Some dream big things, other wake up and do them. ~Old saying
Question #76451 posted on 02/24/2014 3:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So I was just looking at the Winter Olympic Medal table and noticed that all of the countries that all of the best five countries use exclusively the colors red, white, and blue.
(Norway, Netherlands, USA, Canada, and Russia.)

It's clearly a cause of correlation not causation, but I was hoping that you could help me understand what might cause it...

Also, while you have your books open:
What percentage of flags are exclusively red, white, and blue?

Thanks!
-Olympic Fan

A:

Dear you,

Now that the Olympics are over, I present you with this completed spreadsheet. I found that, worldwide, approximately 23% of flags utilize exclusively red, white, and/or blue. I included "baby blue" and "crimson" color variants in this count. Interestingly, 35% of the nations competing at the Sochi Winter Games were what I'll refer to from hereon as RWB exclusive. I discussed this with others and thought about it and looked online and therefore propose the following reasons for the higher rate of competition by RWB exclusive nations:

  1. RWB exclusivity is more common among European nations, which tend to be richer and better-developed than many other regions. Many are also located in regions conducive to winter sports. Possible reasons for RWB-exclusivity in Europe include: 
    1. Trends toward tricolor flags, including possible influence from the flag of the Netherlands, the first tricolor
    2. The status of RWB as the Pan-Slavic colors.
    3. The influence on other flags of the Union Jack (used by Great Britain, clearly an influence on Australia and New Zealand, gives the United States a RWB heritage.)
  2. RWB exclusivity is less common among nations that would be less-expected to compete and win in winter Olympics, such as nations from Arabic, African, or South-American regions. Reasons for this:
    1. Pan-African use of green, yellow, black, and red, having been inspired by the flag of Ethiopia. Also has used by some South American nations.
    2. Pan-Arabian use of red, green, black, and white, based in Arabic history.
As we can see from the spreadsheet above, even non-RWB countries that do compete don't do as well (as a whole) as RWB exclusive countries. The average number of medals earned by an RWB-exclusive nation is 6.5, while the average non-RWB competitor earned only 1.2. These numbers are obviously skewed by the large number of medals won by countries like the United States and Russia.
 
So, there you have it. Clearly, this is a case of causation and the use of red, white and blue inspire winter athletes to greater feats of athleticism, which may explain this:
 
canadahockeymen.jpeg 
hockeywomenbetter.jpg

~Anne, Canadianly (who gives credit where it's due: Congrats to the US on taking second place in the total medal count (above Canada.))
 
Question #76369 posted on 03/03/2014 4:44 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

In lieu of the Olympic Games this year, what country has the highest average medal count per capita?

-not an Olympian

A:

Dear you,

First off, I had a few writers request that I let you know you've technically misused the phrase "in lieu of." Just so you know for future reference, "in lieu of" is used to mean "instead of." You probably meant "in light of."

So, in light of the occurrence of the XXII Olympic Winter Games, held in Sochi, Russia, I present to you Anne, Certainly's Winter Olympics Analysis.

I answered this for the last Olympics, so I re-used my methods. The spreadsheet for the Sochi Games is available here.

I analyzed the "winner" in a few different ways, and for each type of analysis, I offer two alternate versions of "winner." The first assumes that all medals are equal - getting a gold medal isn't any better than getting a bronze medal; we just want to know who has the most medals overall. The second method uses "medal points," which assigns nations 5 points for a gold medal, 3 for a silver, and 1 for a bronze (thereby assuming that gold medals are worth more than silver, and silver medals are worth more than bronze).

Per Capita:

First of all, which country has the highest medal count per capita? That is, accounting proportionally for population, which country won the "most" medals?

Here are the top five (in order):

percapita.png

*The United States comes in 20/26 for medals/capita and for medal points/capita. 

This method of analysis gives a clear advantage to smaller countries. It is not possible for countries like the United States or China, which have much larger populations than these, to win in this analysis because there simply aren't enough medals. For example, the population of Canada is roughly 1/10 of the population of the United States. In order to beat Canada by this metric, the United States would have had to win 250 medals or accumulate 550 medal points. This would be nearly impossible, as the Sochi Olympics only awarded 298 medals (worth 596 medal points).

Per Athlete:

Next, which country has the most effective athletes? That is, of the athletes they send, how many medals do they tend to win?

 athletescorrected.png

*The United States comes in 11/26 for medals/athlete and 13/26 for medal points/athlete.

This method of analysis probably gives an advantage to countries that send small teams with a few very good athletes or to countries that specialize in a few events and don't send athletes to other events. The United States, for example, is unlikely to break the rankings of this because they send a very large number of athletes to the Olympics (230, most of any country. Russia comes in second with 226, followed by Canada with 222). To match the number of medals/capita won by athletes from the Netherlands (24 medals for 41 athletes) the United States would have had to win about 135 medals. While theoretically possible, accumulating that many medal-quality athletes is going to be very difficult for any one country.

Per Dollar:

Finally, which country does the best at winning medals when we compare the amount of money the country has? The Olympics (and the Winter Olympics in particular) can be somewhat justly criticized as giving a large advantage to rich nations. Nations like the United States have significantly higher GDP/capita, which gives them a few advantages in preparing Olympians:

  • Development of infrastructure - If a child growing up in the United States (say, in Utah) decides that he or she wants to learn how to ice skate, it is much more likely that they will live within reasonable distance of an ice arena than it is that a child who wants to skate but lives in Nigeria. This means that even if there are individual citizens with inclination and funding to learn winter sports, many countries have a distinct disadvantage because there is insufficient general investment to encourage the development of such facilities. (This of course ignores the element of cultural heritage, which suggests that people in Utah would be more likely to prioritize investments on ice arenas than people in Nigeria, even if both had equal amounts of money to invest on such things.)
  • Sponsorship - Olympic sports are expensive. They require expensive equipment (like $20,000-$100,000 bobsleds) and expensive coaching. Furthermore, once athletes are trained, they must be sent to the Olympics themselves (outfitted, transported, etc.) National Olympic Committees like the USOC receive funding from individuals and businesses to sponsor the nation's athletes. The United States requires the USOC to be almost entirely privately funded, in contrast to many other nations, where the government may provide funding. The affluence of the United States means that companies eager to be "Official Sponsors of Team USA" because of positive publicity and individuals with discretionary money can provide a large financial base for sending large teams of athletes and generally supporting the Olympics.
  • Large pools of potential athletes - Again, sports are expensive. Training to be an Olympic-level athlete requires years of dedication (and usually professional coaching.) Relatively wealthy countries contain relatively large numbers of people who at least start to train in these capital-intensive sports. This gives the nation a much larger pool from which to choose its eventual elite. 
That being said, which nation seems to make the most of their money? What is the nation with the most medals for every dollar GDP?
 
per dollar.png
 
 *The United States comes in 25/26 for medals per $GDP and 23/26 for medal points per $GDP
 
I also have a beautiful graph for this one (and thanks to Kirke for Excel expertise):
Graph for Sochi.png
The graph evidences a trend (though not a huge one) towards more medals by countries with larger GDP per capita. It is important to note, however, that GDP/dollar may not be proportional with national spending on the Olympics. Some countries with relatively low GDP/capita (like China or the former Soviet Union) may place a high priority on winning international sporting events and therefore spend significant government funds in training athletes.
 
So who won?

As we did in 2012, we have a fairly clear winner: Only one country is in the top five for effectiveness by athlete, by dollar, and compared to total country population. Although the winner by straight medal count with no adjustments or considerations was Russia (followed by Norway, the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands,) this data allows us to get a better idea of how the nations are really comparing.

Congratulations, therefore, to:

Norway: All-around Winners of the XXII Olympic Winter Games

norwayflag.png

With an honorable mention to our clear runner up: Slovenia

sloveniasmall.png

Must be something about the red, white, and blue...1

And there you have it.

~Anne, Certainly

I recognize that there are technically three tiny yellow stars on Slovenia's flag. I think I didn't notice that during the RWB question, and I'm going to ignore it. Hooray for tiny footnotes.

Question #76347 posted on 02/09/2014 11:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear friends,

Which of the IMDB Top 250 List are currently available to stream on Netflix? How many have you seen? Are there any films there that I ought to see or that you find to be particularly wonderful?

-one of me asking for help/advice from many of you

A:

Dear one of many,

The problem is that this list is constantly changing. Even in the few days since I started working on it, some movies have shifted position, fallen off the list, or been added. So, even now, the list I'm giving you is already outdated. It's still pretty close to the current list, though, and it's the best you're going to get. 

The 44 titles that are available to stream have been bolded. The bulk of the list--171 titles--can only be found on Netflix DVD. The remaining 35 of them are not available on Netflix, at least right now. Like the IMDB list, Netflix's selections are always in flux. 

1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994) DVD only

2. The Godfather (1972) DVD only

3. The Godfather: Part II (1974)

4. The Dark Knight (2008) DVD only

5. Pulp Fiction (1994) Available to stream

6. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) Available to stream 

7. Schindler’s List (1993)

8. 12 Angry Men (1957) DVD only

9. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) DVD only

10. Fight Club (1999) DVD only

11. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) DVD only

12. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) DVD only

13. Inception (2010) DVD only

14. Forrest Gump (1994)DVD only

15. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) DVD only

16. Goodfellas (1990)

17. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) DVD only

18. Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) DVD only

19. The Matrix (1999)DVD only

20. Seven Samurai (1954) DVD only

21. City of God (2002) DVD only

22. Se7en (1995)

23. The Usual Suspects (1995) Available to stream

24. Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) Available to stream

25. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)DVD only

26. It's a Wonderful Life (1946) DVD only

27. Léon: The Professional (1994)

28. Casablanca (1942) DVD only

29. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

30. Life Is Beautiful (1997) Available to stream 

31. Rear Window (1954) DVD only

32. American History X (1998) DVD only

33. Psycho (1960) DVD only

34. City Lights (1931)DVD only

35. Saving Private Ryan (1998) DVD only

36. Spirited Away (2001) DVD only

37. Memento (2000) Available to stream 

38. The Intouchables (2011) Available to stream

39. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) Available to stream

40. Sunset Blvd. (1950) Available to stream

41. Modern Times (1936) DVD only

42. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

43. Apocalypse Now (1979)

44. The Pianist (2002) Available to stream 

45. The Departed (2006) DVD only

46. The Green Mile (1999) DVD only

47. The Dark Knight Rises (2012) DVD only

48. Gladiator (2000) DVD only

49. Back to the Future (1985) DVD only

50. Alien (1979)

51. Django Unchained (2012) DVD only

52. The Lives of Others (2006) DVD only 

53. The Prestige (2006) DVD only

54. The Great Dictator (1940) DVD only

55. The Shining (1980) DVD only

56. Cinema Paradiso (1988)Available to stream

57. Paths of Glory (1957) DVD only

58. American Beauty (1999) DVD only

59. North by Northwest (1959) DVD only

60. WALL·E (2008) DVD only

61. Amélie (2001) Available to stream

62. The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

63. The Lion King (1994)

64. Citizen Kane (1941) DVD only

65. Aliens (1986) 

66. Toy Story 3 (2010) DVD only

67. Vertigo (1958) DVD only

68. M (1931) DVD only

69. Das Boot (1981)

70. Taxi Driver (1976)DVD only

71. A Clockwork Orange (1971) DVD only

72. Double Indemnity (1944) Available to stream

73. Oldboy (2003)  Available to stream

74. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) 

75. Reservoir Dogs (1992) Available to stream

76. Requiem for a Dream (2000) DVD only

77. Princess Mononoke (1997) DVD only

78. Once Upon a Time in America (1984) DVD only

79. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) DVD only

80. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

81. Braveheart (1995) DVD only

82. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) DVD only

83. Grave of the Fireflies (1988) DVD only

84. Singin' in the Rain (1952) DVD only

85. Witness for the Prosecution (1957) Available to stream

86. Full Metal Jacket (1987) DVD only

87. Bicycle Thieves (1948) Available to stream

88. The Sting (1973) DVD only

89. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)DVD only

90. All About Eve (1950) Available to stream

91. Amadeus (1984) DVD only

92. 12 Years a Slave (2013)

93. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) DVD only

94. Rashomon (1950)DVD only

95. Snatch. (2000) DVD only

96. L.A. Confidential (1997) DVD only

97. The Apartment (1960) Available to stream

98. Some Like It Hot (1959) Available to stream 

99. The Third Man (1949) DVD only

100. For a Few Dollars More (1965) DVD only

101. A Separation (2011) DVD only

102. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) DVD only

103. Inglourious Basterds (2009) DVD only

104. Yojimbo (1961) DVD only

105. Batman Begins (2005) DVD only

106. The Kid (1921)

107. Raging Bull (1980) Available to stream

108. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)DVD only

109. Unforgiven (1992) DVD only

110. Metropolis (1927)

111. Chinatown (1974) DVD only

112. Toy Story (1995)DVD only

113. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) DVD only

114. Die Hard (1988) DVD only

115. Downfall (2004) Available to stream

116. Up (2009) DVD only

117. Scarface (1983)

118. The Great Escape (1963) DVD only

119. Pan's Labyrinth (2006) DVD only

120. On the Waterfront (1954) DVD only

121. Her (2013) 

122. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) DVD only

123. Heat (1995) DVD only

124. Like Stars on Earth (2007) DVD only

125. The Seventh Seal (1957) DVD only

126. Wild Strawberries (1957) DVD only

127. The Hunt (2012) Available to stream

128. 3 Idiots (2009) DVD only

129. The General (1926) Available to stream

130. The Elephant Man (1980) DVD only

131. Ran (1985) DVD only

132. Gravity (2013) DVD only

133. Rush (2013)

134. The Gold Rush (1925) DVD only

135. Ikiru (1952) DVD only

136. Blade Runner (1982)

137. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) Available to stream

138. My Neighbor Totoro (1988) DVD only

139. Gran Torino (2008) DVD only

140. Rebecca (1940) DVD only

141. Rang De Basanti (2006) Available to stream

142. Good Will Hunting (1997) DVD only

143. The Big Lebowski (1998) DVD only

144. It Happened One Night (1934) DVD only

145. The Secret in Their Eyes (2009) DVD only

146. Warrior (2011)

147. Casino (1995) DVD only

148. Cool Hand Luke (1967) DVD only

149. The Maltese Falcon (1941) DVD only

150. The Deer Hunter (1978)DVD only

151. V for Vendetta (2005) DVD only

152. Fargo (1996) Available to stream

153. Gone with the Wind (1939) DVD only

154. Trainspotting (1996) Available to stream

155. Into the Wild (2007) Available to stream

156. Howl's Moving Castle (2004) DVD only

157. Hotel Rwanda (2004) Available to stream

158. How to Train Your Dragon (2010) DVD only

159. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) Available to stream

160. The Sixth Sense (1999) DVD only

161. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)DVD only

162. Annie Hall (1977) DVD only

163. The Thing (1982) DVD only

164. Platoon (1986) DVD only

165. Sin City (2005) DVD only

166. Touch of Evil (1958) DVD only

167. Dial M for Murder (1954) DVD only

168. Diabolique (1955) DVD only

169. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) DVD only

170. No Country for Old Men (2007) DVD only

171. A Beautiful Mind (2001) DVD only

172. Mary and Max (2009) Available to stream

173. Life of Brian (1979)

174. Network (1976) DVD only

175. Finding Nemo (2003) DVD only

176. The Avengers (2012) Available to stream

177. The Princess Bride (1987) DVD only

178. Amores Perros (2000) DVD only

179. The Wizard of Oz (1939) DVD only

180. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) DVD only

181. Stand by Me (1986) DVD only

182. The Grapes of Wrath (1940) Available to stream

183. The 400 Blows (1959) DVD only

184. Ben-Hur (1959) DVD only

185. Million Dollar Baby (2004) DVD only

186. There Will Be Blood (2007) Available to stream

187. Hachi: A Dog's Tale (2009) Available to stream

188. (1963) DVD only

189. Incendies (2010)

190. Strangers on a Train (1951) DVD only

191. Donnie Darko (2001) Available to stream

192. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) DVD only

193. High Noon (1952) DVD only

194. Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (2001) DVD only

195. Gandhi (1982) DVD only

196. Notorious (1946) DVD only

197. Persona (1966) 

198. In the Name of the Father (1993) DVD only

199. The King's Speech (2010) Available to stream

200. Infernal Affairs (2002) DVD only

201. Jaws (1975) DVD only

202. Fanny and Alexander (1982) DVD only

203. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) DVD only

204. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (1984) DVD only

205. Twelve Monkeys (1995)

206. La Strada (1954) 

207. The Night of the Hunter (1955)DVD only

208. Ip Man (2008) Available to stream

209. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) DVD only

210. The Big Sleep (1946) DVD only

211. The Terminator (1984) DVD only

212. Stalker (1979)

213. Dog Day Afternoon (1975) DVD only

214. Groundhog Day (1993) DVD only

215. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011) DVD only

216. Rocky (1976) DVD only

217. La Haine (1995)DVD only

218. A Christmas Story (1983) DVD only

219. Barry Lyndon (1975) DVD only

220. The Graduate (1967) DVD only

221. Before Sunrise (1995) DVD only

222. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) Available to stream

223. The Hustler (1961) DVD only

224. Underground (1995) DVD only

225. The Celebration (1998)

226. Stalag 17 (1953) DVD only

227. Roman Holiday (1953) DVD only

228. Shutter Island (2010) DVD only

229. Castle in the Sky (1986) DVD only

230. In the Mood for Love (2000) DVD only

231. Memories of Murder (2003) DVD only

232. Monsters, Inc. (2001) DVD only

233. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) DVD only

234. A Fistful of Dollars (1964) Available to stream

235. The Help (2011) DVD only

236. Elite Squad: The Enemy Within (2010) Available to stream

237. Black Swan (2010) DVD only

238. The Killing (1956) 

239. Three Colors: Red (1994)

240. La Dolce Vita (1960) DVD only

241. Rope (1948) DVD only

242. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) DVD only

243. Prisoners (2013)

244. The Truman Show (1998) Available to stream

245. Beauty and the Beast (1991)

246. Star Trek (2009)

247. The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) DVD only

248. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003) DVD only

249. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Available to stream

250. Before Sunset (2004) DVD only 

Happy watching! The list has inspired me to watch more movies. I'm especially excited to discover that Some Like it Hot is available for streaming--that movie is hilarious! 

-Divya

Question #76246 posted on 02/04/2014 12:56 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I use a custom wax sealing kit to seal letters and notes, and to get the wax, I have to light a wax stick, which gives out smoke, particularly when I blow it out and the wick still has an ember at the top. Because of this, I worry about setting off smoke alarms.

So my question is this- how much smoke does it take to set off the smoke alarm in the average office, building, or church, and how likely is it that I'd set it off by using a small candle for the amount of time it takes to create a seal (maybe, 30 seconds?)

-Trying at class

A:

Dear Trying,

Fun fact: when you google "How Sensitive are Smoke Detectors?" most of the results you get are people asking about smoking cigarettes (and other, more dubious materials) in dorm rooms and hotels.

To answer this question, it's helpful to understand a little bit about how smoke alarms work. Most smoke alarms work by one of two detection methods (or a combination): optical or ionization. Optical detection is triggered when smoke particles obscure a sensor or interrupt a laser beam. Ionization detection happens when smoke particles cause a drop in electric current generated by the alarm.

Overall sensitivity varies by method of detection, and sensitivity within one category of detection varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Generally, optical detectors are more sensitive to large particles, while ionization detectors are more sensitive to small particles. From what I've read, it seems that optical detectors are recommended by most professionals, as large smoke particles are usually created in the beginning, smoldering stage of the fire, before there are flames. This means that optical detectors can warn people about a fire in its early stages, giving them the best chance to put it out or escape. In addition, ionization detectors can be ineffective in areas with adequate air flow.

I found an interesting article on smoke detector technology that has some nice sensitivity graphs, like this one:

 figure1.png

Here, lines A and B represent two different kinds of optical detectors, while line C represents an ionization detector.

This table, from the Wikipedia article on smoke detectors, gives an idea of how much smoke can obscure a detector before the alarm will sound:

Typical smoke detector obscuration ratings

Type of Detector

Obscuration Level
Ionization 2.6–5.0% obs/m (0.8–1.5% obs/ft)
Photoelectric (Optical) 6.5–13.0% obs/m (2–4% obs/ft)
Beam (Optical) 3% obs/m (0.9% obs/ft)
Laser (Optical) 0.06–6.41% obs/m (0.02–2.0% obs/ft)

Because optical detectors are less sensitive to small particles, they are less prone to go off in the event of smoke due to cooking mishaps or candle flames. I'm going to guess that the smoke alarm in the room(s) where you're sealing letters with wax is an optical detector. The smoke particles from the wax are probably small, so the optical detector is not very sensitive to them. In addition, because you're generating such a small amount of smoke, it doesn't have to time to accumulate and cause the alarm to go off. These are the same reasons that people can get away with smoking in hotel rooms without triggering the fire alarm. I'd say the chances of you setting off the smoke alarm due to sealing letters with wax is quite small.

--Maven

Question #76202 posted on 02/06/2014 7:08 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

There is a bath containing 20 gallons of water at 100 degrees Fahrenheit. 3 tablespoons of water is brought to absolute zero and the ice cube is dropped into the bath tub. The bath tub is in a bathroom at room temperature. How cold does the ice cube make the bath tub?

Bonus: Same question but with an average sized swimming pool

- Eric

A:

Dear Eric,

When I picked up this question I was naively expecting to do two simple Chemistry 105-style calculations. But in doing a little bit of research, I discovered that multiple phases of ice exist which are dependent on temperature and pressure that all have different properties. For precision's sake, I decided to investigate the properties of an absolute zero ice cube.

Different properties of ice

According to this phase diagram of water, assuming that we are operating within regular atmospheric pressures, ice XI is the phase our two ice cubes are in. (This diagram is actually really cool. From looking at it I discovered that if you subject water molecules to enough pressure, you can have ice at a temperature higher than the boiling point! Weird, eh?)

ice.png

Anyways. My best guess is that our absolute zero ice cubes classify as low density amorphous ice, and that therefore the density is about 0.94 g/cm^3. To contrast, the density of regular ice is 0.917 g/cm^3. The reason why they are different is because the water molecules are arranged in a different way with ice at a colder temperature having a more compact structure.

Another thing that we will have to factor into this messy problem is the fact that as the temperature of the ice increases, it takes comparatively more energy to continue warming it up. For example, at -200°C (-330°F) it takes 12.2 joules to heat 18 grams of water by 1°C, and at -11°C (12°F) it takes 37 joules to heat 18 grams of water by 1°C.

Calculations

Now, assuming that it is actually possible to have an ice cube at absolute zero and the systems are closed (meaning that we are only taking into account the ice cubes and the water), I calculated the final temperature using this spreadsheet:

Screen Shot 2014-02-06 at 12.15.19 AM.png

The bathtub would now be 99.8°F, about 0.2°F colder than before the absolute zero ice cube.

Anticlimatic, I know.

-Sheebs, who feels like life has lost all meaning

Question #76110 posted on 01/26/2014 2:02 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

ifodahsgkadsgkl;sdjfasd

What do I do now??

-at wit's end

A:

Dear AWE,

This is the backspace key:

keyboard_1.jpg

Keep pressing it until all of the undesirable characters are gone.

Also, please stop pounding your face on your keyboard. There are better stress management strategies out there.

-Sheebs

Question #76079 posted on 01/23/2014 10:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If there were reason to have a shoulder-to-shoulder ring of students around campus, 24/7, how long would shifts have to be?

-Mecheng

A:

Dear Mecheng,

It depends. You would need about 5,280 people to make a ring around the "main" part of campus. If you counted campus as all the buildings that belong to BYU, you would need about 10,560 people. Let me show you the calculations:

Here is a picture in Google Earth where I made a path around "main" campus and calculated how long it was (about 2 miles).

 AreaAroundCampus.jpg

Here is another picture where I included all the buildings owned by BYU (notice that I included the MTC because I think it is technically on BYU campus. You could argue that I should have removed it, but really it won't make much of a difference). The path around it is much larger, about 4.4 miles.

AreaAroundCampus2.jpg 

Now, I researched the average shoulder width of a person. There were varying sources, but it seemed that the average non-athletic male had 18-19 inch shoulders, while those who work out could have shoulder widths of around 20 inches or more, and women had 16-17 inch shoulders. I am going to approximate and say that the average BYU student has 18 inch shoulders. I'm also going to add an extra 6 inches per person, since we don't want to be literally smashed into the people next to us. That gives us enough buffer space to move our hands and arms around. So that's a total of 24 inches per person, or two feet. A simple calculation then gives 5,280 people in the ring around main campus and 11,600 people in the ring around all of campus.

As for shifts, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. How long would shifts have to be in order to what? Theoretically, you could get 5,280 students to stand there until the millennium, and no shifts would be needed. At the same time, you could have the same 5,280 students stand there for a week and then call it quits and dissolve the ring, and there still would only have been one shift. There is no reason a shift has to be a specific length. I'm going to make up a question and ask, "If we wanted every student to be there once in a 24 hour period, how long would they have to be there?" BYU hasn't published statistics for how many students are here right now during Winter 2014 semester, but I'm going to estimate 30,000 students based on recent history. With 30,000 students and 5,280 students in the ring, we have about 5.6 shifts that we can use, and in 24 hours that's about 4 hours and 15 minutes per shift.

With these numbers, you should be able to calculate for yourself if you wanted to try different scenarios, give different amounts of buffer space, or redefine "campus" as you want.

-Ozymandias

Question #75935 posted on 01/25/2014 1:08 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

How does cutting and other types of self-injury compare with other addictions? Can cutting become a true physical addiction in the same way as drugs and alcohol? How does it affect brain chemistry?

-Morbidly Curious

A:

Dear Curious,

Those are all great questions. Whether or not non-suicidal self injury (NSSI) can be considered on par with substance addiction has been a subject of debate in the mental health field. 

The abstract of a recent study on this very topic explains: 

...Some argue that NSSI is best viewed within an addictions framework. Because craving of substances is a key concept in the addictions literature, we sought to compare the nature of craving in NSSI and substance use. Measures of NSSI, substance use, and craving were administered to a sample of adolescents (n = 58) receiving psychiatric treatment. It was found that total craving scores were significantly lower for NSSI than for substances. Item-level analyses suggested that substances are craved in a variety of contexts, whereas NSSI is typically craved in the context of negative emotions. The pattern of results remained the same when analyses were limited to patients who engaged in both NSSI and substance use. Thus, findings appear to be due to differences in the nature of the behaviors themselves rather than to individual differences between those who engage in NSSI or use substances. We conclude that, while both behaviors have powerful reinforcement contingencies, NSSI appears to be almost exclusively maintained by negative reinforcement (e.g., the reduction of aversive emotions). Findings are more consistent with emotion regulation than addiction models of NSSI.1

In other words, their study compared NSSI with substance use in terms of craving, which is a significant component of the addiction model. The study found that in terms of craving, NSSI actually looks quite a bit different than substance use. Substance users crave the substances that they are addicted to across a wide variety of contexts--perhaps regardless of context. Those who self-injure, on the other hand, generally craved self-injury in one single context--when the person is experiencing negative emotions. 

That being said, many of the aspects of NSSI do fit into the addiction model. Addiction refers most generally to a loss of control. Loss of control in this context can be understood in a number of ways--first, the person may engage in addictive and/or self-harming behaviors because they are experiencing a loss of control in their lives. They feel that they are unable to influence the outside world, and are instead trapped and pushed around by forces beyond their control. They may also feel that they have lost control of their own minds, or lost their sense of self. Using mind-altering substances or self-harming can be a way of exerting control over some aspect of their life, as well as a way to elicit feelings or pain that will "wake them up" from a feeling of numbness, apathy or lack of control. 

Loss of control can also refer to the fact that engaging in addictive behaviors can cause the person to lose control over that behavior--in other words, they become addicted to that behavior. They crave it so badly that they need that addiction just to be able to cope. 

It is interesting to note that substance addiction and NSSI are often comorbid, meaning that they occur together. Many people who self-injure also engage in substance(s) abuse, and vice versa. This occurs especially frequently when it comes to individuals with borderline personality disorder. According to an addiction treatment specialist with whom I consulted for this question, borderline personality disorder is the number one overall diagnosis in cases of self-harm. Borderline personality disorder is also highly correlated with substance addiction. 

As for how NSSI affects brain chemistry, we actually know quite a bit less about how addiction (and mental illness in general) affects the brain than we think we do. This is not to say that we haven't done a lot of research about it--we have. It's simply a commentary on the complexity of the brain and the inherent correlation/causation problem that exists in that line of research. I did find one study that addressed how NSSI may affect the brain: 

...Participants with NSSI showed decreased activity in correlation to arousal in the occipital cortex and to valence in inferior frontal cortex when watching emotional pictures. The fMRI data support the notion that individuals with NSSI show an altered neural pattern for emotional and NSSI pictures. Behavioural data highlight proneness to excitement regarding NSSI topics. This fMRI study provides evidence for emotion-regulation deficits in the developing brain of adolescents with NSSI.2

Addiction is one of my favorite areas of research and treatment, so thanks for asking about it!

