Best. Dog. Ever?
Simply say "I'm parched," and this cattle dog will open the fridge, grab you a beer and even shut the door again before delivery.
Good boy Bandit, now fetch me some chips.
Via the Daily Coffee Club
If you like coffee and beer, maybe this new Starbucks drink is worth a shot! Starbucks is testing what they've named the Dark Barrel Latte, a drink made with espresso and a chocolaty stout flavor and topped with whipped cream and a dark caramel drizzle. While there's no alcohol actually in the drink, many are insisting that it tastes a lot like beer.
Starbucks already sells beer and wine at some of their stores in the evening, and this fun new blend might be a good way to bridge the gap between the coffee lovers and the beer & wine enthusiasts. Many of the company's customers love trying new things and unique flavor pairings, so for now they're testing this drink to see if it has the potential to become more widely available.
This year alone, 29,500 individually designed beer labels have been submitted for approval to the Trade Department's Tax and Trade Bureau. And every single one of those label designs was approved or denied by a single man: Kent "Battle" Martin, a man who is the bane of the beer industry for his power to reject labels for the flimsiest of reasons.
Battle has rejected a beer label for the King of Hearts, which had a playing card image on it, because the heart implied that the beer would have a health benefit.
He rejected a beer label featuring a painting called The Conversion of Paula By Saint Jerome because its name, St. Paula's Liquid Wisdom, contained a medical claim--that the beer would grant wisdom.
He rejected a beer called Pickled Santa because Santa's eyes were too "googly" on the label, and labels cannot advertise the physical effects of alcohol. (A less googly-eyed Santa was later approved.)
He rejected a beer called Bad Elf because it featured an "Elf Warning," suggesting that elves not operate toy-making machinery while drinking the ale. The label was not approved on the grounds that the warning was confusing to consumers.