And actually, he does not *denounce* anything, because he has the utmost respect for science and empirical knowledge. What he does say, if I understand him correctly and can condense the point of the book into a single phrase, is that science does not exist in a vacuum separate from the human race, and that one subject that warrants study/deep thought is the relationship of human "ethics" or "values" to science.
One takeaway for me, and in the context of your post, is that "commodization " is a very subjective term. Of course we don't want to trivialize human life; we also do not want to limit our ability to constantly surpass the limits of human knowledge which will ultimately lead to the betterment of humanity as a whole.
So no, the Roman Catholic Church (of which I am NOT a member, and of which millions of people are NOT members) does NOT deserve any serious consideration in the context of science, as what it bases its judgments on is not empirical (and frankly, IMHO, is not based at all on any sort of improvement of humanity). In fact, my first thought when I see what the "Roman Catholic Church" thinks or says about anything is, "So fscking what?"
I just think that the biggest advantage is to already possess a skill. Just because any idiot can take some sort of pharmaceutical does not mean that any idiot can be good at thinking. I'm not sure I even understand this strange distinction that people make between prescription drugs such as Prozac, and "performance enhancing" drugs.
Every foreign chemical introduced into the body is bound to have some sort of unknown or undesirable side effect on someone. The question is how much is the individual willing to balance the risks with the desirable outcome, IMHO. Prozac = artificial happiness. Steroids = artificial physical prowess. Mind dope = artificial clarity.
Where my console gaming in the past has been a relatively solitary experience, or one confined to times when I had gamer friends over, the Wii is the first game system that I feel comfortable inviting everyone to play when they come over.
Seeing my Mom playing Wii bowling really clarified the Big Picture of what Wii has accomplished. I believe that it may be the first time she had ever even played a console game, and there she was laughing and having a great time.
I think that critical thinking, whether or not it can be specifically "taught," can and should be introduced by parents to young children before schooling even starts. Yes, I am a parent-- I have an 8-year-old daughter.
It is always very tempting to take the easy way out with her-- use the t.v. as a babysitter, always give in to her demands, etc. And, to always give direct answers when she is struggling to solve a problem. It's painful to watch her frustration with things that I can easily and instantly rectify.
However, if there is a situation where there is evidence that can lead her to a solution (for instance, some sort of puzzle in a Legend of Zelda game), I address her question "What do I do now?" with more questions. "What do you see all around you? Is there another way you can go? What tools do you have that might help?"
Once she stops stomping and whining and calling me mean, she then figures out the answers to my questions and comes up with a solution on her own. It's been very rewarding over the years to watch her get better and better at taking some time on her own to figure things out before she asks for help. I can now enjoy an uninterrupted cup of coffee when I wake up (sometimes).
I'm not so much concerned with how this translates into a specific career path for her as much as I am concerned with the career paths that this problem-solving ability will open for her. Hopefully she'll reap the reward of how good it feels to solve problems and base her studies and choices on that.
You're absolutely right in what you are saying; but RTFA. This issue is specifically rooted in the legal standard for "fleeting indecency", which would include incidental obscenity that might slip out on a live broadcast, such as live musical performances or sporting events. For instance, if they pan in on a coach and he yells at a player "What the fuck". It happens all the time. I've even heard golfers drop an F bomb from time to time.
In general, this does chip away at First Amendment rights, as it is changing a long-accepted speech standard to a more restrictive standard.
What if the cache settings for the browsers on these machines-- probably Internet Explorer-- are simply caching old prices? The default setting is usually "automatically" which, to me-- as a web guy-- is a huge, unreliable, crappy setting. It is even possible to set it to never look for newer versions of pages, so that the browser always delivers what amounts to the first version of the page that it ever loaded.
I believe that freedom of the "press" is referring to freedom of THE PRESS, not the government. So it does not fit in with the right to free speech mentioned in the Bill of Rights (you know, the thing in that document that outlines and in some cases limits the powers of government??).
