Look out for the future, because you never know what it might bring…

We want to hear from you! Please fill out this short survey about your favorite 100 Hour Board Questions. Your responses will help us show potential sponsors how much the Board means to us all. Thanks!

Monday, October 16, 2017
Question #90510 posted on 10/16/2017 5:24 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I notice that in the question about the BYU football, you guys gave a host of interesting answers. In the past, I don't remember the board having many writers that like to talk about sports. Does this have to do with the new writers, or have I been negligent in my readings this whole time? What sports if any would you feel knowledgeable writing about?

-The Old Bookshop

A:

Dear Toby,

I can't speak for other current or past writers, but I am new and I love sports. Please ask us more sports questions because sports are the bee's knees.

My personal favorites are football and wrestling, which I did in high school. Volleyball is also really awesome, and even though I've never played competitively it's one of my favorite sports to play.

As far as sports that I follow, I follow football, basketball, soccer, and basically the entire Olympics whenever they roll around. In middle school the only thing I listened to on the radio was sports shows, and I read the sports section of the Deseret News pretty much everyday. So basically what I am saying is feel free to ask all the sports questions you want.

Peace,

Tipperary

A:

Dear TOB,

Like Tipperary, I am a new writer. I love playing, watching, and talking about sports. I am here to talk about various sporting topics, including the following list:

  • Consolation over the fact that the US men's soccer team somehow failed to beat Trinidad and Tobago. HOW DID THIS EVEN HAPPEN?!? WHY HAS IT COME TO THIS?!? (But seriously guys, I've watched sports for a long time. That was the most soul-crushing loss that I have ever suffered.)
  • Overly enthusiastic analysis about the Utah Jazz, Donovan Mitchell's rookie of the year campaign, and other basketball related facts.
  • Reasons as to why the Broncos can win Superbowl 52 with Trevor Siemian leading the way (or game-managing the way), as well as support and love for Cleveland Browns fans.

Basically, I can answer any of your questions about football, soccer, and basketball without second thought. Any other sports questions? I am always looking for a reason to read about sports instead of doing homework. Bring it on!

-Mitty

A:

Dear Bookshop,

Oh yeah, I just love basing my current emotional state on the performance of a bunch of total strangers (compared to that of other, even stranger strangers) at an activity that I have never participated in. The best part is when I want to watch them play for an hour and it takes them up to four hours to do it; the suspense just gets me so hyped up!

-The Entomophagist

P.S. To be fair, there are times when sports actually excite me, usually when a single person excels far beyond what anyone could have imagined, like that 18-year-old in the US Open, or Katie Ledecky in last year's Olympic Games.

P.P.S. Since no one else mentioned it, and it was flagetted on my answer by a couple of other writers, Sunday Night Banter and The Skipper are a current and a recent writer that were into sports. Other than that, it looks like the new writers are way more into sports than the old ones.

A:

Dear TOBY,

I played soccer for years and years until I quit to do marching band. I still enjoy it, though I'm woefully out of date.

I also think curling is awesome, but I wouldn't say I'm especially knowledgeable about it.

-Kirito

A:

Dear Ye Olde Booke Shoppe,

Baseball is really the only sport I care about. I watch BYU football sometimes because it means a lot to my parents, but I would rather talk about the Nationals until someone tells me to shutup and/or stop openly weeping about this weeks' game 5.

I would love to answer questions about baseball because I'm still trying to learn it completely. I could give a reasonably educated answer off the top of my head but I would learn a lot from a little research. So ask away!

-Babalugats


0 Corrections
Question #90508 posted on 10/16/2017 5:23 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

As pointed out in various places (including TheOdd1sOut), if you are smelling something, that means that molecules from that object are making contact with the smell receptors in your nostrils. But these molecules would have to be incredibly small. Have the molecules that cause scents ever been isolated?

Possibly a silly question...

-Hoobedoo

A:

Dear you,

I happen to know TheOdd1sOut, and reached out to him to see if he knew the answer. He said, "The premise is flawed because things that smell are always giving off molecules, it's not just when you smell it." After a pause he added, "I'm not qualified to answer."

