You throw that 15% around like it was a big number.
The entire undergrad enrollment at Harvard is about 6700[1]. If most of those who take CS50 take it in their freshman/first year, that 15% is only about 100 people in any given semester or term.
I dare say you could take any intro CS course at a school like University of Michigan, or UC Berkeley, and sit in an auditorium filled with over 100 people. And that'd be for just one of several of those classes.
I'm no fan of Walmart. And not to side with the retailers, but––
Most stores already have RFID chips added to the packaging for theft prevention.
There are already stores where you walk in, pick up a cart and scanner, and scan each item as you put it in the cart. Then you walk through the checkout line and tap your credit card and you're out of the store in a minute.
I can also see it being a big win for commercial purchasers. Office managers that want coffee K-Cup and PostIt Note refills to arrive (semi-)automatically without having to go look in the kitchen or the supply cabinet every day to see if they're running low.
But yeah, I don't want anyone automatically sending me more peanut butter.. I might have decided I'm off peanut butter for a while. Or I might alternate between supermarket chains (sorry, I have zero loyalty to any supermarket chain and I can't imagine why anyone would) and I don't need anyone deciding for me that I'm due for a refill.
Well, AC, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
When someone points their browser at the Mayo Clinic's web site and searches for early signs of breast cancer, their ISP can make inferences about them that Google and Facebook can't.
They don't have to use Facebook. Lots of people don't. They don't have to use google either. They may have a priori knowledge about web sites like WebMD, their local Ford dealer, or their favorite porn site.
"Protection" from Google and Facebook are also important, but not nearly as important as being sure their ISP can't give or sell information about their browsing history or to whom they sent email.
Because it's nobody's fucking business except their own. The fact that the new rules hadn't taken affect yet is neither here nor there. The rules have to start sometime though, and the sooner the better.
You have to take that as it was meant when written...it means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states
SCOTUS doesn't agree with you, AFAICT
See U.S. v Butler, 1936
But it doesn't mean "welfare" in the same way that people in this century try to translate it.
If by "welfare" you mean the (((Entitlement))) part of Social Security? No, I I'm not aware that anyone in this exchange is translating it that way. Excepting perhaps you?
General Welfare is nebulous at best. It is used to describe just about anything someone wants...
I could says that same about "provide for the common defense". You want a "strict" reading of "provide for the common defense" – a strict reading that translates to don't cut it, spend more – because that fits your agenda. And skip right over the "promote general welfare" part on the basis that it doesn't fit your agenda so it's too vague?
You're obsessing over general welfare somehow translating to (((Entitlements))) of some kind, yet you can't come to come to grips with the fact that the entrenched and entitled defense industry wants more aircraft carriers and more F35s and more M1 tanks. More, more; our founding fathers said we have to provide for the common defense, and our CEOs need their seven digit compensations, so just keep sending money. And we need a tax cut. And our CEO needs a tax cut. We're not paying for this shit.
Our founding fathers, I suspect most would agree, were deliberately vague in the Constitution about a lot of things; which has given us a fair amount of leeway to adapt to the changes that have transpired over the last 240 years. Neither Common Defense or General Welfare is or was carte blanche AFAIK to go off the deep end of spending.
It all boils down to what do the people want and where to allocate scarce resources, i.e. tax dollars. I suspect a lot of people continue to value Energy Star even if you don't. And if the majority of us value a solution to affordable health care, there's nothing in the Constitutional preventing it, and in fact the notion of Promoting General Welfare certainly seems– on the surface – to specifically allow for it. (Except when it doesn't fit your agenda.)
And if you're the kind of idiot that buys a toaster with a clock in it, and can't bring yourself to unplug the damn thing, I have no sympathy for you. (It would seem to explain some other things about you too.)
Nobody is suggesting that the military go away. GP said "scaled... back" Heck, before WWII we had a much smaller military. The Constitution doesn't require military spending to be 1%, 3% or 10% of GDP. Specifically it says "provide for the common defense." BTW, in the very same sentence it also says "promote the general welfare." So far we have interpreted "common defense" to mean "have a standing army." But you know what? Excluding WWI and WWII, up until WWII our military spending was < 1% of gross GDP[1]. Now it's over 3%, and Twitler wants to double it. Do we really need to double it? Opinions are nice, but objectivity is better.