Furthermore, under what kind explanation can one argue that this is not, plain and simple, propaganda? I believe that they are actually even using that word, which means PR, which means spin. What interest could they possibly have in spinning anything in a way that puts them in a negative light (think power retention/re-election)? And, by extension, once they can spin everything positively no matter what happens, what interest could they possibly have in doing a good job?
I think the privacy issue is a subset of a more serious issue: The government is claiming ownership of its people. Your private data are essentially your metadata, and your body is your self.
Why can't I control the buying and selling of my own metadata? The people who buy and sell it have trespassed upon my personal space with junk mail, spam, and telemarketing. Yet, the legislation and enforcement of that legislation to curtail such things is not effective. Is that in any way related to the fact that there is money to made? Here's a hint about me: When I have money, I use it to buy what I want and what I need. You will not be able to harass me into thinking that I need whatever crap you're flooding my inbox with. That metadata is MINE, and should be 100% in my control. As a matter of fact, please pay me for my metadata.
Why can't I smoke a joint when I get home from work? Because the powers that be feel that they need to protect me from myself.
Why can't a woman choose whether or not give birth to a child? It is part of her own body, and the decision will have grave effects on her own life. Yet, powers that be feel they own that would-be baby.
Why can't we respect an elder's request to die with dignity with euthanasia? Because he's a state-owned grandpa.
There is a huge level of complete absurdity in these things, in that we are--simply put--being forced to fight the government for ownership of our very lives. Our "being" has been usurped by this current system of organizing civilized society.
I think that we are simply in an entertainment glut, where our number of media technologies has outpaced the amount of good and original creativity. There's this demand among "civilized" populations for wall-to-wall entertainment that is much more of a security blanket for existence than it is something we watch to be "entertained." I think it's much more accurate to say that our (as in society's) definition of entertainment has devolved to "stuff that fills our eyes and ears."
If you want to find quality entertainment, it takes work. You need the right social circle, the right instincts for where to go to find out about quality stuff, and/or the patience to dig deeply into something you like to find its lineage of inspiration. However, it is important to remember that "independent" will never be equivolent to "better."
Anyway, most people are too lazy for that. So the choice is to sit back and let your ears and eyes get filled with money-driven crap, or to say "to hell with it" and actively participate in life itself--read, be creative, write. Meanwhile, the big entertainment companies will be:
1. doing marketing research 2. writing or rewriting crap for the widest mass appeal 3. marketing the shit out of the resulting crap 4. profiting
I think advertising as we know it is dead. All advertising is, is manufactured information. The long tail is the natural state of things; it's just a reflection of the real tastes of real people. The new "advertising" already exists in sites like this and myspace (sorry to lump this site and that one together, but...), where the critics--amateur and pro alike--have been set loose.
The "big star" concept isn't dead, but soon there will be a crossover where "big stars" will be bubbling _up_ from the long tail, vs. being crammed _down_ to the masses. The more universal the appeal, the bigger the star.
The scales will be tipped toward artists, because they will no longer have to fit into any kind of stereotypical fake "old advertising" mold. Instead, because of easy, cheap, wide digital distribution, art will find its audience--or possibly die a nice, silent death, without anyone having sucked a zillion dollars down the drain.
And somewhere in between, people will be making decent, modest, non-billionairre livings, like the rest of us.
The problem is the way that [the feds/Fox news/the administration] are slowly defining certain words that are key in the 4th ammendment. Semantics are the spinal cord of the law:
--> against unreasonable searches and seizures, $argument: We're in so much danger from terrorists, how can we consider any measure of preemptive caution unreasonable?
--> upon probable cause, $argument: If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Hmmm, you're against being spied on? You must be doing something wrong.
--> supported by oath or affirmation, $argument: This is a time of war; president is commander in chief; he was voted in and took the oath of office. This stuff is within his powers.