TheOdd1sOut is right - these molecules are the same size as the normal molecules which make up the object, except that the molecules you smell are volatile, or in their gaseous state. Crash Course has a great video on it. Molecules can be anywhere from 0.27 nanometers across to 2 nanometers across

And of course there's no such thing as a silly question! What a ridiculous thing to say!

-guppy of doom

A:

Dear Hoobedoo,

There are a few things that I want to clarify, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the guppy and my subsequent doom.

First is that the range of molecular sizes is even larger than the source that guppy cites states. The smallest molecule is H2, which is less than half the size of a water molecule, and thermoset plastics are essentially one great big molecule. In addition, molecules aren't even the smallest thing your body can detect. A good example of this would be sour taste, which is caused by hydrogen ions, which are actually just lonely protons. No one knows exactly how big a proton is, but it's less than a femtometer, or a millionth of a nanometer. And in case detecting tiny molecules wasn't cool enough, the human nose (which is weaker than many animals' nose) can detect those molecules at very low concentrations, often in the parts per billion or even parts per trillion range.

Next, not all of the molecules that make up something smelly have an odor. For example, in food, proteins, starches, and triglycerides are all odorless. This is due mostly to their size, as larger molecules are far less volatile than smaller molecules — and by far less volatile I mean they would burn before they got hot enough to become volatile as intact molecules under normal conditions.

Lastly, yes, smelly molecules have been isolated and identified. The video that guppy of doom linked to mentions a few, but there are many, many more — the human nose has about 400 different types of smell receptors, and current estimates for the number of smells we can detect are around one trillion. One technique used to isolate smell molecules is called gas chromatography-olfactometry. Gas chromatography uses a column to separate volatile molecules (usually based on size and polarity), and a "sniffer" is attached to the end so that a researcher can identify the smells that come out at specific times. When you couple this is mass spectrometry, you can correlate a molecular structure with each smell.

Don't noses just blow your mind?

-The Entomophagist


0 Corrections
Question #90507 posted on 10/16/2017 5:21 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If you suspect emotional marital abuse, how appropriate is it to intervene, and what might be the best way to do so?

-Concerned

A:

Dear concerned,

I think it largely depends on how close you are to the couple. If you're a good friend or family member, it is very appropriate to intervene. However, if you aren't in that position, you might want to find someone who is closer and bring it to their attention. They will have more sway in helping the couple realizing what is going on and ending it.

I would say the best way to intervene is to let the victim know of your concerns and your support for them. Often, victims of marital abuse don't recognize what's going on or how dangerous it can be. They may be blinded for their love for their spouse, or convinced by their spouse's constant repetition that everything is fine, or that it's the victim's fault, or that it will never happen again. Of course, you don't want to jump into accusing the spouse of domestic abuse; you may not even want to directly say that. Start with relaying your concerns and the reasons why you suspect that abuse. We all react more kindly to expressions of feelings than direct confrontations. (For instance, saying "I felt hurt when you did this" instead of "you're a horrible person for doing this!") If you can express your worries, and then ask the victim if they've felt those concerns themselves, you'll get a lot further than outright blaming the spouse for abuse. 

Constantly expressing your love and your commitment to always be there for the victim is important. Emotional marital abuse can often include the spouse isolating the victim, making them feel alone and helpless. If they know they can rely on you, it will give them a sense of power. Make them aware of other resources they can turn to, though don't try and push any on them.

There's a number of great websites that give better advice than I do. Most are about physical domestic abuse, but all give wonderful tips on how to help.

I hope everything works out, and I'm really grateful that they have a friend like you looking out for them.