You're all hot to point out that the Constitution requires the government to provide for the common defense. But you seem to want to gloss right over the promote the general welfare part. Why is that, do you suppose?
And if we the people want it, it seems to me that the government can solve the affordable health care problem. No Constitutional Amendment required/ We already do lots of other things under the banner of promoting the general welfare, e.g. seatbelt and airbags in cars, safe food, clean air and water, etc., etc. (and Science, bitches.)
OTOH you know what isn't in the Constitution? There's nothing in it that guarantees that every business will succeed. While Conservitards everywhere are obsessing over the possibility that some theoretical welfare queens somewhere (that typically don't actually exist) are bilking the government for millions, Corporate Welfare Queens are getting tax breaks and using bookkeeping tricks to avoid paying taxes they owe on billions in income. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Oh, and those Corporate Welfare Queens are people too, thanks to Citizens United, so they can donate huge sums of money to the very same Congress Critters who give them those tax cuts, bookkeeping dodges, and "people" status. Something's fishy in Denmark if you ask me. (And hey, I'm a person too, I want that same 15% tax rate that Twitler wants to give them.)
But yeah, keep whining about health care not being in the Constitution. The ACA didn't give health care to anyone. It required the freeloaders who weren't buying insurance and driving the rest of our rates up to be adults and finally buy insurance. Maybe you didn't like the subsidies that the poor got, is that what your gripe was? Let me ask you, do you call yourself a Christian? Ask yourself, would Jesus have helped the poor? Should he have helped the poor? Would he have wanted you to help the poor? Is there a reason you don't think the poor should get help with buying the insurance they need? And want to buy?
Did you mean the safety of each should be objectively measured?
If we're only doing subjective measurements, I'd say the antifreeze is fairly safe. Safer than, say, Hydrochloric acid, even if it's not quite as safe as chocolate. It's probably okay to drink it.
BTW, I know a fair few people who'd say that Hershey's isn't safe to eat, if only because it'll leave you wishing you had opted for something better. I personally prefer Ghirardhelli and English Cadbury chocolates.
Why? Can't American readers (who are probably a minority) read proper English?
As native[1] English speakers, lessee––
UK population: 65M
Ireland population: 4.6M
Australia population: 23.8M
New Zealand population: 4.6M
South Africa population: 54M
Canada population: 36M[2]
versus
US population: 321M
Americans the minority of native English speakers? Nope. Thanks for playing though.
[1] However fluent in English they may be, most Indians – AFAIK, and I've traveled there some – don't consider English to be their native language. I'd posit the same for most sub-Saharan African nations, Hong Kong, etc. Even if we wanted to count, e.g., India, do you want to guess the number (out of 1.2B) who read or speak English fluently? And India has a lot of its own English idioms which I guess you wouldn't understand either, even though it's "Proper English."
[2] Even though Canucks use England English spellings, e.g. colour, honour, harbour, etc., they really speak American English. Except when they're speaking French. We'll count them to your side anyway, what the heck.
(population sources: World Bank)
Oh good. Keep repeating "ignorant butt-hurt Socialists". Over and over. That'll win you some friends.
I'm not a Socialist – I'm actually a capitalist. I'm an honest capitalist. I'm a pragmatic capitalist. And 66M Americans – 3M more than voted for Twitler – aren't Socialist either. And your side's endless blathering about (((Socialists))) isn't going to magically make them Socialists either. (And I'm betting you live in one of those "socialist/welfare states" by which I mean your state receives more federal dollars than it collects in taxes, while my state pays more. I'd love to end that little "entitlement" you've got going there.)
And speaking of willful ignorance. Just keep on ignoring the fact that he's a facist, racist, misogynist, draft dodging, lying, cheating, tax dodging, pussy grabbing, bully, serial adulterer, and did I forget anything else? I'm sure I did. Go back and watch the video where he mocked the reporter with the speech impediment and tell me you're proud of that. Watch the videos where he told his jack booted thugs to kick the crap out of people, and then come back and tell us that that's how you want the rest of the world to see us. Go read the stories about the people he did business with and then didn't pay them what he agreed; then come back and tell us that's a guy you want to do business with. Go on.
