Vancouver is amazing. Such a cool city. I was getting a bit tired of london... every one is always in a rush, public transport sucks... I just found it very draining.

Vancouver is completely different. The people out here are much more chilled out, the city is amazing, the surroundings are incredible, and there is so much to do (hiking, sailing, skiing, camping, trecking, surfing)... its all here.

Its true what they say about the quality of life being much better here... it really is.

Reason for moving was work (dont really want to go into details, but essentially an internal company transfer).

TBH, this picture says it all http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._dusk_pano.jpg

Looks like https://reportingitc.apple.com/ is down

Hopefully you're on the righ side of the cost of living difference, Melbourne is amazing, but **** it costs a lot in the city.

I have just been living in London for a year..... Vancouver might not be the cheapest but it sure beats London.

If you come down to Seattle, give me a holler.

The new rumor around the office is I might get to go to London for a pilot, or someone's just ****ing with me...

Cool. Def planning to do a shopping trip down in Seattle at some point, its supposed to be much cheaper there than Vancouver.

London is an awesome city to visit, but working there full time just isnt for everyone.

Who do you work for?

I dont want to post the company name publicly, but its a medium sized software company that operates mainly in the UK with offices in Australia, HK, and Canada as well.

As far as my role within the company, I work as a software developer. PM me if you want some more specific details.

I'm moving to London next week, kind of excited about it!

Where abouts are you living / working?

The job is in Mayfair. Where to live is something I have to work out, the company is putting me up for the first few weeks but then I will have to find an apartment/house/share somewhere. Very much open to suggestions!

Nice, cant get much better than Mayfair for a place to work.

As far as living goes it really depends on what sort of thing you are looking for...

A quick summary of some areas that I know:

* Camden (North London) -> Fairly cheap, very vibrant, lots of "young artist" types, very colourful

* Angel (North) -> Similar to Camden, slightly further out.

* Clapham (South) -> Cheap, but quite far out and transport to central london is not great. The northern line runs through it, but it is VERY busy during commuting hours... expect to have to wait for 2-3 trains before you can get on.

* Brixton (South) -> Near Clapham, its quite a rough area, but appeals to some people...

* Pimlico (South/Central) -> Posh area...

* Putney (South West) -> V nice area, quite chilled out, lots of young families, nice high street / bars etc, good transport to central via district line, not too expensive.

* Fulham (South West) -> Slightly closer to central than putney, more expensive and trendy.

* Chiswick (West) -> Quite similar to putney but a bit cheaper

* Kensington (West / Central) -> Similar to pimlico

The above is a fairly general description, if you want any more info on any area specifically then let me know... lived in london for quite a while so would be happy to answer any questions you have

G

RIP Steve Jobs

This is pretty neat:
http://code.google.com/p/logstalgia
Logstalgia is a website traffic visualization that replays or streams web-server access logs as a pong-like battle between the web server and an never ending torrent of requests.

cheers MrWooster, very helpful. I'm definitely looking for somewhere with an easy commute to work, but that might be a lot of places (Central, Piccadilly, Victoria, Jubilee lines all go nearby). So far I was looking at West London, but could really go anywhere.

RIP Steve, apple will never be the same again.

http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/

West London is a great place to live, especially if you are young / like going out lots.

As far as commute to work, as long as you are near a tube line then you should be ok, but... is worth remembering that the London underground sucks. You will probably find that an average of 1-2 times per month you will be unable to take the underground for a variety of reasons... (too cold - ice on track, too hot - cables sag, to wet - flooding in the tunnels, drivers strike - happens about once every couple of months, and the all time classic - signal failure - almost a daily occurance).

Also, some of the lines are very overcrowded during commuting hours, the worst ones being the District and Northern. The Victoria is quite bad too, but only in places.

To be honest, its all fun and games... would be very boring if you could get the underground to work every day

Just realised that the above post makes London transport sound horrific... its not that bad, but worth remembering that it doesnt always run like clockwork....

interesting, I've never had problems with the Tube as a tourist but of course I wasn't relying on it in the same way. I might just get a bike, I cycle everywhere here and won't need to wear a suit or anything.

Ye, cycling is a good idea.

I showed a site I am currently creating to a friend, and she asked me why the page kept jumping to the top of the screen. Mind that much of it is still in Lorem Ipsum, so this may be more illusion than an actual problem.

But I thought about this illusion a bit and I figured out that one way of dealing with this "issue" is to make the navigation menu, which sits on the left, more static.

Suppose I scrolling down the page, I click on the link, and now the next page loads. What I would like to attempt is that the navigation menu stays and the rest of the page loads, creating the illusion of an AJAX-style web site, but of course it can't be AJAX because I want every page to have a unique url and I don't want to use javaScript to make this site function correctly.

Of course, the solution has to function so that the whole nav menu isn't lost at -100px at the next page, so I am very confused at how this would work out, if at all. Since the next page would jump to the top but the nav menu stays in it's position, I don't think this would be a usable solution.

Anyways, I thought this was an interesting problem and one that probably isn't practical in any real sense, but I would like to know if anyone has any ideas on how to make this effective.

Google for "css sticky navigation". It's a pretty common bit of functionality that a lot of sites have.

Question: mlb.tv is a site that uses a proprietary flash player to stream baseball games, both live and archived. (Let's assume I'm only interested in working with archived video for this project, though I don't know if it changes much.)

I want to write a script that goes to each the videos with a URL like this:

http://mlb.mlb.com/shared/flash/medi...=true&team=mlb

And figure out where the video file actually is for downloading; I basically want to create an offline repository of baseball games. I tried to figure it out using Fiddler2, but it wasn't too successful.

I know this is possible because there are MLB teams using an application that has instant access to baseball games from local storage. More on that later, because I have more questions assuming we can get this one solved.

The nav menu in question is like 500px high. In other words, you can't see the entire thing on one screen.