-guppy of doom


0 Corrections
Question #90503 posted on 10/16/2017 7:56 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Me and my fiance are getting married! This is a question that Ive been thinking of today, my fiance listens to sexual music almost exclusively. I can get comfortable with sexual songs when Ive heard them enough because I used to listen to them for a year or two in high school (even then it felt strange to me)- but the first time I hear a sex song it always feels gross and dirty because they tend to not come from a place of love, I feel like I have to get numbed to it by hearing it enough. I know she wants to listen to those songs when we have sex and it sounds hot- but also maybe wrong? What are your thoughts- am I overthinking this?

-Just Tryna Do The Right Thang

A:

Dear you,

To be honest I don't understand the appeal of listening to music while having sex. Especially in the early stages of your marriage, sex will be a learning experience and a bonding experience between you and your wife, and listening to music doesn't sound terribly conducive to that, in my opinion.

However, even more importantly, you are just as entitled to your opinion about sex as your fiancée . If listening to explicit music makes you uncomfortable, make sure she understands that. Personally, I feel the same way as you. I would want sex to be about the love and connection between me and my spouse, and I can't think of any sexual songs that capture those emotions. 

Talk to your fiancée about it. Be open and honest about how you feel about sex, in all its facets, including music.

Love,

Luciana

A:

Dear you,

This isn't an answer to your question, it's just a PSA.

Public, please take note: fiance (or fiancé) is male, fiancee (or fiancée) is female. I'm not making this up.

-The Entomophagist


0 Corrections
Question #90410 posted on 10/16/2017 7:56 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Any tips for organizing your life? Or improving time management?

-overwhelmed in provo

A:

Dear Provorwhelmed,

I would say that the biggest things for me are my Google Calendar and my Evernote. Basically I have a color coded Google Calendar that's really flexible. I use it as a place to put down reminders, but also to map out my time. Often it's just hypothetical, so I'm not completely tied to my calendar. I also really like Evernote, it's a good place to put notes and to-do lists, and I can access it from my laptop and my phone. I'm a big fan of both, and I've trained myself to put everything down on one of the two right when I think of it, which I think is the most important. Just having a calendar doesn't do anything unless you consult it all the time and add to it. So my biggest piece of advice is to be diligent about one kind of organization, because that's what really matters.

Keep it real,
Sherpa Dave

A:

Dear Provolone,

Calendars and hourly planners are great, but sometimes it's hard to accurately estimate how long something will take me, and I hate feeling like I have do something at a certain time, so my go-to time management tool is the to-do list. I list all the things I have to do in the next week, then sort them by urgency. When I need something to do, I look at my list and do the first one that I feel like doing (or the one that's about to be due, even if I don't feel like doing it). I also decide what a reasonable schedule is for getting everything done, so if my workload allows me to be done with all my homework by 5pm, I do homework before 5pm and then don't worry about it for the rest of the evening.

I realize that this takes more self-control than some people have, and it might not work for you, but it's what works for me.

-The Entomophagist

A:

Dear Overwhelmed,

I, too, often feel overwhelmed by everything going on in school, and what I've found works best for me are priority lists. I don't like traditional to-do lists because I can put so much random crap on there that I can cross a bunch of stuff of without actually accomplishing anything that I need to, and I dislike hourly calendars because I'm a free spirit and don't want to be told what to do when. Instead, every day I make a list of High Priority things, that I MUST accomplish that day, Medium Priority things, that would be nice to accomplish that day, but that aren't yet high priority, and sometimes if I'm feeling extra ambitious I'll also make a list of Low Priority things. I tell myself that I can't do anything time-wastey and fun until I accomplish at least two things from the high priority list and one from the medium priority list. I still get the rush of crossing things off when I accomplish something, and writing everything down helps me make sure I don't miss anything, while still focusing on the most important things.

At the start of each week I also write down all my high priorities for the week (for example, any big assignments or midterms coming up that week, if I need to go grocery shopping that week, if I'm planning on going to the temple that week, etc), and I know that sometime by the end of the week I need to accomplish all of them. Something from my weekly high priorities list may be on a low or medium daily priority list at the start of the week, but make it up to high priority by Friday if I still haven't done it.

Oh, also, planners are so helpful. I prefer the Moleskine ones because I really like the way they're set up internally, but look around and see what works best for you.

