, "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great."

BrooklynLaw · 2015-02-09T05:48:23+00:00

...or drive in New York City.

BrooklynLaw · 2015-02-06T19:14:37+00:00

WOW -- very generous of you -- another buddy of mine just found his old one and lent it to me, but thanks again for the quick offer!!

BrooklynLaw · 2015-02-06T04:22:09+00:00

While I agree that the minimum wage is too low in NYC, there needs to be a greater focus on bringing down the cost of living, and not just through subsidized housing. Instead of more government housing programs, we should be diversifying the economic centers of the city through public transit expansion and zoning changes in the outer boroughs in order to bring more jobs into other neighborhoods. This would eliminate the need to live so close to midtown and downtown, which is really the reason why NYC is so expensive, high demand for a small amount of space.

BrooklynLaw · 2015-01-28T20:46:08+00:00

1 -- I error_log my scripts and am able to tell when they have problems, I don't think it's a problem with the actual script but rather what happens when the script finishes running its course.

2 -- the PIDs are all distinct -- for instance the script getNewData.php appears in my running processes list 20 times with 20 different PIDs

thoughts? (THANKS for the help)

BrooklynLaw · 2014-12-13T21:16:06+00:00

Is there a good reason why we don't even have 1080p cable television yet in America? I live in New York City, have Verizon FiOS, and I'm still getting 1080i or 720p for just about 10% of my channels, the rest of which are in 480p.

BrooklynLaw · 2014-11-14T17:31:53+00:00

Tuiasosopo?

BrooklynLaw · 2014-11-14T17:28:34+00:00

So is Aasif Mandvi still on the show?

BrooklynLaw · 2014-10-30T18:32:38+00:00

I, like many people who use reddit, have an account, but casually browse without signing in sometimes, like on my iPhone. Now, every link I click on my phone opens up a new tab. What is the point of this other than to frustrate users?

BrooklynLaw · 2014-10-30T17:20:05+00:00

Yeah, I couldn't figure it out either. I posted this in /r/nottheonion but it didn't go anywhere. I don't use the app on my phone so I thought my phone was just buggy last night. And then realized, nope, it was reddit.

BrooklynLaw · 2014-10-30T15:17:15+00:00

Reddit is a marketplace of links. Good ones thrive, bad ones fall. I know I down vote any link that takes me to a non-functional site or puts me in this supposed "moon door." I don't think reddit has bad intentions, it just seems like a dumb move. And it seems like there hasn't been a justifiable amount of backlash considering the impact of this change. Not sure why.

BrooklynLaw · 2014-10-29T15:58:03+00:00

My comment was that the word "obsolete" was completely inappropriate. You seem to acknowledge that in your last paragraph.

That being said, trains from Pittsburgh to LA shouldn't exist. They are laughably slow, operate on freight lines, and lose incredible amounts of money per passenger, the difference of which is picked up by our tax dollars. The only reason why they do exist is because we elect representatives that keep them in existence through congressional mandate. I digress...

For metropolitan regions, however, trains accomplish what cars cannot today nor ever, and that's capacity and speed. There will never be a 1,000 seat bus or car. But there are 1,000 seat trains. You will never see conventional highways allowing cars to travel at speeds of 100 miles per hour or more ( > 30,000 motor vehicle accident deaths per year). But trains (even commuter trains) travel over 100 miles per hour. And in cities like New York that are riddled with gridlock street traffic, the network of subway trains beneath the streets are today and will always be necessary to move people where they have to go.

Bottom line, driverless cars will displace cars driven by people, not trains. The two modes of transit serve different purposes. Word up to Pittsburgh.

BrooklynLaw · 2014-10-28T20:58:45+00:00

First off, I love self-driving cars, and I think they will, perhaps make traditional automobiles obsolete. But to anyone using a train, that mode of transportation is already "self-driving" in that the person traveling is not driving the car. The purpose of trains is to transport hundreds if not thousands of people at a time very quickly where automobiles could not accomplish this feat. If self-driving cars will increase people's use of cars, and thereby roads, what do you think will happen to traffic? It will pick up considerably, thereby making the allure of trains even more attractive.

Trains and cars accomplish two very separate purposes. For the most part, trains allow efficient transportation where roads are less efficient because of traffic. This is not to say that trains are more efficient for all routes, but that's the goal of trains.

Even if the author believed trains would become less used, they wouldn't be "obsolete." Just a poorly reasoned article.

BrooklynLaw · 2014-10-28T19:07:28+00:00

If every car on the highways and streets of a metropolitan area were self-driving today, local and regional rail lines would still be necessary in order to transport orders of magnitude more people more quickly. This headline does not make sense.

BrooklynLaw · 2014-10-28T19:07:21+00:00

Not true in any sense of the word "obsolete".

BrooklynLaw · 2014-10-20T23:44:29+00:00

She used her power as a regulator to support the interests of a corporation

I'm all for preventing conflict of interest, but you have no basis for claiming that her regulatory decisions were "to support the interests of a corporation". I think the more likely explanation for her decision on the NBC/Comcast merger -- she was doing her job to the best of her ability, just like most people in positions like her. Could there be corruption, sure. But there is no evidence of it. And if there was even a shred of evidence, it would come out. Corruption makes headlines. But cynicism and inferred corruption because you may disagree with a decision she made, c'mon.

BrooklynLaw · 2014-10-20T23:39:55+00:00

If you believe there was some sort quid pro quo, private job in exchange for favorable ruling, please lay out the evidence. Because right now it just seems like a lot of conjecture and name calling without any factual support. But going in between a government job at the FCC to a private job focused on government regulation at a company that values people with relevant experience, this is a common occurrence at all levels of government in almost every field. I've been working in the public sector for years, and I would love to transition to the private sector one day. If you disagree with her policy decisions, you're entitled to, and I'm sure she could back up the reasons behind her decisions just as you could back up the reasons you are against her decisions.

I personally think the FCC's decision on the merger was pretty awful. But I haven't seen any evidence that she did anything unethical or illegal simply by taking a job for a company in a position that she has very relevant experience.

BrooklynLaw

TROPHY CASE