I love how people can rationalize anything around these parts if the target of a crime is someone that's unpopular. *sigh*

You're about 26,000 feet off the mark my friend.

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.

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.

Is stealing from the Public Domain by turning copyright into some sort of perpetual entitlement morally justifiable? Not really. In the end, someone is going around the rules of society for personal gain.

FTFY.

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. :)

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.

Since the experimental design involved artificially aging [only] the skin by exposing the mice to tanning, they probably don't know yet.

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.

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....

Hysteria, eh? Well, let's just drag a few facts out. Here we go:

o Straight-up misconduct

o Botched paramilitary police raid data

o Judge, jury and executioners in blue: The death penalty -- without a court

o Warrants "not required" data

o Seizure of property without warrants details

o $2.02 billion dollars in cash and property seizures for/in which no indictment was ever filed

o Other illegal horrors

Just a little information -- what we know -- showing our government at work, cavreader. Now, I don't know how you will characterize this information, but I know how I do: Directly and unequivocally indicative of a systemic breakdown of respect, regard, and understanding of liberty and justice that extends broadly across all areas of law enforcement.

Now, you want to talk nonsense about legal protections in a system where the vast majority of defendants are pressured into plea bargains against a completely uneven scale full of extra charges, almost certain financial ruin, threats of extended incarceration, and outright lies from the police and prosecutor, where the police don't have to defend anything in court -- and which can be, and at times have been, followed up by ex post facto laws increasing punishment after conviction -- fine. But don't expect me to take you seriously, because you obviously don't have even the slightest idea what you're talking about.

In this context a legitimate law enforcement reason means a warrant would indeed be needed.

Are you mad? They don't even insist on warrants when they can't meet the requirements of the 4th amendment, preferring to focus cluelessly upon the word "unreasonable" and ignoring the litany of probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation that were put there to explicitly define what "reasonable" is. They just break your door down, and shoot you -- and your pets.

And you think a law that doesn't even say a warrant is required will somehow stumble in its application on needing them?

I don't think you understand how the justice system works here. Or perhaps you're not from here.