Good luck, friend!

-Alta

A:

Dear you,

Productive procrastination can be helpful. If you have a list of things that you know need to get done, sometimes it can help. Can't bring yourself to work on Priority 1 right now because it is just super boring? Work on Priority 2, and you can reallocate that time towards Priority 1 later. Sometimes certain things are urgent or time sensitive enough that this won't work, but if you've just got a big "to-do" list of stuff that "should" get done, it's progress to be vacuuming the floor instead of doing your homework rather than watching Netflix instead of doing your homework.

On a similar note, breaking things into chunks and recognizing partial and smaller achievments can be helpful to me. If I just put down "clean kitchen" on my to-do list and that's only ONE little bubble I get to color in, that's harder to motivate myself to do than if I break it down into a bunch of smaller bubbles I can fill in one at a time (while still maybe utilizing productive procrastination to avoid my very least favorite parts.) Maybe the entirety of "clean the kitchen" doesn't get done, but if I filled in "clean table" "do dishes" "clean countertops" "clean pantry" and just left undone "sweep floor," that's still a lot of progress. Similarly, if my goal is to do 2000 steps on my stepper that day for exercise and I only do 1500, that's still progress and much better for my health than if I did zero.

Good luck!

~Anne, Certainly

A:

Dear Aziraphale,

Have a clear idea of what you absolutely need to do, and what would be nice to do. Some people obtain this idea through lists. Personally, that doesn't work for me, because then I get overwhelmed setting aside the time to create such a list, and stress over making sure I'm not forgetting to write anything down (funny thing: I have a harder time remembering what I need to do when I'm trying to write it down). Anyways, regardless of your method, know exactly what you have to do, and the relative importance of each of those things.

Something I've noticed is that things we have to do often fall into a pattern. For example, I know that between Monday and Wednesday I will always have to complete two written homework assignments, three separate readings, and approximately .5-1 lab. This is because my classes follow a regular homework schedule. Because I know these are constants in my life, I have an allotted space of time set aside to accomplish them that I follow every week. So at any given time of day, I know in advance roughly what I'll be doing.

Keeping to a set schedule ensures that I accomplish a regular week's worth of obligations. However, no week is ever perfectly "regular". Thus I also have some portion of time per week set aside to do any miscellaneous tasks that rise up.

~Anathema

A:

Dear person,

I write down what I am doing every half hour and count the "billable hours" every night. It makes it more motivating to do work throughout the day. Also, it helps me keep track of my productivity over time.

-Sheebs

A:

Dear I feel your pain,

You are in luck, I just so happen to be an expert. An expert in organization? No, not even close. I happen to be an expert in disorganization and being overwhelmed. Therefore, I have tried, and am trying, many a thing to improve my organizational and time management skills. As a matter of fact I even asked a similar question to the Board less than a month ago. Yeah... Anyways, more than 95% of everything I have tried has totally failed. Here's the <5% that has managed to work for me

Organizational Skills: I try to keep my clothes off the floor. Every time I stand up I do a quick 360 degree turnaround to make sure nothing fell out of my pockets. I have a reminder on my phone to remind me of learning suite quizzes because I never remember those. At the beginning of the week I write down all the assignments I have to do. Then I put pieces of paper with the assigned problems written in them in my binders, so when it's time to do my homework I don't have to check the syllabus or learning suite I can just pull out a piece of paper with the problems already on it.

Time Skills: Get up in the morning, go for a jog (maybe), eat breakfast, read scriptures and shower by 8:00. That way the day doesn't get away from me. I do my homework listening to an album or playlist that ranges from 45 min- 2 hrs, and when it gets done take a 10 minutes break. Don't check social media or other apps while doing homework. Personally, I like to have a short 1-2 hr activity scheduled each day. This serves dual purposes. First, it gives me something to look forward to and makes life worth living. Second, it gives me small deadlines to help my procrastination. For example, when doing math work and I find myself getting distracted I say to myself "Okay, 2 hours and I can head FHE and get some free food and a little break. Work hard for 2 hours, go to FHE, and then after that only another 1 1/2 hours." It helps break up the time into shorter blocks so that you don't get overwhelmed by the immensity of what must be done, and also prevents the procrastination that comes with large blocks of time. Also, a new thing I've done is that every Saturday I spend 2-3 hours cooking and cleaning for the entire week. It is SOOOOO great to not have to worry about cooking or doing laundry at all during the week. Personally I don't do homework on Sundays and I feel like that helps me.