-Divya

1. Victor, S.E., Glenn, C.R., Klonsky, E.D. (2012). Is non-suicidal self-injury an "addiction"? A comparison of craving substance use and non-suicidal self-injury. Psychiatric Research, 197(1-2), 73-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.12.011

2. Plener, P. L., Bubalo, N., Fladung, A. K., Ludolph, A. G., & Lulé, D. (2012). Prone to excitement: Adolescent females with non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) show altered cortical pattern to emotional and NSS-related material. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 203(2-3), 146-152. doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2011.12.012

Question #75766 posted on 01/11/2014 7:24 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If all players on college football teams were suddenly transformed into the animal or human represented by their team mascots (though they all retain their same human intelligence) what would the championship game look like? How would the BYU cougars do? How about the Tulane green wave (whatever that is)? Let's say that killing/maiming the other team isn't a legal option.

- Rating Pending (who is guessing a lot of team's throwing games are going to suffer)

A:

Dear Rating Pending,

Did you know that there are 114 teams in the NCAA Division I, Football Bowl Subdivision Conferences for the 2013 season? I do now!

I found all the teams here and I retrieved information for each school team from their respective Wikipedia pages (I would cite them, but I think I would break the Board!) All teams were magically turned into their schools' official mascot and remained the same size as their species normally would, meaning that larger animals didn't shrink and smaller animals didn't grow. 

Round One

American Athletic Conference:

Temple University Owls vs. University of Connecticut Huskies
Just by looks, it's easy to see who the winner of this match will be. While the Owls are cute, their tiny beak and feet make it impossible for them to move the ball down the field and their lack of arms means that there is no way for them to throw the ball down the field. The Huskies are able to pick up the ball with their teeth and run down the field, easily avoiding their opponents. 
Winner: University of Connecticut Huskies 

University of Memphis Tigers vs. University of Central Florida Knights
Not only do the Tigers look intimidating, but their large mouths and agility allow them to quickly maneuver the ball to the end zone. The Knights are one of the few teams with hands but their bulky armor limits their range of motion and makes it incredibly difficult to run. 
Winner: University of Memphis Tigers 

University of South Florida Bulls vs. University of Houston Cougars
While the Bulls may be bigger, they're not as nimble as the Cougars. Additionally, the Cougars' front paws can act somewhat like an arm, manipulating the ball into an easier position to grab. 
Winner: University of Houston Cougars 

University of Louisville Cardinals vs. University of Cincinnati Bearcats
Both of these teams won't last long in the tournament. The Cardinals are tiny birds who share the same problem as the Owls (tiny beaks and feet, no arms) while the Bearcats are slow moving. The Bearcats win this round just because they're actually able to move the ball down the field. 
Winner: University of Cincinnati Bearcats

Rutgers University Scarlet Knights vs. Southern Methodist University Mustangs 
While they may be known as the Mustangs, Southern Methodist University's official mascot is a shetland pony. That's right, their mascot is the short, baby-sized horse. While they are still a breed of horse, they're no where near as quick as a mustang. However, the Knights would have trouble running in their armor and probably wouldn't be able to throw or catch a ball. Because they're able to actually move around, the Ponies live to see another round. 
Winner: Southern Methodist University Mustangs 

Big 12:

Kansas State University Wildcats vs. Texas Christian University Horned Frogs
Note to self: Don't pick a horned frog as a mascot. Somebody on the Internet may judge you for it one day. 
Winner: no contest, Kansas State Wildcats

West Virginia University Mountaineers vs. Baylor University Bears
Ah, the first game that I actually have to think about. The Mountaineers have a few things going for them. Since they're people, they have arms and can throw. The Bears wouldn't be able to throw like the Mountaineers can, but they can definitely scoop toss the ball to each other. They would be faster in running, but slower at the start since they would be bigger and heavier. While the Bears may seem more intimidating, the fact that the Mountaineers can throw the ball down the field gives them a huge advantage.
Winner: West Virginia Mountaineers

University of Oklahoma Sooners vs. University of Kansas Jayhawks
They may call themselves Sooners but Oklahoma's official mascot is actually a pair of horses. Their ability to gallop around and pick up the ball overcomes their lack of being able to throw the ball. The Jayhawks, which is a bluejay and sparrow hybrid, may be able to outfly them but have no true advantage in a game of football.
Winner: University of Oklahoma Sooners 

Iowa State University Cylones vs. Texas Tech University Red Raiders
I think we can all agree by now that birds do not make good football players. Since the Cyclones' mascot is actually a cardinal, the Raiders' would easily overcome them.
Winner: Texas Tech Raiders

Oklahoma State University Cowboys vs. University of Texas at Austin Longhorns
I had to poll the family for this match up. Cowboy supporters argued that their ability to throw the ball and that they could probably lasso the Longhorns (since it wouldn't be hurting them) would give them a winning advantage. Longhorn supporters countered with the fact that their giant horns could be used to block their opponents and that being lassoed would be some type of technicality. After both cases were presented, the Cowboys won the vote, 3-2.
Winner: Oklahoma State Cowboys 

Sun Belt:

Troy University Trojans vs. University of Louisiana at Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns
The line above should read 'Trained Warriors vs. Cayenne Peppers'.
Winner: Troy University Trojans for obvious reasons

Arkansas State University Red Wolves vs. University of South Alabama Jaguars
These teams have similar qualities, including in their speed. The Jaguars would be stronger and bigger, but the Wolves, being pack animals, would work together better. Since teamwork is important in team sports (and having nothing to do with the fact that dogs are better than cats), Wolves win!
Winner: Arkansas State Red Wolves 

Georgia State University Panthers vs. University of Texas at Arlington Mavericks
Seeing as how the Mavericks' mascot is a horse, I'm thinking they would win this one. They would be faster and have a longer stride. They could also just jump over their opponents or, in my mind, continue running if they were tackled by a Panther. 
Winner: University of Texas at Arlington Mavericks 

University of Louisiana at Monroe Warhawks vs. Texas State University Bobcats
Okay so a Warhawk is totally different than a cardinal or other weakling bird. They actually have talons that they could use to lift things up. I'm torn on this one because I feel like the NCAA Animal Division would implement some type of stipulation for flying because birds of prey would totally wipe out just about any team. But, for now, no such rules exist. 
Winner: University of Louisiana at Monroe Warhawks

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Trojans vs. Western Kentucky University Hilltoppers
Western Kentucky's mascot is a red...thing. It's just a red blob. Unless it has a superpower I'm not aware of, I'm feeling the Trojans on this one.
Winner: University of Arkansas at Little Rock Trojans 

Big 10:

University of Minnesota Golden Gophers vs. Purdue University Boilermakers
Purdue's mascot is a train. Minnesota's is a gopher. It's a round of 'Which one would lose better?' and the answer to that would be the Gophers, because they would actually be able to control the ball. 
Winner: University of Minnesota Golden Gophers 

Indiana University Hoosiers vs. University of Nebraska Cornhuskers
Apparently Indiana University doesn't have a mascot so the Cornhuskers win by default.
Winner: University of Nebraska Cornhuskers

Pennsylvania State University Nittany Lions vs. University of Michigan Wolverines 
Another default win since the University of Michigan doesn't have a mascot either!
Winner: Penn State Nittany Lions

Ohio State University Buckeyes vs. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Fighting Illini 
Okay, what is with the Big 10 teams and not having mascots?! Another default win in favor of the Buckeyes. For those at home wondering what a buckeye is, it's a NUT. That's right, a nut just won a fake football game. 
Winner: Ohio State Buckeyes

University of Iowa Hawkeyes vs. University of Wisconsin Badgers
Another bird of prey wiping the field with their opponent. It's too bad since I was rooting for the Hufflepuff Wisconsin Badgers. 
Winner: University of Iowa Hawkeyes 

Michigan State University Spartans vs. Northwestern University Wildcats
If a team has a throwing ability, they essentially win the round. The Spartans wouldn't be as fast, but they still have a good shot at winning. 
Winner: Michigan State Spartans 

Atlantic Coast Conference:

University of Maryland, College Park Terrapins vs. North Carolina State University Wolfpack  
Since Maryland's mascot is a turtle, it's pretty obvious who would win a game. 
Winner: North Carolina State Wolfpack

University of Virginia Cavaliers vs. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Hokies
Cavaliers remind me of a less equipped version of a musketeer. A Hokie is a bird that, in my opinion, looks similar to a chicken. We all know how birds do in this game. 
Winner: University of Virginia Cavaliers 

Georgia Institute of Technology Yellow Jackets vs. Duke University Blue Devils
On the up side, the Yellow Jackets can fly, which is typically a great sign. On the down side, there is no way for them to carry the ball down the field. The Blue Devils would be able to pass it around. They could possibly also have another evil scheme up their sleeve, but I don't think it would be necessary while battling insects. 
Winner: Duke Blue Devils

University of Pittsburgh Panthers vs. University of Miami Hurricanes
So the Panthers have the same abilities as all the other big cats. The University of Miami's mascot is an ibis. I was having trouble deciding if the Ibises would be able to outfly the Panthers since they're so tiny. I think the Panthers would take this one due to the small size of the Ibises. I also imagine it would be somewhat painful for the Ibises to fly with a football in their beak. 
Winner: University of Pittsburgh Panthers 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Tar Heels vs. Syracuse University Orange
UNC's mascot is a ram while Syracuse's is a fruit. Of all the possible mascots for a team, I wonder why an orange was picked. 
Winner: UNC Tar Heels

Clemson University Tigers vs. Wake Forest University Demon Deacons
This is another one I'm torn between. Yes, the Deacons would be able to throw but the Tigers can jump and they can run pretty fast. I'm thinking that those abilities in addition to it being difficult to effectively tackle a Tiger would lead them to victory.
Winner: Clemson Tigers 

Boston College Eagles vs.Florida State University Seminoles 
The NCAA doesn't like having college mascots that are Native Americans for a variety of reasons but Florida State is one of the exceptions (more about that can be found here). However, FSU tries to be respectful so they don't call their Seminole and his horse companion mascots, but rather 'symbols'. Since they're technically not mascots (and it makes my life a little easier), Boston wins by default. 
Winner: Boston College Eagles 

Conference USA:

Middle Tennessee State University Blue Raiders vs. East Carolina University Pirates
In one corner we have the Blue Raider Horses, which are built like...horses. Strong, fast, and how they will be able to avoid being tackled by jumping will propel them past the Pirates, who probably have bad hand-eye coordination from all those eye patches anyway. 
Winner: Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders

Marshall University Thundering Herd vs. University of Alabama at Birmingham Blazers
Bison vs. DRAGONS. A REAL, FIRE-BREATHING DRAGONS. They win due to their sheer awesomeness.
Winner: University of Alabama at Birmingham Blazers 

University of Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles vs. Rice University Owls
As previously stated, the Owls would struggle due to their small feet while the Eagles would fly in circles around them. 
Winner: University of Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles 

Tulane University Green Wave vs. Florida Atlantic University Burrowing Owl 
Like other universities that go by weird nicknames, Tulane's mascot is actually a pelican. Owls and other birds with tiny feet/claws don't do well in this game. While the Pelican's feet are webbed, they could hold the ball in their giant beak.
Winner: Tulane Green Wave 

University of Texas at El Paso Miners vs. University of Tulsa Golden Hurricanes 
I didn't think anything could have gotten better than a fire-breathing dragon, but a superhero comes pretty close! Conference USA definitely wins the award for the greatest mascots. The Superheroes would dominate a game against the Miners. 
Winner: University of Tulsa Golden Hurricanes 

Louisiana Tech University Bulldogs vs.  University of North Texas Mean Green
The Mean Green Eagles would win this game. The Bulldogs essentially do themselves in since they can't run very fast and easily tire. Also, flying typically means domination. 
Winner:  University of North Texas Mean Green

Florida International University Panthers vs. University of Texas at San Antonio Roadrunners
While they would be super speedy, the Roadrunners would be creamed by the Tigers since I think they would have a difficult time picking up the ball.
Winner: Florida International University Panthers 

SEC:

Texas A&M University Aggies vs. Vanderbilt University Commodores
The Aggies will be represented by the Border Collies. While they're cute and adorable, they don't stand a chance against the Commodores since they can throw the ball down the field. 
Winner: Vanderbilt Commodores 

Auburn University Tigers vs. University of Florida Gators
Two, strong teams battling for victory. Both are equally ferocious but the Tigers are quicker and can make their way down the field easier than their reptile opponents. 
Winner: Auburn Tigers 

University of Tennessee Volunteers vs. Mississippi State University Bulldogs
I've never realized that the Vols mascot is actually a coonhound. Interesting. Anyway, the Bulldogs would have trouble running due to their short, stubby legs so the Coonhounds take this one!
Winner: University of Tennessee Volunteers 

University of South Carolina Gamecocks vs. University of Mississippi Rebels
Almost due to the sheer height difference, the Mississippi Rebel Black Bears would easily win in a game against a brood of roosters. The Gamecocks, being birds, would suffer the same fate as their other chicken-y friends.
Winner: University of Mississippi Rebels 

University of Missouri Tigers vs. University of Alabama Crimson Tide
At first, I decided that the Crimson Tide Elephants would lose against the Tigers. But I started thinking about it and I realized that they might actually have a chance. They could pick the ball up with their trunks and hold it up high and they could throw it to each other. I'm giving it to Alabama. 
Winner: University of Alabama Crimson Tide

Louisiana State University Fighting Tigers vs. University of Arkansas Razorbacks
Okay, so Arkansas is represented by russian boars. In addition to looking absolutely terrifying, these things are as big as a house and are pretty fast. While they can't jump as high as the Tigers, the pure ferociousness of them puts them ahead of the Tigers.
Winner: University of Arkansas Razorbacks

University of Georgia Bulldogs vs. University of Kentucky Wildcats
Seeing the track record of teams consisting of bulldogs and winning streak of big cats, Wildcats take the lead. 
Winner: University of Kentucky Wildcats 

Mid-American Conference:

Western Michigan University Broncos vs. Eastern Michigan University Eagles
East vs. West. Only one shall survive. The Eagles will easily take this one since they can soar up above the Broncos, keeping the ball away. 
Winner: Eastern Michigan University Eagles

Ohio University Bobcats vs. University of Toledo Rockets
I was expecting Toledo to replace the Rockets with some type of animal like the other schools did, but alas, no. Since the Rockets won't be able to control the ball, the Bobcats win. 
Winner: Ohio University Bobcats

Northern Illinois University Huskies vs. Central Michigan University Chippewas
No official mascot for Central Michigan means that the Huskies win.
Winner: Northern Illinois University Huskies

Ball State University Cardinals vs. Miami University RedHawks
Another team of cardinals? No need to explain this one!
Winner: Miami University RedHawks

University at Buffalo Bulls vs. Kent State University Golden Flashes
The Golden Eagles would take football to a new height. While the Bulls would put up a good fight, there is no way they can compete against the flying Golden Eagles.
Winner: Kent State Golden Flashes

Bowling Green State University Falcons vs. University of Akron Zips 
Akron gets points for having a mascot we haven't encountered yet: a kangaroo! The Kangaroos would bounce all around the field, easily swatting away at the Falcons that may fly overhead. They could also store the ball in their pouches, making it an easy and safe way to score touchdowns. 
Winner: University of Akron Zips 

