Leaderboard

That is not a turn lane, so if you were makiing a proper right turn at the intersection and someone traveling in it as a turn lane and hit you, they would be the violator. Vort is also right, no harm, no foul, probably no ticket/action taken.

An intriguing quote I came across a couple of months ago, with a number of layers of interpretation: ”The criminal justice system doesn’t exist to protect society from criminals. It exists to protect criminals from society.”

I only read the first two pages of this thread and came out shocked no one shared this connection. I sincerely believe the brethren have been instructed, as the Lord's servants, that the time has come to let the wheat and tares grow together as we navigate the "winding up scene" during the "latter part of these latter days". When wheat and tares grow together, some of the wheat may be starved by the tares, and some of the wheat will be spared by not gathering the tares. In the end, all the tares will be burned and only the wheat will remain. So long as we maintain our number one priority to live in accordance with the commandments of God, and the principles of the Restored Gospel, we will be prepared.

I'm fairly sure that the answer is no, it's not legal. I'm also fairly sure that as long as there is sufficient room and no property damage takes place, most cops won't waste their time ticketing someone for doing so. Maybe @mirkwood can provide insight, or at least give an informed opinion.

Two years ago I posted this: The Book of Mormon Zipf Index - General Discussion - ThirdHour Well my paper on this has finally been published in Computer Speech and Language - though for the past year it's mostly been lying on an editor's desk! You can access it in a link which I'd be happy to give you in PM (I don't want to dox myself on the open forum) but only for the next 50 days. Open access publishing is a little beyond my means, and this is not a prestigious enough journal for my employers to fork out. BTW I now have a much better model for vocabulary growth which I'm going to publish soon, but I daresay it'll be another year before that finally gets past the reviewers. The Book of Mormon does have an interesting vocabulary curve which you can see in Fig.6. The sudden spurt of new words about 40,000 words in seems to occur somewhere in 2 Nephi. Does anyone know the book well enough to suggest what might be happening here?

Whereabouts, in 2 Nephi, is the 40,000th word? You do see more extensive quoting of Isaiah in 2 Nephi (1 Nephi quoted extensively from what textual critics would call “Deutero-Isaiah”, but in 2 Nephi we see extensive quotation from textual critics would call “First Isaiah”). You also see quotations of extensive sermons from Nephi’s father Lehi and brother Jacob, who (I believe, speaking anecdotally) have different voices than Nephi’s. (Lehi at 2 Ne 1-3, Jacob at 2 Ne 6-10, Isaiah at 2 Ne 12-24). As far as the production of the modern text goes: the scholarly consensus is that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery produced the first part of the current Book of Mormon (1 Nephi through Words of Mormon) last. We know that early on in producing the text, Smith rotated through a wide variety of scribes; so one might expect to see a lot of new words popping up in the books of Mosiah and maybe Alma. But Smith and Cowdery had been working together for some time when they finally got around to producing 2 Nephi; and if you assume that they are the actual authors (as opposed to translators/revelators) of the text—there seems to be little reason to expect that 2 Nephi would materially differ from their earlier work product. Grant Hardy of the University of North Carolina-Asheville has written a book called “Understanding the Book of Mormon” that delves into these kinds of issues, which you may enjoy.

It is a society of cowards that prefers to convict the innocent rather than risk releasing the guilty. And to be frank, a society of cowards deserves whatever it gets. I do not disallow my own nation's society or societies from this condemnation.

Traveler, I was going to duck out of this conversation, but you specifically asked me to comment. So here it goes. I assume her point was to demonstrate without actually having to say so that she was worthy to carry a temple recommend, and that therefore we should not question her personal worthiness. The best I can figure is that she believes she needs no change of heart; witness her statement about being "perfect". There is a line of thinking that says that merely thinking about or desiring after sin isn't really sin in and of itself. By this philosophy, as long as you don't actually commit the sinful act, you're golden. Many, even in the Church, subscribe to this line of thinking and use it to justify homosexual proclivities. In fact, such people would argue that my previous statement is wrong, and that such proclivities need no justification, any more than green eyes need justification. I do not know that this sister feels this way, but she talks much like people who do. That this appears to go against the Savior's teaching that a man who looks on a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart is of no moment to such people. The reliable watchword is, "It's different." No comparisons are allowed or even considered possible, unless those comparisons support the thesis statement. I hope that my sinful thoughts and lusts will eventually be removed from me, either by my own efforts or (more likely) by divine intervention. But God help me if I ever decide that my carnal nature is justified as long as I don't actually act on that nature: "Then [at the resurrection] if our hearts have been hardened, yea, if we have hardened our hearts against the word, insomuch that it has not been found in us, then will our state be awful, for then we shall be condemned. For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence." I have a very great deal to learn about love, both in theory and in practice. In ancient threads of long-ago days on this very forum, I argued with people over the idea of God's love. To them, it was so very important to maintain that God loved literally everyone, and did so unconditionally, that they could not (or at least would not) consider that Elder (now President) Nelson himself taught in General Conference that God's love could not correctly be characterized as unconditional. I pointed out that God's love for his people is manifested in his people's salvation, and that therefore if there were beings who would not be saved (such as Satan), it would be reasonable to say that God did not "love" them—at least, not in the same sense he "loves" those who come unto him. This they would not accept, yet they couldn't provide any justification for their rejection other than that they didn't like the idea. I think tolerance is a first step toward love. I think tolerance is a true principle, one that all Saints should and must eventually possess. But I also think that the idea of "tolerance" has been bastardized to such an extent that it no longer represents a pure virtue. Too often, today's "tolerance" is just a window-dressing word meaning, "Don't ever say or think anything bad about people's sinful actions." Yes. Despite my irritation at the entire situation, she is a sister and of infinite worth. I will seek to support any and all of my brothers and sisters who are trying to repent, as I myself hope to be supported in turn by them. But condoning sinful behavior or even thought is not support; it is destruction. There are my thoughts.

