Those yards are really fun to drink. You think "hey, no problem..." and then BAM... physics!
Dude, don't I know it. Curiously - It was one of our prime ministers, Bob Hawke, who held the world record(Guinness Certified) for drinking one the fastest yard for quite a long time, if he doesn't still.
Kinda makes up for how we lost Harold Holt. Not like how the Americans lost JFK, I mean literally, "Oh shit, where'd we put him last, have we lost him?" kinda lost.
Hope so, I have them to go to the finals against Uruguay on the Random WC Office pool.
Random pool? how does that work?
You flip a coin for every match and put the names accordingly. We have 2 prizes one for the regular old pool and one for the random one. Is it an office pool? or a bracket? or is it the same thing? remember I'm not a native English speaker.
As for the where am I watching the games, well, at the office we have TV's with sports 24/7, but that's normal when you work at a sportsbook.
What we are doing at work is that you get a random place from one of the Groups. For example you would draw the 2nd place from group G, so you don't know who will it be till the end of the first rounds. Also if you want a certain team you will follow close all the matches from the group and end up rooting for certain results, I think it adds to the excitement. Also better than just drawing random from the 32 teams, at least this way you should get a somewhat competent team.
What we are doing at work is that you get a random place from one of the Groups. For example you would draw the 2nd place from group G, so you don't know who will it be till the end of the first rounds. Also if you want a certain team you will follow close all the matches from the group and end up rooting for certain results, I think it adds to the excitement. Also better than just drawing random from the 32 teams, at least this way you should get a somewhat competent team.
I think we did the random bracket because they printed way too many brackets in the first place.
Doesn't net neutrality specifically concern the flow of data in transit that has nothing to do with you? Choosing who does and doesn't connect to you is a separate issue AFK.
The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.
Doesn't net neutrality specifically concern the flow of data in transit that has nothing to do with you? Choosing who does and doesn't connect to you is a separate issue AFK.
Net neutrality means one thing and one thing only, and that is no discrimination based on network or content. If someone on Time Warner goes to google.com, then Time Warner shouldn't slow them down or block them because they like Yahoo! better. Likewise, if someone on Comcast visits google.com, Google shouldn't treat them any differently than someone using Verizon FiOS. Net neutrality means no discrimination of packets based on network or content.
Doesn't net neutrality specifically concern the flow of data in transit that has nothing to do with you? Choosing who does and doesn't connect to you is a separate issue AFK.
Net neutrality means one thing and one thing only, and that is no discrimination based on network or content. If someone on Time Warner goes to google.com, then Time Warner shouldn't slow them down or block them because they like Yahoo! better. Likewise, if someone on Comcast visits google.com, Google shouldn't treat them any differently than someone using Verizon FiOS. Net neutrality means no discrimination of packets based on network or content.
But it sounds more like a PPV thing paid by your ISP as an extra service with your internet to attract new sport-fan customers.
I'm not turning up anything on IP discrimination. If you are the holder of content, then you are free to decide who can and can't (and be an asshole about it, Hulu, BBC.) access it. Can you find anything to the contrary?
But it sounds more like a PPV thing payed by your ISP as an extra service with your internet to attract new sport-fan customers.
The business deal behind it doesn't matter. You shouldn't have your web site serve one thing to people coming from ISP A and serve something different to people on ISP B.
I'm not turning up anything on IP discrimination. If you are the holder of content, then you are free to decide who can and can't (and be an asshole about it, Hulu, BBC.) access it. Can you find anything to the contrary?
I never said you aren't free. In fact, because we have no net neutrality law or regualation, you're free to do however you please. I'm saying it's not right.
What if I changed this forum so only people with Time Warner could visit it. Dick move? Yes. Even if Time Warner is paying me to do it, still a dick move.
But it sounds more like a PPV thing payed by your ISP as an extra service with your internet to attract new sport-fan customers.
Exactly, if you payed you'd be able to watch the exact same footage as the people who have Time Warner cable. There's no difference, your ISP is just not footing the subscription bill.
I agree it's a dick move but I don't think it's part of the net neutrality discussion (I'm still researching.). I can't find mention of IP Discrimination at the content provider's end in relation to NN. Just to make that clear.
I'm not turning up anything on IP discrimination. If you are the holder of content, then you are free to decide who can and can't (and be an asshole about it, Hulu, BBC.) access it. Can you find anything to the contrary?
I never said you aren't free. In fact, because we have no net neutrality law or regualation, you're free to do however you please. I'm saying it's not right.
What if I changed this forum so only people with Time Warner could visit it. Dick move? Yes. Even if Time Warner is paying me to do it, still a dick move.
But if you pay ESPN you can watch the matches, so you can still access it.
So if you hire cable for your home, and get 2 HBOs and your neighbor hired another company that offers 3 HBOs for the same basic plan, the fact that you have to pay your cable company for the third HBO on their "Plus" plan means that there is a breach of some sort there?
Think about this. Let's say you have AT&T U-Verse, which includes ESPN3. Yet, you never watch it. Now you're forced to pay something you don't use! Bullshit again.
Comments
Kinda makes up for how we lost Harold Holt. Not like how the Americans lost JFK, I mean literally, "Oh shit, where'd we put him last, have we lost him?" kinda lost.
More along this line (auf Deutsch) at www.legofussball.eu/
As for the where am I watching the games, well, at the office we have TV's with sports 24/7, but that's normal when you work at a sportsbook.
Catch it now before youtube takes it down!
It works for all of them except for some of the big games which are on ABC.
What if I changed this forum so only people with Time Warner could visit it. Dick move? Yes. Even if Time Warner is paying me to do it, still a dick move.
So if you hire cable for your home, and get 2 HBOs and your neighbor hired another company that offers 3 HBOs for the same basic plan, the fact that you have to pay your cable company for the third HBO on their "Plus" plan means that there is a breach of some sort there?