Pac 12:

University of California Berkeley Golden Bears vs. Stanford University Cardinal 
Seeing as how Stanford Tree is both a plant and an unofficial mascot, Bears win!
Winner: UC Berkeley Golden Bears

University of Arizona Wildcats vs. University of Southern California Trojans
Wildcats need to get their heads in the game if they want to have a shot at winning. While they may be called the Trojans, their true mascot is a horse. Similar to the throw down between Georgia State and University of Texas at Arlington, the Horses will overpower the Wildcats and take the lead.
Winner: University of SoCal Trojans

Arizona State University Sun Devils vs. University of California, Los Angeles Bruins
Using the precedent set from West Virginia vs. Baylor, the Sun Devils win.
Winner: Arizona State University Sun Devils

University of Oregon Ducks vs. Washington State University Cougars
This one is self-explanatory, but I think a team of ducks in football uniforms would be one of the cutest things ever. 
Winner: Washington State Cougars

University of Utah Utes vs. University of Colorado Buffalo
Wow, half of the games from this conference are repeated match ups! The Utes mascot is a red tailed hawk, so just like the University of Buffalo vs. Kent State, Utah wins.
Winner: University of Utah Utes 

Oregon State University Beavers vs. University of Washington Huskies
I'm not sure what the Beavers would do on a football field. Their tails can be used to smack the balls around but they're definitely in the Top 5 Worst Football Teams. 
Winner: University of Washington Huskies

Independents:

Army Black Knights vs. Brigham Young University Cougars
Throwback to one of the first games- Memphis Tigers vs. Florida Knights! As stated before, the Knights will be slow moving and their armor will limit their range of motion. The Cougars will have no problem with this game.
Winner: BYU Cougars

Navy Midshipmen vs. University of Idaho Vandals 
I was really hoping that Idaho's mascot would be a potato, but it's actually a Viking. So we have a team of Navy officers against a team of Vikings. Both have similar qualities and close to equal strengths. The Midshipmen have better training and would probably be faster but the Vikings would be stronger. I'm thinking the Midshipmen have this one. 
Winner: Navy Midshipmen 

Notre Dame Fighting Irish vs. New Mexico State University Aggies
This would be an interesting match to see! Seeing as how the football would be bigger than the Leprechauns, they would have a lot of trouble doing anything. On the other hand, the Cowboys would be able to play an actual game of football. 
Winner: New Mexico State University Aggies
 

Round Two

I was going to randomly pair teams up again, but there are quite a few animal repeats and most Conferences had a clear winner. 

American Athletic Conference:
Teams: U of Connecticut Huskies, U of Memphis Tigers, U of Houston Cougars, U of Cincinnati Bearcats, Southern Methodist University Mustangs/ Shetland Ponies
It really comes down to the Tigers or the Cougars. Seeing as how the Tigers would be bigger and stronger, they would pull out ahead of the Cougars. 
Champion: U of Memphis Tigers

Big 12:
Teams: Kansas State Wildcats, West Virginia Mountaineers, U of Oklahoma Sooners/Horses, Texas Tech Raiders, Oklahoma State Cowboys
All of the teams are wiped out by the Oklahoma Sooners. The Wildcats may be able to get close to their speed, the Sooners will be stronger and would have an easier time keeping the ball away from other teams. 
Champion: U of Oklahoma Sooners/Horses 

Sun Belt:
Teams: Troy University Trojans, Arkansas State Red Wolves, U of Texas at Arlington Mavericks/Horses, U of Louisiana at Monroe Warhawks, U of Arkansas at Little Rock Trojans
Again it comes down to two teams: Arlington Mavericks/Horses and the Monroe Warhawks. Both have their own strengths that would wipe out just about any other team, but the Warhawks would easily take the game since they can fly.
Champion: U of Louisiana at Monroe Warhawks 

Big 10:
Teams: U of Minnesota Golden Gophers, U of Nebraska Cornhuskers, Penn State Lions, Ohio State Buckeyes, U of Iowa Hawkeyes, Michigan State Spartans
This was probably the worst Conference mascot-wise since half of the matches were default wins. I think the Hawkeyes would win for the same reason posted above for the Warhawks.
Champion: U of Iowa Hawkeyes 

Atlantic Coast Conference:
Teams: North Carolina State Wolfpack, U of Virginia Cavaliers, Duke Blue Devils, U of Pittsburgh Panthers, UNC Tar Heels/Rams, Clemson Tigers, Boston College Eagles
This one would be quite an intense showdown! Panthers, Wolfpack, and Tigers...oh my! While they each would put up a good fight, the Eagles would easily win.
Champion: Boston College Eagles 

Conference USA:
Teams: Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders/Horses, U of Alabama at Birmingham Blazers/Dragons, U of Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles, Tulane Green Wave/Pelicans, U of Tulsa Golden Hurricanes/Superheroes, U of North Texas Mean Green/Eagles, Florida International University Panthers
This would be one of the most epic showdowns of all time. Just picture all seven teams in this giant dome, duking it out for victory. It would be complete madness! This one comes down to the Dragons or the Superheroes. While the Dragons may be amazing, the Superheroes would probably win. 
Champion: U of Tulsa Golden Hurricanes/Superheroes 

SEC:
Teams: Vanderbilt Commodores, Auburn Tigers, U of Tennessee Vols/Coondogs, U of Mississippi Rebels/Black Bears, U of Missouri Tigers, University of Alabama Crimson Tide/Elephants, U of Arkansas Razorbacks, U of Kentucky Wildcats 
Another tough Conference! I think I would actually watch a football game if they were played by mascots. So much more entertaining. For the champion here, I'm thinking the Elephants would rock it out. They're the biggest competitors and they could plow through anyone in their way.
Champion: Alabama Crimson Tide/Elephants 

Mid-American Conference:
Teams: Eastern Michigan University Eagles, Ohio University Bobcats, Northern Illinois University Huskies, Miami University RedHawks, Kent State Golden Flashes/Eagles, U of Akron Zips/Kangaroos
This was an interesting group since there were three birds of prey. I consulted the Great Wikipedia and discovered that the Eagles would be significantly bigger than the RedHawks so that narrows it down to Eastern Michigan and Kent State. Since they're the same animal, we go to the coin flip. And the win goes to...Eastern Michigan!
Champion: Eastern Michigan Eagles 

Pac-12:
Teams: UC Berkeley Golden Bears, University of SoCal Trojans/Horses, Arizona State University Sun Devils, Washington State Cougars, U of U Utes/Red Tail Hawks, University of Washington Huskies
Until there are rules against flying while playing, Red Tail Hawks dominate the field. 
Champion: U of U Utes/Red Tail Hawks

Independents:
Teams: BYU Cougars, Navy Midshipmen, New Mexico State University Aggies/Cowboys
Both the Midshipmen and the Cowboys would have the upper hand in passing the ball but their speed and agility can't beat that of the Cougs. 
Champion: BYU Cougars

I was going to do a Round Three for the Champion of Champions, but it would be quite dull seeing as how the teams that can fly just wipe out any competitor they encounter. It would be a more interesting match if the rules of the game were changed a little to make it a little more fair, like stipulations on a length of flight or more team members for smaller animal teams. Or a game of Ultimate Frisbee...that would be a sight to see.

-Ms.O'Malley

Question #75651 posted on 12/21/2013 4:18 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If I were to propose to (insert your name here), how would I do it?

-Prince Charming

A:

Dear Prince Charming

Based on what I know about each writer, I've devised different ways you might successfully propose to them. Ask for their hand in marriage at your own risk, however, since I wrote most of this without consulting anyone: 

If you were to propose to Stego Lily, you would do it after a long day of rock climbing (preferably like Half dome or something awesome) and then you would whip out a ukulele, sing a handwritten ballad and then present her with a ring-- but not a diamond ring. Like an emerald or something on a wooden band. Something hippie-ish and unique. 

If you were to propose to Tally M, you would do it after taking her out to eat, and then to the set of a Dr. Who episode, where you would both be extras. As soon as they called cut, you would kneel down and give her a ring and quote some obscure Dr. Who reference. 

If you were to propose to Concealocanth, you would need to be wearing fancy pants, you would need dark hair and dark eyes, and you would need to do it in Russian while quoting Tolstoy after a romantic but classy as heck dinner. It would be snowing lightly and there would be soft instrumental music in the background. Maybe white Christmas lights? 

If you were to propose to MSJ, you would need to be devilishly handsome, as well as a total rogue. You would need to bodily sweep her off her feet, chuck her on a horse and go careening off into the distance together. You wouldn't explicitly ask her to marry you, you would just use your manly ways to sort of assume that she digs the idea (which she does, of course).

If you were to propose to Anne, Certainly, it would need to be as romantic as all get out, without being stuffy. You would go on some sort of scavenger hunt in a foreign city that you happen to know really well, complete with a nice dinner on a rooftop somewhere, preceded by romantic waltzing. There would be lots of kissing and seductive posing involved because Anne would have predicted it and hired a photographer to capture the proposal. 

If you to propose to Squirrel, you would need to trek to the farthest reaches of the Amazon, find a one-of-a-kind flower that spreads world peace or something, carefully preserve it and keep it alive and then present it to her, with a ring in the middle of it or something. The setting would need to look like ivy or flowers and you would need to shower her with various plant seeds. Gently of course- don't just chuck them in her face. 

If you were to propose to Owlet, you would need to commission about a dozen pieces of art of just the two of you from various internet artists around the world. Then you would create a romantic collage of them and pop the question. The two of you would then create a lovely artistic rendering of the proposal and your future life together. 

If you were to propose to yayfulness you would need to be a girl and then you would need to present him with some sort of elaborate geographical map with lots of data. Alternative idea: Bring him a pinata globe and make him break it open to find the ring inside. Con: The ring might go flying and never be found again and then he might not know that it was even supposed to be a proposal. 

If you were to propose to TEN, you would need to do so in a scienc-y setting and drop some seriously witty lines. You would pretend you were doing some science experiment. You would have colored fluid in one beaker with a ring at the bottom that reacts with fluid in another beaker that together causes the fluids to turn clear. You would hand the beaker without the ring to TEN and have her combine them and VOILA RING IN THE BEAKER. Pop the question. 

If you were to propose to Azriel you would need to schedule a hot air balloon ride and err on the side of non sappiness. Be simple and present her with either an opal or emerald ring in yellow gold as you sail above the mountains. You might even give her a kitten. I hear she likes cats. 

If you were to propose to Ace, you would need to get courtside seats at a Laker's playoff game and arrange it so that you get to propose to her during halftime in front of the entire stadium. The ring would be balanced on the rim and you would hand her a basketball signed by all of the players and she would need to sink a shot to knock the ring off of the rim and into your waiting hands. Right on cue, you would drop to a knee and ask her to marry you and the fans would go nuts. You would keep the basketball, of course. 

If you were to propose to Divya, you would need to take her to India to the set of a Bollywood film, where you both would be extras. Afterwards, you'd go out for a lovely dinner and end the evening with some ballroom dancing, at which point you'd kneel down and ask her to marry you in Hindi. She would hopefully say "hāṁ."

If you to propose to Maven, Genuine Article, Laser Jock, Yog in Neverland, or Tootles, you would need to fight off their spouse first and wait a respectable amount of time before attempting to marry them.

And there you have it! Now you know how to propose to almost all the writers on the Board! 

-Concorde

Question #75578 posted on 12/19/2013 9:36 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have a friend who is Catholic and gay. He is extremely faithful in his religion and is comfortable with his homosexuality, and he believes that the two can be balanced. He knows that God loves him, even if he dates other men. He thinks that love is beautiful and marriage is gorgeous and children are wonderful.

So whenever the subject comes up, it's impossible for me to look at him and tell him that his homosexuality, which is a part of him, is considered a trial that he has to overcome. Or that marriage, which he finds so incredibly gorgeous, is something he can't have. Or that children, who he could teach and love so much, can't be his to raise.

I want to say, "It's okay for you to be gay, just follow your heart and be true to yourself,"
I want to say, "I hope you can find someone who loves you and makes you happy,"
I want to say, "You would be such a great father, I hope you can adopt kids,"

But I feel like if I try to respect and support him and his desire to get married and adopt children, I am deviating from the beliefs of the gospel.
But I also feel like if I stay true to my religious beliefs, I sound rude and closed minded and self righteous and even pessimistic.

How do I balance my religion and my desire to be accepting?

I just feel like when I say, "I don't really believe in gay marriage or gay adoption, but you're still a good person and God loves you, even though you struggle with this," it sounds like, "Since you're gay, you can never enjoy the happiness that comes through marriage or child raising. But don't worry; you're a good person, even though a central part of your character and personality is actually a flaw, and you should suppress it and try to be someone you aren't."

Do you have any advice? Resources? Personal experiences? Different perspectives? (I've already looked at mormonsandgays.org...)

-Still not sure what I stand for

A:

Dear Unsure,

First of all, there are many other writers here who are much better at answering questions like this, but I wanted to throw in my two cents. It seemed like there were several implied questions around your fundamental question on balance, so I'm going to try to answer them separately. I guess this answer falls under the category of "different perspectives."

How to Talk to Your Friend

One of the first things you mentioned was feeling conflicted about how to talk to your friend. I don't think if you believe gay marriage is wrong, you are obligated to preach to people who feel differently. If it makes you uncomfortable to point out your beliefs on this topic to him, just don't. There are plenty of actions we as Latter-day Saints believe are wrong that other people chose to do anyway, but that doesn't mean we go around calling everyone at Starbucks to repentance. We can be friends with people who may not entirely share our religious views. Being friends with this person doesn't make you a bad Latter-day Saint, it makes you a good one. 

However, this advice does contain a disclaimer. If your friend is saying or doing something that makes you feel uncomfortable or causes you to move away from the Savior, you should prayerfully consider ending your relationship with him. That doesn't mean you love him any less, but you must recognize and protect yourself from influences that move you away from Jesus Christ. Note that this is not a violation of the Savior's command to "judge not" (Matthew 7:1) because the apostles have taught us that there is a distinction between intermediate judgement (judging someone's influence on you) and final judgment (assuming that someone will never change). For more information on righteous judgment, you should read this great article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks.

The tone of your question makes me think this isn't the case, but if the cause of your concern is that you feel you need to share the Gospel with your friend, remember that the best way is typically a positive approach as opposed to a negative one. For example, the following would be an incorrect way to share the Gospel sitting in Starbucks: "You know, in my church, (insert significant look at cup of coffee) we know that drinking coffee is wrong. (insert judgmental look at nearest patron) You're probably condemning yourself to eternal torment right now."

Instead, we focus on the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and then help people make changes in their lives once they understand the need. President Uchtdorf pointed this out in the most recent General Conference: "Some might say, 'I don’t think I could live up to your standards.' All the more reason to come! The Church is designed to nourish the imperfect, the struggling, and the exhausted. It is filled with people who desire with all their heart to keep the commandments, even if they haven’t mastered them yet" ("Come, Join with Us," October 2013).

