In no particular order:

* The person who is fit/healthy is less likely to end up unable to wipe his own ass in a retirement home.
* Fit and healthy people get more attention from the opposite sex.
* Exercise is a natural anti-depressant.
* Exercise boosts libido.
* You'll sleep better.
* You can eat more.

Of course there are no promises. You could be in the best shape of your life and get hit by a bus tomorrow. Such is life.

I'm not saying the article is right. I just felt the summary was incoherent. The article is at least coherent.

The article doesn't seem to be as bad. I did just skim read it, but I think the summary attempts to abridge rather than summarise.

Giving some people a discount is not the same thing as penalizing everyone else.

How is this different?

The reviews are only diluted on Yelp. That's the idea. It makes Yelp worhless. They will have reviews on other sites. Tripadvisor has a negative review amongst 4 good ones.

The FAQ is an acquired taste. I think the idea is that if you don't like that you probably won't enjoy the restaurant. Businesses don't really like unsatisfied customers. They're more expensive to deal with and they dn't get repeat business.

The proposed Consumer Review Freedom Act bans businesses from penalising you for posting bad reviews.

Would this also bar restaurants from effectively penalising customers who want to post postive revews? Could part of this restauran't business model be made illegal?

The drones are so small they're avoiding the turbo lasers.

They'll have to destroy them ship to ship.

My grandmother isn't going to want to buy a PC and configure Linux herself. She'll just get an Apple. Once enough users move to Apple, we'll all have to learn Objective C and our workstations will be a bunch of ipads.

I'm guessing they could demand you also remove mention of whether or not X has been done

I quite agree slavery would have been abolished eventually. The US is actually unusual in that a war ended slavery. Most countries managed to eliminate it peacefully.

I don't think it was just about slavery though. While I'm sure a lot of people in the north were sympathetic, the idea that so many were sympathetic enough to actually risk death seems a little too heroic for a typical person. The southerners would have been fighting not for *their* right to own slaves, but for some rich landowner. The actual reasons must have been more complex.

There's no requirement to join the ERM II. ERM II membership is one of the requirements before joining the Euro.

Joining the ERM wasn't in the UK's interest. It probably isn't in Scotland's interest. Sweden certainly seems to be happy to hold off.

We are in a War on Faith, because Faith justifies anything and ISIS takes it to extremes. But in the end they are just a bigger version of Christian-dominated school boards that mess with the teaching of Evolution, or Mormon sponsors of anti-gay-marriage measures, or my Hebrew school teacher, an adult who slapped me as a 12-year-old for some unremembered offense against his faith.

Hm. The covenant of Noah is about two paragraphs before this part (King James Version) which is used for various justifications of slavery and discrimination against all sorts of people because they are said to bear the Curse of Ham. If folks wanted to use the Bible to justify anything ISIS says is justified by God's words in the Koran, they could easily do so.

18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

The North won. Therefore Lincoln was a good guy, and completely right. If the South had seceeded, I'm sure it would be seen as equivalent in importance to the War of Independence, with the North painted squarely as the villains.

No, adopting the Euro is a requirement for new entrants. Countries that were previously part of the EU and did not adopt were grandfathered in and don't have to change, but for new entrants it's not optional.

But the requirement is not to do so immediately. A country can effectively hold off forever.