Point was - and remains - journalists are, overwhelmingly, Illiberal.
That's not what your referenced article says. You read it wrong.
the percentage of Republicans in the profession declined over the decades
That's partly because Republicans are growing increasingly anti-subject-expert, and that's against the very idea of universities, specialists, and science. Prayer and "common sense folks-logic" is their new guiding star.
Republicans changed.
Or should I accept the fact, that New York, Chicago, LA, and the Silicon Valley
The fact that some progressives care about money doesn't contradict my point. Learn set theory.
The stock market's level and the fortunes of regular folks have rarely been in sync the last few decades.
As far as recessions, if we look at the usual cycles, a recession is indeed due fairly soon. Due to the debt, there's not enough spare fuel for a strong stimulus such that things could get unpleasant for the new administration.
[link] Just 7 percent of journalists are Republicans
I suspect there are few Republican journalists because most journalists are well-educated, and well-educated people are less likely to vote Republican.
Further, Republicans are more likely to value salary above all else, and journalism doesn't pay very well on average for the amount of education needed for it. Thus, Republicans are more likely to focus on other, more lucrative fields.
Why not blame Bill Clinton for removing the regulations that allowed banks to...
Indeed. I blame Bill for acting like a Republican to de-reg the banks, contributing to the Great Recession. Both parties get spanks for that one. Let's hope they don't do it again, per all the talk of rolling back Dodd-Frank by the new administration.
Also, they paperweighted the vast majority of their servers with McAfee's product turned up to "insanely secure"
Oh, that's so annoying. Can make the systems run so slow that it's effective in thwarting the bad guys by making them fall asleep waiting for servers to respond. "Snorecurity". It's almost comparable to powering everything off. They won't hack a server with no power.
Security: A, Productivity: F
Makes me almost miss the good ol' days with VAX's, 2400 baud modems, and Commodore 64's. Wimpy hardware, yes, but it wasn't bogged down encrypting, decryption, and scanning, and-rescanning over and over again like a hungry dog paranoid of you stealing his bone.
And the joy of trying to hunt down why On-Access-Scanning is jamming up certain applications at certain times for certain operations that requires voodoo to catch in the act in order to document the process to request an exception rule be added by the security staff, and users giving my apps poor scores because these scandogs make them into dogs. I'm not the bad programmer, McAfee is, dammit!
How about a yellow notice bar at the top of the browser window that says something like, "This pages has 3 Flash components embedded. To run each one, click on the [sample] icon. More info [link]."
In general, it seems Indian voters are more likely to trust their government to not use e-cash to track them in order to take away guns and/or profiling based on ethnicity or religion to prevent attacks, deport, etc.
Trump seems to be in a state of flux where he can be easily persuaded [per keeping much of ACA]
That's not persuasion, but the logic of reality.
Trump had often talked about a having a "good" national healthcare system. He's generally not a social Darwinist like many of the Tea Partiers*
And if you want a decent national healthcare system, you have to have many of the unpopular provisions of the ACA, such as everybody paying into it to some degree, and some groups subsidizing others.
During campaigns it's easy to over-emphasize the down-sides of a system and down-play the upsides, but if the trade-offs are inherent, then you can't JUST keep the upsides in practice when actually in office.
His intention is to "get better deals" from the pharmaceuticals and insurers and possibly de-regulate some aspects of healthcare to lower the costs, rather than some revolutionary new compensation system. How that plays out, we'll see.
In the end, the result will probably fairly closely resemble ACA with enough tweaks to call it TrumpCare. Remember that ACA was mostly designed by conservative think-thanks. It's hard to make it even more conservative and still cover everybody in a practical way.
* Which is basically to either let the sick and poor die, or have them beg churches for help. But, during deep recessions, churches are often overwhelmed. Plus, it's form of religious marketing.
Yet again, let's upgrade the whole OS to get new features in the browser!
Microsoft 101
They play a jillion games to get you to upgrade shit. For example, they may support their very own older languages and tools, but it gets incrementally more difficult to support them, requiring goofball configuration fiddling.
At first I thought it was just incompetence on MS's part, but looking at the pattern of their entropy, it's pretty clear it's intentional. For example, it may be a well-documented problem and accumulate tons of online questions and info on how to work-around the oddity, but MS still doesn't fix the newer environment to accommodate the older tool properly.
Yet they quickly fix new shit they want to promote. Therefore, it's not the total hours of user headaches that dictates what they fix, but rather how much sales is generated (or not generated) by fixing it.
It's like slowly tightening the screw of the vice clamp on your ass...ets until you finally Say Uncle and buy the damned upgrade and migrate to it.
The prompt asks "Do you want to run Flash for this site..." [paraphrased]
Ideally it should show a prompt or marker at the spot(s) on the page where the Flash markup is. Otherwise, it's hard to know what you are confirming, and you are confirming every Flash reference on the page once you confirm.
You may enable it to view a video, for example, but could also be opening up Flash spam on the side. Spammers will master this trick of baiting. Page-level confirmation is too course a confirmation granularity.
If you have direct evidence that on average progressives make such mistakes more than conservatives, I'll give you kudo points. Otherwise, stick it up your troll-hole using repetitive and intense motion.
I accidentally made a similar mistake myself recently. I got a notice that I'm being billed for a song which I didn't order from a tunes site.
Under the sheer emotion of being mis-billed, I clicked the "Cancel" link given by the email itself. Fortunately my anti-malware software caught it before I tried to login. The habit of just clicking sometimes jumps ahead of reason. We're human.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not what your referenced article says. You read it wrong.
That's partly because Republicans are growing increasingly anti-subject-expert, and that's against the very idea of universities, specialists, and science. Prayer and "common sense folks-logic" is their new guiding star.