Most important skill ever: Is this an exaggeration? Only maybe. This is for me the hardest skill to master, but it is by far the most effective. Learn to say no. It's that simple. I really like to be busy and to do things, and have a terrible habit of overcommitting myself. The thing that has been hard for me to realize is that I don't have to do everything. Furthermore, by half-doing everything frantically, you are robbing yourself of enjoying the things most important to you. Think about your priorities. Maybe you don't need to do 3 extracurricular to build your resume. Stick with just 1. Maybe you don't have time to hang with your roommates, or go see a movie. Maybe you don't really need to work part time. You could work full time in the summer or get a loan and focus on your studies. Maybe you don't need to take 16 credits; you could drop a class. There is no shame in taking 5-6 years to graduate. The list goes on. The point is that if you feel overwhelmed, you are quite possibly doing too much and quite probably would be better off doing less. Saying no is so worth it. I have had to say no to some things I wanted to do this semster. It was hard but it is so worth it now. Saying no takes practice and constant effort, but it will set you free. Trust me.

Good luck organizing!

Peace,

Tipperary

A:

Dear Overwhelmed,

When it comes to schoolwork, my best advice is to plan ahead. And I don't mean daily or weekly, because then it's easy for deadlines to sneak up on you or for work to pile up if unexpected activities take up your time. At the beginning of every semester, I would buy a BYU planner, log into Learning Suite, and plan a time for every single assignment. Every paper, quiz, assignment, and test went into the planner, and I scheduled everything. That way, I could space out all my homework so I only had a few things to do every day, even if they were time-consuming things.

Of course, that planning wasn't always perfect, and I didn't always accomplish everything I meant to on specific days. But planning out a whole semester helped to ensure that no specific day or week was horribly overwhelming. I could plan to get my homework done early and leave blocks of time for studying if I had tests coming up. I could schedule a time to visit the testing center. I could give myself a whole day off once in a while, and that was a wonderful treat.

This system does require knowing your homework and study habits pretty well. For instance, when writing papers, my goal was to set aside enough time to write one page a day. I've never been the type of person to sit down a night before the due date and crank something out, so if I had a 10 page paper due, then I would plan out 10 days where I could write one page each, plus a week or two for reading and research. However, I knew there would be at least a couple days where I would not have the motivation to write a full page, so I would tack on a few extra days before the due date to make sure I had enough time to do my best.

My second piece of advice is to plan a school schedule that works best for you. For instance, I learned that I had much more motivation to do my homework when I took morning classes and worked in the afternoon. That way I had a nice break from using my brain and could actually get schoolwork done when I got home. In the semesters that I took afternoon classes instead, I learned to schedule time in between classes to do homework, because I was much more productive when I was on campus than when I went home.

I second Tipperary's advice. If you're overwhelmed, let something go. My last semester I was taking a full class load, working 30-35 hours a week, applying to jobs, trying to be more social, and packing up my apartment. It got to be too much, and as hard as it was for me, I felt much better after I quit my second job. So try not to overwhelm yourself any more than necessary.

Love,

Luciana


0 Corrections
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Question #90414 posted on 10/15/2017 10:32 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If I die fat, will I be fat in the resurrection?

