If DirecTV somehow fails to lock up NFL Sunday Ticket, AT&T has given itself the right to bail on the colossal $48.5 billion acquisition announced yesterday. The out clause contained in the proposal’s fine print shows just how valuable of a property the NFL is. "The parties also have agreed that in the unlikely event that DirecTV’s agreement for the NFL Sunday Ticket service is not renewed substantially on the terms discussed between the parties, AT&T may elect not to consummate the merger," it reads. DirecTV's current arrangement with the NFL is set to expire after this coming season.

The careful wording also says that AT&T won’t be able to collect any damages if this scenario plays itself out. DirecTV just has to prove that it "used its reasonable best efforts to obtain such renewal." And from the sounds of it, the satellite provider is already trying its best to get the deal done.

The NFL is hugely important

During today’s conference call focused on the merger, DirecTV CEO Mike White expressed confidence that the NFL will be back on board by the end of 2014. "Nothing changes from my perspective," he said. If successful, the AT&T/DirecTV deal isn’t expected to close for at least a year, so White has some time to work with. And there’s no guarantee that AT&T would immediately run away from the original plan if Sunday Ticket falls through. Neither side made it sound like a deal breaker during today's call, and DirecTV obviously has other assets and millions of subscribers that AT&T is very interested in.

But the clause must be there for a reason, and it puts the NFL in a position of power. The league will likely use that influence to sign an even more lucrative contract with DirecTV. A historic $48.5 billion merger may depend on it.

chonklatime:

joetheblogger replied to your post: So, there was a gifset of Chris Evans …

Their donuts are alright, agreed that they’re nothing to write home about. The coffee is what’s important, have you had their coffee fresh? It is amazing and is really what the main attraction is.

DD coffee is not coffee, it’s some other drink, which is fine but let’s just set expectations properly.

The iced tea is good, the donuts are okay (note: I live a 20-minute walk from Union Square Donut, so I haven’t had a DD donut in over a year and don’t plan to for the rest of my natural life, USD Ride Or Die), the iced coffee drink was good if memory serves, but it’s been almost a year since I had to quit caffeine and now there are all these fancy flavor things you can do to the iced coffee so I can’t speak to that.

It’s just a sort of cultural thing in Boston: there is a Dunkin Donuts in Back Bay Station and across the hallway there is a *Dunkin Donuts Express* because there cannot be just one fuckin Dunkies there apparently. (I believe a similar situation exists at North Station and possibly other large T stops as well.) There are three DDs within two blocks of my house (the one in the gas station, the one in the grocery store, and then the proper freestanding Dunkin, which is packed day and night and is basically the town hall (after the local bar that serves Anheiser-Busch products on draft)).

Enlarge / Row upon row of vintage arcade games. (credit: Eric Bangeman)

It's Thanksgiving week in the US, and most of our staff is enjoying one last work-free afternoon where a trip to the movies or arcade is possible. As such, we're resurfacing this story of visiting the largest arcade in the US (you know, in case you need a small road trip this weekend). This story originally ran on May 17, 2014, and it appears unchanged below.

“The largest video arcade in the USA,” boasted the website. “We’ve got to make it over there," I told Deputy Editor Nate Anderson over IM one morning. Galloping Ghost, an arcade located in the western suburbs of Chicago, was said to house well over 400 vintage games. The combination of proximity and the desire to while away an afternoon in a warm, nostalgic gaming haze eventually overpowered our excuses not to go, so we made the trip.

As someone who came of age in the 1980s, games such as Ms. Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Defender, and Crazy Climber have a special place in my heart. Too many Saturdays, I would hop on my bike, ride to the Aurora Mall, and exchange my paper route earnings for tokens at the arcade there. I spent many an afternoon blasting aliens, gobbling glowing dots, leaping over barrels, and dodging bird poop and potted plants while climbing skyscrapers. As the console games of the time felt like graphically inferior knockoffs of my arcade favorites, my video-gaming attention was focused first and foremost on the arcades.

A world where all humans were living inside of virtual reality would be considered dystopian, but what if humans were to impose that same existence on the animals we raise and often subject to poor conditions? That's what one designer is proposing with the fictional company and service Second Livestock — effectively a combination of the Oculus Rift and multiplayer life sim Second Life. Second Livestock envisions tiny virtual-reality headsets that could be put on chickens, and presumably other livestock as well, to give them the impression that they're living a wonderful, free-range life.

