By mixing, tweaking, sampling, and matching pieces of music together, a skilled artist can make something that equals more than the sum of its parts. If you're looking for examples, take DJ Shadow, El-P, or RJD2. Listening to an album by either artist, it's not even necessarily apparent that you're listening to song 1+song 2, it's music in its own right. I don't know how they do it, but it's definitely not to be underestimated.

This guy is apparently not into turntablism, for which I pity him.

I entirely agree that BMI is a flawed system. It doesn't pretend to be an absolutely foolproof statistic, either. Body fat percentage is more indicative of overall health, of course, but the main issue with using body fat by ratio is that it's much harder to measure accurately. And that's a recurring theme within medicine, especially the types of medicine that focus on improving the overall health of the patient, rather than simply finding a problem to solve. It's a problem that implanted and ingested sensors will solve rather than exacerbate, because they allow for more accurate measurement in an easier, more constant manner.

I'd suggest E.S. Posthumus. It's purely digital, but they were pretty good at what they did. Sadly, all the tracks are too short.

It really doesn't "fall short" in any case. Digital tools are tools nonetheless, and equally capable of transferring emotion to a sonic medium. There is plenty of 'digital' music that does so consistently, it's just a matter of finding it.

You're underestimating a synthesizer. Take a look at a Moog sometime. There's a lot of knobs and dials, and they all do something (and most of them do something that was nearly impossible with any other instrument invented). A saxophone can't gradually alter its entire timber mid-phrase, the closest wind instruments have are the various kinds of mute, each limited in its ability in a way a synthesizer isn't. The electric guitar is the closest, because using different digital and analog pedals one can achieve a massive range of effects, in much the same way a synthesizer does. And, may I ask you to remember what the common reaction was to the invention of the electric guitar? Much the same as the modern reaction of so-called 'purists' to the popularization of sampling, synthesizing, and digital production via software. The fact of the matter is, they are no longer able to be looked at as more or less than each other. They are simply different ways of making art, and each is capable of truly amazing things.

The same thing applies to the waves of digital music produced for things like raves. To quote one observer at the Globe and Mail 'So now we know why Deadmau5 and Daft Punk wear helmets when they perform. Everybody is digging the music, but no one is dancing. It is a sad development; the headgear of the maestros is there to mask their tears.'
No, it doesn't apply to "the waves of digital music produced for raves". Firstly, the rave scene died in the 90's, but it appears that you're not actually referring to a rave, you're talking about a concert by a musician whose methods you don't understand. Go see any decent house, dubstep, or techno artist play, and suddenly it's apparent that the quote you referenced is completely wrong, at least in the context in which you're using it. You can get a crowd moving with a Macintosh, it's not that difficult.
Will the live performance of instrumental musicians also become a thing of the past?
No, it won't.. Look to the same examples to see evidence that musicians without vocalists are actually becoming far more popular. And if you're trying to insinuate that a DJ isn't an 'instrumental' artist, you're wrong. A pair of turntables is an instrument just as a guitar is, and a performance using one requires just as much 'musicianship' as with any other instrument.

As is the case with most technological advancement, it will benefit the vast majority of cases while being detrimental to a vast minority of cases. If anything, false positives will be a bigger issue than false negatives, as is the case with most sensor systems (such as in security). More important is that implantable sensors don't do anything other than replacing non-implantable sensors. You can have a series of sensors monitor your body temperature, which might have very important implications in early-warning diagnosis of many diseases in a way that even the patient will likely not realize. The same is the case with this sensor, which allows for the same kind of detection of certain kinds of cancer.
What people tend to be afraid of is going to a doctor when they "know" something is wrong, only to be turned down because their temperature is fine and pain surveys come back inconclusive (As happens to a staggering number of hypochondriacs daily). The issue is, the 'standard' setting for sensors is never 'normal', because 'normal' is never zero. If a sensor breaks or turns off, or even if it reads a constant value looped indefinitely (contrasting against the otherwise-dynamic readings a working sensor would return), that will obviously be a problem with the sensor, and a doctor won't be fooled.

Because in the context of the machine, it makes sense. TCS and stability control are fairly useful for city driving, but they limit what an expert driver can do with a car. Since the Carrera GT is meant for expert drivers, and it's suited to track performance more than daily driving, its not really beneficial. Of course, people are going to buy the Carrera GT to use it as a daily driver, and most of those people aren't experts, but that isn't to say the car is inherently dangerous-- Only that those drivers are dangerous.

Don't underestimate the average American. By doing so, you threaten to fall victim to the fallacies you belittle in them. It's easy to elevate your beliefs above everybody else's, but that's neither right nor beneficial to anybody. I think if you'd give people more of a chance, you might notice that you're not the only one fed up with being lied to.

Yes, they definitely think they do. Rather, I would guess that it's part of the deal Netflix has with its content providers, who would otherwise be staying up nights about the possibility of people downloading movies that they are supposed to be streaming. Not that it's foolproof, as any kid with a video card and FRAPS can attest, or that there's a bit of Netflix content that can't be pirated elsewhere. In short, yes, Netflix has DRM. But, they don't need DRM, and I'm certain that their service wouldn't lose much from providing HTML5 streaming. The MPAA members might have an aneurysm, though, which would probably end up hurting Netflix indirectly.

I disagree with the notion that "it'd be hard to convince people" to ingest medical sensors. Perhaps blood-based sensors would fall prey to that kind of thinking, but those aren't quite possible as of yet. Although a certain number of so-called skeptics will be eager to outline the GPS-tracking possibilities with this kind of technology (which, amusingly enough, could be thwarted by wearing foil), implanted and ingested sensors fill some of the main voids in medical security, namely the current failure to treat chronic illnesses such as diabetes and obesity, as well as the communications breakdown between doctor and patient ("where do you feel the pain?" Is it a stinging or a burning pain?"). Given enough time, the sensors themselves will improve, miniaturize, and drop in cost, and once that happens, medicine itself will change dramatically. It's far too early to call off the parade.

And it's not like the supposedly HIPAA-obscured records hospitals keep aren't enough to identify a patient. However, IT security in the field of technology is beyond the scope of the article, no?

I see China's aggressive stance on the drone flights as a bluff. If China really does fly a drone into Japanese airspace, it will be with the assumption that Japan will not shoot it down, and in the case that Japan does, then it won't result in a full-blown war over the East China Sea. At the risk of eating my words on the subject later, I don't think China wants to risk further straining tensions with the West as such a military action would certainly do, and if it happens, they will find that China needs the West more than the West needs China. A simple trade embargo would cause more internal conflict within that nation than they would like to admit.