-Twinkies

A:

Dear Twinkie,

I don't actually think it matters what you're like when you die. If I die old, will I be old in the resurrection? If I die with limbs amputated, will I not get them back in the resurrection? Will I still have all the scars that I have and will get? I think the answer to all these questions is no, because it negates the whole idea of a perfect resurrection. Some people also have this idea that somehow all the exact atoms and molecules that made up our mortal body will be part of our resurrected body. I think that's silly, because if you think that the atoms in your body have never been in another human's body, you're kidding yourself. But then there are other questions about the resurrection that come up. Do I need to have existed for at least a moment during my mortal life in a perfect state in order to receive a perfect body in the resurrection? I think we can be certain that the answer is no, because most  if not all  humans are born with imperfections or receive them very early in life.

Here's what I think (and will continue to think unless one of the answers below convinces me otherwise). When we are resurrected, we will become the ideal version of ourselves. I don't know what ideal means; it may depend on what each person considers to be ideal, or there might be a universal ideal, I don't know and I'm not gonna worry too much about it. But I don't think it will take any time to get to that ideal, because the power of Christ' atonement is infinite, and the resurrection is the one part of that that is promised to everyone unconditionally. Amulek's statements about the resurrection in Alma 11 are muddled slightly by saying "even as we are now at this time," but that doesn't change the fact that "the spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form" and "there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame." Amulek also very clearly states that both the wicked and the righteous will receive this perfect restoration, and nowhere in the scriptures that I'm aware of is it said that we will receive a perfect body as long as we keep working for it after we're resurrected. That's just a bit silly to me.

-The Entomophagist

A:

Dear Meaningless Calories,

When I first read your question, my initial thought process went along the lines of, "Well, perfection is attained at some point after we're resurrected, but I don't think it's instantaneous; effort on our part will still be required before perfection in all areas is achieved." There was a scripture to back this all up--it was great. However, after I went to the trouble of painstakingly typing this answer out on my phone (because for certain unfortunate reasons I was stranded on a stationary train for an hour, and what else is there to do?), I realized that where I was going next would completely negate the point of my answer insofar as it adequately responded to your query. So, here's my revised avenue of response:

Before I get into what I'm about to type, I want to preface with the remark that this is speculation. There is no hard doctrine building a foundation for these points, but there's also no doctrine contradicting them. Personally, I think the framework I'm about to explain is highly plausible and makes sense.

So a few days ago, (I promise this is relevant) I was doing homework in my study group, and the conversation naturally turned to hyper-dimensional angels. One person mentioned some article that had been referenced in his physics class that talked about the plausibility of God and beings in the after life belonging to a higher dimension than the standard three we have in mortality. At this, another person got really excited, saying they'd thought about this idea a lot, and had come up with the same theory. I was hooked by the concept.

Fast forward to this past Saturday, and me being stuck on the train. I found what I presume was the article the guy in my study group was talking about (for some reason there aren't many scholarly articles that I had to sort through on the subject of how LDS theology supports the theory of hyper-dimensional spaces). It was a fascinating read, and what I'm going to do next is essentially a summary of the article's main points (though I highly recommend reading through the entire article by clicking on that handy-dandy link above).

Major premise: higher dimensions exist, and God, His angels, and resurrected people belong to those higher dimensions.

First, to understand something of what this means, the article talks about dimensions. The first dimension is a single point (note that we start counting dimensions with 0, so this is the 0 dimension). Moving in a direction not contained within the dimension of a point yields a line, which is 1-dimensional. Moving again in a direction not contained in a line results in a square, or two dimensions. This process of moving in directions not contained within your current dimension to obtain a new dimension can be repeated ad infinitum (in theory).

Some interesting consequences follow as a result of being in a higher dimension and looking down into a lower one. For one, it is possible to observe everything everywhere. Consider what it would be like to gaze down upon a 2-D world. You could easily see through lines that would seem impassable barriers to the inhabitants of this flat world. If you were in the fourth dimension looking down at a 3-D world, you could see and travel to anywhere. The inside of the Earth would be visible, for example. It would be possible to effortlessly enter into a locked room, much like the Angel Moroni did with Joseph.

