MarginOfError

$50,000 a day? Sure, why not?  If I'm immortal, I've got an eternity to pay down the debt, so I can accrue as much of it as I want, right?

I almost fell out of my chair laughing.

Gay marriage is the answer. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edit: I know explaining one's joke makes it not funny...but as I'm primarilly concerned with other things than being funny... I'm KIDDING!
 
Just in case.

That would be catstrophic.  sure, it was kind of cool starting from a population of 2.  But starting from a population of 6 billion?  Yuck.

If this gets developed and is not freely available, I can guarantee that the population will drop down to about 2 in short order when people's loved ones start dying.

Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances.  But I will admit that my reason isn't a great one.
 
I read a news story once about the recent arrest of a man who had committed a particularly disturbing and heinous crime (I don't remember details, sorry).  My immediate thought was "I hope they fry the [choose your expletive]."  At that point, I realized that my support for capital punishment was based more on vengeance than anything else.  I felt that was wrong, and so now I oppose capital punishment.
 
I am, however, aware of the secondary problems my stance brings about.  Do we really want to pay to keep these people alive for decades?  Is it really fair to incarcerate someone for 30 years and then try to return them back to society?  Can a person really spend 30 years in prison among other criminals in our prisons' culture and then reenter society?
 
Part of me, like Vort, suspects that execution may be the more generous choice.  But part of me feels like that's also a cop out to take the easy choice.  Perhaps it would be better to reform the prison systems?  That too would be prohibitively expensive, but maybe smaller jails with more social help would be more productive at turning people's lives around?  
 
I don't know.  There's a lot of stuff here I don't know.  The only thing I am convinced of is that every execution performed out of vengeance is an execution done for the wrong reasons.  I believe we will be held accountable for those executions.  I'm certain there has to be a better way.

Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances.  But I will admit that my reason isn't a great one.
 
I read a news story once about the recent arrest of a man who had committed a particularly disturbing and heinous crime (I don't remember details, sorry).  My immediate thought was "I hope they fry the [choose your expletive]."  At that point, I realized that my support for capital punishment was based more on vengeance than anything else.  I felt that was wrong, and so now I oppose capital punishment.
 
I am, however, aware of the secondary problems my stance brings about.  Do we really want to pay to keep these people alive for decades?  Is it really fair to incarcerate someone for 30 years and then try to return them back to society?  Can a person really spend 30 years in prison among other criminals in our prisons' culture and then reenter society?
 
Part of me, like Vort, suspects that execution may be the more generous choice.  But part of me feels like that's also a cop out to take the easy choice.  Perhaps it would be better to reform the prison systems?  That too would be prohibitively expensive, but maybe smaller jails with more social help would be more productive at turning people's lives around?  
 
I don't know.  There's a lot of stuff here I don't know.  The only thing I am convinced of is that every execution performed out of vengeance is an execution done for the wrong reasons.  I believe we will be held accountable for those executions.  I'm certain there has to be a better way.

When I was a clerk, I came across several less active members who had joined other churches. We always have them information to make them aware of their option of resigning membership. None of them took it. The only circumstance I can imagine we would have initiated a disciplinary council would have been if a person had joined the clergy or vestry of another church. And even then, we would have done it so that their membership in the LDS Church wouldn't compromise their ability to lead in their chosen church.
For what it's worth, I'm an active member in good standing who financially contributes to a local Episcopalian church led by a homosexual pastor. My involvement there has created no problems with my membership. If your bishop makes an issue of your church attendance during an extended inactivity, then I would wager to say that you were unfortunate in the leadership raffle, but such action would not be indicative of the broader culture*.
(Anecdote: when I was serving in Kyiv, Ukraine, I met a woman who had been excommunicated by her bishop in England--whom she had never met--where she had gone inactive on an embassy assignment. Her excommunication came after nearly five years if inactivity after she had switched posts to South Africa and had a child out of wedlock. Another 3 years later she showed up in Kyiv and wanted to begin moving toward joining the church. After hearing her story and reviewing her records, the mission president said of the bishop, "what a jerk." The point being, we should give the less active a fair amount of lee way regarding the choices made during their activity and instead focus on helping them make use of the Atonement)

I'm sure he'll find solace on the tropical island that just mysteriously came into his ownership.

