Doesn't matter: Based on the summary this isn't new information. If the story matches the summary, then it beats me why anyone would bother to mention it.

Hearing it is quick. Really understanding it in practice takes work.

OTOH, you don't need to quit you day job. You can get started on 15 minutes a day. (Eventually you'll want to spend more, but you only need to do it when you decide to.)

Still, you'll find lots of groups that want you to jump into rapic immersion. But you can find the same thing in bridge clubs.

P.S.: I am not a Zen, or any other kind, of Buddhist. I have too hard a time accepting Karma, even though the Buddha was quite obscure when he talked about just what was reincarnated...it could be something quite reasonable, rather like momentum being conserved. Of course, that could be the fault of the translation that I read. Very few introductions to Buddhism give much sign of paying much attention to what survives of the actual "word of the Buddha". Well, they do, but they're pushing their interpretation of what he meant.

He's not validating scientology, he's trying to defame religions.

I believe that Bushido was called the "Way of the Samuri". That not all samuri followed it is certainly true, but it was still called the way of the samuri. And it didn't require that you not be a follower of Zen Buddhism or of Shinto. In fact, IIUC it even encouraged you to be a follower of zen.

And saying that the "Way of the Samuri" was neo-confuscism is very strange. It was Japanese, not Chinese. There certainly were many close parallels, and the Japanese certainly admired (envied?) much about Chinese culture, but it wasn't that close. Zen Buddhism in Japan wasn't much like the thing with the same original name in China, though it did evolve from imported teachings.

More to the point, faith is necessary to life. There's no logical basis for believing that what you remember is what happened, or believing that the sun will rise tomorrow, or many other things.

And "faith in the religious sense" doesn't define what it is talking about. Different people will mean different things by it. "Belief contrary to evidence" when used by someone other than the believer usually seems to mean something like "they didn't reach the same conclusion from the evidence that I did", but this reaction is predicted by Bayesian reasoning since their priors will not be the same. The only interesting case is when it's used by the believer...but even then you can't say it's necessarily toxic. It's frequently a necessary part of forming a scientific theory.

Now when you are talking about belief in things that are inherently unverifiable...whoops! You can't prove that the sun will rise after you are dead, and you have no way to verify it. But I don't think you would call that belief inherently toxic.

Lets take an explicit case where there are contradictory actions required:
Take a Jehovah's Witness who has a child that needs a tranfusion. The Jehovah's Witness will believe that the transfusion is inherently evil, even though it only observably results in good (as he would define it). You, an external observer, only evaluate the observable results, and call his beliefs toxic. I, another external observer, can only evaluate the observable results, and believe that the decision should be up to the child...though I remain quite conflicted about this, because I don't think a young child should be expected to make this kind of decision. I am the only with conflicted decsions, so does that mean that mine is the more toxic belief? (I'm pretending that the Jehova's Witness isn't conflicted.)

Perhaps you need to define "toxic" in this context, as I find myself unable to resolve its meaning.

Actually, it depends on what you mean as unique. If you mean the entire fingerprints, in fine detail, then they probably are unique. (Math again.) If you only look at a few features and judge them by categories, then they are unlikely to be unique.

Guess which the police do. (Hint: It was quite hard to index all the details before pixelated images were used on computers. And it's still quite hard to get accurate registration and elimination of duplicates.)

Is that an admission of accomplice to murder?

Treason is specifically defined, and so I don't think you can make treason stick. But you should be able to get hundreds of thousands of count of malfeasance....were there any justice.

I don't know. To me each count looks like a separate act of malfeasance.

Yeah, and I've worked in places where there were women as my superiors. Anecdote isn't data. Many parts of IT, however, *are* essentially boys clubs. I've never worked in one, but I've sure visited a lot of them.

The Pitapa card in Kansai is connected to your account, and deducts money automatically every month. You can use it in convenience stores and vending machines around Osaka and Kansai. And in order to be compatible with Suica and other train passes, you can _also_ add money to the card; that's effectively a second, separate prepaid card. Convenient when you're travelling to Tokyo.
 

(rolls eyes)
Look, just because the IT industry is a misogynistic boys club doesn't mean that other groups aren't worse. The police probably aren't as bad as the army, either, that doesn't exonerate them.

Why should only politicians be allowed to redefine the word as they choose?

I think you misunderstand my prosal. No particular part of the pass phrase can be guaranteed to be in a dictionary. They just need to be memorable for some reason. (Even with your understanding of what I meant, I believe that you miscalculated.)

I will admit I could have used a better example, but I'm not suggesting that the peices should necerssarily for words of any extant language, merely that they be memorable. I would restrict it to things that I can enter from my keyboard, but that, to me, seems reasonable. Intentional misspellings are desireable in this context, but I was just whipping up a short, quick example, and didn't consider it carefully. Even so you underestimate the number of words. English has a dictionary of on the order of 5 million words, though that may be including technical vocabularies. Then add in punctuation as desired and the occasional number in an unpredictable place and...

What I'm really proposing is lifting the limit on password length...or at least extending it to 512 characters...and using all of them in computing a base 64 (or 128) code from that. (I'm not considering salting, because I'm only here talking about an individual password, but tables of passwords woudl need to include that.)

Additionally, if thinking about logon attempts, if failed logon attempts result in increasing delays before the next attempt if permitted, even the current systems are sufficient. This has the problem that you may need to disconnect your machine from the internet before you'll be able to access it, but in many cases that's a trivial price. If it isn't, then you need another approach, such as whitelisting certain ip address numbers, so that they never exceed 5 minutes between allowed attempts.