If your friend asks you for your opinion, tell him honestly what it is. If he's really your friend, he should respect that you're trying to work it out on your own. If you disagree with gay marriage tell him that too, but in a kind diplomatic way. He shouldn't be offended if he's the one who asked, especially if you've never brought it up. 

Finding the Truth to Stand For

Remember, the Lord allows many different trials to occur while we're here on earth. I don't mean to trivialize the difficulties you brought up when you said your friend couldn't have the experience of raising a child here on earth, because you're right. That's super hard. But the idea that God allows these types of trials to come to us isn't unique to the challenge of homosexuality. One of the most emotional talks I've ever heard is "Because I Live, Ye Shall Live Also," by Elder Shayne M. Bowen. Elder Bowen described his experience losing his son.  God allowed Elder Bowen to lose the opportunity to raise one of his children here on earth. That is an incredibly difficult thing to experience. In his talk, he said a few things that I think apply to anyone who loses, fully or partially, the family experience here on earth for any reason:

However, tormenting thoughts continued to plague me, and I soon began to feel anger. “This isn’t fair! How could God do this to me? Why me? What did I do to deserve this?” I even felt myself get angry with people who were just trying to comfort us. I remember friends saying, “I know how you feel.” I would think to myself, “You have no idea how I feel. Just leave me alone.” I soon found that self-pity can also be very debilitating. I was ashamed of myself for having unkind thoughts about dear friends who were only trying to help.

As I felt the guilt, anger, and self-pity trying to consume me, I prayed that my heart could change. Through very personal sacred experiences, the Lord gave me a new heart, and even though it was still lonely and painful, my whole outlook changed. I was given to know that I had not been robbed but rather that there was a great blessing awaiting me if I would prove faithful.

My life started to change, and I was able to look forward with hope, rather than look backward with despair. I testify that this life is not the end. The spirit world is real. The teachings of the prophets regarding life after death are true. This life is but a transitory step forward on our journey back to our Heavenly Father. ("Because I Live, Ye Shall Live Also," October 2012, Emphasis Added)

There are other examples. For example, two men wanted to follow the Savior, but one wanted first to bury his father and the other wanted to say goodbye to his family. The Savior's response? "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (See Luke 9:57-62).

We believe that God loves us, so these kinds of things can be initially difficult to understand. Why would God allow the death of a son, even when a father had done nothing wrong? Why does He allow such terrible atrocities and difficulties in the world today? Why would He ask a man who wanted to be a disciple to leave his family immediately, without saying goodbye? Why would He ask someone who struggles with same gender attraction to abstain from family life while here on earth?

We reconcile these questions with our knowledge of God's love in two primary ways. First, we understand that God's love, though unconditional, is a forward thinking love. He wants what's best for us long term, and that can cause some pain for us short term. Although God's love is unconditional, His saving grace is not. Our ability to return to live with God again is conditional on our willingness to keep the commandments and become as He is. Much of our growth includes continuing to keep the commandments despite significant adversity. Consider the following:

Can you and I really expect to glide naively through life, as if to say, “Lord, give me experience, but not grief, not sorrow, not pain, not opposition, not betrayal, and certainly not to be forsaken. Keep from me, Lord, all those experiences which made Thee what Thou art! Then let me come and dwell with Thee and fully share Thy joy!” ("Lest Ye Be Wearied and Faint in Your Minds," May 1991)

Second, we understand that God will make all these difficulties worth it for us in the end. We see these difficulties in the context that they are only temporary. Consider the following two statements. The first is from the Book of Revelation, describing the ultimate fate of the righteous:

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more deathneither sorrownor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21:7)

Then consider the following statement from Corinthians:

Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Corinthians 2:9)

Placed in that context, what God asks of those struggling with same gender attraction doesn't seem so unreasonable. "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."  He gets your friend's pain more than you do. Yes, through the limited lens of mortality, it can seem like we are denying someone something vital to their well-being. But the promise of God is that there will be something better than this "transitory step" if we are faithful.

I'm not sure what more to say. You seem like a pretty well-informed person, so I'm willing to bet you've heard most of this before. You know the promise of the scriptures: "Askand it shall be given you; seekand ye shall find; knockand it shall be opened unto you" (Matthew 7:7).

Conclusion: Balancing Your Religion and Desire to be Accepting

God's purpose is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). I believe one of the greatest things we can do here in mortality is to join Him in that purpose. That can happen as we fulfill missionary service, as we raise children in righteousness, as we interact with our friends, or as we otherwise serve in the Church. Ultimately, this is how we become as He is.

So in wondering how to balance a belief in certain divine laws with love for others, we can look to our ultimate example: God. How does he feel about those struggling with same gender attraction? He loves them. If they chose to break divine law, does He condone that action? No. Does He support them in that choice? No. The choice saddens him because He knows it will not lead His children to lasting happiness. But does He stop loving them when they make mistakes? No.

Does He ever stop loving them? No. Never, ever, ever.

Certainly this can be a model for us as we seek to treat God's children as He would.

I wish you the best of luck.

- Haleakalā

Question #75555 posted on 12/15/2013 2:42 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I just read this article about -135.8 degree temperatures in Antarctica. It explains that scientists in those temperatures breathe through "a snorkel that brings air into the coat through a sleeve and warms it up." I would love to know more about these snorkels. Is the air heated by body heat, for instance? Because in order for the body to heat the air, wouldn't that expose the body to those extreme low temperatures? I'd also love to see a picture, if anyone could track one down.

-Emiliana

A:

Dear Emiliana,

The "cold air snorkel" proved to be a very elusive thing to find, so I emailed the scientist who mentioned it in the article to find out what he meant by it. As it turns out, that specific device was available in the 1990s and is no longer in production. Instead, the current preferred air-warming devices are face masks like this spiffy ColdAvenger Pro:

coldairdevice_1.jpg

I guess the cold air snorkel didn't work too well. Not only would you be exposing your body to cold air (which I think would be uncomfortable rather than harmful, as your body is a lot bigger than the tube and you would be wearing a very well insulated jacket), but I think having a tube going from your face and through your sleeve would be annoying. And you would have to have a tube in your mouth for extended periods of time. 

Because no one really uses them anymore, I couldn't find a picture. But I quickly sketched some concept art in Paintbrush in case you are thinking of making one yourself and you need some inspiration:

airsnorkel.png

Sheebs

Question #75530 posted on 01/07/2014 12:12 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I applaud the recent increased efforts of writers to encourage readers to visit the counseling center. I think far too often people are embarrassed or afraid to use the resources available, and Elder Holland's recent conference talk reiterates the importance of getting the help we need and supporting those with emotional trials.

However a small curiosity has been forming in the back of my mind. I am attending graduate school at a large university with on-campus counseling that is organized much like it is at BYU. Despite being quite large with many personnel, the counseling center here is consistently 'maxed out' by mid-semester. They literally do not have the capacity to accommodate all the students who wish to meet with counselors. Students with actual need are then 'referred out' to other doctors, but I do believe the process is somewhat selective. If I were to show up and ask for help improving my social skills, for example, I am fairly certain they would tell me to please leave to make room for the kid who is actually depressed and in need of immediate attention. And so I was wondering, does BYU face similar issues involving the maximum capacity of the counseling center? Do they ever draw the line as to what type of issues they will attend to? (could the reader who asked for help with social skills last month actually go to the counseling center and be seen?) Has the number of students using the counseling center increased with the increasing number of informal Board referrals over the past few months? It has also occurred to me that perhaps the LDS population is less likely to ask for help, given the (real or imagined) underlying pressure to be -and appear- "perfect," and so the center at BYU is less likely to fill up than at other universities. Do you believe that's true? Has there been any research done on this? (not about the counseling center filling up, but LDS people asking for help with emotional issues)

I am not trying to discredit your advice by any means, I am just curious about how BYU handles counseling with such a large university and presumably large demand. And I only singled out the social skills question because it never occurred to me that someone might go to a counselor for help with social skills (not that it is necessarily a bad idea) Thanks.

-Not a counselor either

A:

Dear not a counselor,

I love being able to answer questions about therapy, and I hope that the information that I provide in my answers encourages people to take advantage of the resources available to them. Having access to free counseling sessions as a student at BYU is really quite an amazing resource. I asked a counselor over at Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS, the official name for the counseling center) for help in answering this question. I'm telling you, those counselors are the nicest people! He provided me with a lot of the information that I've included in this answer. 

And so I was wondering, does BYU face similar issues involving the maximum capacity of the counseling center?

BYU's trends are more or less in line with those of campuses across the nation. Every year, the number of students being seen at CAPS increases. This is probably at least partially due to lessening stigma about mental health issues, as well as an increased recognition that therapy is an acceptable way to address personal concerns. Elder Holland's talk and the general response to it are one good indication of this. Especially during busier parts of the semester, students wishing to be seen may have to wait a couple of weeks for an intake session. CAPS will try to schedule students who seem to be in a significant amount of distress more quickly if possible, however they will never tell a student, "Sorry, we're full, try somewhere else," regardless of what they need help with. 

Do they ever draw the line as to what type of issues they will attend to? (could the reader who asked for help with social skills last month actually go to the counseling center and be seen?)

The only criteria that someone needs to meet in order to see a counselor at CAPS is that he or she is a 3/4 or full-time student. CAPS does not turn students away, regardless of their concern. The only time that students are referred out to other professionals is when the student's presenting concern is something that CAPS is not equipped to handle due to a need for more specialized knowledge or extensive care. For example, CAPS does not have the medical personnel necessary for treating severe eating disorders, nor can CAPS generally accommodate clients who need to meet multiple times a week (generally, clients at CAPS meet with someone once a week or once every other week). So it's possible that clients could be referred out if CAPS did not have the resources to help them, however CAPS will never turn someone away for "not being depressed enough" or "being too well-adjusted."

Counselors may recommend that a client get involved in additional therapeutic activities such as group therapy, however they will never refuse to see a client individually who wishes to have individual therapy. 

The reader who asked for help with social skills in the question you reference could absolutely be seen at CAPS. In fact, social anxieties are a common presenting concern for students who come to CAPS. Many students struggle with interpersonal skills, dating concerns, and making friends. This is a perfectly acceptable reason to seek out therapy. As the counselor I spoke to put it, if something is a big enough deal to you that it's concerning you, then it's an appropriate reason to seek therapy.

One of the things that I'm hoping that the Board helps with is erasing the stigma or common conception that a person's problems have to be "bad enough" to make going to therapy okay. In fact, addressing a concern while it is still relatively manageable rather than waiting for it to potentially get worse is an extremely wise decision. Counselors at CAPS don't feel like it's a waste of their time to see someone with mild social anxieties versus someone with severe depression. Counselors see a wide variety of clients with a wide variety of concerns--some more severe than others, but none more legitimate than any other. A counselor might see someone who is having problems with his or her roommates one hour, and then the next hour see a client who is suicidal, and then the hour after that see someone who is grieving the loss of a parent. Again, if it bothers you, then it's a valid concern. 

Has the number of students using the counseling center increased with the increasing number of informal Board referrals over the past few months?

When a client comes in for an intake session, the counselor will ask how the client found out about CAPS or what made him or her decide to come in. The counselor I spoke to said that although many clients say that they came because of the recommendation of a friend or because they found information on BYU's website, occasionally he does hear the client cite the Board as the reason for coming in. Whether this occurred more frequently in the past few months, though, I have no way of knowing. It is also possible that people decide to go to CAPS after reading the answers to their own or someone else's questions, however don't mention it when they come in for an intake session. 

It has also occurred to me that perhaps the LDS population is less likely to ask for help, given the (real or imagined) underlying pressure to be -and appear- "perfect," and so the center at BYU is less likely to fill up than at other universities. Do you believe that's true?

I'm not sure, maybe? Generally speaking, therapy is often seen as the fall-back plan or last ditch effort. This is not only the case with LDS populations--it seems to be true across our culture. It is hard to ask for help, especially with something that you are not proud of or would rather no one knew about.

It is certainly true that the trends in presenting concerns that LDS populations might come to therapy with may differ somewhat from those of other populations--the counselor I spoke to said that he sees many clients who come to therapy because they are struggling with perfectionism. Some clients are seeking to overcome their perfectionism, while others are actually hoping that therapy will help them to become more perfect. Perfectionism may also be manifested in body image or eating concerns, especially for women. CAPS counselors also see many clients who have concerns with spirituality or a crisis of faith. LDS clients may also come to therapy with concerns that might not be seen as much of a concern outside of the LDS culture--for instance, many clients come to CAPS hoping to get help for pornography addictions or the anxiety and guilt caused by issues of sexuality that may not match up with religious beliefs. However, none of these issues are completely unique to LDS clients, and LDS clients also have all the same concerns that non-LDS clients might have as far as mental health goes.  

Has there been any research done on this? (not about the counseling center filling up, but LDS people asking for help with emotional issues)

I'm not aware of any research on LDS populations and therapy, though it is an interesting thought. I will keep digging, but I don't want to hold this question longer. I will post a comment if I come up with anything.

Hope this helps!

-Divya

Question #75452 posted on 12/06/2013 1:14 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

A lot of evangelical Christians believe that LDS are not Christians despite our protest to the contrary, on the basis that we do not worship the "same" or "correct" or "Biblical" Jesus. I don't get what they mean by that. Do they seem to think there was more than one Jesus out there for us to believe in? You can argue about the personal characteristics and motivations of a historical figure like Napoleon for example, but the fact remains that there was still only one Napoleon. What's the logic in these claims?

-Southern Mormon girl

A:

Dear Southern Mormon girl,

Imagine that you and I are in the same class, and we're having a conversation about one of our classmates, "Sarah." I say that Sarah's favorite food is pizza, because I saw her eating pizza in the Courgareat once. You point out that she told you she loves Jamba Juice, so her favorite food must be fruit smoothies. (If that counts as a food, anyway.) At this point, it's likely that we're still talking about the same person, because the details we disagree on are rather insignificant. But imagine I then pointed out that Sarah was blonde and about my height, even though you know Sarah has brown hair and is much taller than I am. At this point, we might question if we were talking about the same person. Maybe there are two Sarahs in our class.

This would be the kind of logic used by most evangelical Christians. Although we might both worship a person with the same name, Mormons' view of who the Savior was/is is supposedly so "far off" that we couldn't possibly be talking about the same person they are. They might not argue there were actually two people named Jesus Christ. Instead, they would probably say "ours" simply didn't exist. 

The primary reason evangelical Christians must make this claim is their belief in the saving power of faith alone. Since they argue that faith in Jesus Christ is the only thing necessary for salvation, it would naturally follow that Mormons would still qualify for salvation as they believe in Jesus Christ, even if they disagreed with evangelicals on some points of doctrine. In order to have any discord or make any argument against us, they must first establish that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can't provide salvation, despite evangelicals' claim that salvation comes through faith alone. They chose to do this by claiming that our view of the Savior is so far off what the Bible teaches that belief in such a figure would not qualify one for eternal life.