--> and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. $argument: The place is our Motherland, the USA; the persons are terrorists and the things are tools of terror.
I never realized how extreme pro-lifers were till one night I stumbled into a conversation with my buddy--who I didn't realize was pro-life--in which I ended up presenting a number of extreme election scenarios and asking how he would vote.
He would essentially vote for the pro-life candidate REGARDLESS of that candidate's stance on anything else.
For example, he would vote pro-life even if the candidate's platform was to extinguish a particular race from the country, or to shut down every privately owned newspaper in favor of state-run newspapers, or to reintroduce prohibition, or take away women's right to vote, or to eradicate the presidential term limit, or to outright make elections illegal. His number one point that he kept repeating was about the innocence of unborn children.
What is so difficult to manipulate in a home environment that you can't just do it manually? This is a ridiculous notion. Why not just store your "preferences" in your BRAIN?? This whole home automation notion seems like it's a product of burned-out techno-brainiacs who can only think of things in terms of "data." What about "reality"??
>>Of course, you could ask what it would do when two people with conflicting preferences are in the same room, but that's just a software problem and is thus much easier to refine over time.
Or, it could be a human interaction problem that could be solved by "comprimise." Sorry, implanting a chip into your body so that you can simply stop thinking and cease awareness of your environment and human interactions is really, really stupid.
Just my 2 as a communications guy. General users do not care about the same details as developers. They only want to know one thing: Can I do what I need to do on Linux as well as or better than Windows? And the answer they want is in the form of "Yes, here is software X, it is better because of ____, and the files it produces can be sent to and used by Windows users." Or, "No, not yet."
They really don't give a crap about reliability, speed, bloat, or anything. Windows users are used to rebooting and crashing, and they don't give a shit because they have everything they want and need and then some. Ignorance? Maybe. Stupidity? I'm not so sure.
From my own personal experience as a musician, my brother was telling me about all of this free pro audio stuff for Linux, and it sounded awesome, so I got him to give me a Linux partition and installed that stuff, but my experience simply didn't present me a good enough reason to switch my OS and take the hit on getting back up to speed and finding my favorite substitutes for all of my old reliable Windows software. It was _okay_, but not some kind of epiphany. All the reliability, stability, security, and efficient memory usage would not have made a difference. It was just underwhelming.
These Linux snobs from TFA are probably chomping at the bit to tell me how stupid I am that I didn't give it a chance, or why didn't I use this or that software, etc., but I know my Windows software, and it does what I need it to do. The tech side of me can understand many of the points about Linux superiority, but as a user I say "Neat. But I don't care."
THE POINT BEING: Can the superiority speech; show don't tell, and be open to crossover users--when they're really ready to get away from Windows, they will have crap that they need to get done and will need your help.
>> If someone is distracting, have the courage call them out. This premptive strike is cowardly and more unprofessional than the behavoir it is trying to prevent.
It's pathetic that these presenters HAVE to say something when just a shred of common courtesy should just be second nature TO A PROFESSIONAL. Turn all of your gadgets off, pay attention, or get out. It's as simple as that. You're solution of "have the courage call them out" is a very unprofessional suggestion.
>> Government is what stops me (and people with less sensitive morals than I) from just taking your property.
At best government facilitates a civilized way of life, but the general population concedes that power to them. The government doesn't really stop anything, from speeding on the highway to looting graveyards for treasure.
In that balance of things, I'd say it's much fairer for the citizens, who are the people who actually manufacture things and keep the economy flowing, to do whatever they want with their property, from having it buried with them to giving it to their gay marriage partner.
Thank you government for facilitating my civilized way of life, now get the fuck out of my way.
Although I don't really see a credible news source supporting the sentiment in the summary, that has long been a fear of mine. I'm too lazy to find a post I made with your exact thoughts, that crap like this might actually come to pass where you don't even own your own originally created music.
