TL;DR: We hereby decide that those who believe in supernatural creators, talking snakes and magical rib-women are more qualified than medical professionals to decide who gets what medical treatment.

Thank you,

The Christian Republic of United States (Supreme Court Fatwa #1)

It was not your over a regulated banking system that prevented the problem It was good business sense.

I disagree. I don't think Canadian bankers have any more business sense the US bankers. If they could have gone on the wild subprime mortgage ride, they probably would have. But strict government regulations limited what they could do. So our banks had "dismal" profits in 2007 compared to US banks, but at least they were all still standing in 2009. See this analysis for example.

One study in the U.S. concluded that smokers save society 32 cents for every cigarette they smoke

OK. Here's something I don't expect Americans to grasp, but I'll say it anyway:

Sometimes there are more important values at stake than financial consideration.

The laws as expressed by government should be a reflection of the values of the population. If all the population cares about is money and nothing else, then that's not a society I'd care to live in.

We here in Canada have government-provided health care, and we don't have restrictive or silly laws that I'm aware of regarding the consumption of unhealthy foods, etc.

I find the attitude of Americans to government perplexing: They seem to hate government and are viciously opposed to any and all taxation. Well, sorry... you simply cannot run a modern society without some government services and government participation in the economy. IMO, any rich industrialized country that does not provide subsidized health care for its citizens is abdicating its responsibility.

You also can't run a modern economy properly without some government regulation. The under-regulated US financial system melted down in 2008, costing Americans trillions. The "over-regulated" Canadian banking system sailed through without a hiccup; our banking system is far more robust than that in the US.

Sometimes it takes government regulation to control the worst instincts of corporations. Corporations are interested only in what benefits them, not in what benefits society.

Just tax large sugary drinks at a higher tax rate. That would probably stand up to a legal challenge; "sin taxes" have been used for years in many jurisdictions.

Ah, well. The only one of my SuperMicro boxes that had a public-facing IPMI address can't be reached; the IPMI software is borked and won't let me assign an IP address. It will take a 200km drive followed by a hard power cycle to get the IPMI up and running again.

What peer reviewed evidence do you have to support the non-existence of a god?

As others have said, the null hypothesis is the default in science. If you claim the existence of a god, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise one can say:

What peer-reviewed evidence do you have to support the non-existence of a committee of seventeen gods?

What peer-reviewed evidence do you have to support the non-existence of an invisible pink atom-sized unicorn in your freezer?

What peer-reviewed evidence do you have to support the non-existence of a flock of seven thousand porcelain flamingos orbiting Mercury?

The full link above does not work, but this one works for me

Does Canada have a real way to stop the government from breaking its own laws?

Well, yes. We have a constitution, so we can challenge laws that are passed by the government. And we have something called "democracy" and "the rule of law" which tend to curb the worst excesses.

I don't mind the Firefox UI. It was a bit jarring at first, but now I'm fine with it. Anyway, how often do you really use the UI elements? Mostly I interact with the web pages themselves.

The public suffix list will need revision, I suppose.

Then why introduce the supernatural creator? Why not omit that step and say about the origin of the Universe itself: "It doesn't matter." ?

Or is this simply another instance of religion saying "You can't ask that question." ?

That is what discussion of views is about.

No. Discussion of views is talking about politics or economic theory in a respectful way in which multiple opinions can legitimately be defended.

Mims is promoting religious fantasy instead of scientific fact. This is very dangerous given the level of scientific illiteracy in his country and therefore his statements need to be rebutted at every opportunity to limit the spread of ignorance.

I believe this is the no true Scotsman logical fallacy. Better luck next time.