There is no "get with the program." You, and the rest of the people like you can just forget that. We're not going to "get over it because we lost." We're just going to turn it around on you and tell you "we're not going away, just get over it." You drove around with your "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker for eight years. Now we're going to to exactly the same thing. Get over it.
And his tax returns are significant, not matter how many times you try to claim they're not. So again, "get over it." We're going to keep pushing for them for as long as he's in office. We just are, so STFU about it already you whiney little turd. And in the mean time, just so we're on an even footing, we'll call you an ignorant butt-hurt loser fascist. And you are a fascist, don't kid yourself. Because a real American wouldn't be the least bit threatened by other people speaking their minds. This is like First Amendment kind of stuff. You know that, right?
It's not suddenly important. It's been important all along. Trying to claim otherwise is one of those Alternate Facts that Kellyann likes to blather about.
I couldn't care less if he used a loophole. Actually, I do care – I want a loophole too. Or I want his loophole closed. What I really care about though is that he might have sources of income that would indicate he has conflicts of interest. We already do have laws that prohibit conflicts of interest by executive branch members. Google "emoluments" for more info. While some claim those laws don't apply to the president, no court has yet ruled on it, and every president going back to at least Reagan has both released his taxes and put his assets into a blind trust to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.
In the end, it's about how it looks. And Trump just looks bad for refusing to do those things. And a lot of other things too.
... rare-earth materials, which are both expensive and difficult to acquire."
or
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26687605 (amongst others) that claim Rare-Earths are not rare and by extension not necessarily expensive or even very difficult to acquire.
NFS on a 100baseT on the USB bus and a slow chipset. yeahrite.
over a PPP connection
you're a funny dude. First you tell me that SATA is old and dead in 2017, then suggest using PPP. I haven't used PPP since around 1994 on a 56K modem. Sure, PCIe would be nice, but it's even more expensive than SATA. We're already not getting SATA, so I'd wager getting PCIe is even further behind.
The reason these boards are cheap is that they are using surplus SOCs designed for smart TVs and set top boxes. A board that had SATA or PCIe support would cost much more than $5 extra.
Whatever. $5 more, $10 more. My point is that these SOCs are cute, but not worth wasting my time on.
from the article:... its high amount of fat, cholesterol and sodium makes it an unhealthy food...
Well, not to defend Burger King (and a bit off topic), but if you're getting the appropriate amount of exercise your body won't metabolize the fat and cholesterol, and the original research that claimed salt is bad for you was flawed (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/); posting this kind of counter attack could be considered – by some – as misguided. Then again, most people don't get sufficient exercise and the fat and cholesterol is bad for them.
It wasn't uncommon in the early days of the web for people to shift the bandwidth load of their websites by linking to content on other people's web servers. When those other people figured out this was happening to them, they would replace the content with something else that the bandwidth "thief" didn't intend, e.g. smut, much to the bandwidth thief's embarrassment.
A better counter attack, IMO, would have been to replace the content Burger King was expecting with something else, e.g. an audio clip of Meg Ryan's faux orgasm from "When Harry Met Sally" or a clip of HAL saying "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
I'm not sure what planet you're on, but on this one there is WiFi and Internet access. My last coast-to-coast flights on JetBlue had it. Delta and American have it on a lot of their flights. JetBlue's price was very reasonable. I'm trying to remember if BA had it on my last flight, but I was more interested in sleeping. My colleagues who fly Emirates say their flights to Dubai and onward have it. Pretty sure I could have done FaceTime when I was using the WiFi on my last JetBlue flights.
Slashdot Mirror
This begs the question ...
No, it raises the question. Begging the question means something completely different. If you went to Harvard, you would know this.
I bet you're one of those people who complain every time someone uses "decimate" to mean something other than kill one in ten.
This is why you didn't go to Harvard
(Neither did I, but I can do math.)
Thank you. At least someone has a brain.
You throw that 15% around like it was a big number.
The entire undergrad enrollment at Harvard is about 6700[1]. If most of those who take CS50 take it in their freshman/first year, that 15% is only about 100 people in any given semester or term.
I dare say you could take any intro CS course at a school like University of Michigan, or UC Berkeley, and sit in an auditorium filled with over 100 people. And that'd be for just one of several of those classes.
And no, I'm not defending Harvard, or cheating.
