Dravin

Just saying you laughed afterwards is kinda ambiguous. Was is nervous laughter that a tense experience was over with? Or maniacal laughter over the joy of burning an animal? I'm kinda inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, for much the same reasons Suzie does,  that it was the former rather than the latter, which makes the fact that she laughed about it less distressing than it might be made out to be. The use of what ever chemical was at hand reads as desperation and confusion rather than some sort of intentional torture. Which leaves us with burning the rat, which while a poor choice was probably done out of a desire to not get close to it rather than sadism. The short of it? Scared, confused, inexperienced women making poor choices rather than sadistic serial killers in the making. I see the regrettable decisions that you do CaleB but not the malice you seem to want to ascribe.
 
If I was in a hypothetical position to counsel them I'd tell them that they either need to put their big girl pants on or buy snap traps in the future (though probably not phrased exactly like that) if they can't muster up the gumption to dispatch it themselves quickly and cleanly.

I'm suspecting their expressions were somewhat priceless.

Yea, that's not cool. 
 
A few years ago some teens threw eggs at me as they drove past while I was standing in my neighbors driveway.  It only took me a few seconds to go get into the patrol car and pull them over and have a chat.

I completely agree with some of you!
 
Things have been getting out of control, the younger generations are very disrespectful, are way too materialistic, self-absorbed and they have no manners whatsoever like in the previous generations. Tsk, tsk, tsk... It is a shame.
 
That's why I agree with this quote 100%:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ah, thanks Socrates ( c.470-399 BC)

Student asked what 1+1 equals, no mention of biology in answer. News at 11.

The listening crowd is usually as turned off by boorish behavior as the recipient of the message.

1. Copyrighted material is quoted all of the time on this forum. 
 
2. Should we be left to guessing at what the official policy is?
 
3. There is nothing "secret" in this book. I sustain the prophets, I don't see the conflict.

To clarify this: Light has no "rest mass", but it does have "relativistic mass". This is very easily calculated from Einstein's famous equation E=mc². Solving for m gives:
 
m = E/c²
 
From here, it's as easy as plugging in numbers and getting your answer. Energy E in a photon is equal to the frequency f times the Planck constant h: E=hf. Substituting for E gives:
 
m = hf/c²
 
If we want to use wavelength λ instead of frequency f, they are inversely proportional: f=c/λ. So,
 
m = (h/c²)(c/λ) = h/λc
 
Plugging in the following numbers:
 
h = 6.62606957 × 10^(-34) m² kg / s
c = 299792458 m / s
λ = around 500 nm = 5 × 10^(-7) m for visible bluish-green light
 
gives the relativistic mass of a single photon:
 
m = h/λc
= [ 6.62606957 × 10^(-34) m² kg / s ] / [ (5 × 10^(-7) m) (299792458 m / s) ]
= 4.4204378e × 10^(-40) kg
 
So there you have it. The (relativistic) mass of a single photon is on the order of 5 × 10^(-40) kg.
 
For comparison, the mass of an electron, one of the tiniest pieces of matter known, is about 9.11 × 10^(-31) kg, or almost two hundred million times larger. Moral: Light doesn't "weigh" very much.
 
[EDIT: Had to correct my math, because 500 nm = 5 × 10^(-7) m, not 5 × 10^(-5) m. I always get tripped up by stupid little things like that. My wife still laughs at me for a class I took 25 years ago in electromagnetism, where I had some huge hairy awful triple integral that I couldn't solve correctly even after hours of work, and she glanced at it and said, "Wait, isn't eight times nine seventy-two?" Maybe that's why I'm a writer now...)

Another one would be
 
There are 10 types of people in the world...
 
Those that understand binary and those that don't

Lethal in Europe.

I already told this one a year ago. It's so good, it deserves another airing.
 
*************************
 
Three logicians walk into a bar. The bartender asks, "A beer for each of you?"
The first logician says, "I don't know."
The second logician says, "I don't know."
The third logician says, "Yes."

Isn't that kinda like claiming, "Weight loss is beyond our control. If you doubt this try this experiment, become 25 lbs lighter for the next five minutes and then revert back to 25 lbs heavier. If you succeed I stand refuted." Your quip makes a nice rhetorical flair but it's not really a considered experiment. 

