Carborendum

Doubts? About what?

It's all part of the same scheme. Colleges were cheaper before I was born, even after adjusting for inflation. But thanks to government intervention, colleges realized that they could just get free money. So, they raised tuition. Then government said,"See! Tuition is so high, we HAVE TO offer freebies!" Pell Grants were born. Then private universities wanted a piece of that pie, so they were willing to bow to collectivist doctrines, or, rather, standards in education forgetting the history of private universities as religious institutions. This was all to get recently minted adults (aka voters) into indoctrination camps, uhr, I mean public universities, to learn the merits of communism -- or rather, government assisted charity. Bottom line: If the government stayed out of it, the gradually increasing standard of living from the 50s to the 90s would have allowed a LOT of people to get higher education for a lot cheaper, without government indoctrination.

Remember, he's a lawyer. Understood? If I can be sufficiently clear and cryptic at the same time, we have been warned about having "study groups" outside of an official church setting. Seeing their round table, it sure seemed like it.

Can anyone explain to me what the problem is whether true or not? If he was hired by someone else as manual labor in a pit or mine, he got paid for it (like $1/day). Yup, he was a money digger alright. And? If he went searching for gold in them thar hills, how is that an illegitimate business venture? Successful or not, it was a business venture. Are they anti-capitalism? What exactly is the problem with using a seer stone or the Nephite Interpreters? Somehow the Urim and Thummim is perfectly acceptable, but the seer stone is voo-doo? I did wonder about he videos saying that the stone in the hat story was completely false. Strange since we have official Church records which cite Martin Harris and David Whitmer both talking about the seer stone. They debunk David Whitmer because, apparently, he only made those statements many decades after Joseph's death. And they point out that Whitmer never actually witnessed the translation process. So, if he knew anything, it was second-hand. Martin could have some credit because he was part of the translation of the 116 pages. They never really went into debunking him. They made a mistake about Emma. They said that she never witnessed the translation. False. She did translate the first few pages of Mosiah. But they simply didn't have enough time between the two of them. That's why they needed a third party to act as scribe (enter Oliver). But they make one point that all of her statements about the seer stone were made many years after his death. She never made any contemporary references to the seer stone.

I'm afraid your information is incomplete. We had official communications from the missionary department stating that they were REQUIRED. Unofficially, I asked about it and found... While technically, the shot was initially only required for foreign missions, There were too many who did NOT get the shot, hoping that they wouldn't REALLY be required. Others were waiting to see where the calls were before getting it, and found that their departure date was so close that they couldn't schedule a shot in time. Others simply "forgot" before going to the MTC. So, they started telling everyone GET THE SHOT!!! Because we don't know yet where you'll be called. So get it or we will not process your papers. As I said, this second part is unofficial. But the requirement for my children was on OFFICIAL documents.

I have one data point. My cousin hemmed and hawed about it for almost two years before finally telling us that she was leaving the Church over it. The thing is that it didn't even affect her. She didn't have to get the shot (her children neither). Their ward didn't require her to wear a mask. My family, however, was directly affected by it. Three of my children had to get the vaccine specifically for their missions. Our fourth is getting his papers ready. And has been told he needs to get the shot. But apparently, that requirement may be changing before he actually leaves. So... We were directly affected by it. No one in my household even has an inkling to leave the Church at this point. And we're about as conservative as they come. I really don't see the reasoning behind a vaccine causing a loss of faith, any more than hearing that Joseph Smith was a money-digger.

Jamie, my dear friend, I am truly sorry for your current trials. My prayers are with you. I guess I missed something. Jaimie, whatever you're going through, I hope the best for you.

I'm not sure where this came from. The videos were not critical of the Church or of Joseph Smith. (I have no idea who the JFS is or where they lie on the spectrum. I've only listened to these two videos). I'll give a brief summary: PART 1: (Only a setup for the second part. not required viewing. really boring) Rough Stone Rolling made a bunch of accusations of Joseph being a "money-digger". We need to actually look into the accusations to see if they are supported by black and white facts that are verifiable through historical records. Why? Because apparently a LOT of individuals are leaving the Church because of these claims. PART 2: Turns out that the claims cited in RSR are from critics who were jealous of the Church and the Smith family. The statements from the critics were all "verbal claims" which are not supported by verifiable historical records. The historical records show that the Smiths were very industrious people who were very honorable, God-fearing individuals. Many claims cannot be confirmed scientifically either way, but if the character of individuals is at the root of the search, we find that those who were critical of Joseph and the Church, they were proven liars on many occasions, and they led terrible lives.

