kimmy

The IPO and stock listing isn't the method by which Facebook obtains money. The IPO is the method by which its creators (Zuckerberg et al) turned their "sweat-equity" into money. The public trading of the stock isn't really of any benefit to Facebook Inc. Facebook obtains money by selling advertising. It "sells eyeballs", to borrow your phrase. Its continued ability to get revenue depends on its ability to attract and retain eyeballs. At present its user base remains massive. It would be naive to assume that's a permanent state of affairs. I agree with Gosthacked: Islam will outlast Facebook and Wikipedia, for reasons that aren't very flattering to humanity in general. -k

A $110 million fine? Yikes. I guess it's going to be a while before he can afford to move out of mom's basement. -k

"Southern Americans"? You mean like people in Peru? -k

I certainly don't want to sidetrack the thread into a discussion of electoral reform, but I thought it was an excellent discussion piece for how the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" philosophy applies in a real situation. There's good arguments to be made on both sides of the question "is it broke?" and there's no clear consensus on the question of "how to fix it" among those who do think it's broke. I think that "conservatives" and "liberals" and "progressives" probably mostly agree with the principle of "if it ain't broke don't fix it", but a "progressive" probably has a different idea of what's "broke" and a much more ambitious idea of how to "fix" it. -k

We saw that during the last election... some people convinced that their own media outlets were the only ones telling the truth and everything else was just propaganda. A lot of them were genuinely shocked that Romney didn't win, when their particular news outlets had been convincing them that the polls showing Romney trailed were "lamestream media" bias. One of the funnier things going around lately is the theory that Obama's refusal to capitulate was actually part of a master plan to break the Republicans leading up to the 2014 elections (just as Clinton did leading up to the 1996 elections) and that the political damage the Republicans have suffered is Obama's fault. I can't get over how silly that is. It's like telling somebody "I'm going to punch myself in the face until you agree to my demands!" and then afterward saying "This is your fault! If you had agreed to my demands I wouldn't have gotten punched in the face so much." -k

This is simply not true; lots of "serious" film continues to be made. And the proverbial 13 year old in Hong Kong is not the arbiter of what does or does not make it to theatres. And the "special effects blockbuster" is not a new phenomenon. The special effects have just become more spectacular. People want astounding, awe-inspiring experiences. Hollywood has sought to provide them, ever since Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea, and probably before that as well. -k

I would bet valuable Kimmy Points that 100 years ago, arguments along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" were presented in response to those who campaigned for women's suffrage. Or 50 years ago in response to the civil rights movement. Our perception of what needed fixing has changed over time, often guided by increasing awareness of situations that don't fit with our principles. What is a good reason to change things? Historically it has often been when sufficient numbers of people begin to realize that for some people the current situation *is* broken. Today, one of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" arguments has been in regard to electoral reform. There's been considerable debate over whether it's actually broke or not, as well as whether the alleged "fixes" being proposed (proportional representation and various ranked ballot systems and other untried experiments) would be better or worse. Is it broke? Those arguing yes claim low voter turn-out as evidence, and they claim that the tendency of the current system to turn a plurality of votes into a solid majority in legislature is inconsistent with the democratic ideal. Here in BC when it was put to the ballot, the "it ain't broke" side won out; people were not adequately convinced that the traditional way was bad or that the proposed alternative would be better. -k

yes, my opinion of Sarah Palin has certainly changed in the 5 years since I wrote that. -k

Here's an analysis of the premise that the government could go on without defaulting by paying just interest on the debt while delaying other payments. It rests on questions like whether there's enough gas in the tank on days when a lot of obligations come due, whether there's any practical way to differentiate which of the millions of transactions per day must be paid and which ones could be delayed, and what the ultimate effect of all of this would have on future revenues. Pretty shaky. -k

Personally, I think it would be great if the Tea Partyists went off and formed their own party. Then the Republicans could return to being a functional political party. -k

The debt ceiling showdown was never about the debt, it was entirely about the ACA. The Republicans were happy to fund everything, in exchange for concessions on Obamacare. Trying to spin it to appear as if it was a noble quest against the debt is revisionism. First off, Shady, it's not "self-proclaimed wizards of smart." It's "self-proclaimed wizards of cool". Please, get it right. And second, it's fine and well to say that there is a law saying that the debt holders have first dibs on getting paid. And? Your point? October 17 was the estimated date at which they would have run out of funds with which to make those payments. Yes, there was going to be a default if there was no agreement. No, the law you cite doesn't actually say otherwise. Yes, a default would have been a big deal. -k

Thanks, Bitsy! As Bitsy points out, I specified the self-proclaimed "real conservatives", not all Republicans. As I say, I don't consider these self-styled "real conservatives" to be conservative at all, in the true definition of the word conservative. The "real conservatives" were the faction of the Republican party that was willing to plunge the United States (and possibly the whole world) into financial uncertainty to get their way over defunding the ACA. Willingness to risk economic chaos as a political strategy is pretty much the exact opposite of what the word conservative actually means. -k

And not surprisingly, less than an hour after the shutdown ends, the Tea Party mouthpieces are already howling that their hero Ted Cruz was sabotaged by "the establishment". -k

"AW Evidence" sounds a lot like "Chretien Proof". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU -k

And the shutdown comes to an end. Speaker Boehner breaks the "Hastert Rule", which doesn't actually exist, and puts the Senate bill to the vote in the House of Representatives. And the bill passes 285-144, with 87 Republicans voting in favor. Members of the Tea Party wing of the Republicans will no doubt be declaring Boehner a traitor and be calling for his head. Others will probably feel that he has done the right thing, albeit belatedly. -k

Well, we already knew that Keith Alexander is a lot less cool than Alexander Keith, and Alexander Keith has been dead for 140 years. But now we also know that NSA Director Keith Alexander is a big fat liar. In the course of defending the importance of mass-collection of peoples' phone records, Lt. Gen. Alexander had claimed that the information collected from cell phone providers has foiled 54 terror plots. But today under questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lt. Gen. Alexander said that the actual number is either one or two "suspected: plots. 1... 2... 54... it's easy to see how a guy could get mixed up. -k

Another Halloween film that looks really exciting! It's called "Hell No" and the premise is, as one reviewer puts it, "Smart characters... Good decisions." How will "Logic. Reason. Critical thinking." fare against the forces of darkness, evil, and terror? Watch and find out! Anyway, here's the epic trailer. I'm pretty stoked about this one as well. -k

I wasn't claiming that all "evidence" for god is comparable to hallucinations or schizophrenia or Pliny's latest junk-science e-book. I was pointing out that under your nonsensical notion of what constitutes "evidence", all of those things would be considered evidence as well. But we all know that none of that crap is evidence in any meaningful sense, so your definition of "evidence" clearly needs some work. As far as what religious believers do consider evidence for their beliefs, it's highly presumptuous of you to assume I haven't done those things you suggest. I've done all of them to quite an extensive degree. I frequently read some of the better Christian bloggers like Rachel Held Evans. (I frequently read many of their dumb-ass contemporaries too.) I've engaged with Christians at several forums and had polite discussions with them. I've read their personal reasons for believing, I've read the accounts of former atheists who became believers, and former believers who stopped believing. I've acquainted myself the arguments of people like William Lane Craig and CS Lewis and Ravi Zacharias and Dinesh D'Souza who supposedly rank among the top minds in the field of Christian apologetics. And I do know the "evidence" that all of these people bring to the table. I know that all of it falls under the following headings: -personal feelings or sensations. -unverifiable events (whether it be alleged miracles, or "signs" given to individuals, or the historicity of the Bible.) -arguments based on science (including both bad science, as well as "science can't answer this yet, therefore God is the only possible answer!") -arguments based on abstract logic (St Anselm's "ontological argument" for the necessary existence of god, for example.) All of the "evidence" I have ever encountered can be fit under one of those broad categories. All of the evidence you will ever find will fit under one of those categories. I know you'd love to prove me wrong, but I doubt it'll happen. After all, people like William Lane Craig have been looking for better evidence for their entire lives, and that's the best they have. If respected theologians and apologists can't come up with anything more concrete, I doubt you're going to do better with a few minutes of Googling. I'm open minded to any "evidence" that comes along, but have yet to see anything of any objective value. There is, after all, a reason that religious people use the term Faith. These topics are more complicated and nuanced than your dictionary can express in 10 words, and your comments in this thread demonstrate that your knowledge of these topics is not as advanced as "y'all" would have us believe. I haven't insulted you personally, I've made fun of your debating style, and your insistence on clutching to your precious Merriam Webster definitions as if 2 lines of text were the be-all-and-end-all of nuanced topics like logic, evidence, and atheism (or to paraphrase what Sarah Palin might say in your shoes: "Merriam Webster says it, I believe it, and that settles it!") Considering some of the things you've said about me over the years, you're the last person who has any business complaining about insults, and the last person I have any sympathy for. -k

Canada's security is clearly convinced that Brazil's ministry of energy and natural resources is a hive of potential security threats. Obviously Canada would never hack into the Brazilian government's internal information for reasons that didn't pertain to national security, despite Canada's mining industry's vast commercial interests in the region. It's utterly unthinkable that our government would assist its most influential supporters in such a blatantly unethical way. -k

To reject "evidence" based on bad science, personal anecdotes, hallucinations, schizophrenic "voices", and so on is not a subjective judgment, it's an objective analysis. And this is rich, coming from you, the one who clings to her little 6-word long Merriam-Webster definitions as the final word on topics like "evidence", "logic", and "atheism". If you were interested in actually informing yourself, you'd put down your Merriam-Webster and pick up an encyclopedia. -k

That's fine. We'll handle those burdens. -k

And I'm sure we've allied ourselves with crazy Wahhabi sheikhs to get oil out of Saudi Arabia too. That they're convenient for getting what we want doesn't make 'em any less crazy. -k

And? -k

People can cross the border and shop and watch American TV as they wish, but I think we Canadians are fortunate that our political institutions are separate from theirs. -k

In other words it lacked foresight and left the public finances ill-prepared for potential adversity. Basically the exact opposite of what "conservative" actually means. -k