It's worth pointing out that the phrasing in the scriptures is "vain repetitions". I don't doubt some blessings on the food qualify, but I would think the solution would be to stop the vanity not pray less given the scriptures also talk of praying always.

It's worth pointing out that the phrasing in the scriptures is "vain repetitions". I don't doubt some blessings on the food qualify, but I would think the solution would be to stop the vanity not pray less given the scriptures also talk of praying always.

Given the premise, that one isn't in control of one's beliefs, the reasoning is pretty straight forward. Being held accountable for your beliefs, if you don't control them, is akin to being held accountable for other things you don't control such as eye color or nationality.  If your response to the prior is, "But we do have control over our beliefs!" you're getting hung up on the premise, if you try an filter his reasoning through a premise he's not using then the end result will continue to be confusing because it's like trying to make an apple pie using beets for filling.

Given the premise, that one isn't in control of one's beliefs, the reasoning is pretty straight forward. Being held accountable for your beliefs, if you don't control them, is akin to being held accountable for other things you don't control such as eye color or nationality.  If your response to the prior is, "But we do have control over our beliefs!" you're getting hung up on the premise, if you try an filter his reasoning through a premise he's not using then the end result will continue to be confusing because it's like trying to make an apple pie using beets for filling.

Isn't that kinda like claiming, "Weight loss is beyond our control. If you doubt this try this experiment, become 25 lbs lighter for the next five minutes and then revert back to 25 lbs heavier. If you succeed I stand refuted." Your quip makes a nice rhetorical flair but it's not really a considered experiment. 

Iggy would probably be catching less flack if she didn't come in and counsel someone else to drink coffee. Read her initial posts it's not, "Coffee and tea are against the Word of Wisdom but based on discussion with my Bishop we feel it is justified due to my personal circumstances, so I partake and am still temple worthy. Dahlia go talk to your bishop and see if it's justified in your situation." It's, "Dahlia, drink your coffee. Just don't drink it scalding hot. "

The rational against informing your spouse because, "It'll hurt them to know." has always seemed a bit convenient to me. Particularly when paired with, 'It'll be difficult to get their trust back.'

Instantly flip a switch and believe whatever the switch is flipped to? If that is the question, then yes, your 'experiment' is relevant. However...
 
 
 
 
That we can will what we believe, and that we can instantly will what we believe are not the same thing. Your experiment address the idea of if one can simply flip a mental switch into believing what one might like, it does not address if belief is volitional in nature. I think you'll find that while some on the board will argue for a volitional foundation to belief they aren't likely to agree with your 'flip a switch' premise.

Isn't that kinda like claiming, "Weight loss is beyond our control. If you doubt this try this experiment, become 25 lbs lighter for the next five minutes and then revert back to 25 lbs heavier. If you succeed I stand refuted." Your quip makes a nice rhetorical flair but it's not really a considered experiment. 

Isn't that kinda like claiming, "Weight loss is beyond our control. If you doubt this try this experiment, become 25 lbs lighter for the next five minutes and then revert back to 25 lbs heavier. If you succeed I stand refuted." Your quip makes a nice rhetorical flair but it's not really a considered experiment. 

Despite MoE's bit of smarminess the newsletters won't be replacing the Ensign (which is available online already if one wanted to avoid a paper copy) and unless I've missed something over the years, they won't be replacing monthly paper newsletters coming from the First Presidency. So it's unlikely this will reduce paper use. I suppose if they are gung ho enough about monthly newsletters such that they'd do them even with the costs involved in a hard-copy newsletter it could be considered a paper reduction measure, but from the sounds of it they aren't deciding to save paper by burning electronics, they just decided to burn more electrons.

Well, I can kinda see it as not pointless if it was part 1 of a series, with the inclusion of others coming in the second part. Picture this:
 
Meeting 1a: X people get together and try to hammer out the issues with race relations from their perspective.
Meeting 1b: Y people get together and try to hammer out the issues with race relations from their perspective.
Meeting 2: X + Y people get together and discuss the issues that came out of the previous meetings.
 
Note, I'm not saying that is indeed what was planned, but I can see it as not completely pointless to discuss race relations among yourself first before including others.