Wow. Just wow. I honestly would give a complaint to not only the store manager, but at corporate as well. And I would provide names--this is seriously unacceptable. They should not be in any type of customer service job if they can't serve everyone with respect--they can think what they want, but they shouldn't treat someone like that while at their job. I wouldn't want them to be doxed but they either need to be reprimanded or fired.

Ummm....yes I think you are more-or-less correct. Under high Zipf index SOME high-frequency words would have much higher frequencies than other high-frequency words. I suppose the best way to put it is that if you rank words 1, 2, 3... from the most frequent to the least frequent, Zipf's index specifies the rate at which the frequency drops as the rank number increases. A low Zipf index means that the frequency drops slowly, meaning that words are closer to each other in frequency. High Zipf index means that the higher frequencies are higher and the lower frequencies are lower. The crazy thing is though that Zipf's index is not a constant even within the same document - generally it tends to be lower for the high frequency words than for the lower frequencies, meaning that the frequencies of commonly used words tend to be closer to each other than the less common words words. There is another version of the law developed by Benoit Mandelbrot (the fractal guy) that accounts for this somewhat - I find it not terribly accurate for high frequencies, but it sometimes provides a "fudge factor" to make the overall model work for the emergence of low-frequency words (which are what cause vocabulary to grow). Sorry if that's not very clear but it's getting late - LOL.

I'd like to share an experience about "commercial racism". DESCRIPTION: We know about violent racism. We also know about stereotypes. We know about ethnic jokes. And we know about those individuals who, well... bless their hearts... just don't know how racist they sound when they say or do certain things. COMMERCIAL RACISM is what I'm calling those things that people do in commerce/business/employment, etc based on race. While I've experienced this before, there was always some shame in it. They always hid it in such a way that there was a small (sometimes tiny) level of plausible deniability. Yesterday, I came across blatant, open, admitted commercial racism. I have a Sam's Club membership. As such I have a credit card that provides a lot of cash back. Every April/May I cash in (that's the cycle I'm in). I went to the club to get a few things. I went to a checkout line that had the "open" sign on. I began to unload when the checkout lady (let's call her Shayna) said that she was closed. She was just standing there doing nothing. Just waiting for... something. Then as I moved away another woman came with her cart and began to unload. Shayna began to help her unload and started checking her stuff. I waited in another line and checked my stuff out there. I asked about cashback. They said that I could cash out at the membership desk. Once all loaded up in the car, I went to the membership desk and asked for my cashback. The lady there said that she couldn't do it at the membership desk. I told her what the checkout lady said. She told me that I'd been misinformed. I needed to go back to the checkout area and speak to someone in a green vest (one of the supervisors). I found that Shayna had a green vest. So, I began waiting at her line. When she was all out of customers, I asked her about he cashback. She said that she was not going to help me. Then she proceeded to wave someone else forward to unload. I asked her why she told me she was closed earlier. She said, "I don't want to serve you people. You're the reason we've got COVID." "I'm actually Korean, not Chinese." (in some half-effort to appeal to her). "Same difference." She then began to ignore me and got the next person to unload. Just then I noticed that another green vest came by. I spoke with him. He said that it is taken care of at the membership desk. I rebutted. He took me there personally. The lady then looked at me with some disgust and went through the motions. I got all my money. She didn't need any instruction from the green vest. She knew exactly how to do it. After it was all done, she walked briskly away from me and began a conversation with another worker until I left. As I was far away, I noticed she came right back her station again. No customer. Just the lack of "me".