windows layoffs are common knowledge

Not for their Q/A team at the same time they've been prepping for a major release, it's not. It was rather more specific than a vague "Microsoft has had layoffs".

It is certainly not the job of every poster to anticipate how uninformed you are and then provide links to help you combat your own ignorance.

It's not my job to go along with your strawman, as the only one blathering on about "anticipation" is you. Now where are all those citations proving that you do not in fact have sex with goats? Or are you always this "lazy"?

How's that worked out for drugs? Or cigarettes? Those have disappeared.

Homeopathy is not physically addictive - cigarettes and drugs (that aren't pot) are. What's not working here is your analogy.

I recall the FDA was created because some idiot used paint thinner to mix a batch of medicine which then killed a bunch of people.

Which is...drumroll....an example of "selling medicine under false pretenses". You're reinforcing his point, not countering it.

it cannot harm, but it can help thanks to the placebo effect, therefore its use is allowed.

That sidesteps the issue of predatory "providers". If your child has a brain tumor and you read online that a regime of putting hot rocks on her back, covered in dog piss, will lead to remission, you don't have that much financially to lose when it fails. Some homeopathic "healer" offers to do that for a discount sum of $5000 - that's predatory. Because if you are desperate to save your child's life, you will do anything and everything to do just that.

In the case of Stanislaw Burzynski, no one does this. Read up on the reports and find that no one addresses the evidence directly: it's all ad-hominem attacks ("he's not a real doctor, he's not a cancer researcher"), indirect rationalizations ("it can't work because it doesn't fit my model", he doesn't have an explanation for *why* it works, it must be bunkum because it's too good), administrative accusations, and so on and so on.

Short excerpt from a large word salad, but I'm not seeing the words "peer-reviewed research" or "clinical trials" anywhere.

tackle football (NFL doesn't like it, anymore).

Miss the days of players deliberately making helmet-to-helmet tackles without penalty? If you want to have the brain of an 80 year old Alzheimer's patient before you can run for the Senate, go volunteer yourself, Sparky.

I'm actually surprised that you even went there...but hey, too fucking lazy to go Google it for yourself.

Except that's fucking bullshit. It's the job of the person making the assertion to back it up with evidence, not the audience. Otherwise I'll casually assert that you like have sex with goats. Is it my job to prove that assertion, or your job to disprove it?

Oh please, the government isn't putting nearly as much criminals away as necessary.

If you're referring to corrupt politicians, white collar crime, and war criminals, then no, we aren't putting enough people away. If you're referring to poor and blue collar crime, you're a moron, as the U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the population.

Almost all of which is made up of poor and blue collar offenders.

Did MI6 really blow sources in both China and Russia just so they could make Snowden look bad? Why would they do that?

Wouldn't be the first time. Panetta bragged about listening on an Al Queda conference call, after the USG spent years demonizing whitsleblowers for revealing intelligence capabilities. It's not like Churchill ran around publicly boasting that Bletchley had cracked the Enigma.

All major countries spy on all other major countries, friend or foe. They would be negligent of their duties to their own citizens to do otherwise.

Horsefuckery. Spying on government actions is not the same thing at all as spying on entire civilian populations. And to pretend that everything is equal here is as stupid as saying the Vatican is a military power on par with the entire U.S. military, as they both have guards with guns.

Because even if some other countries politicians are as keen on spying on every communication from every person on the planet as the NSA, they are as much in a physical or financial position to challenge the U.S. as the Vatican has in defeating the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Because he is the one that arrogantly ignored the democratic process

Fortunate for us that your boot-licking fascism is only exceeded by your stupidity. Because that's what it takes to mouth the words "democratic process" in a sentence, when the topic is massive (unconstitutional) programs set up entirely outside of the "democratic process".

I'm fine with cold fjord getting on the front page.

As long as you're fine with equivalent submissions from other sources, like some stooge from North Korea.

A certain amount of income is assumed to be dedicated to necessary expenses like food, shelter, and clothing (at least in some states).

But it's not close to what you can deduct as a company, where you can write of just about any item as a cost of doing business. Corporate retreat in Hawaii? Business expense! Private gym and sauna next to the private parking garage for upper management? Business expense!

You can't do the same thing as an individual, writing off your every purchase as your cost of living.

But why should you even tax a business?

My Spidey sense is detecting an ascent into the wingnutosphere....

If you tax the business, the money just comes from the employees (lower wages) and customers (higher prices).

Trite nonsense, if it's a tax on profit. Such a tax could be 95% or .005%, and it would result in neither of the above options. Because prices are always set to maximize profits, and wages are always set to minimize payroll. If companies could jack up prices without losing too many customers, or cut wages without losing too many employees, they would go ahead and do it, not wait for a tax.

"I didn't know that Honduras prohibited transporting lobsters in clear containers, rather than opaque ones." That's not at all ridiculous. And someone was convicted for that and sentenced to jail.

Or not so much? The other side of the story is that the case was based on under-sized lobsters (i.e. overfishing), not the packaging. Sounds like one of those fables cooked up by dishonest right wingers to be repeated in spite of the facts. Like Clinton being responsible for Ruby Ridge (happened before he was elected president much less took office) or banning DDT from agricultural use causing millions of people to die from malaria.

• Prosecutors insist the packaging issue is misleading at best, in part because the primary basis of the prosecution was on the size of the lobster tails, not on the packaging.

  As McNab's own brief in the 11th Circuit noted, "the principal charge against McNab was that some of his crew kept some percentage of lobsters with a tail length shorter than 5.5 inches."

  It's true that violations also included packaging the lobsters incorrectly, but that was not the key part of the prosecution, Webb said.

  "The notion the case was about packaging is incorrect," he said. "Packaging was the means by which the crime was concealed. It was the mechanism to conceal the extent of overharvesting."