bleedorange

"This week’s MMWR, Estimating the Future Number of Cases in the Ebola Epidemic—Liberia and Sierra Leone, 2014–2015, estimates the future number of cases if current trends continue.... "Without additional interventions or changes in community behavior, CDC estimates that by January 20, 2015, there will be a total of approximately 550,000 Ebola cases in Liberia and Sierra Leone or 1.4 million if corrections for underreporting are made."

That's a worst-case scenario number amid a plea for more help in controlling the outbreak.

No, there isn't. Please remember that Texas is a big state. Lots of different people live here. Thanks.

Where do these numbers come from? The only thing I have seen is that they estimate it will hit 9,000 total cases by the end of the week. That's a total. Not a per-week basis.

The funny thing to me is that I would be absolutely shocked if rap, hip-hop, disco, metal, soul, blues, pop, electronic, etc., were not included in the rock & roll hall of fame. I think all those genres are so intertwined with rock music that it would create a huge void in the history of rock & roll to not have them there.

I think the term "rock and roll" casts a much wider net than some of you are willing to allow. It's not a narrow term.

I think you messed up somewhere. You only have three songs from Being There. And you accidentally typed in "Bull Black Nova." Pretty sure you meant something else.

I think it's a nice release. It will be great to have these songs in one place. And, despite the fact I've heard all these songs, I'm anxious to purchase this. A lot of my copies of these songs are not of the best quality, if I own them at all. Now, the greatest hits collection is not for me. But there are a lot of casual fans out there who might not be familiar with some of the earlier albums (as hard as that may be for us to comprehend).

Why is this so under the radar? Where's the big announcement?

I love the EMP. Been there a couple of times. I do not think Phish is HOF material. My top five on that list would be Nine Inch Nails, Lou Reed, The Smiths, Kraftwerk, N.W.A.

Ugh. Was that even a review? Apparently, he said this would be a bad album and then wrote a review saying it was a bad album. See! He called it! How does someone like this even get a voice? There is certainly room for criticism, but that's not what this is.

That's saying very little, though.

I think I've watched the Inherent Vice trailer 10 times now. I can't wait for this movie.

I think the clear standout track here is "World Away." There's a looseness to it that I think has sorely been missing from recent Wilco albums. "Nobody Dies Anymore" is a close second for me. After listening to the album a few times, I think it's pretty strong overall, although the length and the addition of some mediocre songs would prevent it from being something I reached for on a consistent basis.

I don't think you can draw a reasonable comparison between a test score and an album rating, though. By that logic, anything rated at 3 stars or less would be "failing" and I don't think critics think in that manner. In this instance 3.5 out of 5 is very positive.

I welcome Apple to do this to my library a lot more often.

Huh? That was a very positive review.

That score is probably a tad low, but I think he makes some excellent points. I definitely want more Spencer on this album as it rolled into the second half of songs that felt mostly interchangeable. His contributions were exceptional and really surprised me, but he's missing on too many songs.

The scores from Pitchfork can be a little all over the map. But I don't know what kind of staff turnover the site has, which could make a difference in how an artist is perceived over time. I think they're more trustworthy than most people give them credit for, and they don't reserve their high scores solely for up-and-coming artists. For instance, just this year, Spoon got an 8.6 and a Best New Music tag for They Want My Soul. Also, you do have to pay attention to the byline. Stephen Deusner is one of their better critics. Same goes for Steven Hyden when he sometimes reviews an album (altho

Here's a technical question, since I don't have a ton of expertise in this area. I've listened to the stream through my computer on headphones and in my car through the NPR Music app on my phone. Both times, the vocals seemed really muted and I was having trouble making out a lot of the lyrics. 1) Is this intentional? or 2) Is this merely a result of a mediocre sound card on my computer and listening through the app? (Although, other streams through that app haven't been bad.) I'm just wondering if I should try to listen to the stream again or just wait until next week when I get the album

I think that's ridiculous. Oh no! I got a free album! The horror!

es·sen·tial adjective \i-ˈsen(t)-shəl\ : extremely important and necessary; basic, indispensable

All this thread has proven is that "essential" albums made by people over 50 simply do not exist.

I listened to it once and actually thought it was pretty good. I'll need to confirm that. Definitely better than their last two, which I thought were terrible. ATYCLB wasn't bad, but I think Pop and Zooropa are excellent.

From U2's website: