When a Kickstarter project is for a physical device, it generally aims to take advantage of economies of scale. I saw one for an aluminum bodied flashlight with a hexagonal cross section (presumably to make it less likely to roll when laid down). The creator showed how much cheaper it would be to make if he had precommitments for at least a thousand units, and if I recall, for 5000 and so on. This suggests to me that people who don't understand the kickstarter approach would be saying the same thing about all sorts of newer economics related ideas, such as print on demand, or selling excess solar power back to the grid. There's a difference between saying "Don't believe a stranger offering to sell you the Brooklyn bridge!", and "Don't believe bridges have any economic utility!".

The use of nuclear weapons against Israel presumably has to potentially include Jerusalem as a target. Nuking 'just' one location, such as Tel Aviv, means starting a war of total distruction with the surviving elements of the Israeli military, so it makes no more sense than, say, nukeing just New York and expecting the US to say "Oh, if it's only NY, we won't use nukes back." Ergo, use nukes at all and it's necessary to hit the Jerusalem area to kill Israeli military assets that will otherwise be nukeing you back. That means one of your hypothetical Iranian bombs takes out one of the most major Muslim holy sites (The Dome of the Rock). It also opens the door to retaliation against Islamic sites in general, presumably including even Mecca itself, as a risk. The question becomes, how far would Israel go with a 50% population loss? The real answer is, there's a reasonable likelyhood of a nuclear power using its weapons in response to just fallout from being downwind of a target nation, or similar possible triggers, let alone being faced with genocide and the possible total distruction of their nation. Asking what people would rationally do in such cases is starting from a false assumption that people in such cases remain rational if they started out that way .
        So yes, you are drawing a reasonable inference when you question how much Ahmadinejad is like Hitler or Stalin, as one of the major questions is "Is he crazier than either of those two?". Probably not, but he does what the Grand Ayatollahs direct, maybe with some other influences, but just who those might be is terribly unsure from outside Iran. The real question may be how crazy a bunch of mostly 70 yeal old + spiritual leaders are.
        However, you should keep in mind that most Iranians are not Arabs, although most are Muslims. Actual Arabs are only about 2% of the Iranian population according to the CIA world factbook. People who even speak fluent Arabic in the region total only about 3%, from the same source. Add to this that the version of Islam endorsed in Iran is Shia, while the majority of Palestinian Islamic practitioners are Sunni, and there are not as many ties between these peoples as most assume. There may well be Iranian hardliners who regard the Sunni as damnable heretics anyway, or, more secularly, strongly resent the occasional Sunni tendency (as seen particularly in Wahhabism, which is a Sunni/Saudi based half religion/half nationalism splinter), to treat all non-arab Muslims as second class Muslims.

You "Young Internet" creationists are ignoring the evidence for Netvolution, which clearly shows that the Internet has been developing from simpler structures for nearly 4.2 Billion years (Note that I am using the US 'Billion', that is One Thousand Millions - British style Billions would be silly in this context. I'd use scientific notation, but that would obviously confuse any persons who still listen to the absurd claims that "No one can show an intermendiate transition networking schema", and such.).

People see license plates all the time, but they don't normally stand there logging them for hours each day. There's lots of data where this sort of distinction matters.

For example, I'm a type 2 Diabetic. I voluntarily disclose this, and that I use a blood glucose meter and take Metformin for this condition. Now suppose somebody, perhaps working for my insurer, wants to check such data as what dates I refill my prescription, and what times of day I test, how regularly, and so on. There's several potential problems here. First, if my insurer wants to claim that I have been getting refills irregularly, it's in their interest if there's a law keeping me from stockpiling my medications, because that might be an alternate explanation for why I might go more than 1 month between refilling a 30 day supply.. Sure enough, there are an increasing number of drugs which don't have any known abuse potential, but that the prescriptions can only be filled for 1 month at a time, by law. The Insurers are not just interested in writing their rules so they don't pay out for multiple months at a time, but getting states to actually pass laws, which suggests to some of us that they really are trying to track such data in hopes of denying more claims. Then the test strips and lancets themselves are available in at least most states without a prescription. Again, there's no real abuse potential there, but again, there have been insurance lobbyists advocating making these items prescription only.
          This sort of data is routinely observed by at least one other person (the clerk) any time I buy these medications. There are other people, such as my doctor and the pharmacy staff who may sometimes ask me if I'm testing regularly or remind me about proper use of the test kit and meds. But the insurer isn't just some party that presumably has my interests at heart in the general sense, they are an entity which might want to deny a claim if my disease gets worse, by claiming that it's my own fault for not following all the instructions adequately. The insurers are also people who have already lobbied for laws which would make my life a little more difficult. (For example, if I have to get a prescription for test strips and lancets, then I have to contact my doctor if my meter breaks and tell him what type I buy as a replacement before I can start using it.). So, the individual data is not kept particularly private. I'd let my doctor or pharmacist see the meter and page through the log stored on its SD card pretty much on request, and if I have the insurer pay for my meds, they presumably can see what dates I've filled the prescriptions and could track them easily. Yet, there's still problems with the access they already have, and piecing together that data gives them the power to do some things that can be a real pain.Piecing together more data is likely to open up new areas for abuse.
       

