There are music stations that are not Clear Channel. There's still useful stuff out there. It's still relevant, especially if you don't or can't stream in your car.
NPR is reporting on those stories. They sometimes do interviews with people affected by those issues, and those interviews cover both sides. NPR is not editorializing. Now it's possible that some stations have local news reporting that is more biased than NPR on the national level.
Some of the most annoying call ins I've seen is when there's a debate over Palestine. Then you hear a bunch of people call up to complain that NPR is blatantly pro-Palestine, and a bunch of people calling in to complain that NPR is blatantly pro-Israel. The two sides are so diametrically opposed that any balanced coverage is seen as biased or a pack of lies.
NPR leans very centric, though individual stations may lean towards the local demographics (ie, San Francisco has spurts of far left gibberish at times but the national feeds are very mainstream). Some of my favorite shows from the past involve calm and rational debates between the left and the right.
As a smart phone owner, I would prefer FM radio over streaming. Absolutely, with no doubt. It's cheaper, more varied, and does many things streaming can not do. I guess the fans of streaming are scared of having alternatives?
The Church committee had a good chance, and the Pike committee in the house as well, back in the Ford administration. Donald Rumsfeld was a part of the administration back then and worked very hard to prevent the Church Committee from dismantling the CIA, and the administration did seem very worried that the this could have happened. The Church committee were called traitors by some hardliners at the time. Since that time, the executive has amassed even more power relative to congress.
Then they should get the protections that apply to civilians, protections that apply when not at war, and so forth. There are also international laws and treaties and protocols other than the Geneva Convention that cover battlefield and prisoner situations. The US supreme court however has said that the Geneva Conventions, common articles 3, do apply in the war on terror even though it is not a state vs state conflict.
International criminal courts have had a ruling that said there was no middle ground between civilian and soldier, no status of person that was not covered by some law. That is, civilians engaged in hostile actions are subject to domestic law of the state detaining them. This may mean military tribunal as far as international law goes, however the supreme court has been disagreeing with congress and executive over this. Neither US nor international law allow the secret indefinite detention without trial for unlawful combatants, and neither allows torture.
The military in general supports all this and has a strict military code of justice. They do not want to treat detained combatants badly because they know it will cause repercussions when US soldiers are captured. The CIA however as a civilian organization is much looser and with fewer ethical or moral restrictions, and no hesitation to act outside the law, they're the bastards to watch out for.
The restriction against torture during wartime is supposed to mean "not even in the extreme case of war", but some people seem to think it means it's ok as long as it's not war?
I think the reason why so many in the US hate taxes and consider them to be fundamentally evil is that there is very low return in benefits. People in other countries that get benefits aren't as grumpy.
I think these are only on new PCs, so as soon as you remove the application or link from the start menu then it's gone. It's like all that pre-installed junk you get from less reputable PC makers, just get rid of it and forget about it.
Now if it kept adding in new suggested applications then that would be annoying and defeat the purpose of customizing the start menu.
Great, go and dump on everyone's grandmothers who phone up to ask what happened to their computers. It's one thing to complain to people who do IT help support all day long, but you really can't expect everyone in the world to drive to gran's every weekend to do another backup.
If they do understand an issue, then it becomes hard to be impartial. If they do not understand an issue, then they're likely to be swayed by whoever speaks the best. It's a lose-lose situation.
I'm not sure I understand APIs. I saw someone wearing a tee shirt that said:"I APIs". That made no sense. Then I heard people say that they worked on APIs. The APIs I know about you don't fall in love with, much less treat them as the focus of a product.
Many products were created without the need of startups or the mentality of startups. We used to have actual companies with reputations design new things, not a bunch of college drinking buddies who don't understand what they're doing selling vague ideas to investors who don't understand what they're doing.
Bad idea. How do you know this coffee shop is safe? Only because your friend was naive enough to trust it? The one place you should never trust anything is in a coffee shop, how do you know it's not someone sitting at another table pretending to be the coffee shop? Extremely bad idea.
Security is the opposite of convenience. This is why many companies have lousy security because they don't want to inconvenience customers, and even corporate alliance standards can water down security because they want their products to be popular.
There were many many reasons this was a bad idea. "Crowdsourcing" the trust in random access points is stupid, unless you have verified that all your friends have adequate security. Ie, I have a friend who does stupid stuff all the time, things like joining wifi at restaurants or coffee shops, trusting that Yelp tells the truth, installing every app ever invented, etc. I would not trust his recommendations that a wifi access point is safe, ever. Enter the password once and that's the end of it.
And yet so many PC web sites were gushing about this feature (as they are paid to do), telling everyone that it's not as bad as it looks, and yet Microsoft still pulls it. Not publicly admitting their mistake but phrasing it as "too much effort for the few customers who weren't paranoid enough".
Slashdot Mirror
But phone owners have complained about this off and on in the past, it's not a new issue.
You cna't stream all of NPR. You can only stream a select set of shows. Actually better to download those shows as podcasts rather than stream anyway.
There are music stations that are not Clear Channel. There's still useful stuff out there. It's still relevant, especially if you don't or can't stream in your car.