That is what I'm particularly sweating with DRM, and player lockdown, and stuff like that. How long before I literally need to buy a license to listen every rough draft of a musical creation? It's not so far-fetched in a world where Microsoft and Apple and Sony are in bed with the RIAA. With so much money and power, there is really no particular reason for them to even consider the independent musician who may or may not even be interested in making them money, and who at the moment can totally circumvent their creative and distributive channels.
The one thing that labels provide is a way to filter through the billions of songs and bands that exist. Who can keep track of it all? I think that at some point we need to fill the gap between the "anybody can post music here for everyone" type of sites--which will always be a microcosm of the real world with 99% crap and 1% decent stuff-- and the "you're good looking, let us write all your music and you can make a million dollars" big labels which have 99% polished turds.
I've been trying to tell my brother, who runs http://www.sonarama.com/ to start being super judgmental about the music he accepts so that he can build meaning and quality behind his "brand." I know there are sites like garageband and iuma, but I don't necessarily equate those with easily finding *good* indy music.
Somebody needs to balls to take on a critic role in the world of no-income music and stop worrying about hurting people's feelings. In this manner, at worst you'd have a relationship with that person like you might have with a Roger Ebert and movies--you may not always agree with him, but it's the beginning of a baseline of knowing what to listen to. Or what not to listen to.
The weasel word is "unreasonable" though; the "War on Terror" is being used by this administration to exact an all-out assault on the definition of what is reasonable, and that is why the 4th ammendment is a little wimpy with respect to actually protecting privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the Dalai Lama has published a book that examines the role of philosophy and ethics in science: The Universe in a Single Atom.
http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Single-Atom-Convergence-Spirituality/dp/0767920813/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201815023&sr=8-1
And actually, he does not *denounce* anything, because he has the utmost respect for science and empirical knowledge. What he does say, if I understand him correctly and can condense the point of the book into a single phrase, is that science does not exist in a vacuum separate from the human race, and that one subject that warrants study/deep thought is the relationship of human "ethics" or "values" to science.
One takeaway for me, and in the context of your post, is that "commodization " is a very subjective term. Of course we don't want to trivialize human life; we also do not want to limit our ability to constantly surpass the limits of human knowledge which will ultimately lead to the betterment of humanity as a whole.
So no, the Roman Catholic Church (of which I am NOT a member, and of which millions of people are NOT members) does NOT deserve any serious consideration in the context of science, as what it bases its judgments on is not empirical (and frankly, IMHO, is not based at all on any sort of improvement of humanity). In fact, my first thought when I see what the "Roman Catholic Church" thinks or says about anything is, "So fscking what?"
In four years they will have matured enough to inject subtlety: Asteroid 3MTA3.
I just think that the biggest advantage is to already possess a skill. Just because any idiot can take some sort of pharmaceutical does not mean that any idiot can be good at thinking. I'm not sure I even understand this strange distinction that people make between prescription drugs such as Prozac, and "performance enhancing" drugs.
Every foreign chemical introduced into the body is bound to have some sort of unknown or undesirable side effect on someone. The question is how much is the individual willing to balance the risks with the desirable outcome, IMHO. Prozac = artificial happiness. Steroids = artificial physical prowess. Mind dope = artificial clarity.
So what?
...the monkey punches you.
Where my console gaming in the past has been a relatively solitary experience, or one confined to times when I had gamer friends over, the Wii is the first game system that I feel comfortable inviting everyone to play when they come over.
Seeing my Mom playing Wii bowling really clarified the Big Picture of what Wii has accomplished. I believe that it may be the first time she had ever even played a console game, and there she was laughing and having a great time.
Actually, it was kind of creepy.
I think that critical thinking, whether or not it can be specifically "taught," can and should be introduced by parents to young children before schooling even starts. Yes, I am a parent-- I have an 8-year-old daughter.
