Exercise has little or nothing to do with weight loss. In fact, it has been negatively correlated to weight loss, mainly due to an increased appetite that accompanies exercise.
The main problem is sugar, especially fructose, the sugar from fruit. Sucrose (table sugar) is 50/50 glucose and fructose. Glucose can be used by the muscles directly; that is why insulin regulates its level in your blood. Fructose must be converted in your liver, however, the bad news is some of it goes directly to fat without even becoming usable by your body (this percent increases when the liver is overwhelmed). Diets with high fructose (fruit juice, soda) lead to obesity because you are basically drinking fat. Plus, it strains your liver to be digesting fructose.
The reason fruit is fine is it contains fibre which regulates the release of fructose in your bloodstream, which helps it not overwhelm your liver.
Deregulation did spur people to take Liar loans. Deregulation didn't require SELLERS of derivatives to get ratings, rather than BUYERS. Deregulation didn't bail out all those large companies, who should have been allowed to crash and burn. Those 1% who took all the risks? Yeah, the US government bailed them out. Focus your anger on the people who really caused this.
Regulations protect businesses from competitors, not you from businesses.
John, I dare you to start a company and not incorporate. It is not responsibility people are trying to avoid, but liability. Liability so when someone burns their lips at the small corner coffee shop, you don't lose your house and your kids college tuition.
Many companies already disclose ingredients. All hazardous products must have an MSDS, so fracking fluid already had safety instructions. Just search "fracking fluid msds".
Here's one of the "benefits" of fracking no one talks about. The US greenhouse gas emissions are at their 1994 level. This is because natural gas replaces coal in power generation.
You'd think all the greens would be jumping for joy, given the US got a rough ride for not ratifying Kyoto. But no, just silence. It actually makes me relieved, because now maybe these greens will pull their head out of the sand and realize that prevention is impossible, and mitigation is the only solution.
I have a morality problem with executions. The man pulling the switch is a murderer, and is going to hell. It is as simple as that. And appeals to authority ("I was just doing my job") don't work, because that would allow any member of a repressive regime to disgustingly claim the same.
This is just idiotic. Situations with stolen cars can quickly escalate into life or death. You ask, "What is the threat?" How about 1 ton of steel? There are many reports of cops being seriously hurt and people killed when criminals try to run in a stolen car.
As long as the driver doesn't do something insane, like get out the car and run towards the cops, everything will turn out fine.
International rules help with investment. No company wants to invest billions only to have local governments change the rules. As you state, there are two ways to deal with this:
1) Have no rules. Then companies would not likely invest in any country unless the risk premium is high. This is why credit card rates are HIGHER for poor people.
2) Have rules. Then companies would feel comfortable investing in riskier countries without haven't backbreaking terms.
Corporation do not care which system you want. But it is idiotic to think they are just going to roll over when countries try and change the rules mid-game. Don't like the international rules? Then don't sign onto treaties.
The solution to this is, of course, less government. Corporations are only allowed to sue governments because those governments entered into binding agreements. With weaker government, corporations would have to be much nicer, because there is no international "stick" they could use to beat those who don't agree. The only deterrent would be the same as with all unregulated systems: reputation. Countries that don't honor deals would not get investment.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling most people think the solution is more government.
I think a threat is a threat. It is a crime unto itself. Do you think the threatened person can tell if the threatener has the means to carry out the threat? A threat is meant to create fear. Not punishing threats would just lead to more people making them.
The leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. This is ridiculous. There is an epidemic of men stalking, harassing, and killing women, mainly ex-girlfriends and wives. Personally, I don't care if some of these men cool their heels in prison for a long time. It is better than the alternative.