MPAA's asshattery does not justify cyber-vigilantism (best case), cyber-terrorism (worst case), and threats of physical violence.

In this case? With regards to an industry that could be killed tomorrow if enough people simply voted with their wallet? Yes, I do think it's wrong.

Agreed, to actually be sure, the software needs to be at least verified by someone you trust. It would not be wise for that someone to be a telco. However, end-to-end has a specific meaning and Verizon's service isn't it.

As for the keys, you can identify the party through conversation. If you've never met, you would need a trusted introducer in a 3 way call to verify each of you to the other. Then transmit public keys around and read back the key fingerprints. In other words, use the PGP/GPG web of trust rather than a central authority.

From then on, you have the keys stored and so you can skip that part.

I do know very well that the company is not at all immune to government pressure. I never anywhere suggested otherwise. I suggested that claiming a thing that is untrue and legally cannot be true is immoral. A moral company simply wouldn't claim to offer end to end encryption.

I'm not part of Hollywood dude. I rarely go to the movies; maybe 2 or 3 times a year. I own less than 10 DVDs; how many movies are really good enough that you care to re-watch them with enough frequency to justify owning them? My television service comes from an antenna and that exists primarily so I have access to local news.

My issue here is with the spineless theaters that are actually going to pull the movie over vague online threats. Because of that I am going to reward the nearest one that chooses to screen the movie despite these threats. If I happen to be dating someone at the time who is into this sort of lowest common denominator comedy I'll take them with; $20 is a worthwhile investment to get laid. Otherwise I go by myself. The 2nd Amendment comment was mostly "because I can", not because I actually think I'll need my legally carried firearm, though the saying "It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." comes to mind. :)

It will be a stinker. But I view this the same way I viewed Comedy Central's cowardice regarding the South Park episodes with Muhammad in them. Free speech is the defining civil liberty of Western Civilization. We used to regard it as something worth fighting and dying for. Now we're so cowardly that we pull movies from being screened over vague online threats by undefined groups that most likely lack any ability to back up those threats or even to encourage lone wolves (as could have theoretically happened with South Park) to do the same.

I will be going to see this movie, wherever it screens, even that entails a significant drive or other inconvenience on my part. If the movie sucks as badly as I think it will I'll just play with my cell phone for two hours. And since some assholes have gone and made threats I'll be exercising my 2nd Amendment rights at the same time.

Fixed it for you.

You might want to hold your applause.

I saw the previews months ago for that movie and thought to myself "That looks stupid." but now I'm going to go see it anyway. You should really encourage all of your friends to do the same. Blackmail resulting in self-censorship is not something that needs to be encouraged.

Have fun with that when IPV6 goes mainstream. :)

The legit parties to the conversation would notice that none of them are the master. Or choose an election system that makes one of them the master every time.

We keep flying in those gas-guzzling SUV rovers to take snapshots for our albums...

How'd they make that happen on the West Coast, where people are so paranoid that they drain entire reservoirs simply because someone peed in them?

Who all all I had to do to destroy New York City's water supply was drive half an hour and take a piss. I hope the terrorists haven't figured this out, they'll be in the Catskills drinking beer in no time.

You're forgetting how weather reporting has become as sensationalized as every other aspect of journalism. Cheat sheet to modern TV meteorology:

1) Every unusually cold spell is the result of a polar vortex.
2) Every severe weather event is the result of anthropologic climate change.
3) The only proper way to cover a tropical cyclone is to have a guy standing on a sea wall in a rain coat. Bonus points if you can barely understand him due to the effects of wind on his microphone.
4) Buzzwords poorly understood by the broader population (this includes most meteorologists and practically all of the ones on television) must be thrown in to consume airtime. See Item #1 and add "El Niño" and "La Niña" to the list.

Ask 10 economists a question and you'll get 11 answers.

"...But if we just put it on autopilot, there's no guarantee this will work out...."
That sounds suspiciously like someone wants to run something.
I'd ask - sincerely - if there's a way to tell if world economics has run better since politicians started actually listening to economists? The moment economists moved from descriptive to prescriptive was arguably not a step upward.

I have no idea what the point of that link is, but in response to:

That's because very few non-Americans have actually studied our political system or our history in depth. Have you actually read our Federal Constitution? I'm sure I know the answer to the question if I pose it regarding a State Constitution. You do know that the 13 original colonies each had their own charters? Or that two of the American States (Vermont and Texas) existed as Independent Republics prior to joining the United States? Have you ever wondered why things like drivers licenses are done at the State level rather than the Federal level? Or why alcohol policies vary so broadly across the United States? Gambling? And so forth?

These are all rhetorical questions of course. I don't know where you're from but I'm almost certain I know more about the political/legal system in your country and the history thereof than you do about the United States of America. Look, the answer is even in the name....

I fully agree that a talented professional can get amazingly good results out of the hardware out there today. It is also within reach of an avid amateur.

The modern digital gear is not quite as forgiving as the old tube gear but in exchange the result when you do it right is orders of magnitude better.

Ideally, all music should be released at full dynamic range and if it needs to be compressed for FM or crappy earbuds, the radio station or player can easily handle it.

I'm going to laugh when new standards for measurement come out that punish the current 'loud' recordings.