"The goal of the project is to raise that question of how do we know what’s best, or what is humane treatment," designer Austin Stewart tells Ames Tribune, "and also to look at how we treat ourselves. We’re living in these little boxes, just like chickens." Second Livestock is obviously not the most feasible proposal, but Stewart's goal is to have people take it seriously and consider their reactions. And even knowing it's a fake, reading through the fictional company's website is both humorous and dark: Second Livestock's proposed treatment of chickens would also include clean spaces, room to move, and an organic diet — better than many actual chickens are treated.

Stewart's mockup of the Second Livestock's "Virtual Free Range" simulation.

Google has quietly begun adding elevation data for bike routes listed on Google Maps. TechCrunch first spotted the new elevation profiles, and the company has since confirmed it's taking new steps to offer cyclists a better preview of bike routes and trails. It'll certainly be a welcome improvement for riders, who previously had to turn elsewhere if they wanted to know whether they'd be climbing a steep hill or flying down a mountain ahead of time.

And Google's implementation does more than simply tell you how high you'll be going. When you pick a route that contains elevation info, you'll see a card appear that breaks down exactly how much of the trip will be spent spent riding uphill (and also down). Google has yet to officially announce the new feature, and it's currently not appearing in Google Maps for mobile. But if history is any indication, it won't be long before you're able to scope out routes on the go.

missvoltairine:

phil-irish-artist:

By copyrighting his property as an artwork, he has prevented oil companies from drilling on it.

Peter Von Tiesenhausen has developed artworks all over his property in northern Alberta.  There’s a boat woven from sticks that is gradually being reclaimed by the land; there is a fence that he adds to each year of his life, and there are many “watching” trees, with eyes scored into their bark.

Oil interests pester him continually about drilling on his land.  His repeated rebuffing of their advances lead them to move toward arbitration.  They made it very clear that he only owned the top 6 inches of soil, and they had rights to anything underneath.  He then, off the top of his head, threatened them that he would sue damages if they disturbed his 6 inches, for the entire property is an artwork.  Any disturbance would compromise the work, and he would sue.

Immediately after that meeting, he called a lawyer (who is also an art collector) and asked if his intuitive threat would actually hold legally.  The lawyer visited, saw the scope of the work on the property, and wrote a document protecting the artwork.

The oil companies have kept their distance ever since.

This is but one example of Peter’s ability to negotiate quickly on his feet, and to find solutions that defy expectations.

I feel like this is really important. 

Promising early results from a clinical trial at the Mayo Clinic out this week demonstrate that a modified version of the measles virus can be used to target cancer cells and put the condition into remission. Researchers intravenously delivered 10,000 times the typical dosage of measles vaccine to two women, 49- and 65-years-old, who had multiple myeloma, a rare cancer affecting white blood cells in bone marrow. The virus, which was modified to specifically target cancer cells, reduced or eliminated tumors in the two patients. The 49-year-old woman responded particularly well; other than one local relapse that was treated with radiotherapy, her tumors have disappeared and cancer has remained in remission for over six months.

The idea of using viruses to attack cancer isn't a new one — scientists have been studying the technique since the 1950s. However, researchers say that this is the first time they've been able eliminate cancer in a human subject using the virus through an intravenous injection. The virus was able to target the tumors itself and even treat affected bone marrow. Other similar studies have used direct injection into tumor sites rather than intravenous delivery methods.

"We believe it can become a single-shot cure."

That's part of what has the researchers particularly optimistic about the results. Dr. Stephen J. Russell, the study's lead author, said, "What we're really excited about with this particular approach is that we believe it can become a single-shot cure." Traditional cancer treatments require months of visits to continue battling the cancer cells. One hurdle for the technique, however, is that patients who've built up antibodies — close to 95 percent of the US public has been vaccinated to measles — are not eligible for the treatment. However, myeloma does weaken patients' immune systems, which makes the virus more effective.

Despite promise in the treatment, it's important to note that this is still extremely early. Other promising virus-based cancer treatments have been tested many times in the past but none have advanced far through clinical trials. Incredibly thorough trials with far more patients will be required as these results are far from definitive. Dr. Stephen Russell warned: "We have an enormous amount of work to do to determine if this is generalizable and how to best apply the approach to other cancer patients." He added, "We haven’t discovered a cure for cancer here."