Carborendum

I had begun to understand this when I read the word of wisdom.

Yeah, I got all that. Hence... https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44770/10 But whatevs.

Yeah, well tell that to Isaac Asimov. This is roughly similar to the pattern found in many eastern cultures. I believe I had posted why I was considered 1 year old on the day of my birth in Korea. Nope. I learned BASIC as an 11 yo. But that was about it. I had been taught a few other programming languages in college. But I never used them in the professional world. So, I lost any fluency in those languages. But I do, from time-to-time, use Visual Basic for macros in Excel. So, I don't think I'd be called a "computer whiz" anymore. Back in the day, I could do that. But being away from programming for so long, I fell out of the practice. Yes, that's a classic. Let's see if you can decode this: Talk 7+68+66 to me. I'd like to see a source for that. It isn't quite accurate to call the Babylonian numbering system to be "base 60." What I mean by this is that a "base" indicates a multiple by which we increase with each digit. And that is NOT how the Babylonian system behaved. They behaved exactly the same way as our system, but they simply ended at 60 instead of going to 90. We still see vestiges of that in some other nations. In French, they have a word for 60 (soixante). But the numbers for 70 and up are math driven. 70 = 60+10 (soixante-dix). 80 = 4x20 (quatre-vingts). 90=4x20+10 (quatr-vingts-dix). But if you go to the French quarter of Switzerland, they have their own terms for 70, 80, & 90. I don't know what they are. But I knew a Swiss speaker and... They chose 60 because 60 is a highly composite number (factors: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30). Thus it is a useful value for dividing up merchandize, soldiers, lands, and other commodities. Also, Babylonians had an implied zero symbol rather than an explicit zero. It was a null place holder (as you say, a non-counting number). But whether you consider it counting or not, the space-holder is absolutey imperative to communicate the overall value of the number that we are representing. I'm assuming Abraham had access to Egyptian systems. Their numbering was nothing like Babylonian. And it was also not a base 60 system. It was originally a base 5 system. But later years, they expanded it into a decimal system, much like ours. I don't know anything about what you're saying here. So, I cannot comment.

Tonight, we'll hear the annual address from the President. For many years we have called this the "State of the Union" address. And no one batted an eye. But for some reason, many media sites (both liberal and conservative) are refusing to call it that. Instead, it is the "President's joint address to Congress." Yes, yes. I know. The technicalities... blah...blah... But in all my adult life, it has been called the State of the Union Address. It's like arguing about us being a republic rather than a democracy. It's a distinction without a difference. It's just pure semantics. Why the change now? Why both sides of the aisle at the same time? *************** Beyond that, the Dems are apparently getting ready to do a walk-out and throw a hissy-fit... errr... I mean, they will do a bunch of other stuff in protest. And to hear Karoline Leavitt and James Clayburn (D), Trump has something in store for them. I am chomping at the bit to see what that is. Trump is a master at this kind of thing. It will be a sight to see. I'm wondering if he can just stop the address short and call for a session of Congress to pass bills that the Dems have been blocking. They only need 51 senators to form a quorum. So, if ALL the Dems are gone and ALL the Republicans are present, they can get a LOT done without any interference from the Dems. It was their fault they left. Are there rules about giving notice to senators to call for a vote?

The first item is also the zero item when talking about place holders. 0 through 9 are the single digit numbers. 10 through 99 are the two digit numbers. Look at the 10 for a minute. It is the FIRST two digit number. But the second digit of that number is "0". So, the first is also the zero. when looking at the single digit numbers, we have to include the zero, do we not? And there are 10 numerical values we can put in every decimal column. Which is the first value used in the first of all the values of the same number of digits? It depends. With single digit numbers, "0" is first. But zero on its own is not a valuable counter. It is more like we're saying that "we haven't started counting yet. But it is still the first value for any column. Even binary requires 0 as a value. Thus it must be included as a number. And it is the first that fills the column. In fact, one could argue that implied zeroes are always present. It could be argued that we don't start 2 digit numbers with a 1. We start with zero. 0, 1, 2, 3... could correctly (though not traditionally) begin with a zero in the second, third, fourth,... columns. 01, 02, 03, 04... 010, 011, 012, 013, 014 ...