Republicans changed.
The fact that some progressives care about money doesn't contradict my point. Learn set theory.
If things get a bit too "great", can I trade places with you?
The stock market's level and the fortunes of regular folks have rarely been in sync the last few decades.
As far as recessions, if we look at the usual cycles, a recession is indeed due fairly soon. Due to the debt, there's not enough spare fuel for a strong stimulus such that things could get unpleasant for the new administration.
I suspect there are few Republican journalists because most journalists are well-educated, and well-educated people are less likely to vote Republican.
Further, Republicans are more likely to value salary above all else, and journalism doesn't pay very well on average for the amount of education needed for it. Thus, Republicans are more likely to focus on other, more lucrative fields.
Indeed. I blame Bill for acting like a Republican to de-reg the banks, contributing to the Great Recession. Both parties get spanks for that one. Let's hope they don't do it again, per all the talk of rolling back Dodd-Frank by the new administration.
We must be running 1995 McAfee then.
Typo: supposed to be "crooked cabinet". Works either way, I suppose.
Perhaps they can re-purpose it for the new #CookedCabinet.
Oh, that's so annoying. Can make the systems run so slow that it's effective in thwarting the bad guys by making them fall asleep waiting for servers to respond. "Snorecurity". It's almost comparable to powering everything off. They won't hack a server with no power.
Security: A, Productivity: F
Makes me almost miss the good ol' days with VAX's, 2400 baud modems, and Commodore 64's. Wimpy hardware, yes, but it wasn't bogged down encrypting, decryption, and scanning, and-rescanning over and over again like a hungry dog paranoid of you stealing his bone.
And the joy of trying to hunt down why On-Access-Scanning is jamming up certain applications at certain times for certain operations that requires voodoo to catch in the act in order to document the process to request an exception rule be added by the security staff, and users giving my apps poor scores because these scandogs make them into dogs. I'm not the bad programmer, McAfee is, dammit!
But the models get uglier every day unless you pay. (Hmmm, a marriage simulator?)
I saw nothing in TFA that indicated the success rate of recovery for those who pay.
How about a yellow notice bar at the top of the browser window that says something like, "This pages has 3 Flash components embedded. To run each one, click on the [sample] icon. More info [link]."
Repubs do it also, but in the closet.
In general, it seems Indian voters are more likely to trust their government to not use e-cash to track them in order to take away guns and/or profiling based on ethnicity or religion to prevent attacks, deport, etc.
Republicans don't trust Democrat administrations, and Democrats don't trust Republican administrations.
That's not persuasion, but the logic of reality.
Trump had often talked about a having a "good" national healthcare system. He's generally not a social Darwinist like many of the Tea Partiers*
And if you want a decent national healthcare system, you have to have many of the unpopular provisions of the ACA, such as everybody paying into it to some degree, and some groups subsidizing others.
During campaigns it's easy to over-emphasize the down-sides of a system and down-play the upsides, but if the trade-offs are inherent, then you can't JUST keep the upsides in practice when actually in office.
His intention is to "get better deals" from the pharmaceuticals and insurers and possibly de-regulate some aspects of healthcare to lower the costs, rather than some revolutionary new compensation system. How that plays out, we'll see.
In the end, the result will probably fairly closely resemble ACA with enough tweaks to call it TrumpCare. Remember that ACA was mostly designed by conservative think-thanks. It's hard to make it even more conservative and still cover everybody in a practical way.
* Which is basically to either let the sick and poor die, or have them beg churches for help. But, during deep recessions, churches are often overwhelmed. Plus, it's form of religious marketing.
Microsoft 101
They play a jillion games to get you to upgrade shit. For example, they may support their very own older languages and tools, but it gets incrementally more difficult to support them, requiring goofball configuration fiddling.
At first I thought it was just incompetence on MS's part, but looking at the pattern of their entropy, it's pretty clear it's intentional. For example, it may be a well-documented problem and accumulate tons of online questions and info on how to work-around the oddity, but MS still doesn't fix the newer environment to accommodate the older tool properly.
Yet they quickly fix new shit they want to promote. Therefore, it's not the total hours of user headaches that dictates what they fix, but rather how much sales is generated (or not generated) by fixing it.
It's like slowly tightening the screw of the vice clamp on your ass...ets until you finally Say Uncle and buy the damned upgrade and migrate to it.
The prompt asks "Do you want to run Flash for this site..." [paraphrased]
Ideally it should show a prompt or marker at the spot(s) on the page where the Flash markup is. Otherwise, it's hard to know what you are confirming, and you are confirming every Flash reference on the page once you confirm.
You may enable it to view a video, for example, but could also be opening up Flash spam on the side. Spammers will master this trick of baiting. Page-level confirmation is too course a confirmation granularity.
"It looks like you're trying to write a letter... [click] *BOOM!*
...and build a wall out of them.
If you have direct evidence that on average progressives make such mistakes more than conservatives, I'll give you kudo points. Otherwise, stick it up your troll-hole using repetitive and intense motion.
I accidentally made a similar mistake myself recently. I got a notice that I'm being billed for a song which I didn't order from a tunes site.
Under the sheer emotion of being mis-billed, I clicked the "Cancel" link given by the email itself. Fortunately my anti-malware software caught it before I tried to login. The habit of just clicking sometimes jumps ahead of reason. We're human.
or merely Trump quotes
Maybe he used a grammar checker, which flags grammatical errors but not intent errors, of course.
(Intent checkers are perhaps the Next Big Thing/Buzzword. Unless they resemble Clippy too much.)
It's amazing to think that one typo may have changed the course of the election, and history. Butterfly effect for sure.
Mojo Ryzen...
It depends what you are doing. As a spoken language, Chinese is better structured than English.