It is always very tempting to take the easy way out with her-- use the t.v. as a babysitter, always give in to her demands, etc. And, to always give direct answers when she is struggling to solve a problem. It's painful to watch her frustration with things that I can easily and instantly rectify.
However, if there is a situation where there is evidence that can lead her to a solution (for instance, some sort of puzzle in a Legend of Zelda game), I address her question "What do I do now?" with more questions. "What do you see all around you? Is there another way you can go? What tools do you have that might help?"
Once she stops stomping and whining and calling me mean, she then figures out the answers to my questions and comes up with a solution on her own. It's been very rewarding over the years to watch her get better and better at taking some time on her own to figure things out before she asks for help. I can now enjoy an uninterrupted cup of coffee when I wake up (sometimes).
I'm not so much concerned with how this translates into a specific career path for her as much as I am concerned with the career paths that this problem-solving ability will open for her. Hopefully she'll reap the reward of how good it feels to solve problems and base her studies and choices on that.
That will be fixed in ajaxWindows Service Pack 1.
I was wondering why, in mid-April, I got a bunch of extra email from Nigerian princes. Then, I followed the link in the story, and found this.
You're absolutely right in what you are saying; but RTFA. This issue is specifically rooted in the legal standard for "fleeting indecency", which would include incidental obscenity that might slip out on a live broadcast, such as live musical performances or sporting events. For instance, if they pan in on a coach and he yells at a player "What the fuck". It happens all the time. I've even heard golfers drop an F bomb from time to time.
In general, this does chip away at First Amendment rights, as it is changing a long-accepted speech standard to a more restrictive standard.
What if the cache settings for the browsers on these machines-- probably Internet Explorer-- are simply caching old prices? The default setting is usually "automatically" which, to me-- as a web guy-- is a huge, unreliable, crappy setting. It is even possible to set it to never look for newer versions of pages, so that the browser always delivers what amounts to the first version of the page that it ever loaded.
I believe that freedom of the "press" is referring to freedom of THE PRESS, not the government. So it does not fit in with the right to free speech mentioned in the Bill of Rights (you know, the thing in that document that outlines and in some cases limits the powers of government??).
Furthermore, under what kind explanation can one argue that this is not, plain and simple, propaganda? I believe that they are actually even using that word, which means PR, which means spin. What interest could they possibly have in spinning anything in a way that puts them in a negative light (think power retention/re-election)? And, by extension, once they can spin everything positively no matter what happens, what interest could they possibly have in doing a good job?
Come on, think a little.
I think the privacy issue is a subset of a more serious issue: The government is claiming ownership of its people. Your private data are essentially your metadata, and your body is your self.
Why can't I control the buying and selling of my own metadata? The people who buy and sell it have trespassed upon my personal space with junk mail, spam, and telemarketing. Yet, the legislation and enforcement of that legislation to curtail such things is not effective. Is that in any way related to the fact that there is money to made? Here's a hint about me: When I have money, I use it to buy what I want and what I need. You will not be able to harass me into thinking that I need whatever crap you're flooding my inbox with. That metadata is MINE, and should be 100% in my control. As a matter of fact, please pay me for my metadata.
Why can't I smoke a joint when I get home from work? Because the powers that be feel that they need to protect me from myself.
Why can't a woman choose whether or not give birth to a child? It is part of her own body, and the decision will have grave effects on her own life. Yet, powers that be feel they own that would-be baby.
Why can't we respect an elder's request to die with dignity with euthanasia? Because he's a state-owned grandpa.
There is a huge level of complete absurdity in these things, in that we are--simply put--being forced to fight the government for ownership of our very lives. Our "being" has been usurped by this current system of organizing civilized society.
I want mine back.
Found in link above. WTF?
h oles&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&lr=&q=cyst
I think that we are simply in an entertainment glut, where our number of media technologies has outpaced the amount of good and original creativity. There's this demand among "civilized" populations for wall-to-wall entertainment that is much more of a security blanket for existence than it is something we watch to be "entertained." I think it's much more accurate to say that our (as in society's) definition of entertainment has devolved to "stuff that fills our eyes and ears."