The seed oils thing has been around for a very long time. But a lot more details have been coming out about how, why, which ones, which types... One thing is canola oil. It was once heralded as a healthy alternative to greasy cooking. But then they found out it was bad. But recently they determined "something" (which I've forgotten) about the farming and processing methods that makes it that way. But if left organically, it is still a very healthy oil... something like that. I could be mixing this up. Like I said, a LOT more info has come out in the past decade about whats, whys, and hows. It's difficult to keep track nowadays. So, my wife makes a lot of these decisions. But she asks me to research the stuff that she's heard. We look at it together and determine just how much credence to give to which sources and we make a decision for us. We do it very conscientiously. We hope we're right.

I'm glad you posted this. I am pleased that this statement could be made in a public forum. And I'm extremely pleased that this was even from the Church website. I know I may have come off as "anti-pharma" in the past. But the truth is that I have always believed that vaccines and pharmaceutical intervention save lives and improve the health of many in the modern world. The reason why I sound like I'm "anti-medicine" is that I believe most medical professionals go way too far the other way. They tend to think they know more than they really do. Often times, they think they know more than the industry in general actually know. And people in general tend to worship at the altar of medicine much too easily. I wish that more doctors would be able to say with complete candidness, "There are some cases that simply don't respond to medication. But we do our best to narrow things down to ensure the best guess we possibly can." I also believe too many people trust medicine much more than simply changing our lifestyle choices (like sleep, diet, and exercise). In my case, the first medication I received was a no-go from the first hour. The doctor was happy to change the prescription. But he didn't even acknowledge that there was something wrong with the first prescription. He was just going through the motions. The second prescription (a more popular brand) was like taking sugar pills. It did nothing. It turns out that I was completely misdiagnosed from the beginning. My problems were caused by something completely different. They merely presented similarly to other diagnoses. That said, doctors are mortal beings. They make mistakes. But they also have a lot of knowledge that may be useful (with proper safeguards) in healing. It's a bit like having police. There are many who simply don't receive the training they need. But we absolutely need police in a civilized society. And the fact is that we have to take the good with the bad. But you say one thing that tips the scales, then that means you're "only" on that side. No, I merely acknowledge the failings while conceding the good that they do as well.

If done in a very specific way, it may be a decent temporary diet. While traveling through the wilderness, they had no fruit. Few sources of Vitamin C. Scurvy. While today's standard cuts don't contain much in the way of vitamin C, the organs of most animals are high in Vitamin C. But they cook away in high heat. So, by forcing them to not cook their meat (I'm guessing that it was jerked) they were supplied with vitamin C until they came to Bountiful where there was fruit. If you've ever read the book The Windwalker, the narrator says that when killing a bear, he ate "the favorite parts" raw. He cooked or jerked the rest of the meat. It is commonly understood among Native Americans that scurvy is a "white man's disease" because we tend not to eat the organs of animals in our modern cuisine.

First, we need to understand that it is a figure of speech from a truly ancient culture. It refers to the idea that the person and the position/authority/power, etc. are one. The closest thing we have in our cultural history is that when referring to the King of a nation, we may not say "the king." We might say "the crown" or "the throne." Why not say "the king"? They could. But it is just a more formal and respectful way of saying it. Sometimes, they wouldn't even use these terms. The King of England was often simply referred to as "England." The same for France and other European countries. In Hamlet, you may recall that the King of Denmark was simply referred to as "The Dane." Unlike mortal politicians, when addressing Deity, we consider the being and office to be one. So, if we call upon the "power of God" we are calling upon God. When we call upon the Name of God, we are calling upon his power and authority. Why? Because in worship, it behooves us to recognize the power and authority of God any time we address Him. Today, we don't do that so much. But the ancients did it much more commonly. And they did it with all the formalities that our modern culture shuns. So, it is a cultural thing. Once you see it in that light, it becomes second nature and you won't even blink at it anymore. Second, remember that people weren't allowed to speak the name of God (YHWH). So, they came up with creative ways to clearly imply it, without actually saying it. We see YHWH when written. But as people spoke it, they would substitute things so it was only implied. But to "imply" we need other words around it to make it seem obvious. In the end, we use figures of speech like this all the time -- and they seem to be interchangeable. How often would one say "Trump", "President Trump", "The President." I've often heard people use "The Oval Office" in place of the person who is the President of the day. "We need to get permission from the Oval Office" just as previous centuries would say "we need permission from the throne/the crown." We do this all the time. We just don't think about it.

