IANAL, or more appropriately, IANAS (I Am Not A Solicitor)

When you take a CD from a store, you are taking a piece of their physical inventory. They have lost a real, tangible asset to you that they paid actual, countable money for.

When you copy a friend's CD, you are DUPLICATING a physical asset, meaning that the store has all the inventory they had paid for before you copied it. They have not experienced an actual loss. Now, there are a number of imaginative people out there who like to construe this as theft, and they have done a good job of spinning "unauthorized duplication" into "theft" in the minds of many. Of course, that bit of fiction is designed to serve the interests of the copyright owners, not serve as legal advice. Also, this artificial construct ignores the evidence that many who illegally copy music are trying it, not necessarily trying to keep it. A significant number go on to buy the music, which they might not have if they hadn't "borrowed" it.

Achieving the same net result does not necessarily mean that the same crime (if there is one) was committed. For example, if I killed someone, it could easily be a) murder (intent, motive), b) manslaughter (accidental, but with responsibility), or c) self-defense (unfortunate, but justifiable). Furthermore, I could argue that you didn't really get the same net result. If you stole the CD, you would possess the cover art, jewel case, and a pressed CD. If you copied the music, you might have bothered to actually burn a CD copy of it (inferior to pressed CD in lifespan, cost of media comes out of your pocket, not theirs, unless you stole that too) without taking the case and copying the art, but more likely you just downloaded the mp3 files, which although enjoyable, are measurably inferior to the store-bought product. As a matter of fact, at this point, you have come closer to a song recorded over the radio than stealing a CD from a store.

Your interpretation of "profit" is a loose one. Personal gain is not profit.

I can't say that I agree. Yes, having to guess both the username and the password does improve security, but no more than simply making the password that many characters longer. Essentially you're just making the username part of the password.

The only reason that your approach would add value is if the password length were somehow artificially limited, and the username were protected like a password and assigned using strong password conventions.

Otherwise it just adds inconvenience, and no real additional security.

Still a lot of exploration to do in our solar system - probes and robots are the best way to go about it right now.

I don't see what incentive private enterprise would have in landing rovers on Mars, whereas this is something that NASA is very good at doing, and is able to conduct experiments for the sake of science and discovery.