Here are three of the most common places where they say we differ from biblical teaching on the nature of Jesus Christ, along with (for your interest) the typical Latter-day Saint Response. Note that where I say "Latter-day Saint Response," I don't mean to imply that these are necessarily official Church responses.

Alleged Biblical Inaccuracy in LDS Doctrine  Evangelical Evidence Latter-day Saint Response
Nature of the Godhead (God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one entity.) Evangelicals would point to scriptures such as John 8:19 ("...if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.") and John 14:9-10 ("... but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.") to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is God, the same as who we know as Heavenly Father.

When the Savior talks about He and the Father being "one," we understand Him to be speaking figuratively. For example, when the Savior prayed for all those who would believe in Him, He said: "...that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:20-23). Although this is similar to the language he used to describe His relationship with His Father, we certainly wouldn't say that the Savior and His believers were the same person.

The Savior's statement in John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I," is also not congruent with a belief that the Savior is the same as person as his Father. What of the Savior's baptism, when the Father testified of His Son's divine mission? If the Savior was testifying of His own mission, why wouldn't He just say so, as He did throughout His ministry?

You may also want to see Jeffery R. Holland's 2007 Conference Talk "The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent."

"Faith v. Works" (Salvation from Jesus Christ Comes Through Faith Alone) One of Evangelicals' favorite scriptures to back up the doctrine of "faith alone" is Romans 3:28. Others include Romans 4:5, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Galatians 2:16.

Scriptures such as these must be accepted in context. The early apostles faced huge challenges integrating Gentiles and Jews into the Church. In most scriptures provided by evangelicals as evidence for "faith alone," apostles were trying to help Jewish converts understand that the law of Moses (a way of life for these Jewish converts) was no longer necessary. The Law of Moses couldn't save them - only Christ could. 

Additional New Testament evidence against this doctrine can be found in James 2:24, John 14:15, and Matthew 5:48.

This assertion sometimes contains a misunderstanding by evangelicals about what we really believe. While it is true that Latter-day Saints believe that faith alone is not sufficient for eternal life, we do not believe that our works having saving power, as evangelicals often claim. In other words, we are completely dependent on the Savior's grace for salvation, but that grace is not conditional upon faith alone (See 2 Nephi 25:23). When you hear evangelicals say things like "Mormons don't believe Christ was good enough," they are referring to this misunderstanding of our doctrine.

Jesus Christ is a Spirit, without a body of flesh and bone. With the temporary exception of his earthly ministry, most Evangelicals do not believe Jesus Christ has a body. See Numbers 23:19.  Our understanding of the physical nature of Jesus Christ is primarily rooted in the teachings of modern prophets. Although there is some New Testament evidence, it is not entirely definitive. For an example of evidence from modern prophets, see Doctrine and Covenants 130:22.

 

With these issues (what they see as inconsistencies with the Bible), evangelicals are not willing to accept that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the same religious figure they do, despite the fact that we both refer to Him as Jesus Christ.

- Haleakalā

posted on 12/06/2013 5:09 p.m.
I highly suggest you read "Are Mormons Christians," by Stephen E. Robinson. In that book, he goes through each argument used to argue that Mormons aren't Christians and explains why they are false. It really helped me to understand why others think we're not Christian.

--Rifka
Question #75383 posted on 12/13/2013 4:42 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What is the most realistic way in which a permanent, stationary, hurricane or hurricane-like storm could occur on the ocean?

-Not a Meteorologist

A:

Dear hypothetical seeker,

There are a couple problems with the scenario you present. The biggest one is the word "realistic." That said, I'll do my best.

Generally, according to Wikipedia, hurricane formation requires six conditions, although exceptions have been noted. The six conditions are as follows:

  1. Warm water. Water temperature needs to be at least approximately 80 degrees Fahrenheit to a depth of about 160 feet. This allows the atmosphere to be unstable enough to support the necessary convection.
  2. Rapid cooling with height. As water vapor rises and cools, it releases its latent heat energy, which is what powers the storm.
  3. High humidity. This is closely related to the previous condition; the more water vapor is present, the more energy can be generated.
  4. Low wind shear. If wind speeds near the surface and wind speeds at higher elevations are different, they will rip apart the hurricane before it can form.
  5. Over 5 degrees away from the equator. A hurricane must develop at least 350 miles (five degrees of latitude) away from the equator. The storm's rotation depends on the Coriolis effect, which is nonexistent at the equator. If there's no Coriolis effect, there's no rotation, and if there's no rotation, there's no hurricane.
  6. A preexisting weather disturbance. Hurricanes do not form spontaneously. Rather, they are created from already-existing storms or disturbances that then evolve into a different type of storm system.

After forming, a hurricane is not moved by its own force but rather by larger global-scale wind patterns. Depending on the location and season, these may include trade winds, the monsoon trough, high-pressure systems, low-pressure systems, warm fronts, and cold fronts. An expert is quoted on Wikipedia as saying that a hurricane's path is similar to that of a leaf being carried on a stream. (You could say that a hurricane is like the protagonist of "Bohemian Rhapsody," going any way the wind blows, but having the power to kill a man.)

Hurricanes may die out in any of several ways. The quickest way to kill a hurricane is by moving it over land, cutting it off from the warm water that gives it its energy and effectively starving it to death. Alternatively, if the hurricane moves over cold water, essentially the same thing will happen, albeit somewhat slower. High wind shear can also do the trick by moving the convection and heat engine of the hurricane away from its center. Finally, a hurricane may merge with another storm or weather system and change its form; even though the resulting storm may be larger, it is no longer a hurricane. (Incidentally, nuclear weapons would not destroy a hurricane.)

So, knowing all of this, we can start to see the basic conditions that would be necessary to create a permanent hurricane, and also the conditions that make it impossible. This hypothetical hurricane would require a constant source of warm water. This is problematic because the hurricane would eventually deplete the water's heat faster than the heat could be regenerated by any normal means; hurricanes also churn the water beneath them and bring colder deep water to the surface. Also, in order to stay in one place, the hurricane would have to not be affected by any major external wind systems; apart from being a difficult condition to find nearly anywhere in the world, this would prevent the hurricane from forming in the first place, because hurricanes can only form from preexisting weather disturbances.

Basically, a hurricane is a giant ball of unstable energy. This is just about as antithetical to "permanent" and "stationary" as you can get. Trying to get a hurricane to stay in place is kind of like trying to get a crowd of hungry, ornery cats to stay in place while still keeping them hungry. If they stay hungry, they'll run off and look for food. If you bring food to them, they won't be hungry anymore and will probably curl up and go to sleep. And physically restraining more than about one cat at once is just about impossible, especially if you value the structural integrity of your skin.

That said, let's try it.

So, suppose that a hurricane does begin to form. Suppose furthermore that, as soon as it takes shape, the world's wind systems all mysteriously work together to stall it in one place, neither moving it nor tearing it apart. This is incredibly unlikely, but I suppose it is theoretically possible. With that accomplished, the main issue at hand is perpetually replenishing the ocean surface with a constant supply of warm water. So, what is something that has a practically inexhaustible supply of heat energy and is located near the ocean?

An underwater volcano.

Now, the problem here is that prolonged eruption would eventually create a new island, but I guess that's only a worry depending on your definition of "permanent." All water on Earth will evaporate in about a billion years as a result of the Sun's progression towards its red giant phase, so at that point, I think we can safely assume that hurricanes will no longer exist. Until then, though, lovers of hypotheticals can dream their hypothetical dreams.

-yayfulness

Question #75044 posted on 11/07/2013 9:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

First, check out this map of rivers in the United States. The map is striking, but one of the things that stands out most to me are the areas that lack rivers. Some, like the Great Salt Lake Desert and the Florida Everglades, make sense. Others (at least to me), dont, like the Snake River Plain and the swath down the middle of the continental 48 that includes the Missouri Plateau, the High Plains of Nebraska, and the Llano Estacado. Are these areas really devoid of rivers, or is it merely gaps in the source data? And if they really are devoid of rivers, what is the geological reason for the previously-mentioned swath in the Great Plains states?

—Damasta

A:

Dear Damasta,

After a bit of investigation, I was able to find a zoomable version of the map. As I suspected, the main reason for the gaps is actually the map's resolution. To demonstrate, I've taken a series of screenshots focusing on several of the apparently empty areas. First, though, here's what the map looks like if you zoom out to the full extent of the United States (on my laptop, anyway; if you're using a desktop with a larger screen, this may appear different).

rivers full extent.png

Let's start with the big empty area in the middle of Nebraska. Here's a slightly more zoomed version.

rivers nebraska 1.png

As you can see, smaller rivers are starting to show up. What happens when we take an even closer look?

rivers nebraska 2.png

This still leaves a large area with no rivers shown, but it's clear that the resolution has a big effect on how the map is displayed. If we take the view in even further, we get something that looks like this.

rivers nebraska 3.png

Certainly not the most lush region of the country, but there are definitely rivers.

Now we'll move on to another segment of the country: central North Dakota.

rivers north dakota 1.png

I'll spare you the intermediate zooms here; we can just skip straight to the big gap just north of the border with South Dakota. Zoom in, and here's what you see:

rivers north dakota 2.png

It turns out Minnesota isn't the only land of 10,000 lakes. This clearly has a huge effect on the area's rivers.

Now, finally, let's go to the Llano Estacado of Texas. Wikipedia tells me that it is almost completely devoid of water. How true is that?

rivers texas 1.png

It takes several zooms to show the context here, so bear with me. I know you're probably getting tired of all of these pictures, but I'm almost done.

rivers texas 2.png

As it turns out, there are rivers in this vast stretch of emptiness, but they are extremely small.

rivers texas 3.png

So while the Llano Estacado is not completely river-free, it's probably your best bet if you're trying to find someplace in the lower 48 states with as little water as possible.

If anyone's interested in reading about the story behind this map, you can do so here.

-yayfulness

Question #74780 posted on 10/19/2013 9:58 p.m.
Q:

Dear Owlet,

Will you please draw me a picture of a frog and cat jump-roping together?

A fan of your artistic ability,
Shanimal

A:

Dear Shanimal,

Your question made me realize that my portfolio is sadly lacking in the strange-combinations-of-personified-animals area. How silly of me.

It's harder for me to draw animals without a reference picture, so I tried to find a photo of what you describe. For some reason Google didn't have any, so I made my own:

frog&catJumpRopingTogether.jpg(source 1)(2)(3)

And then I drew this, substituting the double-dutch girls with Board Writers:
Frog&CatDrawing.jpg

I think it's a pretty fair likeness. I hope you like it, and thanks for asking!

-Owlet

Question #74701 posted on 10/23/2013 11:04 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

How much weight can twizzlers hold? How much can they stretch before they break?
How far can they be thrown?

-Mecheng

A:

Dear Mecheng,

To answer your question, yayfulness, Marguerite St. Just, Stego Lily, Tootles, Owlet, and I met up to do SCIENCE!

What? That's the proper notation: SCIENCE!

Stego Lily brought, as she put it, "South Market's finest," which turned out to be cherry-flavored Pull 'N' Peel Twizzlers, and, for good measure, we decided to compare it to strawberry-flavored Red Vines. We're such overachievers.

MSJ brought her baby (read: her camera) and took pictures of the action. Everyone, please email her with marriage proposals and other such praise.

I did not bring my actual baby, but I did bring a force meter and 1000 grams worth of washers. The problem I didn't forsee, however, was that my cute little force meter could only read up to 1100 grams before it maxed out. I could only hope the licorice wouldn't be able to hold that much weight. I should have remembered Murphy's Law. Only when we pulled the Twizzlers apart so that it was only a single strand were we able to get a reading under 1100 grams:

Science.jpg

How Much Weight Can Twizzlers Hold Before Breaking?
Single Strand
Weight (g)
391
659
535
   
Average 528
Std Dev 134

Thicker strands initially held more than 1100 grams, but we did notice that if we hung 1000 grams from the strand and then waited, the licorice would stretch out and eventually break. So in an effort to give you some comparison, we timed how long the licorice could hold 1000 grams until it broke.

Weighing Strands.jpg

We tried it with two-strand-thick and three-strand-thick pieces of Pull 'N' Peel, and also with the Red Vines:

How Long Can Licorice Hold a 1000 g Weight Before Breaking?
Twizzlers
Double Strand
Twizzlers
Triple Strand
Red Vines
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
2.3 10.47 6.98
4.33 10.12 7.26
2.3 11.94 6.7
           
Average 3.0 Average 10.84 Average 6.98
Std Dev 1.2 Std Dev 0.97 Std Dev 0.28

It's not too surprising that once you get to three strands, the Twizzlers totally whoops the Red Vines. Red Vines are hollow, while the Twizzlers are not, so it's easier for the Red Vines to develop a failure point.

We tried to do the same experiment with a full nine-strand piece of Twizzlers, but as far as we could tell, 1000 grams would never be enough weight to stretch and break it. You can't see it, but Stego Lily is making a face that impatiently asks, "Waiting is hard. Can I eat it yet?"

Will Never Break_edit.jpg 

Thankfully, the other parts of your question didn't require a force meter! Stego Lily and Tootles undertook the task of stretching the licorice, and we got these results:

Measuring Twizzlers.jpg

How Far Can Licorice Stretch Before Breaking?
Twizzlers Red Vines
Initial Length
(in)
Final Length
(in)
Difference
(in)
Initial Length
(in)
Final Length
(in)
Difference
(in)
5.875 9 3.125 5.25 6 0.75
5.875 11 5.125 5.5 6 0.5
6.0625 11 4.9375 5.625 6.5 0.875
           
  Average 4.40   Average 0.71
  Std Dev 1.10   Std Dev 0.19

Once again, the Twizzlers proves to be stronger than the Red Vines.

Last, we went out to a rather public parking lot on campus and threw licorice. If I'd been one of the passers-by, I'd have thought we were a)dumb college weirdos, b)freshman, or c)on some kind of BYU date. If only they'd stopped to learn the truth: this candy sacrifice was in the name of SCIENCE!

As we didn't have a very long tape measure, we measured the throwing distance by seeing how many parking spaces we could throw the licorice. Given that the average parking space is somewhere around 8 feet, I came up with these distances for licorice-throwing:

How Far Can Licorice Be Thrown By a Board Writer?
(ft)
  yayfulness Maven Marguerite
St. Just
Owlet Stego Lily Tootles
Red Vines 56 56 48 52 30 64
Twizzlers 56 64 64 64 46 96

Twizzlers is the unmitigated champion in the throwing department. Of course, it helps that the Twizzlers were heavier than than Red Vines, so it did have an advantage there. Also, we discovered that one benefit of being lerpy (we're looking at you, Tootles) is you can throw things further than most other people.