Another super cool result to ponder is that in 3 dimensional space, it's possible to fit an infinite number of 2 dimensional spaces all in the same spot without any of those spaces "touching". In other words, each 2 dimensional space has no way of interacting, or even sensing the infinitude of other 2 dimensional spaces around it. Now apply this analogue to the 3rd dimension—there could be worlds without number, so to speak, all in the same location. 

Now, I suppose I didn't have to go into as much detail as I just did, but isn't one of the reasons you read the Board to add to your repository of random and interesting information? 

Anyways, the big point of this is that there's a good chance that when we're resurrected, we'll be resurrected in 4-D bodies. What does it mean to be fat in 4 dimensions, you now ask? I have no idea, but have fun speculating (or, you know, actually researching higher dimensional physics to get a better answer, but who has time for that?) as to the possibilities!

~Anathema

A:

Dear Twinkies,

I think we're resurrected as we were when we died. It might take a little while to reach your ideal. Whether that's a few seconds, a few days, or a few years, I cannot say.

-Kirito


0 Corrections
Question #90499 posted on 10/15/2017 9:26 p.m.
Q:

In order to take care of a mouse problem, you need to seal off the way that they get in and then trap the ones that are already in. Normally, you need to check the traps every night but that isn't possible if you are trying to trap them in a cabin, boat, or RV that is far away (and possibly snowed in).

There exist "multi-mouse" traps that drop mice into a compartment (see: www.amazon.com/dp/B001JJCW0M and www.amazon.com/dp/B074TMZ7FB), but it doesn't seem that are any products on the market that will trap mice without having to clean the trap regularly (for sanitation).

My question is if you dropped the mouse in a desiccant (like silica gel) or vegetable oil (assuming that they would sink because of the density), would they be preserved over the winter so that the owner can clean out the trap in the spring?

Sincerely,
Rodent Ruffled

A:

Dear Ruffles,

I'm no mouse trap expert, but I don't think either of those things would work. Silica gel would not be able to desiccate the inside of the mouse anywhere near fast enough to prevent decomposition, and I think the oil would just make it more of a mess to clean up. If you can't get the mice taken care of before your place gets snowed in, you should probably wait until it gets warmer again and take care of it then.

-The Entomphagist


0 Corrections
Question #90501 posted on 10/15/2017 7:02 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm 31 and while I'm willing to go to a family ward, I don't want to go to "my" family ward. I live with my parents (I need their mental health support) and many people there were unkind to me in my youth. Is there any way I can go about getting legit membership in a family ward when I don't actually live within the boundaries?

Extra info: I do like my mid-singles ward, but I'm curious about my options.

-Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

A:

Dear MYOB,

In order to legitimately be part of a ward without living inside its boundaries, both the stake president of where you live and the stake president where you want to attend need to agree that it's a good idea. You should probably keep going to your mid-singles ward if you like it, but if you feel like you need to attend a family ward somewhere else, the best first step would probably be to talk to your stake president about the situation.

-The Entomophagist


0 Corrections
Question #90506 posted on 10/15/2017 1:54 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

How close do you think Sarah Huckabee Sanders suggesting during a press conference in her position as White House press secretary that Jemele Hill's activity on Twitter is "a fireable offense by ESPN" gets to infringing on her (Hill's) first amendment rights, given that she (Sanders) wasn't as a government official abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press but in her government position publicly suggested that ESPN do it? (ref)

-reader

A:

Dear reader,

As I'm sure many of you will grow tired of hearing, we're not lawyers, but I guess that won't stop us from opining.

As far as I can tell, there was no law enacted, nor any legal action taken against Jemele Hill, so the first amendment doesn't really apply. The article you referenced makes the argument that the White House holds so much power over private businesses that such comments are tantamount to threats of legal action against ESPN. However, the article was vague about exactly what power the White House has over ESPN, and ESPN didn't actually fire her, so I don't see that as a very strong argument.

I do think that it was reckless of Sanders to make those comments, and the Trump administration has a lot to learn when it comes to class, but there's way too much wrong there for me to get into.

-The Entomophagist


0 Corrections