+1 Funny.

Don't just limit this to set top boxes, include gaming consoles and make a big fucking red blinking light mandatory on devices like Glass.

Just to be clear here, protocols like HTTPS only secure data from the Application Layer - this man in the middle attack takes place at a much lower layer (Data Link/Network), meaning any device which automatically connects to familiar SSID's is susceptible. HTTPS will not save you from rogue AP's.
This is largely a convenience feature implemented by Apple, but it doesn't matter which device you're using - if you aren't encrypting your traffic, you are vulnerable to eavesdropping. Period.

This. I might go into a theatre now once a year (never by choice), and the last piece of physical media I bought was BBC's Life on Blu-Ray. It's not that I'm out downloading a storm to get everything else - it's that the quality of product from the majors has dropped so significantly over the past decade, I'm just no interested in paying for a $15 movie ticket/physical media/legal download to watch Big Name Actor to jump around in front of a green screen for two hours.
Until the big studios stop milking existing franchises or Lucasing the crap out of their movies, most of my leisure money goes to indie game developers - they work hard producing original content, and then they don't try to blame me if it doesn't sell.

Just think it through. Ha ha ha...
No but seriously, there is no guarantee that a user who has their phone stolen will buy that same phone again. So it's already not 100% gain, they may go to a competitor or buy a refurbished phone from their carrier. Next, assuming they do buy a replacement from you, there is also no guarantee they will buy the same model. They may buy a cheaper one which has lower margins, as many people do when they feel they were targeted as a result of owning the hottest model or simply cannot pay off their subsidy right away.
Okay, so as a result of this theft, you may wind up selling another phone and make a few bucks - but there are no guarantees whatsoever, and this means you cannot plan around illegal activity when building your financial models. This was the point made above, the returns are simply too small and too unreliable to factor into the models when compared to something like adding new features or running a series of marketing campaigns.
To coin a car analogy, it would be like Audi saying "Our cars are stolen the most, so we can expect greater revenues as a result" - would you buy an Audi knowing that? Or would you buy a phone from the first manufacturer who allows your car to be killed when it is stolen?

Remind me how this is a problem? Or is being courteous, driving defensively, and sharing the road not part of your local traffic laws?

Do you honestly believe that tailgating someone who performed a safe and legal lane change makes things safer? "Golly gee, I sure am glad he didn't introduce any unnecessary ripple effects by not slowing down!" said no-one ever as you slam into the bumper of the person in front of you, tying up traffic in your lane for 30 minutes or more while you exchange insurance information.
Or maybe the idea of inconveniencing someone else during their commute causes you such a large amount of stress that you're afraid to slow down for the sake of safety? Do you also find yourself apologizing to walls when you walk into them?

I see where you are coming from, but I think you're still confusing the issue. The .sy domain is inaccessible as a result of Syria withdrawing its routes from the global BGP table. Since Routing Protocols like BGP operate at a lower layer than DNS and TOR, these services are unavailable as a result. So while TOR may be able to help if Syria were simply filtering DNS, this is not the case.
It's like having your arm chopped off and wondering why you can't move your fingers.

The Internet is still built on routing protocol which is almost 20 years old. This is the reality that we face. Whether you believe it to be rubbish or not is irrelevant - if a country can control which routes it advertises in this manner, a major redesign (or a new global routing protocol) would be required to work around it.

Forgive me for a moment, but that's exactly what the Internet was designed to do. This is accomplished via routing protocols which store multiple routes to a single destination in the event of failure.
Unless you're trying to imply that TOR is a superior "type" of Internet, in which case it should be pointed out that TOR is simply an application which runs on top of all of the fiber, copper, and wireless links built by current providers. So it really doesn't matter if someone either physically cuts the cord or starts filtering your routes, TOR will not function without the underlying layers of physical and network connectivity.

You should look into PON as a consumer access technology. No fusion splicing on customer premise, passive splitters, and enough range to cover entire communities with power only provided by the Central Office. All of your points are absolutely true of traditional fiber services, but PON is rising in popularity because it sidesteps all of them while remaining cheaper than copper while still delivering services up to 1 Gbps.
Additionally, VDSL2 with Bonding (and eventually Vectoring) turns traditional cable plant into a very expensive waste of money - cable loops are longer and a shared medium, while copper loops terminate directly from the customer premise to a cabinet or Central Office. This allows the ISP to deliver service with true data rates using existing copper up to and beyond 150 Mbps. Ultimately though, DSL and Cable will be replaced by PON.

The term you may be searching for is "confidence" - people will always buy, hold, and sell gold in many forms, and regardless of what the market does, perceive it to be a valuable possession and essential resource to many industries. Unlike BitCoin, however, gold has many, many practical uses as a raw material, and any work performed on it actually adds value - such as the creation of jewellery or use in an alloy. You can't add value to a BitCoin, and those who use it (such as Silk Road) clearly say it derives value directly from the stability of the U.S. Dollar.

There have been enough "millionaires" minted by BitCoin to ensure it has a place for some time as a purely speculative market, and a speculative market can be just about anything - goods, services, money, pork chops, anything that people want. Regardless of whether the fanboys think it will become a real currency or not - usually by asking retarded and self-explanatory questions like "What is the exact value of a U.S. Dollar?" - BitCoin has now drawn the attention of every get-rich-quick schemer and arm-chair investor on the planet, and rightly so - there is likely still some good money to make if you don't mind extreme risk. Unfortunately, all of this just adds to the volatility, which will ultimately keep sane, stable, financially-minded people out of the BitCoin market.
Remember, kids, the markets tied to the real-world are based on investments - the idea of buying into something which will generate a return for you in the long run, usually a corporation beholden to the shareholders which must prove they have used your money to generate value every quarter. This stability draws more and more investors, which in turn builds confidence and ensures that you will have a buyer when you actually want to cash-out. You could have a million BTC today, but without a buyer, you don't have a penny - and judging from the news, the only way to attract buyers is by constantly screaming "Look at us! You're going to be rich!" over and over until you attract someone willing to accept greater risk than you by purchasing your BTC.
TL;DR - go ahead and play hot potato with your money if you want to, but the rest of us will play in markets that won't lose 50% of their value overnight.

Don't forget cancer caused by solar radiation. After all, 100% of humans who have died in the history of mankind have been exposed to either solar radiation or wind, sometimes both at the same time. The same cannot be said for nuclear or coal, so there is clearly only one sensible solution to this problem - we need to both nuke the sun and build wind-breaking walls with coal wherever possible.

Enforcing the current distracted driving laws against Google Glass would be difficult - to an observer outside of your car, they look just like regular eyeglasses. The tell-tale "hand to ear" or "eyes to crotch" visual queues are gone. It's much easier to simply pass a law banning their use outright, meaning you can be charged if you are ever pulled over while wearing them.
Alternatively, laws like these may force Google to put safeguards into the product which detect when you are driving and prevent you from using text input or displaying any video, email, text messages, etc. My Volkswagen prevents me from doing any complex data entry when I am not parked, and restricts me to voice commands only. It's quite effective.