I'm sure he'll find solace on the tropical island that just mysteriously came into his ownership.

I want to preface my post by saying that I grew up in New England and am a bigger fan of the New England Patriots than I am of any other football team (I've become more indifferent to sports in the past few years, but still maintain a casual interest).
 
A professor in Boston did the math, and figured out that in order for these balls to have deflated by 2 PSI due to temperature changes, the balls would have had to been inflated with air heated to 91 degrees farenheit.  So there are really only three possibilities in play here
 
1. The balls were inflated in a heated room 
2. The balls were inflated with heated air
3. The balls were deflated after inspection
 
There is no situation at play that would plausibly explain 11 of 12 balls being 2 PSI below the minimum standard that doesn't involve someone knowing that this would happen.  
 
That being said, based on what I've heard about the rules, inflating the balls with heated air prior to inspection doesn't seem to be technically against the rules (unethical and cheap, sure, but not technically forbidden).  If the Patriots were to be clever enough to leverage air temperature to their advantage, I commend them on their creativity, but they should lose some draft picks and pay some fines anyway as it seems pretty obvious that the intent was for the balls to be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 PSI for the duration of the game.
 
If they determine that someone willfully deflated the balls, I'd start calling for suspensions.
 
But simply put, there is no way I can believe that there wasn't a deliberate action to cause these balls to deflate.  

yeah, well, I despise your horse!  

Sorry....i still think it's amazing they have not won a Super Bowl since Spygate. Perhaps they might get their first one this weekend without controversy. I also despise the Patriots

The crux of our disagreement probably comes down to this.  I don't think God has any purpose for allowing Cerbral Palsy to exist.  It just does.  Welcome to the world of stochastic processes.
 
(and if you ask my why God allows nature to work in stochastic processes, my answer will be that it is minimal upkeep; that's probably an attractive feature for a guy with a universe to run)
 
 
 
Also, on this, I find it easy to stand by and support the individual in whatever choice the make precisely because I don't agree.  The thing is, neither do I disagree.  I've chosen to be a neutral third party observer, because I find the words "I don't know what decision I would have made in your situation and I hope I never have to" to be much more comforting than "I would have done...."

That's a good question, JAG.  Where do I draw the line?  
 
I don't.  That's the sole purview of the mother/father/parents/family/whatever involved in the situation with the guidance of the Lord and counsel of their priesthood leaders.  
 
I don't say that to be evasive (well, okay, I am trying a little to evade the question), but there are just too many factors involved.  I can't possibly weigh all of them for any person but myself.
 
I was on this kind of discussion with a woman in my ward recently. Her sister has six children.  The sixth was born with cerebral palsy and has been wheelchair bound his entire life.  And it's taken a huge toll on the entire family.  He's now 16 years old and facing the decline into death, having already lived the best of his years.  It's been 16 years of crappy quality of life for him, and substandard quality of life for his family (his mom especially).  
 
Now, I'm not saying I think they should have aborted, nor am I saying that parents in a similar situation now should abort.  What I will say is this: no matter what choice the family makes, I will stand by them whole-heartedly and support them.  Because I get it.  I can sympathize with the devastating despair they face in the situation.  And whether they choose to abort or not, they're going to need as many unconditional friendships as they can get to heal from whatever tragedy they choose.
 
If I'm their bishop or stake president, I might have to make a more formal judgement.  But even that I will delay until the last possible moment I have to.  
 
To me, it isn't about what is 'the right answer' or 'the wrong answer.' (moral relativism at it's best?)  It's about making sure that the family members all have a fair shot achieving their eternal potential.  And unless I'm a part of that family, I don't have any privilege to know what action will accomplish that goal.

That's a good question, JAG.  Where do I draw the line?  
 