"Should be" sounds like a moral evaluation, like you are claiming that with more free and open source alternatives piracy should drop because there's less temptation. The real point here is that it has become so much easier to get free software that does everything the user wants from the expensive alternatives, and the hassles of getting pirated copies have supposedly increased due to DRM systems and such, so how could the real numbers NOT be going down? What the BSA seems to be claiming is not just that people have become, overall, less moral, but that they have become selectively stupider. They will try even harder to get illegal software if there's more legal alternatives, they will put up with increasing risks of arrest, of pirated copies with embedded malware, and of having any pirate software get inactivated at possibly inopportune times, just to stick with using those illegal copies, just BECAUSE they don't really need to as much as the last time the BSA looked at the problem.
          People try weird things such as Laetrile in increasing numbers when they are told there is no conventional treatment for their cancer - they don't go desperately searching for bank account draining quack treatments in unlicensed third world clinics when they are told there is now a cheap cure available in a nice, clean local doctors office. In the same way, Linux or Libreoffice or Chrome may or may not make piracy actually go down, but its pretty strange to say their presence has been accompanied by piracy percentages going up.
          If the numbers are being honestly reported, yes piracy should begin dropping. But the claim that the numbers are being honestly reported is itself an extraordinary claim, given what else we know. It's not just a matter of free software either. Microsoft has extended customer support several times for people with legitimate copies of their older operating systems. The BSA seems to be showing that not being under as much pressure to get a legal copy of whatever is newer from MS at the time actually has made MS OS piracy increase. Maybe this younger generation is somehow both 'less moral' and dumber about the risks, but that's a pretty strong claim given what else we know.

I can see why you would argue there is, or should be, no real difference between filming straight or gay sex, but why is that an issue? Filming somebody having any kind of sex where they have an expectation of privacy and haven't consented is usually criminal. Depending on jurisdiction, it may be a felony. So, the question of wrongful death depends on whether the crime rose to the level of such other crimes as bank robbery where society now holds a criminal committing that crime responsible for consequences such as a bank guard's having a fatal heart attack during the robbery. If photographing via hidden camera and releasing the results are not crimes that fall on the list of felonies that can result in additional charges if someone dies, or if the law doesn't include the case of someone dieing via suicide, then in either case, there's no issue with not convicting the criminal of the additional charges. But, this doesn't mean action has to be 'direct' as you put it, and it doesn't mean that the straight vrs. gay aspect has any significance as to penalties.

There's a difference between waiting a year or longer for a released DVD (game in your example) to come down in price, and waiting a year (or more) for it to be released at full price, and start that year or more discounting process.
When you're waiting on, for just one example, someone who bought the game at full price to put it up for sale used, any time involved will depend on what are genuinely free market factors (such as how many other people evaluate that product as worth more than you do and snap up used copies before the average price gets down to your amount "X"). But waiting on the initial release itself seems to have little or no correlation with such market factors.
I'm a bit of a fan of Fringe. I'm waiting on the DVD sets for season 4 and eventually 5, and have bought all the others. I'm rather glad that Fringe is getting that 5th season, a thing which was far from certain. However, I have no way of knowing if my choosing to buy seasons 1, 2, and 3 at full price when they came out had any effect at all on whether Fox decided to go with the 5th season. That's literally an anti free-market situation. Good old Adam Smith's very definition of what a free market is says that parity of information for all parties is what improves market efficiency and results in the greatest good for the greatest number. Fox chose to deliberately not give out information that would help fans know if they were encouraging the show to continue if they bought the DVD sets new rather than buying used or downloading them. So, add to the physical price, and to various other prices imposed such as region encoding, that I don't know if buying at full price and before a certain date will actually encourage the creators to keep the show on the air, or have no affect at all.
        Now Fox treated the fans of Fringe with considerable respect in the end - much better than in several past cases such as Babylon 5. For that matter, in the end, the situation for Fringe has involved more mutual respect for various parties than we've seen for literally hundreds of other shows with mediocre to poor ratings. But that means for the more typical show, any problems the fans have in being able to plan for DVD releases and similar are going to be much greater. That's an additional price for waiting on legitimate channels to play catchup. That says the cost of doing things by the book isn't just a year (or whatever), but a year and uncertainty penalties about whether the wait will eventually terminate, and when.

I suspect the point is, saying the CoS didn't succeed at using or abusing the law because it isn't a nation state implies that religions are something "lesser" in terms of social power, and there are certainly counter-examples to that.

Surprising it didn't work on you, then.

In the US, at least, the concept of being presumed innocent carries great weight. Even if the bill of rights doesn't specifically require it, most of us feel it's within the spirit that It should be up to anyone claiming that some software is used mostly, or even substantially, for infringment, to bear the burden of proof rather than to just give that point of debate to a biased party and have it lead to possibly railroading some actual accused human being.