ChezGiven

Cher looks like Davina Macall in her smack days.

Not worthy of a thread but there seems to be a bit of karma flying about this season. Just seen on twitter that Karl Henry is out for 2 months with knee ligament damage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educa...of-thieves.html

Ajax v PSV. Suarez takes a chunk out of an opponent.

Thought it was a new dreamworks film.

Welcome to the Rileys. A bit bleak but misses out on being really touching through an implausible relationship. Well acted and not sure if Ridley's son was going for the 'social welfare US style' angle but if he was i liked it.

Not yet, tough run of games coming up though. If we have 25+ points by January, we should be alright.

Advertisers pay by viewer CT and this comes through to the club via the broadcast rights. More subscribers too which also boosts broadcast rights payments. If more people are viewing the match, there will be more revenue for the club, without doubt. The question is whether Sky lets it happen as they are the ones who will lose out due to the competition. The reason Sky pays billions for the premier league is because that gets them exclusivity. Someone from the US said 26.99 per week for HD internet. Equivalent of £50 a month. I dont give a shit about Sky folding but anything that can focus the finance around our bigger fanbase is a good thing for me.

But is your talking about some lovely world in the future, all streams will be a ok.

Try watching a crappy pc picture blown up to big screen.....Horrible You have the commercial vision of a decrepit mole. Dear me your not half fast becoming a condescending tit We were talking about what may happen when the current deal is up in just over two years. Technology on the web may not have developed in that short space of time to be able to supersize a currently crappy unstable stream. Even if it does, you then need to assume that the vast majority is going to run out and upgrade their current pc / tv packages just too watch Newcastle. You deserved ridicule nevermind condescension for your comments on science last night. I just wanted to use the phrase decrepit mole anyway. You're half right basically. You're first sentence is spot on seeing as i find your next 3 idiotic to say the least. Have a wink HD streams already exist, neither the technology not the infrastructure needs to be developed. You also have forgotten from your early career in FMCG that marketing plans are built around 'segments'. Sky will still purchase TV rights for people with TVs. Someone else may buy internet rights to sell to the millions of 'early adopters' of HDTV (in fact cant you connect a laptop via VGA to a non-HDTV?). The question of when this happens will be based around answers to the challenge of re-streaming digital content for free. Whats important is what drives revenue in this market, advertising. What drives advertising prices? Viewers. Bottom line commercially is therefore the total number of viewers. If 10 million people watch only one channel, Sky, then this monopoly of supply allows Sky to charge higher advertising prices. By fragmenting the market, you introduce competition amongst suppliers of advertising space, reducing per minute prices through competition. However, if the internet supplier can broadcast their own adverts then this increases the supply of 'space' counteracting the reduced per minute price, maintaining overall advertising revenues. NUFC can benefit if it can leverage the willingness to pay for Sky Sports with a targeted offer around NUFC. At present, if lots of NUFC fans buy Sky to watch Newcastle, we are cross-subsidising other teams with fewer fans but similar TV revenues. Basic economics says its a good thing as it increases consumer choice, opens up new revenue streams, subject to the same issues and concerns faced by all digital markets. If they solve the 'free rider' problem then internet HD match streams will be good for the club. Your point about the pub is relevant but pubs already pay 6000 a year for Sky and face huge penalties if they use a domestic account. Same price for internet streams in the pub.

The government are or the actual coffee shop owners? If it's the former, I'd be interested to know how. The former. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/1...st-coffee-shops

a.k.a. The Texas Twitter Tug-meister.

In today's Guardian, Dutch are looking to restrict use of coffee shops to just Dutch citizens. Not clear on how but they want to stop tourists using them.

I'm guessing it wasn't at Procter & Gamble.

Try watching a crappy pc picture blown up to big screen.....Horrible You have the commercial vision of a decrepit mole.

Its probably fair to say that a few scientists have an eye already on some potential uses. Instead of fusing isotopes of hydrogen to create thermonuclear power, they could be looking to create nuclear fusion and fission experiments with anti-hydrogen particles. Scary.

Accidental too, blokes mistook them for arses. Are you talking about the loose yet compelling correlation between cleft and cleavage? Or just giving us more Gallic insight? Either evolutionists have conjectured that tits attracted basic primates because they were like arses or i'm revealing a bit of cleavage. One of the two.

couldn't agree more. trouble is she's probably pretty dull in bed. Finally, a stamp you can wank over.

Accidental too, blokes mistook them for arses.

Questioning the final use for the research is really stupid. First of all, a great deal of modern 'applications' of science are discovered by accident. Viagra being the classic example. There are two types of science though, theres the basic stuff when you observe for the first time and generate theories from assumptions and then there is the practical side when you test your theories in experiments. All science builds itself up this way from basic observation and theory to 'falsification' in repeated experiments. Loads of things in our lives have been developed from basic forms of science being pursued for purely scientific reasons. The majority imo. What the CERN lot are doing here is making the very first observations of the phenomena, they only had theory to guide them to even looking for it. Expecting there to be a firm idea about what the science will mean practically is like expecting the first time man discovered his cellular structure under microscope to have envisaged gene therapies for cancer. Fucking tits.

Aye, enjoy South Africa and your time off. Best of luck for next year, hope you move on to better things.

Milner was shite last night too.

Anyone but Ashley ©

I disagree, he's just never been able to get back anything like what he paid for it. Probably true but i couldnt help but thinking the whole selling charade was just a way of getting the fans off his back. The reality is far more likely to be about money than anything else, as you say.

It used to be a very good place for specialised micro-economics (Risk, Health etc) but Prof Loomes moved on to Warwick. Prof Jones-Lee is still there, he invented 'value of life' analyses for risk management policies. Prof Cam Donaldson has a chair there now, youngest chair in economics in the UK i think. He is a health economist, specialises in PBMA which is very popular in public sector circles in Canada. I worked in the department for a summer, doing focus groups on priorities in health care with Paul Dolan (now at Imperial I believe). Obviously LSE is better but it has one major flaw, its not in Newcastle.