I don't.  That's the sole purview of the mother/father/parents/family/whatever involved in the situation with the guidance of the Lord and counsel of their priesthood leaders.  
 
I don't say that to be evasive (well, okay, I am trying a little to evade the question), but there are just too many factors involved.  I can't possibly weigh all of them for any person but myself.
 
I was on this kind of discussion with a woman in my ward recently. Her sister has six children.  The sixth was born with cerebral palsy and has been wheelchair bound his entire life.  And it's taken a huge toll on the entire family.  He's now 16 years old and facing the decline into death, having already lived the best of his years.  It's been 16 years of crappy quality of life for him, and substandard quality of life for his family (his mom especially).  
 
Now, I'm not saying I think they should have aborted, nor am I saying that parents in a similar situation now should abort.  What I will say is this: no matter what choice the family makes, I will stand by them whole-heartedly and support them.  Because I get it.  I can sympathize with the devastating despair they face in the situation.  And whether they choose to abort or not, they're going to need as many unconditional friendships as they can get to heal from whatever tragedy they choose.
 
If I'm their bishop or stake president, I might have to make a more formal judgement.  But even that I will delay until the last possible moment I have to.  
 
To me, it isn't about what is 'the right answer' or 'the wrong answer.' (moral relativism at it's best?)  It's about making sure that the family members all have a fair shot achieving their eternal potential.  And unless I'm a part of that family, I don't have any privilege to know what action will accomplish that goal.

If you interested in the rationale behind the LDS Church's list of potential exceptions regarding abortion, reviewing the commonalities among the exceptions.
 
Rape and incest share the non-consensual aspect of sexual intercourse.  The mother did not choose to engage in the act that resulted in the pregnancy, and so she is not being required to bring the additional life into hers with all of the baggage (sorry, there's probably a better term) that comes with children.
 
The medical exceptions have some element of choice as well.  Presumably, a mother did not intend to die in the course of bringing a child into the world.  Nor does any parent choose a pregnancy with deformities and illnesses.  There is also a practical aspect in these exceptions where the Church recognizes that a family that loses its mother is likely in worse shape than a family that loses a pregnancy.  Also, pragmatically, a child that dies in birth presents enormous disadvantages to the family it would have joined; expenses of medical care, emotional tolls*, and even the birthing process comes with many potential dangers.  When the child isn't expected to survive birth, medically speaking, we usually recommend abortion because it is a) safer for the mother, and b )less costly to the family.
 
Ultimately, in my mind, the Church's position on abortion is completely consistent with its focus on building and developing families.  (Even if that family is the family that hasn't come together yet because the rape victim is only 17 years old).
 
 
* remember, marriages in which a child dies very commonly fall apart, though I doubt the rate is as high among still born and birth related deaths.

So the hierarchy is Republican < Tea Party < Democrat < Green Party < The Wear Tye Dye and Do Interpretive Dances to MOE's rapping Party ?
 
 That looks about right to me.

Someone disagrees with my opinion on the internet? THAT'S UNPOSSIBLE. :mad:

I love far right crazies!  One of my best friends is a far right crazy!

Edible socks?  Now there's an interesting idea.

Yay, phone flipped out.

Edible socks?  Now there's an interesting idea.

I actually don't have a problem with the kids missing a little school for the sake of a campout.  What gets to be more problematic is the leaders' time, and it's the same problem that prevents us from taking the boys out on Friday.  If I have to take a vacation day for each campout, it will cost me 10 vacation days, plus 5 for scout camp, plus 5 for the high adventure trip.  That's 20 vacation days of my 28 and seriously cuts into my ability to spend that time with my family.  It's too much of a burden to place on the leaders. 
 
You might say that the solution to that would be more leaders who don't have to take as much time off, but most of the wards in the not-so-predominantly-mormon parts of the country struggle to maintain the bare minimums of adult leadership.  (and I imagine that's somewhat true in higher density areas as well).
 
So, yeah, there are a lot of variables in the problem and not one single good solution.