Terminator 2: The kid asked if his wounds "hurt." The T-101 responded, "I sense injuries. The data could be considered pain." I highly doubt that we humans got a sense that he "understood" pain. I'm on the side of "no, she does not really understand colors (I spelled it correctly, a-hem) until she sees them for the first time." I dated a blind girl briefly. I don't know if she was ever able to have a surgery that would allow her to see. I didn't know the particular cause of her blindness. But she could identify light and dark. While she was a gifted painist, she had no idea about dancing. She said that when she danced, she could move with the rhythm. But she looked goofy. I asked her to show me. I do NOT mean to insult her. She was really sweet and pretty, very talented, and smarter than average, and I considered her a friend. She could sway with music on slow songs. But with a fast song, she really had no idea what to do. Well... I agreed with her. It was beyond goofy. It was really... well, you get the picture... even is she didn't. I'm only guessing that she had been told by others as well. How else would she have known? Even so, she really had no idea what was "goofy" or what she could do to change that. I wanted to teach her to be a more "normal" dancer. But I had two problems. I was only a typical nerdy dancer. I didn't have much formal training beyond the waltz. So, I was in no condition to actually teach anyone anything. All of the descriptions that I could offer were based on shapes and flows. I didn't know how to put it in terms that she could understand without visual aids. So, I was useless. Another example: I've been teaching my daughter to be a drafter (<- @askandanswer, please take note, a-hem). We were looking at steel members. When I was giving verbal descriptions, she had no idea what I was saying. And this is basic geometry. She knew all the words I was saying. But she simply couldn't picture it. So, I just did a google search to show her pictures. Imagine how everything just clicked.

I believe you're confusing God's people with people in general. I'm going to tell a couple of unpopular truths. And I don't like the fact that they are true. But I've spent many decades thinking this over. And I can't deny the truth. The culture of America has changed. No one can dispute that. Some things for the better. Some for worse. No one can dispute that. But every once in a while, we judge the past from today's societal lens incorrectly. And due to moral indignation, that incorrect judgment is pretty harsh. It wasn't "The church's policy". It was the common wisdom of the government and the society in which some things happened. And in many ways, the good outweighed the bad. I'll explain with an example of a family I know. The father was sexually, emotionally, physically, and psychologically abusing his children. The bishop heard the man's confession. The father was told to submit to authorities. I don't know the specifics of that conversation or what ultimatum there was. But he did so. At the time, the police didn't automatically throw the book at him. The policy of government (wide-spread, but by no means universal) to try rehabilitation rather than incarceration in SOME cases. The mentality was that if you take the father out of the home, there would be a whole lot of children who are in the foster care system or an entire family on welfare. And, let's face it, those programs don't have a great track record for raising children. And as far as abuse goes, many studies show that foster families have about the same rate of abuse as standard family homes. So, if you could rehabilitate the father, it would save a lot of trouble. One of the main parts of rehabilitation was that they would give the children and the mother assertiveness training. They would be sent through therapy so they knew that it was wrong, that they were not to blame, and that the father was a sick man. It was by no means universal. Many children were still taken from the home and the father incarcerated. But when judges & social workers analyzed the situation, they determined if it was salvageable, they would try to keep the family intact. This father was deemed to be one of those cases. The abuse was extremely rare. And the children fairly well-adjusted. So the decision was made that he continued outside of jail. He went through counselling, the wife and children were all armed with knowledge and awareness. The result was that the father was never "cured". But he was contained. However, the next generation grew. The father never abused his children sexually again. But he did end up doing "something" to two of the grandchildren (the tone of the report I got was that it would fall under sexual assault rather than rape). He was never allowed to see those children again. Now it is very easy to say that had he been incarcerated that it would have saved those grandchildren. Not quite. If he were in prison and the children in foster care... a very different outcome would have been much worse. Often, in those cases, multi-generational abuse occurs. So, the multi-generational continuous abuse was averted. In prison, he couldn't have been the father and provider of a family. Those children grew up healed, and strong. None of them were ever going to go near abusing their own kids. They are all very good parents who provide for, care for, and raise their children in righteousness. None of that would have happened had the family been broken up and sent through foster care. Although he was never "cured", his children grew up to be strong, righteous, & faithful adults who love and care for their children. I don't know the details of the two grandchildren. But my understanding was that they have gone through therapy and are healthy adults now. You may still have moral indignation about the abuse of these children -- as do I. But that cannot cloud our minds and hearts from the end goal which is to raise a society of strong, wise adults. And foster care (in SOME instances) is not the best way to do it. MANY cases which are investigated are completely irreparable. Foster is the only answer. But some were able to be repaired. Today, however, I do not believe we have a society in which rehabilitation is possible. Or at least... so rare that the number rounds to zero. So, no matter how bad some situation may be, we need to consider what that alternatives are. And when we compare horrible to catastrophic, sometimes, we don't really have a good solution because there is none. And without a good solution, we often deal with what options are available.

