And finnaly world wide public = paying public too, so they are as important (or more) as north-american public. And note that the global audience is much more numerous and diverse than the north-american public.

No they aren't. Film studios care more about markets that make them money (or may in future make them more money), not about markets which have larger populations and which are more diverse.

If a studio can keep 90% of ticket sales of a new release in the US but only gets to keep 50% of the much smaller number of ticket sales for a new release in Hungary then they clearly are going to give less of a toss about the Hungarian market.

Air is free. I've never had to pay anyone to produce it for my respiration.

No it isn't, think of all the legislation that goes into limiting emissions and protecting vegetation in order to improve/maintain air quality. That firewood wouldn't be on public land if their weren't laws protecting the public forest from which the wood came. None of the examples you give are truly 'free' by the definition you seem to want to use: free of cost or consequence to all.

Well no one is forcing him to live in one of the most expensive areas in the world (assuming it actually is). I make less than 15k per year after taxes and I don't really consider myself poor. In the country I'm living in now the average income is about $250 per month or about $3000 USD per year.

You're earning 500% the average income for the country in which you live, no shit you don't consider yourself poor. Your entire point is nonsense, of course you have to consider location when defining what 'poor' is. I don't care that someone earning $5k in another country can live like a king or not, someone earning $5k in the UK is poor.

Your inability to consider what is worth paying people decent money for says a lot more about your ignorance than anything else.

And they were pretty good at it to. Why do you think dogs made it into space four years before humans did!?

Automobiles have a very limited impact on roads compared to heavy, loaded, tractor trailers.

To give an anecdotal example, the firm I work for probably has ~400 lorries enter and leave site each day. The road outside directly outside, the first T junction, and the roundabout onto the main road all need repair a few times a year. What really highlights the difference is that on the roundabout, the lane used to turn into our site is wrecked but the other lane which our vehicles don't use can go years without needing repair, just because of a couple of hundred ~25T+ vehicles breaking from 60mph to 0-10mph every day.

Why would you want a system that financially encourages people to keep the oldest death trap toxic belching rust buckets on the road?

I.e., the poor who drive older, used cars would be taxed more than the rich who can afford a new car every year.

I'm inclined towards the view that taxing new cars at point of sale based on emissions, instead of part of the road/fuel tax currently levied might be a more effective way to get emissions down without being too harmful to people at the bottom of society using older more inefficient cars because they can't afford to upgrade.

Tracking every mile a car does seems like surrendering a lot of information to the state in return for a very limited benefit.

Sadly true, so feel free to entice them over to Australia and you'll have my thanks.

As crap as call centre customer service so often is, it doesn't make this a waste of money. Even if the company was perfect and never did anything wrong, they would from time to time receive calls from customers who are angry/touchy/rude, and giving staff good training in how to keep those interactions relatively positive is useful.

$5 per month would be perfect, IMHO. Worth getting rid of the ads...

Free without ads would be 'perfect' but it doesn't mean it is a viable business model.

If they roughly half the cost, then they would need to more than double the number of paying customers just to stay where they are. I'm sure if they thought they could make more money by lowering the price they would.

And you got a couple of clear answers, which you somehow failed to understand, and then went to to claim that the people responding were confused. Perhaps if you're country would do as poor a job of public healthcare as it seems to do of public education it's for the best that your healthcare is private.

It would be better if they played along and actually tried to hide as best as they could so they could IMPROVE on being incognito.

Arguably that's the worst thing they could do: Provide insights into how they try and remain undetected when amongst people who are trying to develop strategies and insights to detect them when there's nothing of value to gain. They'd be better off intentionally fitting stereotypes and doing a poor job of hiding at DefCon, then it might lure people into a false sense of security.

To use your own phrase "I know this is hard to grasp for people like you" but orders are speech; thus to criminalise orders is to criminalise speech.

If your flawed rant about civil justice had any validity, it would still fail to explain why harm caused by physical violence should be 'criminal' but harm caused by threats or verbal abuse should be covered by 'civil' law.

Uber lets customers easily leave feedback on individual drivers, which is communicated out to the client base, unlike any government model.

There's nothing to stop a taxi firm from accepting feedback from customers on individual drivers, the government is simply requiring that they do background checks prior to sending them to pick up members of the public.

Normal car insurances in Europe cover commercial use.

Not in either of the EU nations I've had insurance in. In both cases it was normal to be able to choose from personal, personal & commuting, and personal & business. Some companies would automatically allow commuting within personal, but certainly not all. Additionally business cover is very restrictive in terms of what is covered; delivering pizza is likely to be fine (I am not a lawyer or expert) but carrying people, anything hazardous or high value etc would certainly not be covered by standard insurance.