[1] http://www.harvard.edu/about-h...
I'm no fan of Walmart. And not to side with the retailers, but––
Most stores already have RFID chips added to the packaging for theft prevention.
There are already stores where you walk in, pick up a cart and scanner, and scan each item as you put it in the cart. Then you walk through the checkout line and tap your credit card and you're out of the store in a minute.
I can also see it being a big win for commercial purchasers. Office managers that want coffee K-Cup and PostIt Note refills to arrive (semi-)automatically without having to go look in the kitchen or the supply cabinet every day to see if they're running low.
But yeah, I don't want anyone automatically sending me more peanut butter.. I might have decided I'm off peanut butter for a while. Or I might alternate between supermarket chains (sorry, I have zero loyalty to any supermarket chain and I can't imagine why anyone would) and I don't need anyone deciding for me that I'm due for a refill.
Well, AC, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
When someone points their browser at the Mayo Clinic's web site and searches for early signs of breast cancer, their ISP can make inferences about them that Google and Facebook can't.
They don't have to use Facebook. Lots of people don't. They don't have to use google either. They may have a priori knowledge about web sites like WebMD, their local Ford dealer, or their favorite porn site.
"Protection" from Google and Facebook are also important, but not nearly as important as being sure their ISP can't give or sell information about their browsing history or to whom they sent email.
Because it's nobody's fucking business except their own. The fact that the new rules hadn't taken affect yet is neither here nor there. The rules have to start sometime though, and the sooner the better.
Debian and Ubuntu are Red Hat derivatives? Who knew?
You have to take that as it was meant when written...it means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states
SCOTUS doesn't agree with you, AFAICT
See U.S. v Butler, 1936
But it doesn't mean "welfare" in the same way that people in this century try to translate it.
If by "welfare" you mean the (((Entitlement))) part of Social Security? No, I I'm not aware that anyone in this exchange is translating it that way. Excepting perhaps you?
General Welfare is nebulous at best. It is used to describe just about anything someone wants...
I could says that same about "provide for the common defense". You want a "strict" reading of "provide for the common defense" – a strict reading that translates to don't cut it, spend more – because that fits your agenda. And skip right over the "promote general welfare" part on the basis that it doesn't fit your agenda so it's too vague?
You're obsessing over general welfare somehow translating to (((Entitlements))) of some kind, yet you can't come to come to grips with the fact that the entrenched and entitled defense industry wants more aircraft carriers and more F35s and more M1 tanks. More, more; our founding fathers said we have to provide for the common defense, and our CEOs need their seven digit compensations, so just keep sending money. And we need a tax cut. And our CEO needs a tax cut. We're not paying for this shit.
Our founding fathers, I suspect most would agree, were deliberately vague in the Constitution about a lot of things; which has given us a fair amount of leeway to adapt to the changes that have transpired over the last 240 years. Neither Common Defense or General Welfare is or was carte blanche AFAIK to go off the deep end of spending.
It all boils down to what do the people want and where to allocate scarce resources, i.e. tax dollars. I suspect a lot of people continue to value Energy Star even if you don't. And if the majority of us value a solution to affordable health care, there's nothing in the Constitutional preventing it, and in fact the notion of Promoting General Welfare certainly seems– on the surface – to specifically allow for it. (Except when it doesn't fit your agenda.)
And if you're the kind of idiot that buys a toaster with a clock in it, and can't bring yourself to unplug the damn thing, I have no sympathy for you. (It would seem to explain some other things about you too.)
Ho hum, that old line of reasoning.
Nobody is suggesting that the military go away. GP said "scaled ... back" Heck, before WWII we had a much smaller military. The Constitution doesn't require military spending to be 1%, 3% or 10% of GDP. Specifically it says "provide for the common defense." BTW, in the very same sentence it also says "promote the general welfare." So far we have interpreted "common defense" to mean "have a standing army." But you know what? Excluding WWI and WWII, up until WWII our military spending was < 1% of gross GDP[1]. Now it's over 3%, and Twitler wants to double it. Do we really need to double it? Opinions are nice, but objectivity is better.
You're all hot to point out that the Constitution requires the government to provide for the common defense. But you seem to want to gloss right over the promote the general welfare part. Why is that, do you suppose?