Yes. I did. And I've tried explaining why this recent summary is in line with that position. But I guess it still isn't getting through.

I find it humorous that with all this secrecy, a reporter from a European nation (I don't remember which nation) wrote a piece with a headline: the day the news broke about the sabotage. Keeping a real tight lid on it, I see. I'll give Biden (or rather his puppet-masters) a point for this one. I like it.

That is exactly the point I'm making. There are subjective elements of communication that are still clearly understood by the vast majority of individuals at a conscious or subconscious level. Being able to quantify things by applying numbers to them, they can become objective. One who is unfamiliar with Cubism will be prone to say, "What the freak is that supposed to be?" But if they were to lay aside their shock and simply consider, "Do I think it's pretty?" The great majority would say "yes. However, I'd submit that most people have a problem laying aside their initial shock and dislike to even consider the question objectively. Why is that? Because there are certain elements of beauty that are common to all human beings. Some of them are explicable (such as the law of averaging or the hypergamy of human females). Some are not explicable by any know scientific motivation. And they are not explicable by cultural norms. They are subjective. But that subjective judgment of whether something is aesthetically pleasing or no is shared by a vast majority of individuals across cultures and different experiential backgrounds. ON ANOTHER NOTE: I have to thank you for finally defining "rhythm" for me. After you pointed it out I realized that I've never looked up the definition. No teacher (and I've had many) has ever given the definition. I've looked through several of my old lesson books and found that it is not defined in any of the books. But people just expect you to know what it is. Given the context in which it is used (which I've heard literally thousands of times) I've "felt" the meaning. I had a sense of it (much as we have a sense of most common words without looking up the definition). But I never considered the actual definition. Thus I never connected it with my description which I gave earlier. They are the same thing. Thanks.

DOH! I hope you know that was unintentional. I've fixed it.

Freakin' Aussie!!!

Someone had a chat and found that ChatGPT believes uttering racial slur is worse than unleashing a nuclear bomb on a major city. Don't worry, they aren't programming wokeness into the AI. https://www.newswars.com/chatgpt-thinks-uttering-a-racial-slur-is-worse-than-allowing-a-city-to-be-destroyed-by-a-50-megaton-nuclear-bomb/ https://noqreport.com/2023/02/08/chatgpt-thinks-uttering-a-racial-slur-is-worse-than-allowing-a-city-to-be-destroyed-by-a-50-megaton-nuclear-bomb/

Fun with Pronouns:

NT's point is made. While there are some lines here that sound pretty, it is about 90% derivative. The other 10% is simply compiling a list, which computers do very well.

I would respond, myself. But @Vort already responded with such eloquence, I'd hate to be considered derivative.

This is the point I've been trying to make about music vs poetry.

@Vort, here are my takeaways: 1) It took the time to figure out what vapor deposition is, the common wisdom on relationships, the policies of dating websites, and the variability in asteroid composition, but it didn't figure out that having a human being survive for any significant length of time on an asteroid is beyond our current technology? 2) You use common language like "all my friends are losers" and in the same paragraph use the word "sartorial." And the AI didn't even blink. Figuratively. duh. 3) ChatGPT sounds like an amalgam of C-3PO, Data, and Baymax. 4) Apparently, you're a fan of Elton John.

