The WSJ: "fewer cars on the road means less traffic."
I can't make this stuff up. Link here. Folks paying $100/quarter for a subscription to The WSJ get that kind of in-depth analysis.
The WSJ: "fewer cars on the road means less traffic."
I can't make this stuff up. Link here. Folks paying $100/quarter for a subscription to The WSJ get that kind of in-depth analysis.
I nominate this article for the Jan. 21 Dufuss award in Journalism. don
ReplyDeleteI'm still laughing at that analysis by the WSJ. The writers must still be hung over from New Year's Eve.
DeleteDoofus award in journalism. LOL. It's gonna be tough finding a headline more worthy of the award.
What a downer; turns out WSJ is ripping me off to the tune of $140/quarter. Can I retain you as my agent to negotiate a better deal? We "elderly" need all the benefits we can get (or so I hear frequently on the idiot box).... Thanks to Joe Namath (how can he actually shill this stuff? For shame.)
ReplyDeleteIt's been awhile since I've looked at subscription rates, but possibly the $100 quote is for the electronic edition only, whereas the $140 gets you the electronic edition as well as the bird cage bottom filler.
DeleteBut the "bird cage special" effectively costs me 1/2; I give it to my neighbor and he "burdens" me with the Arizona Star and USA Today in exchange. Turns out the latter two are truly for the birds.
ReplyDeleteOld school; I still like a hard copy in the morning with a cup of coffee.
When we go to meet our Maker, I doubt our heirs will begrudge us the extra $40 a month~ But if they do.... well, I'll never know!
So here is a real question... You use Apple products and I use Android. Why is it that I can't read WSJ article commentary on my wife's I-Pad? Often the reader comments are the best part of the article. They just don't show up..
But I'm still bemoaning the fact that "nipping" Joe Namath has sunk so low as to flog Medicare Advantage plans on the tube. It is almost embarrassing!
He needed a better investment advisor!
Wow, you raise a lot of issues.
Delete1. Issue one: I have the same issue with Joe Namath shilling for Medicare Advantage plans. Truly sad. I agree with you. He should be speaking for the new incredibly speedy Ford Mustang Mach-E.
2. I, too, prefer a hard copy edition of the WSJ. We subscribed to the hard copy edition for years but over time the WSJ seldom reached our doorstep. In fact, it didn't even get to the manager's office. We tried often to get the hard copy delivered but it was becoming impossible, so we were stuck with the e-copy only. My wife much prefers the hard copy but she has gotten used to the e-copy.
3. I have no idea why you are unable to read the readers' comments to WSJ articles. I'm trying to find the answer but so far unsuccessful. Unfortunately, the comments are often the best part of the "article."
With regard to readers' comments: others have had the same problem.
Deletehttps://discussions.apple.com/thread/4388991
By the way, the "cookies" issue pops up over and over in many different problems.
DeleteSome time ago I was unable to access my bank account and it was traced back to the "cookies" issue. Apple, it turns out is notorious with regard to the "cookies" issue. Google Chrome is probably the least problematic according to the experts at the bank who helped me with my problem. They said they recommended Google Chrome for those with these kinds of problems. Safari (Apple) was almost impossible to figure out -- Apple is really, really serious about these things. When I asked about Microsoft browsers, the bank IT experts said they wouldn't touch Microsoft with a 10-foot pole. That was their least favorite browser of the four. (Firefox being one of the four.)
I use Firefox for almost everything. I use Safari for NDIC scout tickets. I use Chrome Google to access my bank account. I have all three browsers sitting on my dock at the bottom of my home screen. For an-almost-70-year-old geezer it seems I do okay. LOL.
With regard to cookies and Apple.
DeleteEvery time you link on an article these days, you are asked whether you accept cookies. Most often, I suppose, one clicks "ok to accept cookies."
Apparently Apple keeps totaling up the number of cookies one has accumulated. When a certain number of cookies are reached, certain systems (such as accessing my regional bank account) is thwarted by Safari. To access these accounts, I am told I need to clear all my cookies, and try again. I have no idea if any of this is accurate, or if any of it makes sense, but that's what I've been told and what I am surmising.
Beating this dead horse, here is what is discovered. If I go to Firefox on an I-Pad and then log in the WSJ site, I can read comments to my heart's delight. If I directly open the WSJ app that I downloaded from the Apple Store, No Joy! The app must have been created by the WSJ IT folk; maybe it was on purpose. Ahhh, the mystery of it all!
ReplyDeleteVery, very interesting. And then the next time, the IT folks update the app or Firefox changes something, something else will pop up. LOL. But I'm impressed that you got it to work. I'm actually having a new issue with reading some WSJ graphics on my laptop -- issues that I never had before. It's always something.
Delete