And if we the people want it, it seems to me that the government can solve the affordable health care problem. No Constitutional Amendment required/ We already do lots of other things under the banner of promoting the general welfare, e.g. seatbelt and airbags in cars, safe food, clean air and water, etc., etc. (and Science, bitches.)
OTOH you know what isn't in the Constitution? There's nothing in it that guarantees that every business will succeed. While Conservitards everywhere are obsessing over the possibility that some theoretical welfare queens somewhere (that typically don't actually exist) are bilking the government for millions, Corporate Welfare Queens are getting tax breaks and using bookkeeping tricks to avoid paying taxes they owe on billions in income. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Oh, and those Corporate Welfare Queens are people too, thanks to Citizens United, so they can donate huge sums of money to the very same Congress Critters who give them those tax cuts, bookkeeping dodges, and "people" status. Something's fishy in Denmark if you ask me. (And hey, I'm a person too, I want that same 15% tax rate that Twitler wants to give them.)
But yeah, keep whining about health care not being in the Constitution. The ACA didn't give health care to anyone. It required the freeloaders who weren't buying insurance and driving the rest of our rates up to be adults and finally buy insurance. Maybe you didn't like the subsidies that the poor got, is that what your gripe was? Let me ask you, do you call yourself a Christian? Ask yourself, would Jesus have helped the poor? Should he have helped the poor? Would he have wanted you to help the poor? Is there a reason you don't think the poor should get help with buying the insurance they need? And want to buy?
[1] http://www.usgovernmentspendin...
Did you mean the safety of each should be objectively measured?
If we're only doing subjective measurements, I'd say the antifreeze is fairly safe. Safer than, say, Hydrochloric acid, even if it's not quite as safe as chocolate. It's probably okay to drink it.
BTW, I know a fair few people who'd say that Hershey's isn't safe to eat, if only because it'll leave you wishing you had opted for something better. I personally prefer Ghirardhelli and English Cadbury chocolates.
So how about we cut the military budget in half? How would you feel about that?
Why? Can't American readers (who are probably a minority) read proper English?
As native[1] English speakers, lessee–– UK population: 65M
Ireland population: 4.6M
Australia population: 23.8M
New Zealand population: 4.6M
South Africa population: 54M
Canada population: 36M[2]
versus
US population: 321M
Americans the minority of native English speakers? Nope. Thanks for playing though.
[1] However fluent in English they may be, most Indians – AFAIK, and I've traveled there some – don't consider English to be their native language. I'd posit the same for most sub-Saharan African nations, Hong Kong, etc. Even if we wanted to count, e.g., India, do you want to guess the number (out of 1.2B) who read or speak English fluently? And India has a lot of its own English idioms which I guess you wouldn't understand either, even though it's "Proper English."
[2] Even though Canucks use England English spellings, e.g. colour, honour, harbour, etc., they really speak American English. Except when they're speaking French. We'll count them to your side anyway, what the heck.
(population sources: World Bank)
Inquiring minds want to know then, just what it was then. Did it just enter the code fully formed when nobody was looking?
Oh good. Keep repeating "ignorant butt-hurt Socialists". Over and over. That'll win you some friends.
I'm not a Socialist – I'm actually a capitalist. I'm an honest capitalist. I'm a pragmatic capitalist. And 66M Americans – 3M more than voted for Twitler – aren't Socialist either. And your side's endless blathering about (((Socialists))) isn't going to magically make them Socialists either. (And I'm betting you live in one of those "socialist/welfare states" by which I mean your state receives more federal dollars than it collects in taxes, while my state pays more. I'd love to end that little "entitlement" you've got going there.)
And speaking of willful ignorance. Just keep on ignoring the fact that he's a facist, racist, misogynist, draft dodging, lying, cheating, tax dodging, pussy grabbing, bully, serial adulterer, and did I forget anything else? I'm sure I did. Go back and watch the video where he mocked the reporter with the speech impediment and tell me you're proud of that. Watch the videos where he told his jack booted thugs to kick the crap out of people, and then come back and tell us that that's how you want the rest of the world to see us. Go read the stories about the people he did business with and then didn't pay them what he agreed; then come back and tell us that's a guy you want to do business with. Go on.