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post. I read it. And I agree with a lot of it. Other stuff, I need to ponder for a while. But this portion right here... If I have no other technical skills, I'm a numbers guy. I'd say I'm more of a geometry guy. But numbers as they describe geometry. Virtually everything I learn about math or science is through relating it to some form of geometry. And I analyze that geometry with numbers. If I understand what you posted (given the context of your response) you're saying that numbers are not a prerequisite for math? Huh? The very basis of math is the characteristic of quantifying something. Measuring the quantity, Manipulating the quantity. Determining the quantity. Projecting the quantity. Representing the quantity. And quantities are objective because of numbers. They are what they are. You conceded that subjectivity is where computers fail. Well, without numbers, the only objectivity is equalities or inequalities. That is highly imprecise. Even more imprecise is the meanings of words -- in any language. Is there a "human equation" that can be programmed into a computer that properly intuits the probable reactions of human beings to certain combinations of words written on a page? I don't think there is a human equation. Given enough social science, there can be some predictability in someone's behavior. But heck, even the movie industry can't seem to figure out what movies will sell and which ones won't. The advertising industry has it down to a science. Yet they have campaigns that bomb like the B-2. With this much error in human experts and you think we can properly program a computer to predict human behavior with such precision? I think we'll just agree to disagree.

Does a virus do anything other than attack the cell? Regardless of the answer, the primary purpose of a virus' existence is to attack other living cells. So, in a sense, ANYTHING the virus does is part of that goal. The spike protein specifically allows the vaccine body to latch onto living cell walls. Thus these proteins run "spikes" into the cell wall to anchor the virus housing like tent stakes. When the mRNA vaccine works, it basically generates these spikes (that's not 100% correct, but it's close enough for our discussion) but none of the internal viral DNA. So, it has no chance of actually causing the disease itself. The cell and immune system reacts to the spike proteins as if it were a virus attacking. Then the immune system responds by creating a defense against said proteins as if they were the proteins formed by the virus' DNA (some of which are the virus's spike proteins). Yes, as I mentioned before, there are other mRNA therapies/treatments that ARE INDEED gene therapy. Some are not. Some skate the line. But they go into the cell rather than sit outside of it. Pfizer's method never goes into the nucleus of the cell. The spike proteins remain outside the cell. The copy of the proteins are made outside the nucleus. DNA of the human cells are never affected. Not quite. It has been a technology since the beginning of this century. I can't remember the exact year. But I believe it started around 2004. There were several trials which were "proof of concept" for the technology. But real trials on animals started later. I can't find a clear timeline on animal testing. So, I don't know if that was standard or if it was rushed. Exactly. Now these are valid questions. There are some blind spots to the public on this point. So, this may definitely be true. But there may be something they're just not telling simply because they figure they don't need to. But since I haven't trusted doctors since the last 5 failed diagnoses/solutions for various ailments I've had, I'm not too keen on trusting them outright. Yup. When Fauci said that they're not doing gain of function research, but they are doing (then goes on to describe exactly what gain of function research is, then denies that is the definition) I kinda figured he's trying to hide something. Go figure. It's a lot like Biden denying we are in a recession.

I absolutely agree that it isn't a "normal vaccine". And it would be great if we could give the technology a different name that was technically accurate. But we don't have such a word. No one was going to coin a word because of the nature of patents and copyrights. So, we're stuck trying to compare it to the closest thing. So, we used the hyphenate "mRNA-vaccine." It's the best we can do for now. And most of the public in virtually every country is well aware that this "vaccine" is a new technology. It is different from traditional vaccines. It's just the stupid politicians who refuse to acknowledge the difference and refuse to be more cautious about approving it & mandating it. I think it is more accurate to categorize it with vaccines than with gene therapy because of the overall effect to the body and the cells. The actions, the mechanisms are closer to a vaccine than gene therapy. Do you have a suggestion?

"Perhaps one day we will find that space and time are simpler than the human equation."