And in conclusion, what's the best part about SCIENCE! you ask? Eating it, of course!

Eating Science_edit.jpg

--Maven, yayfulness, Maguerite St. Just, Stego Lily, Owlet, and Tootles (MYMSTO? MOMSTY? SMOMTY? STOMMY? Pick your favorite, or make up your own!)

P.S. – Happy Mole Day!

Question #74697 posted on 10/16/2013 3:22 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I work on campus in an office environment with a man who loves to pull pranks on other employees. He thrives off of it and as a result, is very good at it. My other coworkers and I are pooling our brains together to come up with a good prank for him. The problem is, his brain alone is better than all of ours put together so...do you have an ideas for us??
Thanks!

-Amateur Prankster

A:

Dear Rosemary,

Recently my boss went to Brazil for a few weeks and when he came back, I'd glued (or taped, depending on the surface, because I don't hate him) googly eyes of different sizes to everything in his office. Including over his family pictures and on some statues -- even the one of Jesus, but that looked wrong (like Jesus was weirdly cross-eyed and totally creepy), so they got pulled off quickly. Googly eyes really make everything better. I'm actually surprised I didn't blog about this because it might be my favorite prank of the summer. Check these sweet photos out!

 image_3.jpeg

This is what gluing eyes to a plant while sitting at my desk looks like. My boss was gone for a few weeks, so I had a lot of time to glue while I was on phone calls. If you use a hot glue gun, let the glue cool just a bit before sticking it on the plant, otherwise it kills little circles in the leaf. Not that I know from experience...

image_8.jpeg

With eyes, the plants are able to express the untold horrors of their office life.

image_7.jpeg

He didn't notice these eyes for awhile. When he did, it was while he was on a conference call. They started him and he jumped back in surprise.

image_6.jpeg

With some eyes, eyebrows and a mustache, the lamp is angered.

image_9.jpeg

Family photos get a million times better (he left the eyes on all his office pictures).

image_4.jpeg

Every time he offers someone his business card, he has to explain why there are eyes.

image_1.jpeg

Googly-eyed statues are almost always a good idea. See how this tender moment in childhood development is improved by wide-eyed terror?

Now, take a drink, Board [non-alcoholic] Drinking Game* aficionados, because I'm going to reference the archives. Specifically some past pranks and technically you'll take seven drinks because I'm linking to seven past answers. I like Queen Alice's idea of not playing a prank, but mentioning one is coming or staring at him while he does mundane things like you expect something bad to happen. That would be unnerving and hilarious. This answer contains a few of my old favorites, mostly played on coworkers (specifically, my boss). If you want to be a little bit meaner, FCSM has some ideas for pretending to get someone in moral or legal trouble, letting them worry about it all weekend and then revealing it's a joke. I like The Prankster's idea of stealing light bulbs. I did that to my boss one day and while his one wall is a full window, it was still inconvenient. And I love the idea of using a live lobster. Perhaps under the desk? Granted, I don't know enough about lobsters to know if that would be a terrible idea. I super-love Olympus' idea of making a Plaster of Paris mold of your face and leaving it to stare at your boss creepily until he discovers it. It's less a prank than a startled moment, but maybe you can get a lot of use out of your head mold. I'd also modify Sky Bones' idea of taking other signs (restroom, janitor closed, no exit, whatever) and hanging those on his door, assuming he has a door. I also adore krebscout's idea of buying tubs of plastic soldiers and having every one else in the office take turns placing them randomly in and around his things. This could potentially go on for weeks. I have every intention of also doing this.

For Christmas one year we also stole my boss's lamp. He has an irrational love of that lamp (weirdly irrational), so we wrapped it up and put it in the white elephant game. When someone else opened it, he saw it was his lamp and completely flipped out and demanded it back. We told him he could only have it if he swapped for it fairly. Of course we gave him the lamp back and had a replacement gift because we aren't terrible. On that same vein, you could probably just steal something and then send ransom notes/pictures.

One time while I was gone, my coworkers collected all the fake plants in our department (which spanned two floors and apparently an ungodly amount of plastic greenery), stuck them on my desk, left a pith helmet on top of it all with a sign that said, "Jungle Cruise Director." Just to show them, I spent the day working in the small forest and actually loved it because it was hard for people to talk to me.

If you want to work with food, Chocomize makes custom chocolate bars. I put cayenne pepper in the one I gave my roommate (she knew it was in there because she loves cayenne pepper and claimed it tasted good on and in everything. Her nephews who decided to eat her chocolate did not know it was there). I'm also wishing I could think of a good way to use an ice cream potato (despite the recipe, I'd use banana for the butter and chocolate sauce as like gravy), because they are the ultimate in delicious food-that-looks-like-another-food, but my brain isn't processing anything other than how badly I want to eat it.

The Phantom Keystroker is one of the best prank things I've ever bought. Except I used in on a coworker with no sense of humor and he got mad and threw it away -- which makes him a Death Eater of office happiness.

I have always wanted to do the prank where you replace every item in someone's office with high quality pictures of those items. That one is super time-consuming, though, but I bet the end result is amazing.

Now, for more pranks I've saved away to maybe try some day we have:

Changing his Facebook status so only he can see his posts, then he'll wonder why no one comments on/likes them.

Making a soy sauce soda.

It's like making his desktop wallpaper a picture of the desktop with the icons hidden, but so much more. Oh, so, so much more. I did attempt this one, but it doesn't work on a computer with two screens -- or his computer with two screens. In any case, I ran into difficulties and had to abort the mission.

Use a script to eject the CD tray every two minutes. I would 100% do this if my boss hadn't learned to lock his computer now.

Make Internet Explorer (or I guess any icon) shut down the computer.

Create an exploding soda bottle.

I'm on the fence over how I feel about these, but you could do an air horn either under his chair or, if he has an office, behind his door.

This just seems mean, but you can make a Febreze Bomb.

I'm still trying to figure out a way to build a sharknado in my boss's office. The issue I'm running into is everything that I think could create the tornado shell would be too heavy to hang from his office ceiling -- probably with duct tape because he doesn't have anywhere to tie things. Any engineering types want to help me out?

-Marguerite St. Just

*Is that even a thing? Please let this be a thing!

Question #74637 posted on 10/13/2013 6:04 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Which current writers have you met face to face and what was your first impression of them? What about writers you haven't met?

-My Name Here

A:

Dear cygnet,

Before my first Board party, I wanted to preserve my reader-perception of what the writers looked like. For some of the writers I knew would come, I drew pictures of what they (and their personal signatures) looked like in my head:

Anne1.jpgTally2.jpgMSJ2.jpgserendipity3.jpgTEN1.jpgConcealocanth1.jpg

 

These are the writers I have met face-to-face:

  • serendipity: I actually sort of knew serendipity before I even started reading the Board. I got the impression that she's cute and smart and just a good person overall.
  • yayfulness: I was really nervous to meet him because he's always been one of my favorite writers. He actually wasn't scary at all, and he's easy to be around.
  • Tootles: Very tall and really expressive. He has a huge smile; I think he enjoys life.
  • Stego Lily: Friendly, fun, and good at playing along with my craziness.
  • Yog in Neverland: Also tall, and really funny. She talks a lot and has cool jewelry.
  • Marguerite St. Just: I didn't really get to interact with her, but she seemed nice. And also professional.
  • Anne, Certainly: She seemed fun, and she's nice—she thinks about other people. I wish I knew her better.
  • Maven: She's really pretty and easy to talk to; she's good at asking questions. Her baking is as good as legend.
  • The Entropy Ninja: I haven't talked to her much but I love how she is a fan of cool things.
  • Concealocanth: Again, I haven't really talked to her much, but she seems nice. Something made me think she would be older.
  • Tally M.: Kind of quiet, and also a fan of cool things.

My first impressions of 'nyms are represented in my mind with colors. Here are the writers I have not met: Ace (bright red), Squirrel (brown), Concorde (sky blue), The Audience (ruby red), Curious Physics Minor (orange), Laser Jock (yellow), Rating Pending (kind of like a...warm...black), Azriel (also black), Genuine Article (light green), Yellow (um, yellow), Gimgimno (emerald green).

-Owlet

Question #74372 posted on 09/25/2013 8:52 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

You guys rejected my application for the 2nd time? WHAT? And this is why I have yet to step foot at a single Y-Serve or ward service activity.

-Let the meek help themselves

A:

Dear wha...?

I've thought about several ways to word this answer. At the risk of my words being taken badly, I have decided to be as simple and direct as possible. I do not mean to cause offense with anything I am about to write. However, you are an adult, and you deserve the plain and direct truth, whether you like it or not.

Basically, you applied for a job and didn't get it.

Here are some basic facts that you (and all prospective applicants) ought to know.

What The Board Is

  • The Board is a professional-style organization. While it is true that we are volunteers who provide a free service, we provide that free service on a level that is meant to be professional.
  • The Board is a time commitment. In order to be successful as a Board writer, it is necessary to sacrifice time on a consistent basis. This varies from person to person and from week to week, but it is a real and sizable commitment.
  • The Board requires a very specific skill set. Writers must be capable of finding information, verifying their information's accuracy, thoughtfully coming up with rational opinions, and expressing that information or those opinions in a clear, concise way to readers. Writers must also be capable of doing this under the influence of a deadline.
  • The Board is a leadership role. As Board writers, like it or not, we are leaders in our community. People look up to us and respect our opinions. We have the capacity to do a great deal of good, but we also have the capacity to do a great deal of harm. If our information or opinions are erroneous, offensive, or not well thought out, we have the very real capacity to change others' lives for the worse.
  • In short, the Board functions as an unpaid internship. It carries a great deal of responsibility and commitment. It requires specialized skills and dedication. It is the kind of thing that people can (and do) put on their resume. And writers and editors, like it or not, must judge all applicants to the Board on the same standard that we would judge applicants to a professional internship.

What The Board Is Not

  • The Board is not an open-access club.*
  • The Board is not a social event.
  • The Board is not a run-of-the-mill service organization.
  • The Board is not something that you, I, or anyone else is automatically entitled to be a part of.

Does all of this make sense?

I don't know why your application was rejected. I don't even know which applicant you are. I haven't been terribly involved in the behind-the-scenes work of the Board for the past few months, so there's a good chance that I barely even skimmed over your application. What I'm trying to say here is that this answer is completely impersonal; I'm addressing it not only to you but also to all past and future applicants, especially the ones we do not hire. You submitted your application to the Board; in essence, you applied to an internship. After duly considering your merits and drawbacks, the editors (with writer input) decided that your skills as demonstrated in your application did not match up with the Board's needs.

I understand that it's frustrating. However, please try to remember that it is not something meant to be taken personally. You applied to join a professional organization. Your application was rejected. This happens to literally everyone at some point or another. We don't keep stats on how many applicants get accepted and rejected, but I think it's safe to say we reject about 50% of all applications. About a quarter of the applicants we do accept never make it past the stage of being a probational writer.

I hope that you don't let this experience drive you away from the Board. We value you as a reader, and we certainly don't take any joy in rejecting applicants. I wish you all the best.

-yayfulness

*I'm not aware of an official policy here, but this is my opinion. The way I see it, being a Board reader is the equivalent of being a club member. Being a Board writer is the equivalent of being a club officer. So when we reject applicants, we're not saying you can't be part of the club. We're saying we aren't selecting you as club leadership.

Question #74208 posted on 10/01/2013 3:46 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Could you please replicate an HFAC experiment to determine its accuracy?

-EizN^3

A:

Dear EizNCubed,

So, with the help of a few brave friends, I repeated the peanut butter experiment.

Introduction to our highly scientific experiment:

IMG_0393.JPG

So, we didn't do this exactly the same way as HFAC. Our basic levels of the independent variable were: Milk (white) Water (colored red) and Stawberry-Kiwi Soda (green.) For each test, we downed one teaspoon of peanut butter and then a Dixie cup of the chosen mouthwash. Pictured here are our brave volunteers Quatro Quatro, Gonzo, and Violet.

We rated our post-drink peanut butter mouth on a 1-10 scale (1 being the least peanut butter residue, 10 being the most peanut butter residue)

Here we have our brave volunteers (myself excluded, as I am taking the picture. From left to right we have Quatro Quatro, my brother Gonzo, and Violet.)

 grouppic.jpg

All four of us did the test with water, milk, soda, and then water again (pretend that makes it more legitimate because of repeated trials or a control or something.) We used oyster crackers for purposes of palate cleansing.

Highly Scientific Data

  Anne Violet Primus Gonzo
Water 4 3.5 3 5
Milk 1 2 3 2
Soda 1 1* 5 6
Water (II) 1 4.5 6 5

*Violet noted that this measurement may be invalid.

So, computing our averages:

Water: 4

Milk: 2

Soda: 3.25 (including Violet) 4 (excluding Violet)

SO: Highly Scientific Conclusions

According to our highly legitimate measurements OF SCIENCE, you should stick to milk. Soda may or may not be a little better than water, but neither will beat the dairy. Gonzo made a comment about how it's probably because of the fat in the milk. Cool stuff.

Theoretically, that could have been the end, but you wanted HFAC. We're not them, but we can go beyond basic peanut butter.

Here's where we diverge. They did some experimentation with acid/base effects. We're going to look at some, uh, non-traditional ways to remove peanut butter through food combinations that even the bravest cupcake-war bakers would shrink away from.

Alternate Peanut Butter Lavages

Below, reader, you see a cup of olive oil, a cup of beef broth, a cup of Little Caesar's Crazy Sauce, and a carrot.

IMG_0409.JPG

Quatro Quatro was our brave soul who took the olive oil route. 

Here's his reaction:

 Adam.jpg

Quatro Quatro's reaction: "Wow...I...That was nasty."

I opted to go for the beef boullion, supposing that it would be less terrible than the marinara, which I foisted off upon my brother. This may have been a mistake, as that broth made me gag. That was NASTY.

IMG_0420.JPG

Above: Anne, Certainly attempts to undo the damage of having crossed the streams.

Anne's reaction: DEATH. Do not attempt.

My dear brother Gonzo bravely took up the cup of marinara sauce. You can't see his expression right now, and that's really too bad for you. He's looking pretty smug about this.

tim2.jpg

Also: He got to my house wearing a suit. We put him in my denim jacket and a dishtowel to protect his nice clothes. Party on, Gonzo.

 Tim1.jpg

Gonzo's reaction: "Super ineffective." *a few seconds pass* "Bleh."

Pro tip: Do not try to drink marinara from Dixie cups. It doesn't really come out. Gonzo ended up using his peanut butter spoon to just scoop some of it up.

Finally, Violet took the carrot.

 Rachel.jpg

Violet's reaction: People actually eat these together.

In conclusion, I think we probably recommend sticking to milk. 

IMG_0431.JPG

MANY BOTHANS (or Dixie cups, or something) DIED TO BRING YOU THIS INFORMATION.