If you want to find quality entertainment, it takes work. You need the right social circle, the right instincts for where to go to find out about quality stuff, and/or the patience to dig deeply into something you like to find its lineage of inspiration. However, it is important to remember that "independent" will never be equivolent to "better."
Anyway, most people are too lazy for that. So the choice is to sit back and let your ears and eyes get filled with money-driven crap, or to say "to hell with it" and actively participate in life itself--read, be creative, write. Meanwhile, the big entertainment companies will be:
1. doing marketing research
2. writing or rewriting crap for the widest mass appeal
3. marketing the shit out of the resulting crap
4. profiting
I think advertising as we know it is dead. All advertising is, is manufactured information. The long tail is the natural state of things; it's just a reflection of the real tastes of real people. The new "advertising" already exists in sites like this and myspace (sorry to lump this site and that one together, but...), where the critics--amateur and pro alike--have been set loose.
The "big star" concept isn't dead, but soon there will be a crossover where "big stars" will be bubbling _up_ from the long tail, vs. being crammed _down_ to the masses. The more universal the appeal, the bigger the star.
The scales will be tipped toward artists, because they will no longer have to fit into any kind of stereotypical fake "old advertising" mold. Instead, because of easy, cheap, wide digital distribution, art will find its audience--or possibly die a nice, silent death, without anyone having sucked a zillion dollars down the drain.
And somewhere in between, people will be making decent, modest, non-billionairre livings, like the rest of us.
The problem is the way that [the feds/Fox news/the administration] are slowly defining certain words that are key in the 4th ammendment. Semantics are the spinal cord of the law:
--> against unreasonable searches and seizures,
$argument: We're in so much danger from terrorists, how can we consider any measure of preemptive caution unreasonable?
--> upon probable cause,
$argument: If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Hmmm, you're against being spied on? You must be doing something wrong.
--> supported by oath or affirmation,
$argument: This is a time of war; president is commander in chief; he was voted in and took the oath of office. This stuff is within his powers.
--> and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
$argument: The place is our Motherland, the USA; the persons are terrorists and the things are tools of terror.
The Penultimate Truth, by Philip K Dick, seems to be a spooky but poignant vision of a possible future:
t e.html
http://www.philipkdick.com/works_novels_penultima
I never realized how extreme pro-lifers were till one night I stumbled into a conversation with my buddy--who I didn't realize was pro-life--in which I ended up presenting a number of extreme election scenarios and asking how he would vote.
He would essentially vote for the pro-life candidate REGARDLESS of that candidate's stance on anything else.
For example, he would vote pro-life even if the candidate's platform was to extinguish a particular race from the country, or to shut down every privately owned newspaper in favor of state-run newspapers, or to reintroduce prohibition, or take away women's right to vote, or to eradicate the presidential term limit, or to outright make elections illegal. His number one point that he kept repeating was about the innocence of unborn children.
What is so difficult to manipulate in a home environment that you can't just do it manually? This is a ridiculous notion. Why not just store your "preferences" in your BRAIN?? This whole home automation notion seems like it's a product of burned-out techno-brainiacs who can only think of things in terms of "data." What about "reality"??
>>Of course, you could ask what it would do when two people with conflicting preferences are in the same room, but that's just a software problem and is thus much easier to refine over time.
Or, it could be a human interaction problem that could be solved by "comprimise." Sorry, implanting a chip into your body so that you can simply stop thinking and cease awareness of your environment and human interactions is really, really stupid.
Just my 2 as a communications guy. General users do not care about the same details as developers. They only want to know one thing: Can I do what I need to do on Linux as well as or better than Windows? And the answer they want is in the form of "Yes, here is software X, it is better because of ____, and the files it produces can be sent to and used by Windows users." Or, "No, not yet."
