How many people does it take to listen to the music to be considered "the public"? Two? Three? Ten?
So a business owner can't play music if he wants to listen to it as an end user because someone else might hear it and claim that he's holding a "public performance?" This law is just way too convoluted.
"Sometimes people are convicted by the media because the media make inferences and draw conclusions based on limited information, but a jury should never do that."
So true. The media often give out false information in their wild-eyed race to "inform" us. The snipers in the Washington, DC area a few years back is a good example: according to the media, the shooter *had* to be a white guy driving a white box truck. Wrong on both *facts." But the media was never held accountable for its reckless lies. Any juror reading the paper or watching TV would have been wrongly influenced by those useless media morons.
I have to agree that teachers who go the extra mile should be able to profit off of their own hard work. Bureaucracy doesn't promote merit, and (in a fantasy world) it would be nice to see the lazy folks slip away while those who put out an effort are rewarded. Maybe if the hardworking teachers could profit by their extra effort, more of the mediocre teachers would take an interest and start putting out more of an effort. Enthusiasm can be very contagious if it is encouraged.
The poster is taking the argument to an extreme in order to prove his/her point. And that point is, that without a clear definition of what is a "gang," we face the fact that sooner or later the definition is going to be hijacked by politics. For instance, could fundamentalist Christians be defined as a "gang" so that politicians could outlaw their right to peaceful assembly, or otherwise control their actions?
This is a matter of politicians trying to put a quick band-aid on something that is a much deeper social problem -- but the cancer remains. Unfortunately, so do the politicians. :(
I've taken some journalism courses, and I am fed up with the arrogance of the "gatekeeper" attitude that most journalists are taught to have -- or else, they already have. John Doe is right, they really do think they are defending our freedom, but when I turn on the TV and see the Obamafest that the current crop of journalists is having, it's really hard to think of "profession" journalists as being fair, unbiased, or hardworking enough to bother looking for the facts. They just tell us what *they* want us to know.
The fourth estate is bankrupt; it's time for a yard sale.
Why are we so reluctant to have someone take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions? Why is it always the company or person with money who is to blame? Stop the *#%! whining and grow up! The employee is responsible and should be held responsible.
Posting rules doesn't mean much unless there is a penalty for violating them. I agree with the posters who say there should be stiff punishments. If you willfully allow yourself to be distracted by a cell phone or texting and have an accident that kills people, you should go to jail. No bail. Ever. I do not feel sorry for these stupid idiots and they should pay the price.
Even if they cause a fender-bender, it should be automatic loss of job with no severance, no back pay, nothing. If society is really serious about this issue, we need to be serious about the punishments or it's all just a big joke. And it's all fun and games until someone you know or love loses an eye.
I'm currently enrolled in a communications bachelor's degree program. And no, I'm not 22 years old; more like 50. From what I see both in the online classroom message boards and in real life, I think the biggest problem with journalism is the huge egos that most journalists have. They really think that they know best; what can the stupid masses know, anyway? A public relations class I took referred to people as "the obstinate audience" if they didn't automatically accept everything that a public relations writer or journalist threw their way. What ego!
The problem is simply this: journalists think they're too good to listen to the people.
Finally, something that doesn't assault our eardrums, and lawyers want to ruin it. Just how loud will the cars have to be for the idiots on their ipods to hear them, anyways? Yeah, maybe pedestrians should make an effort on their own behalf, if it isn't too much trouble for them.
Blind people may have a legitimate issue, and certainly their needs should be addressed -- but that doesn't mean deafening everyone in the process! Maybe we can put a sensor in a blind person's cane to detect cars? Like a mini-radar scope? They could find steps and potholes that way, too.
You're onto something, RD. It's not that people are scared of the technology, they're scared of losing control over other people. They're scared that they might not matter in the grand scheme of things. That's why you see every politician jumping onto the bandwagon to save us from the perils of technology -- we might realize just how useless they are.
"Online yellow-pages absolutely suck compared to local directories, even though the latter aren't very good themselves,"
I absolutely agree with this. I can never find a phone number online that easily; it seems like you have to wade through a million ads to find any info. The books have a lead time of 9 months - 1 year from the time an ad is sold to when it is printed and delivered, which makes them ancient in today's terms when they even get to your door. But hey, the ambulance chasers like to advertise in them.
What kills me is that our phone company still prints and delivers the white pages. Who needs it? Like I'm going to be bored, and look through half a million names just to find someone to call? Now that is a waste of paper and resources.