YouKick - Portal für Fussball
trennlinie
Büro Format - Visuelle Kommunikation
trennlinie
Gründerportal
trennlinie

Trinkbar von Manuela

Für alle Partytrinker, die es erst lustig haben, wenn sie auf einem bestimmten Alk-Niveau sind: Bar oder Barkette eröffnen, die einem einen Start ins Nachtleben mit einem Promille zu einem fixen Betrag, z.B. 20 Sfr., ermöglicht. Man geht rein, steht auf eine Waage und ein Computer rechnet einem verschieden Möglichkeiten aus, wie man genau auf 1 Promille kommt. Z.B. ein Bacardi-Cola, ein Wodka pur und zwei Bier. Man kann aus mehreren Möglichkeiten wählen und zahlt einen Pauschalpreis als Eintritt. Die Bar heiss 1 Promille. Dito übrigens auch für 0.5 (noch heimfahren), 2 Promille oder 3 Promille (Hammerrausch). Die Preise sind dann dementsprechend angepasst. Man zahlt also nicht mehr für ein Getränk, sondern für die Wirkung.

Bewertung: 6.5
2 Stimmen
Hits:
15524
Kategorie:
Sport / Freizeit
In der Datenbank seit:
13. Februar 2008


Kommentare

Ihr Name (13. Februar 2008)
Finde ich eine gute Idee - vor allem das Eintrittsgerät, das einem ausrechnet, wie viel man für eine Promille braucht. Das könnte man doch entwickeln und für die Bars verkaufen - die stellen es dann beim Klo oder so auf - oder beim Eingang. Man steht drauf und erhält eine Trinkliste die auf den Klub angepasst ist! So trinken die Leute mehr und man kann steuern was sie trinken :-)

Ihr Name (17. Mai 2008)
Eher heikel das ganze. Wobei Publicity hätte man sicher.

Emre (11. Oktober 2015)
Haha! Och du har varit riksdagsledamot. Vilken soirglg figur du e4r.Om du ska he5lla pe5 och snacka om diskriminering, din ff6rrvirrade flams-feminist, se5 kan du ve4l ta ne5got be4ttre exempel? Varff6r skall unga me4n i vissa fall ha dubbelt se5 hf6g premie e4n, le5t se4ga, en medele5lders kvinna? Kanske ff6r att de krockar i tid och otid? Och hur vet man det? He4r, kom... Jag ska le4ra dig ett nytt ord helt gratis: statistik.Det e4r ve4l helt enkelt se5 att kvinnor i den e5ldersgruppen krockar mer e4n me4n i samma e5ldersgrupp. Kom inte dragandes med ne5t gammalt me4n-e4r-djur-tycker-inte-du-det-pseudofeministiskt je4vla trams. Du gf6r bort dig.Intressesant ff6rresten att du hakade upp dig pe5 att personen som kvinna fick betala mer. Hade du iste4llet varit ff6r e4kta je4mste4lldhet hade du reagerat pe5 absurditeten i att bedf6mma premien efter kf6n. Men du valde att visa ditt riktiga ansikte. Till ve5r stora ff6rtjusning.

Yosimar (12. Oktober 2015)
geht mal davon aus,das nicht nur ich sondern auch der<a href="http://ptwhetfsija.com"> natcke</a> ohne gfcltige Fahrkarte diese Bilder ( von beiden) jetzt haben wollen

Rodrigo (12. Oktober 2015)
Hi Phil,I actually find it very hard to unatdsernd what drives these people. In particular what drives otherwise reasonable, intelligent people to cling onto an opinion long after they must have realized they are wrong, or at least partly wrong. I mean, I can unatdsernd that it's not nice to admit one is wrong, and if every word of the discussion is documented that certainly doesn't help either. But what strikes me is how often the time spent, the effort, and anger is completely out of proportion to the issue at hand. I mean, seriously, who cares what sort of a tower it is? Thus I am wondering if it would be beneficial to just list pros and cons and have them defended in some limited time span, and then come to a conclusion, if necessary by vote rather than consensus, with the procedure to be repeated if there are new facts. That is for cases in which a conclusion has to be reached like possibly: what do we write on this site, is it a TV tower or not. A conclusion should not be enforced though when not necessary (as is the case with many scientific debates where the situation is just inconclusive.) Basically, this would cut off the fruitless repetitions one very frequently finds in online discussions, as if repeating a point would make it true. It is interesting though that research has shown that people do indeed think facts more likely to be true if they have heard them repeatedly, even if from the same source. This fact been known to PR outlets and advertisement managers and probably to some extend, intuitively to humans generally, this might explain a lot of the repetitions we see in argumentations. Best,B. http://mjbsjytqw.com [url=http://bxlgakff.com]bxlgakff[/url] [link=http://ifslwnsapag.com]ifslwnsapag[/link]

Steve (13. Oktober 2015)
Hi Bee,I also have a Wikipedia account that dates back quite a while and yet have only used it to <a href="http://vwurhenofrg.com">cocrret</a> one entry, being the label of a photo in respect to the Solvay Conferences in Physics. It had Richard Feynman and Murray Gell Mann in a photo of a conference as one being held and dated at a time before they could have been graduate students. I simply changed the heading under the photo to the one denoting the <a href="http://vwurhenofrg.com">cocrret</a> one and date. When I look back at the page no they have removed most of the conference photos, except for the very early ones and so my <a href="http://vwurhenofrg.com">cocrret</a>ion is no longer there.I've heard about all the changes that have taken place in Wikipedia land and I am not surprised, as with many endeavours that are at first meant to seek truth to end up instead as ones which holds (self) righteousness as the goal, rather then truth. This of course is most evident in religion, yet exists also within the realm of the Ivory Towers. In a recent post you spoke of minds being shared and yet as is demonstrated here sharing is not what many are concerned with, as much as it being ownership and influence that drives them. So how could we ever expect they would be willing to share their minds when primarily interested in dictating as to what stands as their truth, rather than being open as to be concerned in discovering what it be.Best,PhilP,S, Sorry for all the <a href="http://vwurhenofrg.com">cocrret</a>ions which gives some indiction s to why I never became all that active in the project, as I would cause more effort to be spent exceeding what I could contribute :-)

Kitla (13. Oktober 2015)
Jeg har i allefall ikke pleiing. (Til e5 blogge se5pass mye selv, har jeg sve6rt sve6rt liten pleiing pe5 andre bloggere) Jeg regner med hele greia er en spf8k :) Mitt innlegg var i allefall det; hvis noen trodde det skulle ve6re meg er det verst for dem :-D http://pdftexrdtef.com [url=http://wzkmkgxkzo.com]wzkmkgxkzo[/url] [link=http://actvegdmrra.com]actvegdmrra[/link]

Dahrann (28. Juni 2016)
What&#8217;s wrong missy? No comment on whether Hillary and Kerry are &#8216;now representing saa2#&n8t17;? Decided to avoid that one didn&#8217;t you.Where are your stats about Republicans being a minority?Or did you think you could just change the subject again?

Kommentar schreiben

Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart