Um, because there was a significant financial impact, as well as impact on many employees...would you like to be a Sony employee right now? Not to mention, the "9/11 style" threat. And, while we're all pretty sure that threat is BS, it wouldn't take much to actually do something serious.

Oh, and what the fuck are you talking about? There's no comparison between federal agency spying (as done by all countries), and attacking an industry in another country, and making threats against civilians.

Really? Where do you get this? Do you have any credible source?

"The US" is not a monolith. It doesn't have one voice, and one opinion. People speak out both for and against this movie, flag burning as free speech, and a variety of other issues.

So, while I'm here, I'll just give my own $.02 on the movie. I think it's a mean and stupid thing to make a movie about killing someone, anyone, including an evil dictator. And while I'm a strong proponent of the freedom of speech, that freedom stops at the point where it impacts the freedom of others.

Inciting a riot != freedom of speech.

Well, now you're just replying as if I had implied the opposite to an obvious portion of the rant, rather than the assumption, which was clearly my point. And, just in case it wasn't obvious to you, the assumption portion I'm referring to is "It might make you feel safer to have one as well, but it doesn't actually MAKE you any safer." No go back under your rock.

The insurance company would win that battle in court.

Welcome to Detroit.

You've obviously never experienced a situation where you'd actually need to defend yourself. I've lived in areas where I've had shots fired in the apartment upstairs in one instance, a TV stolen from our house in another, and a multitude of crime in the area. If you think it's irrational, then you're an idiot.

Your assumptions are not backed up by the facts.

The only places where it's "civilized" enough in the U.S. would be very rural, and lack jobs.

Depend where you live...
http://www.wxyz.com/news/detro...

You're off by about a decade. I was playing chess on machines like Boris, and Chess Challenger back in those days. And while they were easy for a serious chess player to beat, they'd typically beat a novice. This is from http://www.computerhistory.org...

Until the mid-1970s, playing computer chess was the privilege of a few people with access to expensive computers at work or school. The availability of home computers, however, allowed anyone to play chess against a machine.

The first microprocessor-based chess programs were produced by hobbyists who shared information openly through computer clubs and magazines. As computer chess became commercialized, the increased investment in programming and marketing produced better programs and a larger audience. Even beginning chess players could learn and improve their game without the need for a human opponent.

The sophistication of microprocessor-based chess software had improved so much by the mid-1980s that these systems began winning tournaments against supercomputer-based programs and even top-ranked human players.

Just my observation... Economists have historically been poor predictors of future economic trends, and better historians.

A brief google of "economists prediction accuracy" shows up articles like:
Economic/Market Predictions: Still Terrible
Why you should ignore economic forecasts - CBS News
Economic history: Muddled models | The Economist
Why economists can't predict the future - Macleans.ca

No, no, no, no, no!

Yes, please do leave something to your family. All of the photos. If you want to make an album of some sort containing your top 100, have at it, but DO NOT "trash the rest"! My dad passed on a couple years ago, and we scrambled to find every photo we had of him, and a couple years later, I still enjoy occasionally sifting through them...it's not a morbid thing, but brings back nice memories.

Glad to see our northern neighbors have joined us in our efforts to keep the ends justifying the means. /sarcasm