Chilly

I heard Ross Tucker on Sirius NFL Radio this morning say a similar thing. He's not convinced Sanchez is a very good QB, and stated they will not go to the Superbowl with him as the QB

I might toss a few bucks on the over when I'm in Vegas next week.

Honestly, probably not much. TBD uses such little bandwidth that it wouldn't really matter. Remember that "priority" in this instance is talking about speed. Unless providers knock non-paying sites back to the 56k ages - something that would lose customers really fast and blow up in their face - it wouldn't make a difference. To give you an example, let's say Scott wanted to turn the board into the first high definition Bills multimedia site, with daily reports from camp shot in high quality, steaming video. It would certainly be possible to do so, and currently, there wouldn't be any problems with it. However, in the scenario envisioned, if Scott didn't pay to have his traffic moved faster, the videos wouldn't perform well, leading people not to use them. Scott's in a hard spot here - he either pays to have his traffic prioritized well enough to make his video work, or his product suffers from such horrible buffering that no one uses it. That's the example that people are referring to. The policy framework definitely mentions such a scenario, and says that outside of wireless internet, it shouldn't allow it. It's trying to prevent that from happening. However, what people are getting caught up on is the private services clause. I understand why - it's so broadly defined, it doesn't really mean anything. But given that this is just a policy framework, and isn't law, I'm not sure we can derive much from it.

So they keep the part I didn't like

Footballguys.com

sorry, forgot how many experts we have on this board

pat kirwan knows a ton about the bills, and I listened to him cover our training camp.

This is an article from a few days ago on nfl.com.

How much do they change up year to year? I went last year, and liked it, but not enough to go again if they didn't change much.

Thought I'd throw this out there in case anyone is interested. I heard about this book on Sirius NFL radio, and bought it. I've been reading through it, and so far it's fantastic. A great book for anyone that wants to increase their football knowledge, from one of the most knowledgable NFL guys out there. http://www.amazon.com/Take-Your-Eye-Off-Ball/dp/1600783910 It's well worth the buy.

I've never been to a burger joint that lacks take out. But yeah, for a fast food joint, it's pretty decent.

PTR, that article is a bit old. Verizon & Google jointly announced what they were working on today. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100809-715911.html First, some background on me: I work for one of the largest internet hosting companies in the world, Rackspace. We're one of the top managed hosting companies, and the Cloud Hosting market is between us and Amazon right now. Here's a chart showing who has the most servers (although we're up over 60k now): http://www.intac.net/a-comparison-of-dedic...any_2010-04-13/ Next, a Cover My Ass disclaimer: All opinions in this most are mine, and not necessarily Rackspace's. As you can see, net neutrality is a big deal to my industry. If the ISPs started prioritizing content based off of deals, we'd have to spend millions making sure our traffic is prioritized correctly. The ISPs would be getting us three ways: 1.) The consumer who pays to have the internet installed in their home; 2.) the business who pays for the hookup at the data centers; 3.) the business that then has to pay to get this traffic prioritized. If we had to pay to get our traffic prioritized, that would cause our prices to skyrocket, upping the cost of server hosting big time. Not a great situation for us. My thoughts on this deal: - I have no problem with them prioritizing mobile wireless traffic, but only until the networks are built out and can handle it. Until the technology is mature, though, the costs are just too high and the network saturation problems too great. However, it should be done based upon the type of traffic, and not on a content basis. For example, they should be able to prioritize http traffic over streaming videos or big file downloads, but they shouldn't be able to prioritize google's webpage over yahoo's webpage. This provision should have an expiration date or stipulation that it expires at some point. The proposal somewhat indicates this, though in a less direct manner. Here's what it specifically says on wireless: There is a definite need right now while the technology develops for such a stance, but I think there needs to be a hard deadline when this ends, whether that be time-based or capacity-based. - The stipulation that current services can't be prioritized is important. There isn't really a technical need for traffic prioritization, and it would put in a significant cost barrier for anyone trying to start a small, innovative internet business. Keeping the internet open is the best way to insure innovation and prevent lots of services from raising prices, due to providers prioritizing traffic. Here's what it says: - The agreement says that the FCC has no regulatory power over the content of the internet, an important point to keep it from becoming like TV. - I think the section on "additional services" is really poorly defined. It's extremely broad, to the point that the rest of the network neutrality provisions could be rendered moot. Here's what it says: It doesn't define "scope" or "purpose" of broadband Internet access service anywhere, essentially leaving that up to the FCC. That means it's subject to big time political games. I don't like that at all. - Here's one section the media isn't really talking about, but is very important: This one is likely not going to go over very well with some people, but it's essentially saying that ISPs can throttle things like bittorrent if it's saturating their network. I don't really have a problem with that, myself, and think the providers should have the right to prioritize types of traffic if that type does cause for network saturation. Overall, I think the framework is lacking. It's not well defined, which puts the power in the hands of the FCC. Quite frankly, I don't trust the FCC to enforce policies consistently or intelligently.

My advice: Skip it and go to a good local burger joint. There are so many better burger places here in San Antonio, it's just not worth going unless it's close by and you need something quick.

The Bengals o-line looked pretty decent in the run game - they opened up some holes for Benson & Co. FWIW, the Bengals were running a zone blocking scheme. It was really the pass game where they struggled. I went back and watched every play of the first couple series for the Bengals and a few times. The Bengals did fine on the fist couple of plays, where the Cowboys played vanilla and just rushed straight ahead. However, shortly after that, the Cowboys started running stunts and sugaring rushers. Once they started doing that, the Bengals had tons of confusion on their OL. There was only one play where pressure was placed on Palmer from the tackle actually getting beat on the play. The rest were all confusion on the OL. There were a couple plays with 3 linemen on one guy, with the other coming unblocked. The good news is it's all correctable, and I was a bit surprised to see the Cowboys sugaring blitzes in the first preseason game. Still, it's alarming. I unfortunately didn't get to watch many Bengals games last year, so I'm not sure if they had similar problems in pass protection. If they did, it looks like they haven't improved much over the offseason yet. It's definitely something to watch over the next few weeks.

Did they do anything at all to address the line? lol

No DVR?

Damnit. I was going to post that Kanye also thinks he's a gay fish, but I was beat.

Are you asking why a judge can rule a law unconstitutional?

You mean him opening a casino in Macau doesn't have to do with the asian baccarat craze?

It technically was illegal - a violation of the DMCA

fwiw, I've never had any probs with u-verse, and love it

I already know, when to use a comma.

Is a room temperature IQ needed to post properly?

You're making the assumption that it's the same front office. Whether that's right or wrong, I'm not going to get into, but his point was that it's not the same FO.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/29/131...ivity?art_pos=2