Fat is not harmless. It's just differently harmful than are carbohydrates or protein.

I'm told that vegetarians that allow themselves dairy products may be fat. Perhaps I haven't met many of them.

Grounhog day forever!

After that, you throw that sodding SystemD infested Ubuntu in the trash can and upgrate to FreeBSD.

That implies there was a problem.

It seems to me that the only problems I have had with init is that some packages, in their infinite wisdom, need you to modify or create scripts yourself, and the message saying so assumes you are still using an LA36.

My experience with systemd is such that I too, will probably end up having to migrate not just myself, but also my userbase to FreeBSD.

Why is the Linux world so commited to foisting changes on the unsuspecting, and saying "See, you will like it when you have no choice!" It is like the schoolmasters who say "If you don't enjoy it, you will be severely punished!" - Fine in the late 1860's but even Dickens was agin it, and the 1960's was a revolt against that world. Remember the Paris uprising of 1968? (Hint: It was nothing to do with Paris Hilton).

I have a lawn too.

The real problem is that people like to eat, and they prefer to eat foods that are high in calories. Also, once they leave childhood they prefer to minimize exercise. This is a bad combination, but it isn't unique to humans. What's unique to humans is that they can usually find a lot of reasonably tasty food with minimal effort.

Go watch lions in a zoo, and see how much they sleep. This is normal. If you want an animal to be active, you limit its food supply, and arrange things so that activity is require to get anything that isn't dead boring to eat.
N.B.: This effect is less marked in smaller animals because:
1) It takes less effort to move, and
2) Smaller animals need to eat more often.
But humans count as larger animals.

This is oversimplified, of course, but there is no magic dietary food that you can eat or avoid to solve the problem. He's right that we have no real need for sugar, but we also only need a small amount of fat. But if we eliminate both we tend to OD on protein, which has its own problems.

I think the best fad diet of recent times was the oat bran diet. It still didn't solve the problem, of course, but it was minimally harmful.

FWIW, I tend to avoid sugar, and minimize fats (with some exceptions for olive oil...but even that only in moderation). But I like to eat, and I'm not active enough....and I weigh about twice what I should.

The only group of people I'm aware of that aren't *vigorous* exercisers and aren't overweight are strict vegetarians...or orientals who eat a traditional diet, which is nearly the same thing. (Or very young...though even there the percentage of overweight is increasing rapidly. Probably because their ability to run around has been sharply curtailed over the last several decades.)

Funny, I belong to a group that believes that the Bible is a bunch of rabble-rousing political propaganda and so out of context that most people either don't understand or misunderstand most of it. And that most invocations of God within the bible are as sincere as that made by Obama at his last speech. (Well, actually since those quoted in the Bible were usually out of power, by someone running against him.)

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.