NPR is reporting on those stories. They sometimes do interviews with people affected by those issues, and those interviews cover both sides. NPR is not editorializing. Now it's possible that some stations have local news reporting that is more biased than NPR on the national level.
Some of the most annoying call ins I've seen is when there's a debate over Palestine. Then you hear a bunch of people call up to complain that NPR is blatantly pro-Palestine, and a bunch of people calling in to complain that NPR is blatantly pro-Israel. The two sides are so diametrically opposed that any balanced coverage is seen as biased or a pack of lies.
NPR leans very centric, though individual stations may lean towards the local demographics (ie, San Francisco has spurts of far left gibberish at times but the national feeds are very mainstream). Some of my favorite shows from the past involve calm and rational debates between the left and the right.
As a smart phone owner, I would prefer FM radio over streaming. Absolutely, with no doubt. It's cheaper, more varied, and does many things streaming can not do. I guess the fans of streaming are scared of having alternatives?
The Church committee had a good chance, and the Pike committee in the house as well, back in the Ford administration. Donald Rumsfeld was a part of the administration back then and worked very hard to prevent the Church Committee from dismantling the CIA, and the administration did seem very worried that the this could have happened. The Church committee were called traitors by some hardliners at the time. Since that time, the executive has amassed even more power relative to congress.
Then they should get the protections that apply to civilians, protections that apply when not at war, and so forth. There are also international laws and treaties and protocols other than the Geneva Convention that cover battlefield and prisoner situations. The US supreme court however has said that the Geneva Conventions, common articles 3, do apply in the war on terror even though it is not a state vs state conflict.
International criminal courts have had a ruling that said there was no middle ground between civilian and soldier, no status of person that was not covered by some law. That is, civilians engaged in hostile actions are subject to domestic law of the state detaining them. This may mean military tribunal as far as international law goes, however the supreme court has been disagreeing with congress and executive over this. Neither US nor international law allow the secret indefinite detention without trial for unlawful combatants, and neither allows torture.
The military in general supports all this and has a strict military code of justice. They do not want to treat detained combatants badly because they know it will cause repercussions when US soldiers are captured. The CIA however as a civilian organization is much looser and with fewer ethical or moral restrictions, and no hesitation to act outside the law, they're the bastards to watch out for.
The restriction against torture during wartime is supposed to mean "not even in the extreme case of war", but some people seem to think it means it's ok as long as it's not war?
I think the reason why so many in the US hate taxes and consider them to be fundamentally evil is that there is very low return in benefits. People in other countries that get benefits aren't as grumpy.
I think these are only on new PCs, so as soon as you remove the application or link from the start menu then it's gone. It's like all that pre-installed junk you get from less reputable PC makers, just get rid of it and forget about it.
Now if it kept adding in new suggested applications then that would be annoying and defeat the purpose of customizing the start menu.
Great, go and dump on everyone's grandmothers who phone up to ask what happened to their computers. It's one thing to complain to people who do IT help support all day long, but you really can't expect everyone in the world to drive to gran's every weekend to do another backup.
Maybe more chairs need to be thrown for that to be fixed?
If they're that desperate to get Windows 10 everywhere, why can't they just pay us?
Hmm, supposed to be I love APIs...
If they do understand an issue, then it becomes hard to be impartial. If they do not understand an issue, then they're likely to be swayed by whoever speaks the best. It's a lose-lose situation.
I'm not sure I understand APIs. I saw someone wearing a tee shirt that said :"I APIs". That made no sense. Then I heard people say that they worked on APIs. The APIs I know about you don't fall in love with, much less treat them as the focus of a product.
Many products were created without the need of startups or the mentality of startups. We used to have actual companies with reputations design new things, not a bunch of college drinking buddies who don't understand what they're doing selling vague ideas to investors who don't understand what they're doing.
More in Marin County. Affluent yuppie types, probably think that they're hi tech because they know how to use their phone.
Linux Pauling for example.
Instead, US electric companies will send us a bill for lost revenue.
Bad idea. How do you know this coffee shop is safe? Only because your friend was naive enough to trust it? The one place you should never trust anything is in a coffee shop, how do you know it's not someone sitting at another table pretending to be the coffee shop? Extremely bad idea.
Security is the opposite of convenience. This is why many companies have lousy security because they don't want to inconvenience customers, and even corporate alliance standards can water down security because they want their products to be popular.
There were many many reasons this was a bad idea. "Crowdsourcing" the trust in random access points is stupid, unless you have verified that all your friends have adequate security. Ie, I have a friend who does stupid stuff all the time, things like joining wifi at restaurants or coffee shops, trusting that Yelp tells the truth, installing every app ever invented, etc. I would not trust his recommendations that a wifi access point is safe, ever. Enter the password once and that's the end of it.
And yet so many PC web sites were gushing about this feature (as they are paid to do), telling everyone that it's not as bad as it looks, and yet Microsoft still pulls it. Not publicly admitting their mistake but phrasing it as "too much effort for the few customers who weren't paranoid enough".