There is no "get with the program." You, and the rest of the people like you can just forget that. We're not going to "get over it because we lost." We're just going to turn it around on you and tell you "we're not going away, just get over it." You drove around with your "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker for eight years. Now we're going to to exactly the same thing. Get over it.
And his tax returns are significant, not matter how many times you try to claim they're not. So again, "get over it." We're going to keep pushing for them for as long as he's in office. We just are, so STFU about it already you whiney little turd. And in the mean time, just so we're on an even footing, we'll call you an ignorant butt-hurt loser fascist. And you are a fascist, don't kid yourself. Because a real American wouldn't be the least bit threatened by other people speaking their minds. This is like First Amendment kind of stuff. You know that, right?
It's not suddenly important. It's been important all along. Trying to claim otherwise is one of those Alternate Facts that Kellyann likes to blather about.
I couldn't care less if he used a loophole. Actually, I do care – I want a loophole too. Or I want his loophole closed. What I really care about though is that he might have sources of income that would indicate he has conflicts of interest. We already do have laws that prohibit conflicts of interest by executive branch members. Google "emoluments" for more info. While some claim those laws don't apply to the president, no court has yet ruled on it, and every president going back to at least Reagan has both released his taxes and put his assets into a blind trust to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.
In the end, it's about how it looks. And Trump just looks bad for refusing to do those things. And a lot of other things too.
... rare-earth materials, which are both expensive and difficult to acquire."
or
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26687605 (amongst others) that claim Rare-Earths are not rare and by extension not necessarily expensive or even very difficult to acquire.
Which is it then? Who should we believe?
...Woz predicted portable laptops back in 1982,...
And what else did he predict that hasn't come true?
Laptops? In 1982? That really wasn't a stretch.
SATA is old and dead in 2017
emmc and PCIe are the interfaces of the present
why not just mount it via NFS
NFS on a 100baseT on the USB bus and a slow chipset. yeahrite.
over a PPP connection
you're a funny dude. First you tell me that SATA is old and dead in 2017, then suggest using PPP. I haven't used PPP since around 1994 on a 56K modem. Sure, PCIe would be nice, but it's even more expensive than SATA. We're already not getting SATA, so I'd wager getting PCIe is even further behind.
The reason these boards are cheap is that they are using surplus SOCs designed for smart TVs and set top boxes. A board that had SATA or PCIe support would cost much more than $5 extra.
Whatever. $5 more, $10 more. My point is that these SOCs are cute, but not worth wasting my time on.
(I had 16Meg in my 386SX rig back in the day.)
Ee, when I were a lad I 'ad 32K and I were grateful for it.
Well, I was referring to my 386SX rig, not the first Apple ][ I had access to.
And more memory. 2Gig ain't what it used to be. (I had 16Meg in my 386SX rig back in the day.)
Waiting for my ExpressoBINs to arrive.
from the article: ... its high amount of fat, cholesterol and sodium makes it an unhealthy food...
Well, not to defend Burger King (and a bit off topic), but if you're getting the appropriate amount of exercise your body won't metabolize the fat and cholesterol, and the original research that claimed salt is bad for you was flawed (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/); posting this kind of counter attack could be considered – by some – as misguided. Then again, most people don't get sufficient exercise and the fat and cholesterol is bad for them.
It wasn't uncommon in the early days of the web for people to shift the bandwidth load of their websites by linking to content on other people's web servers. When those other people figured out this was happening to them, they would replace the content with something else that the bandwidth "thief" didn't intend, e.g. smut, much to the bandwidth thief's embarrassment.
A better counter attack, IMO, would have been to replace the content Burger King was expecting with something else, e.g. an audio clip of Meg Ryan's faux orgasm from "When Harry Met Sally" or a clip of HAL saying "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
I'm not sure what planet you're on, but on this one there is WiFi and Internet access. My last coast-to-coast flights on JetBlue had it. Delta and American have it on a lot of their flights. JetBlue's price was very reasonable. I'm trying to remember if BA had it on my last flight, but I was more interested in sleeping. My colleagues who fly Emirates say their flights to Dubai and onward have it. Pretty sure I could have done FaceTime when I was using the WiFi on my last JetBlue flights.
Then all those cars on the roads are from where exactly?
That aside, give people an even easier way not to drive, especially when drunk, and surprise, drunk driving goes down.
Whodathunkit?