rival’s Comments

• Oct 16th, 2009 @ 9:02am

  (untitled comment)

  on Garth Brooks Complains That The Gov't Ignores Musicians
  I fully support Mr. Brooks' effort to convince musicians to go on strike.
  
  How about for more than a day? How about a week? I doubt that would be long enough for us to realize that no new music is getting out, though... Better make it at least a month... Probably closer to a year before people realize they haven't heard anything new.
  
  Mr. Brooks forgets that there are people for whom earning millions isn't a necessity; earning a comfortable, living wage is sufficient.
  
  Presently, the record labels are the ones who decide whether an artist will be able to earn a living wage. They only retain artists that they know they can make money off of, and send everyone else packing.
  
  Eliminating the record-label choke-points will allow far more artists to earn a living wage, although it will probably hurt many of the superstars, like Mr. Brooks. Frankly, I'd rather hear the music of someone who's passion is the music, not the money. That person gets my attention, and my dollar.
• Oct 16th, 2009 @ 8:36am

  Re: Re:

  on Access Copyright Says That There Should Be Less Fair Use
  I can handle this... If public practice is to regularly drive 5 over the limit, and on this particular road, people are driving 25 over the limit, perhaps the speed limit of 25 should be raised to 45.
  
  I've got this situation just up the street from me: a "back road" - in an area where all back roads are limited at 45 - is limited at 25. People regularly drive 45-50 on this road because it is as safe to do so on this road as every other road of this type. The only reason it is at 25 is because it forms the border of the city, so city rules apply instead of county rules.
• Oct 16th, 2009 @ 8:21am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  on Access Copyright Says That There Should Be Less Fair Use
  In my region, the rule applies to any road a certain distance from a school. In a particular area, the school owns a swamp behind a high school. On the other side of the swamp is a major road, and on the other side of that, a river.
  
  There won't be any pedestrians approaching this road from either side, due to the swamp and the river.
  
  But, because the road is within a certain distance of the high school itself, it must have a reduced speed in the morning and afternoon.
  
  To add insult to injury, a quarter mile down the road there is a bridge over the river where teens and kids cross on their way to that school and an elementary school. Because of its distance, it doesn't merit school-zone status, and kids are left to fend for themselves on public roads.
  
  The rule is applied and enforced despite the invalidity of the reason and despite public practice. The net effect of the rule is to contribute to rush hour congestion. There is no protective benefit of this rule being applied in this location.
  
  Of course, this is the exception, not the rule. It is, however, an excellent example of bad public policy.