They really don't give a crap about reliability, speed, bloat, or anything. Windows users are used to rebooting and crashing, and they don't give a shit because they have everything they want and need and then some. Ignorance? Maybe. Stupidity? I'm not so sure.
From my own personal experience as a musician, my brother was telling me about all of this free pro audio stuff for Linux, and it sounded awesome, so I got him to give me a Linux partition and installed that stuff, but my experience simply didn't present me a good enough reason to switch my OS and take the hit on getting back up to speed and finding my favorite substitutes for all of my old reliable Windows software. It was _okay_, but not some kind of epiphany. All the reliability, stability, security, and efficient memory usage would not have made a difference. It was just underwhelming.
These Linux snobs from TFA are probably chomping at the bit to tell me how stupid I am that I didn't give it a chance, or why didn't I use this or that software, etc., but I know my Windows software, and it does what I need it to do. The tech side of me can understand many of the points about Linux superiority, but as a user I say "Neat. But I don't care."
THE POINT BEING: Can the superiority speech; show don't tell, and be open to crossover users--when they're really ready to get away from Windows, they will have crap that they need to get done and will need your help.
>> If someone is distracting, have the courage call them out. This premptive strike is cowardly and more unprofessional than the behavoir it is trying to prevent.
It's pathetic that these presenters HAVE to say something when just a shred of common courtesy should just be second nature TO A PROFESSIONAL. Turn all of your gadgets off, pay attention, or get out. It's as simple as that. You're solution of "have the courage call them out" is a very unprofessional suggestion.
>> Government is what stops me (and people with less sensitive morals than I) from just taking your property.
At best government facilitates a civilized way of life, but the general population concedes that power to them. The government doesn't really stop anything, from speeding on the highway to looting graveyards for treasure.
In that balance of things, I'd say it's much fairer for the citizens, who are the people who actually manufacture things and keep the economy flowing, to do whatever they want with their property, from having it buried with them to giving it to their gay marriage partner.
Thank you government for facilitating my civilized way of life, now get the fuck out of my way.
...here -> http://www.lovedungeon.net/humor/dave/emoticons.ht ml
Although I don't really see a credible news source supporting the sentiment in the summary, that has long been a fear of mine. I'm too lazy to find a post I made with your exact thoughts, that crap like this might actually come to pass where you don't even own your own originally created music.
That is what I'm particularly sweating with DRM, and player lockdown, and stuff like that. How long before I literally need to buy a license to listen every rough draft of a musical creation? It's not so far-fetched in a world where Microsoft and Apple and Sony are in bed with the RIAA. With so much money and power, there is really no particular reason for them to even consider the independent musician who may or may not even be interested in making them money, and who at the moment can totally circumvent their creative and distributive channels.
The one thing that labels provide is a way to filter through the billions of songs and bands that exist. Who can keep track of it all? I think that at some point we need to fill the gap between the "anybody can post music here for everyone" type of sites--which will always be a microcosm of the real world with 99% crap and 1% decent stuff-- and the "you're good looking, let us write all your music and you can make a million dollars" big labels which have 99% polished turds.
I've been trying to tell my brother, who runs http://www.sonarama.com/ to start being super judgmental about the music he accepts so that he can build meaning and quality behind his "brand." I know there are sites like garageband and iuma, but I don't necessarily equate those with easily finding *good* indy music.
Somebody needs to balls to take on a critic role in the world of no-income music and stop worrying about hurting people's feelings. In this manner, at worst you'd have a relationship with that person like you might have with a Roger Ebert and movies--you may not always agree with him, but it's the beginning of a baseline of knowing what to listen to. Or what not to listen to.
The weasel word is "unreasonable" though; the "War on Terror" is being used by this administration to exact an all-out assault on the definition of what is reasonable, and that is why the 4th ammendment is a little wimpy with respect to actually protecting privacy.