I appreciate that. No, she's not going to get over it. Just from a medical perspective, I know that there are some chronic conditions that are treatable/curable for many. This is not one of them. As far as miracles, she has gone completely inactive and is not affilliated in any way with the Church. I don't think anyone could even give her a blessing. I'd like to make it a condition of my help that she start attending church. But that doesn't feel right. I'm basically forcing her back int activity. She's not anti. She just doesn't see the point anymore. Could she experience a miracle some other way? Possibly. But she simply has no faith anymore.

In Hebrew, "name" also means: Reputation Power Authority Glory ...specifically in regards to a person of renown or authority. e.g. "...make a name for ourselves..." This is why we pray and perform ordinances "in the name of Jesus Christ."

How about A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief? Again, I think we are just unfamiliar with words from previous centuries. It's supposedly the same language. But ...

It comes from many sources. But Americans get it mainly from the Anglican Prayer Book. Over time, we have come to make variations on a local level. But this and similar traditions are the source of it. I agree that there is no real scriptural basis for it. It is merely tradition. But I try to make sure my household always remember that the purpose of "grace" is to give thanks more than it is to "bless" the food. Remember that blessing the food is not a "blessing" as we normally think of it. It is really a way of thanking. Imagine when a person does something nice for you. An old-fashioned response would be "may the Lord bless you for it." Often, it would be shortened to: "bless you" = "thank you." But today, we don't understand this linguistic quirk and simply repeat things based on tradition. Look up the etymology of the word "bless" and you'll get a more full picture of how blessing could become part of giving thanks.

Since you didn't answer the question directly, I'll make a guess. You can verify if it is a good guess. It seems that it is a personal/cultural thing that caused some heartache when missionaries didn't share that same background. But the bottom line is that it isn't necessarily wrong to not pray using the exact verbiage of the Lord's Prayer. I have often felt deeply touched by simply reading out loud or reciting certain scriptures in my head. If you truly are "reciting" I'm absolutely certain that you could feel a great connection with the Lord if you are essentially doing what I do for a variety of scriptures. I've even found that same communing phenomenon when reciting the Lord's Prayer, itself. But to me, it just isn't a "prayer" in the sense that I normally think of it. But it certainly qualified as having a connection with the Lord.

I was going to write a response. But while in the middle, I noticed @zil2's post. She took the words right out of my mouth. So, I won't vainly repeat them. (hee-hee). I will ask one question about this: How much of your desire to pray specifically the Lord's Prayer is just a cultural/personal thing vs. a generalized right vs. wrong thing?

Who came up with that idea? Capitalism NEVER promises that "anyone" can become wealthy. That's just the mantra of self-help gurus.

I think we recite this about as often as an average scripture. I've heard parts of it given in talks and lessons. Not everyone can quote a passage of this length from memory. But parts of it at a time? Probably. There are some prayers which we've been instructed to use for specific sacraments word-for-word. Apart from that, the use of The Lord's Prayer as our personal prayer may fall under the category of "vain repetitions" which is precisely what the Savior was warning against when he gave this example. It was not an injunction to speak the exact same words again and again. It was an example of the principles of making a meaningful, personal prayer between ourselves and our Father. That said, the same could be said of so many prayers I've heard from pretty much anyone. They all seem to use the same words. They all seem to say the same things. The point of the sermon was not necessarily repeating the exact words the Savior used, but to make sure that our prayers actually mean something. I've been irked oh-so-often when I hear a person really think about what they desire to pray about, only to rush through the closing "in the name of..." so quickly that I couldn't really understand what was said if I didn't already know what he meant. That. to me, reeks of "speaking the Lord's name in vain."

