40 minute buckeyes is my alternate if that's the one you speak of. Shhhhhhhhhh okay?
Oh wow, didn't realize the 11W founder was here. Unfortunately the copyright cops took this one down, but I'd be happy to provide copies of my original edits for games if anyone would like.
I do what I can. :)
When I was editing the game I initially skipped over the replay of that play. But when I saw the close up coverage I had to edit that in. Rarely do you see a physical mismatch end up like that.
Only 1 at a time. I have to watch every play to edit them all in.
Yes, I capture and edit as the game progresses. It usually takes about 40 - 50 minutes to have a video uploaded by the time the game ends.
Glad to see you back after you were banned from YT. I fear that this year I'm going to get taken down as well.
You're welcome, glad you enjoy them. Go Bucks!
Here's what I suggest you do. Measure your home bandwidth usage for all machines / computers / phones on your home network and using the cellular network directly. There are programs that can track all of that for you, just Google them. Then go to your ISP or cell provider and sat "this is how much data per month my household uses". Then ask for their best price and internet speed they can provide and make a choice from there. It boils down to whether or not your cell company can provide the amount of data, at the speed you require, and at the cost you want versus a traditional ISP.
At some point you need to do this research yourself and not ask questions on the internet.
Technically possible to run your home on a cell phone provider's network with a hotspot? Sure.
Realistically possible with consideration to bandwidth throttling and data caps? Not for any household that wouldn't want to be back to dial up speeds or a huge charge for data overages.
When you roll back net neutrality, that opens up a lot of opportunities for your ISP to do a LOT more than establish filters for your internet traffic. And since most people only have 1 or 2 ISPs to choose from, there is little in the way of the market to choose alternatives. Some of the things that companies could do that they could not now would be:
- Shut off and slow down access to websites of their choosing. Hypothetical example: If your ISP had a partnership with ESPN and decided to block or slow down competing websites, they could do so. ISPs could partner with websites and prioritize traffic. One ISP in your area may partner with Google for search and the other may partner may only offer Yahoo search. You may have to pay extra for Google search with your ISP that is partnered with Yahoo. Same thing goes with email providers, video providers, music providers, news providers, etc...
- Charge you directly to access certain websites. Hypothetical example: Your ISP decides that Netflix traffic is too much. They charge you $5 / mo on top of Netflix to access the site.
- They charge companies extra money to provide service to the ISPs customers. Hypothetical example: So, your ISP is partnered with Hulu and they decide that Netflix traffic should be in the "slow traffic lane". Meaning that Netflix is going to be very slow on their network unless Netflix pays money to make it faster. So Netflix decides to pay the $10,000,000 bribe to make their traffic faster. It works as fast as Hulu now, but unfortunately, Netflix is going to pass the extra cost on to the consumer in the short run.
- ISPs can set arbitrary bandwidth caps for all customers and can collect money for going over those caps.
There's a lot of things I'm probably skipping over, but net neutrality opens up a lot of back doors for ISPs to charge their customers money for that they can't do now. This legislation is totally anti-consumer.
Hope that helps.
That makes me feel yucky, but I'll do it for now.
This just in: "Baker Mayfield accused of bad activity to avoid being drafted by Browns".
My favorite Buckeye parent moment was when my first son's first structured speech was an I-O! to my O-H!. He was well under a year old. Way before he said momma or daddy.
13 points in this rivalry is huge, but I think it has a lot to do with the speculation on Michigan's QB situation. I didn't see anything in the game they played against Wisconsin that would indicate that they could move the ball against us. The biggest question is our O-line vs their D-line.
You know damn well they'd do it to us.
I think it's pretty much about our O-line being able to make holes for Weber / Barrett / Dobbins. If we can't, then we're in for a tight one. But from what I saw during the Wisconsin game, we should win that battle eventually.
Yep, that tune almost made me throw up and made me shut it off from an involuntary reflex. Definitely stolen.