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.

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.

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....

Better question is, if you can directly stimulate the brain and cause pleasure, why bother opening your eyes?

Oh right. Because movies are with propaganda, and the point of the brain stimulation is to break your capacity for critical evaluation.

I'll pass, thanks. I read Spider Robinson, I know how this turns out, and I don't feel like being found sitting in a pile of my own excrement with a beatific grin on my face...

It's not as big of a difference as you would think. The 50 American States retain all powers except for those specifically surrendered to the Federal Government. They are every bit as sovereign as the members of the EU. The critical difference is they've surrendered more powers to the central government than EU members have. In certain areas US States have more power to flip the bird to the central government than EU members do. They're certainly more powerful than any political subdivision of a European State, unless you want to talk about special cases like Åland.

We don't have a fence. And if you think the US wasn't going to increase security after 19 foreigners got into the country (legally I might add) and killed nearly 3,000 people you're crazy. What country on this planet wouldn't have tightened border controls after such an incident?

We can argue about the need for some of these measures (I would do away with the fingerprint requirement, at least for people holding Schengen Area passports and those from other countries we have excellent relations with) or even their effectiveness but the equation to the Berlin Wall is both offensive and laughable. I'm guessing the person that made it didn't have the privilege of actually living in the East Bloc and is a spoiled Westerner.....

Well, the ones I helped build provide food for the community farmers in their individual plots, and they also provide freshly picked vegetables to local upscale restaurants, and they also provide several tons of food to the food bank each year, and they conduct weekly educational sessions, inviting the people who go to the food bank to be direct participants in what is keeping them alive each day.

One of them is surrounded by a "wall of food", a kind of a hedge built entirely of perennial food bearing plants. I ended up coming into that project later in its history, it was your traditional "grid of personal plots in a field" type of urban garden, and the first meeting I went to was a discussion about how to prevent starving homeless people from stealing food from the plots. The wall of food was my idea, inspired by Geoff Lawton's system of building food forests.

"Liking farming" didn't really have that much to do with it for most of the people concerned.

Umm, the Berlin Wall was to meant to keep East Bloc citizens in, not to keep Westerners out. I've never had any issues whatsoever leaving the United States. In fact it's easier to exit the United States than it is to exit the Schengen Area; we don't make you wait in line to get your passport stamped on your way out of our country.