I think you underestimate the power of Facebook. Publicly shaming corporations such as GM is a HUGE PR hit if they actually started introducing such things into their cereals, even in small, legal doses. Just imagine if they started putting Sodium Fluoride in their cereals under the presumption that it would help kids fight cavities.

There's a million-large bandwagon of people ready to post about stuff like this and get the word out that even tolerable levels of this kind of stuff is included in their kids' food intentionally. Naturally occurring, sure, you can't shame an apple tree. But you can shame a company. And believe it or not, they're paying very close attention to what people post on socnets.

arsenic would be considered a natural flavoring.

Arsenic is considered a natural flavoring just as much as gunpowder is and would land General Mills execs in prison for knowingly having it put in their cereals.

PERSON 1: "Well, you know we can always use natural sources for color."
PERSON 2: "But we've always used petroleum-based colors in our cereals."
PERSON 1: "It would probably cut back on all of the side effects our internal studies have proven, like increased obesity, hypertension disorder, ADD..."
PERSON 2: "But it still costs more."
PERSON 1: "Well....I can get some numbers togeth..."
PERSON 2: "Let's go to lunch, I know a really good Hooters just down the street."
PERSON 1: "....Ok."

I'm sick of all the fees, insurances, registrations, etc. needed just to drive a fucking car. I also don't want to take it even further and have a car that's monitoring my fucking body. Jesus, let's get rid of the human factor that's creating nothing but a financial burden on those who commute.

Can we just come up with a method of transportation that relies on a (very, very, very well tested) network of systems that direct traffic and control vehicles? I don't care if it's a self driving car, a rail/conveyer system that uses the horribly ineffective carpool lanes that latches onto cars' tow clips, or a ski-lift style system suspended above roads that zip individuals around, or an "order-a-drone" program where you can fly in an (otherwise unmanned) drone and control source+destination with an app...speed trains, ....I could probably think of more. The point is, with 19 years of heavy driving experience all around California, I have come to the conclusion that a well developed, automated vehicle control + transportation system would probably yield far less (fatal or otherwise) accidents on the roadways. If we can create a network switch that allows billions of individual packets through without collisions, we can surely do the same with this.

Besides, I want my commute time to be relaxing and not have to have my brain be alert for the critical job of driving safely. Hell, I want to (legally) have a beer (or 3) on my way home and text at the same time. I want to call my wife and talk with my kids without pausing to have to honk and call 9-1-1 at some drunk moron in front of me crossing over the double yellow line, putting MY life in danger. I want to lie down and take a nap. I want wifi, too.

We signed a sheet of paper with our names for reduced price lunch. The school lunch person who stood there got to know the kids with reduced price lunch and knew that if suddenly some kid that she never saw before put his/her name down, they would check another sheet of paper to make sure they were on the list.

Not sure what's changed in the lunchroom since then that requires such elaborate identification methods.

...all of it's sociopaths, criminals, and other assorted "unpleasant people"

That would be a LOT of people.

Which raises the question, why are do many people in the U.S. turn out to fit this description? And how can it be reversed so maybe they can concentrate on defending their home turf instead of policing the rest of the world?

Are the people in the areas that drones are constantly flying over, monitoring, and bombing.

I'm sure the innocents that have lost a mother, a child or a friend can understand the drone pilots' stress too, though.

Hey I know, how about we go back a few steps and realize that killing, no matter how you do it, is stressful? Why should it matter how you do it? The psychological impact that knowing you have killed someone, especially an innocent(s), probably doesn't differ *that* much. You still have to go to sleep with that thought in your head every night.

If they do that and suddenly a cover of one of their songs breaks through, they won't see a penny of it.

This is false. The CC BY 4.0 International license *requires* any derivative works, covers, etc. to attribute the original artist. Not attributing the original artist is basis for legal action. This ensures whoever did the hard work creating the song someone else may be covering gets their spotlight as well. For example, people who hear a cover by some famous person will likely want to check out the original song. This is exposure. Exposure is the first step in someone becoming a fan and purchasing your music.

Creative Commons licensing doesn't take away copyright from the rightful owner(s). It enhances their potential for distribution in the digital age.

IANAL.

Creative Commons is a legally sound license. Unless you don't have the guts to stand up to a bully, you have nothing to worry about.

I would expect a massive crowdfunding campaign would cover any legal costs if the "rights enforcement goons" tried to sue someone for using CC BY redistributable music. The first case would (if it hasn't already been done anyway) form a stare decisis.

I would assume other (i.e. non-CC but cleared by copyright holder) music would be more difficult since there is not as much legal evidence to go off of as CC licensed music but definitely the public would be behind them as long as there is enough evidence to prove it was in fact legitimate. IANAL btw.

50% of BMI fees go to the songwriters

*Which* songwriters is the real question.

Artists need to hop on the CC bandwagon. Things have changed drastically since the music industry started strangling them as well as consumers.

If we had a sizable pool of popular CC licensed music, this kind of thing would be less of an issue because establishments like this could simply use it instead. There are tons of new ways for artists to get paid via CC licensed music. Maybe we can brainstorm on ideas and models for this to become a reality? I'm thinking some sort of croudfunding model might be a good first step.

"Yeah, you're just going to have to sit in the sweltering heat during summer school until ThunderfuckThor69 sends us the PSU we need for a 30 year old computer made by a company very few of you have ever heard of."

Uhm, or if the administration has a half a brain between all of them, they order a set (or two, or three) of replacement parts BEFORE they fail.

I have 3 replacement Palm Tungsten Cs sitting, waiting for my primary to die. I'm not stupid enough to wait for something I rely on so heavily, that's THAT old, without having backups sitting around.

We've come a long way since wax cylinders. But right now we're having growing pains. Everyone wants a piece of the digital streaming pie. The thing is that everyone also wants to lock you in.

Streaming needs to be more open. The music itself needs to be separated from the service. I don't want to feel like I'm making a lifelong commitment by investing in streaming purchases, building playlists, etc.

Through Pandora, Spotify, iTunes, Google Music, Amazon, and whatever else is out there..I've stuck to my own offline music collection - it's much more portable (like others have stated already). If a company wants to start a streaming service they need to provide something of value other than the music itself. The "industry" is tired and old and proprietary and the rest of the world is sick of it, including artists. I have a strong feeling Creative Commons is going to be the rebel yell of the very close future. Artists don't want to sign contracts because they're keen to the fact that they're never going to be as rich and famous as they think - they're just going to tour for years to pay off the debt they've accrued for the "privilege" of being promoted by a big label.

All artists want (and have ever wanted since the beginning of music) is to know that they have made a positive impact on other peoples' lives with their craft. Making a living from it has always been secondary to true musicians. This is more possible and accessible with the Internet.

SO! Streaming services are currently acting as big labels. People have already bypassed labels. So all of this is pretty moot to me. So instead, I am investing my time into a project that will provide value to people aside from rehashing the whole 'buy the White album again' scenario which has already infested streaming services' business models. It's new and exciting and something nobody has done before with music online.

Most users who need to be admins are software engineers

Or want to configure a new printer.

Or disable/enable a wireless adapter.

Or defrag their hard disk.