When she's well, she can work and do a good job. But the frequent bouts of illness are causing the inability to have a "steady" job. She does not own a car. So, delivery is off the table. When we were young, she was never the type that would shirk responsibility. Even 10 years ago, I'd say that it would be unlike her to just "not want to work." But she had a recent event that seems to have broken her spirit. I don't know if she was on suicide-watch. But she was REALLY not doing well. And my nephews think that taking care of a grandchild may be what she needs to feel like her old self. Even if that succeeds, she still has her illness that simply can't be ignored. The final thing is that she never really let on how bad off she was financially until it was WAY too late. She ended up maxing out credit cards to pay for her all her bills. So, she's basically got a death mark on her credit report. If any employer looks at that, she's done. And this will last for 7 years.

Thank you for all your responses. It appears that I need to clarify a few points. They are asking me for additional financial assistance. I live in the Houston area, not Houston-proper. I work in Houston and have about an hour commute each way (pretty much all the places I've worked have been anywhere from 30 min to 1h+ from my house. So far, our locality is in pretty good shape (low crime, the only heavy traffic is rush hour) except for all the construction going on (probably another year before it all clears out). My sister currently resides in Oregon (near Son#1) and is about to move to CA (near Son#3). Son#2 lives in Washington (AFAIK). Housing: She currently resides in her eldest son's 1 B condo while his family is allowed to stay at a friend's house. That friend is now in need of that extra space. So, Son#1 has to move back to his 1B condo for himself, his wife, and their son. No more room for her. Son #3 has a small apartment for him, his wife, and soon to be born child. They want to get grandmom into a nearby retirement community where the rent is cheaper than elsewhere (but it is still more than my mortgage payment). He will be the biggest contributor to her upkeep. In return, will be a nanny for the new grandchild, so the new mom can work. Her medical condition is chronic. There is no cure. There isn't really a practical, long term treatment for it either. Her symptoms flare up every few weeks for a few days. In between, she is perfectly capable and healthy. The flare ups are sufficient that she can't hold down a job on any long-term basis. Son #3 understands this, and the mom's job is such that she may be able to partially work around grandmom's illness. I believe there may be a future change. They are hoping that Son#3's wages rising will allow them to buy a 3B home. Then they can forget about the retirement community. After some thought, I'm thinking that, instead of being part of the regular upkeep, I should be the "emergency backup" if something goes wrong.

I have just recently been made aware of how much a certain someone is in need. While I have given aid to others on a short-term basis, this is the first to whom I've been asked to provide some long term assistance. My sister. Background: She has a chronic condition that prevents her from having a steady job. She's old enough for social security. But her health required her to take it early. So, she doesn't receive the full amount. And the area of the country has very high housing costs (and I've recently found out, grocery prices as well). Her three sons are pooling their money to help her out. But one of them (the wealthy one) is already giving assistance to his in-laws who are older than his mom. The other two are barely scraping by. But they're willing to put up a little bit. They said that they do have enough for everyone to barely get by. But if "something" comes up... ************** She has asked all her siblings for any additional financial aid. Apparently two other siblings are also on hard times. They're getting by, but they can't really help financially. My oldest brother is already helping his partner with finances, so he's tapped out. My other sister is the really rich one. She said, "That is your sons' responsibility." That leaves me. I'm in the middle. I'm not doing as well as my two wealthy siblings. But I'm certainly not struggling like my other siblings. I'm already helping out with taking care of a niece, and the other young lady I've written about. So, that's expensive. But if I were to take a look at the Mosiah scripture above, I'd have to say that regarding my sister's care "I have, therefore, I should give." I've spoken with my wife about this, and she basically said all the same things I was thinking of. Should we? How much? How long? What are her sons doing? How is their future? Any other advice or considerations?

OK, my turn to be confused. The "last item" was spending time at the range. What does that have to do with "bringing a large guy"?

This seems reasonable to me except for the last one. You are actually a large guy compared to me. You have no idea how easy it is for a larger guy with no fight training (who is simply determined) to disable a guy my size. I've got mid-level belts in 4 different martial arts. I can break boards (inanimate objects). But a determined big guy would still get through that if he was simply fast and agile. I could have multiple black belts and it wouldn't do anything to him. Pressure points? I know a few. And, yes, they work. But if I get a guy with about 1/2" of fat and 1" of muscle on him and he won't feel a thing. And that's IF I can get close enough to accurately hit that point before he uses his size to simply suplex me with one hand. That is why I spend a lot of time at the range. God made all men. But Browning/Colt made them all equal.

In other words, for us... It's super easy. Barely an inconvenience.