And also a few of our taste buds.

Party on,

~Anne, Certainly (with the help of her friends Violet, Gonzo, and Quatro Quatro)

Question #74189 posted on 09/14/2013 11:46 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If I got a tattoo that looked like a mixture between Zach Galifianakis and you, what would its facials look like, in detail?

-karlheinz

A:

Dear Cinnamon,

Literally the only thing I know about Zach Galifianakis is Pilgrim claims to look somewhat like him. Other than that, I have no idea who this person is.

Nevertheless, I have pictures of our attractive little faces magically combined with Zach's noggin using the wonders of science, technology, imagination and...Crayola. Mostly the last part, really.

Group.jpg

As seen demonstrated in the faces of back row (from left to right): Tally, Yog (wearing Anne's mask -- Anne was taking the picture...with my phone for some reason... I lament I forgot my real camera because now I have to post cell phone pictures and that makes my heart sad), Conceal O'Canth, Yog's head floating in mid-air, Stego Lily and me. Front Row (also from left to right, just for consistency): Maven, Tootles (who, I kid you not, behind the mask is really just a half-circle with his name in hair. It's really weird when you try to find his eyes. That's also what makes his head so big.), and TEN (who, it could be argued, is really on the back row, but then that puts me on my own back row and makes everyone else the middle row and I didn't love that).

Yay and Owl.jpg

Also Yayfulness and Owlet showed up late, so here they are. If I wasn't so distraught over picture quality, I might have attempted to Photoshop them in on the above photo, but instead everyone can just add them to the photo with their minds. It's better that way. It's always better that way.

COC.jpg

In the individual mask category, we have a majestic Conceal O'Canth. I am sure no one is surprised that she's a mermaid. We've tried to keep it a Board secret, but I guess it's out now.

Owl.jpg

And Owlet, I swear with all my heart, looks like a very pretty version of Gimgimno. It was like he was there with us and wearing lipstick (which is not all-together unusual).

Tally.jpg

The Tally-Zach mix is angry. Or intense. Perhaps brooding. One can never know the soul of a Tally-Zach. 

Yay.jpg

This is probably the most true-to-life mix. This picture is literally Yayfulness if he had facial hair. Behind that paper sack, his head is a giant circle of expressionlessness.

Yog.jpg

For some reason, Yog's masterpiece has tattoos. Does Zach have tattoos? I have no idea. Does Yog? Someone should really find out. Either way, they are there and they are artistic and I support that. Also, if you open the flap, it sings!

MSJ.jpg

And me! And this is really just me if I had purple skin, flat hair (not all hair days are winners -- even for crayon drawings) and a beard. It's good to know that if the situation ever arose, I could totally rock a beard.

Being distracted by not having my real camera, I didn't think to take individual mask pictures, so I only have the ones other writers sent to me, if anyone happens to wonder why people are missing.

Love and kisses,

-Marguerite St. Just

Question #74176 posted on 09/13/2013 12:52 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have often wondered why God let his children live without the fullness of the gospel for nearly two centuries, let alone the other times of apostasy throughout the world's history. Of course, the fact that Christianity in some form or another was so prevalent during those centuries of course spread most of Christ's fundamental teachings throughout the world, surely in preparation for the last dispensation, but even today, the process of spreading the gospel to all the people of the world is stil in it's early stages.

But I have considered the idea that perhaps the fact that the population of the world is growing so fast may mean that, even in the handful of years this dispensation may last, a much larger percentage of humanity will live in this dispensation than one may suspect at first.

On this train of thought, I ask this question: with our best estimates, what percentage of the world's population up until today had died before 1830? And what about before 1930? 2000? And how would these numbers change if you factor in our estimates of the world population in 2030? 2050?

-Too lazy to number-crunch.

A:

Dear Too,

I took PRB's statistics for world population and total living population, and came up with the equation ([total # people ever born]-[total population alive])/(total current world population).  This is what I will be using for the percentages I provide.

  • Before 1850: 93,754,639,098 ever lived, 1,265,000,000 alive; 86% of 2011 ever-borns already dead
  • Before 1950: 100,045,075,169 ever lived, 2,516,000,000 alive; 90.6% of 2011 ever-borns already dead
  • Before 2011: 107,602,707,791 ever lived, 6,987,000,000 alive; 93.5% of 2011 ever-borns already dead

I'm going to give you the 2050 numbers for the other data, since the difference between 2030 and 2050 wouldn't be large enough to be of use.

The Wikipedia article on world population states that "Current UN projections show a continued increase in population in the near future (but a steady decline in the population growth rate), with the global population expected to reach between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050." To get an actual figure, we're going to use the projected birth and death rates from Wikipedia, simplifying to easy looking numbers, then multiplying by 1 million to get my figures.

Births are expected to remain constant at 134 million.  The math there will be 134*39=5226, which gives us 5.226 billion.  The projected mortality rate that I could find was listed on Wikipedia as 56 million to to 80 million in 2040, so the math we're going to do there is (56+80)/2=68 68 million for 29 years.  I am going to assume a constant of 80 million deaths per year for the next 10, since any other number I could come up with is going to be a poor attempt at matching the math behind the people who figure out these actual projections. (68*29)+(80*10)=2772, which gives us 2.772 billion.  To figure out the total living people, we take (current total living)+(all future births-all future deaths).  This makes our 2050 world population a total of 9.441 billion (9,441,000,000).

To get our total-ever-lived number, we take the 2011 number and add all our births up to 1950 to it.  This gives us a total of 112,828,707,791.  Now we can crunch those numbers you were (admittedly practically) too lazy to crunch.

When we re-run the years before with the 2050 numbers, we get:

  • Before 1850: 82% of 2050 ever-borns already dead
  • Before 1950: 86.4% of 2050 ever-borns already dead
  • Before 2011: 89.2% of 2050 ever-borns already dead
  • Before 2050: 91.6% of 2050 ever-borns already dead

While this math answers your actual question, it doesn't answer your implied question, which is "How many people lived during a time when they could not have the fullness of the gospel?"*  It also doesn't address your most important worry, that of whether our God is an unkind God or not, seeing as many of His children lived without the fullness of the gospel in their lives due to the Great Apostasy.  

Your concern for the people who missed out on the fullness of the gospel during the Great Apostasy, while well-meaning, is doctrinally incomplete.  The spirit world plays a large factor in this.  The tens of billions or so who died without the gospel are there, and the other tens of billions are busy teaching the gospel of Christ to them. The hope we have is that these teachings are well-received, and that the missionary success rate on the other side of the veil is much greater than it is here.

It's good to keep in mind, though, that while many people lived without that fullness, Heavenly Father sends His children to Earth at a time best for each one of them.  Many of those people set the groundwork for the gospel to be reintroduced and accepted in its fullness rather than in broken bits and pieces, and I'm sure that those like Martin Luther, Confucius (who gets such a bad rap due to racist jokes), Beethoven, George Washington, and others were fulfilled and happy to live in the time they did, to help prepare the world for the gospel again.  Even the average person helped, with worship and questions and raising children who were (in ideal situations) better off than their parents.  Just because the fullness of the gospel was not available to these people doesn't mean that the people of this time were not blessed, or that they did not have inspiration from the Lord.  

If you want to read more about the Great Apostasy, I recommend this article on Eusebius, this article on how the Great Apostasy came about because of the people and not the Lord selfishly taking the gospel away, and this article on how the Lord prepared His people once again to receive the teachings they lost through disobedience.  Certain actions have long-lasting consequences, and it wasn't the Lord who decided to take those actions, it was the Christians and those who opposed the Christians.  The gospel became corrupted and confused, and the governments that came into place oppressed religious rights, meaning that even if the Church had never become corrupted, it would have been oppressed and nearly destroyed as different rulers disagreed with prophets and apostles who spoke revelation.  The Church, with the choices of the people, was bound to be destroyed and branches of it corrupted, without the networks and governments we have now.  

-Yog in Neverland

*The closest possible answer is 1 A.D.-1850 A.D.'s total births: 46,591,516,975, or 41% of the 2050 projected total.  However, this does not subtract those who were possibly visited by Christ after his death, or their next several generations' worth of descendants.  

Question #74004 posted on 09/03/2013 9:28 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So from time to time on tv or other forms of media there'll come an episode or story about a mad (or maybe in some cases just cruel) scientist who did experiments on their patients. Are there real life stories about this? It's been a while since I took a psych class so I only faintly remember learning about lobotomies and such, but I do remember that those seemed cruel and I know that at certain periods of time that metally ill patients were treated rather poorly. So, what real-life horrors stories of the past, or present, are there? And have there ever been cases of people in more modern time performing cruel experiments when the care should've been much different?

Thanks!
-Wondering where the stories came from

A:

(Editor's note: Marguerite St. Just does a very thorough job below of outlining a number of actual experiments that can absolutely be classified as cruel and inhumane. It is worth noting that, even though the links provided don't show any particularly gruesome images, MSJ's descriptions, and the additional information found in the links, is certainly disturbing and graphic. Please consider this a content warning. Thanks.)

Dear Chervil,

My immediate thought, and I don't know why this was my immediate thought, was of Dr. Isaac Baker Brown, a 19th century English gynecologist, who performed clitoridectomies (for those who don't want to look that up -- and I don't blame you -- that's basically removing the clitoris) without the consent or knowledge of the patients. I mean, there are worse things that can happen (Tuskegee being a great example and my second thought before I saw Conceal O'Canth already mentioned it), but, the idea is still horrifying to me. This is, of course, a practice that is still performed all over the world, but Dr. Baker Brown was the specific person who came to mind.

I'm also familiar with the Monster Study which was performed at the University of Iowa in 1939 over the course of six months. The study involved placing 22 orphaned children in control and experimental groups; to one group they gave positive speech therapy, praising their speech, and to the other group, they gave negative speech therapy, belittling the children for every speech imperfection and telling them they were stutterers. Many of the normal-speaking orphan children who received negative therapy in the experiment suffered negative psychological effects and some retained speech problems for the rest of their lives.
 
There is also the oft-mentioned Stanford Prison Experiment. The study itself wasn't unethical (unless you count two of the researchers being part of the study as prison wardens - which is sketchy), but the results were rather troubling. It was even approved by a review board (the International Review Board has come a long way since then). The Stanford Prison Experiment design was to randomly assign volunteers (victims?) to the position of guard or prisoner in a mock prison where the guards' only "rules" were to "maintain law and order, avoid physical violence, and prevent prisoner escapes." Of course, the part about avoiding physical violence quickly turned into "use physical and psychological violence at all possible times" because humans are jerks that way. Prisoners were beaten, stripped naked for punishments, chained together, and, though they were told they could leave at any time, the peer pressure combined with high stress of the situation made most of the subjects feel they had no escape (five of the twelve "prisoners" had to be released early due to their horrible negative reactions to the experiment). There has to be a faster way to learn about human behavior; like reading Lord of the Flies.
 
We also have the Milgram Experiment which was done at Yale in 1961 to test obedience to authority figures. The experiment began three months after the start of the trial for German Nazi ward criminal Adolf Eichmann and hoped to answer the question "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" The setup involved having an experimenter, a teacher (always an unsuspecting volunteer) and a learner (always an actor). The teacher was to give the student four word pairs and test the learner on his or her ability to remember the pairs; for each answer wrong, the teacher was to give the learner an electric shock with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. The teacher and learner could communicate but not see each other. Because that setup wasn't dramatic enough, before the learner went in the other room, he or she would first mention having a heart condition. If teachers wanted to stop shocking learners, it was the experimenter's job to prod them to continue the experiment saying it can't be stopped. The level of shock the teacher was willing to administer was considered a measure of obedience. The truly horrible part comes here: "The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease." Even though all that, they were told they were required to finish the experiment and keep shocking the learner...who was theoretically dead. Despite 84% of the participants saying they were glad to have done the experiment, I think I would have been beyond traumatized by the experience.
 
I don't know how terrible the Landis’ Facial Expressions Experiment was, but it is a tiny bit bizarre. The Purpose of the Landis experiment was to see if facial expressions were universal, so participants had black lines drawn on their faces (better to measure what those facial muscles were doing) and introduced to stimuli that would provoke a facial reaction like smelling ammonia, watching pornography and putting their hands into a bucket of frogs -- all normal things that I react to every day, really. The weird/cruel part came when they were asked to decapitate a live mouse. Most normal people, at least the ones I know, aren't terribly skilled a decapitating live rats (or, thankfully, anything, for that matter), so the participants who followed through with that instruction (I've read either two-thirds or a third of them), botched it. Terribly. Which definitely produced facial reactions. Those who were unwilling to decapitate the rat had to watch while Carney Landis decapitated the rat in front of them. Conclusion: Facial expressions differ even for the same stimuli. Sub-conclusion: Researchers can be totally nuts. Unintended conclusion: People will do nearly anything when asked by Science. Landis and Migram should have really teamed up.
 
Now for some truly horrifying experiments (is it bad that I'm organizing these by "not that bad" and "horrifying"? Maybe there's an experiment on desensitization I should be researching).
 
We'll start with Unit 731 in Japanese prisoner of war camps during WWII -- also known as the Asian Auschwitz. Thousands of men, women and children died from the experiments which studied vivisection (don't even worry, it was without anesthesia because vivisection alone isn't scary enough), organ and limb removal (sometimes they re-attached them! On the opposite side.), having limbs frozen (to study the effects of gangrene and rotting), injections of various diseases like syphilis and gonorrhea and exposure to anthrax, cholera, typhoid, dysentery and the plague. Humans were also used in testing for grenade effects, tied to stakes and targeted by chemical weapons, germ-releasing and explosive bombs. They were also starved to death, placed in high pressure chambers or centrifuges or hung upside down until death, frozen, burned, lethally x-rayed, injected with sea water, had air injected into their arteries, and prematurely buried alive. I don't even think Hollywood could touch the horrors of the Japanese POW camps in an hour-long TV show.
 
We can also look to the Aversion Project in South Africa in the 1970s and 80s where the government tried to cure homosexuality in some 900 people by forcing intense shock therapy, chemical castration, hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery. The results? It didn't work and Aubrey Levin, the doctor in charge, managed to hold on to his medical license until 2010 when he was charged with allegations of sexual abuse.
 
The last case I could recall off-hand were the experiments performed by Dr. Josef Mengele (a show I watched recently kept pronouncing it "Dr. Mangly." Without closed captioning, I'd have no idea what on earth was happening in that scene. It was weird.) in Auschwitz and nicknamed the Angel of Death or just Dr. Death. Actually, you could search anything under "Nazi Human Experimentation," as other doctors were involved, and pick your poison (as it were). Some of Dr. Mengele's horrific experiments focused on studying twins. The studies conducted on the twins consisted of blood transfusions from one twin to the other, chemical eye injections intended to turn eyes blue (they were unsurprisingly painful and could cause blindness), incestuous impregnation, isolation endurance, diseases given to one twin with the intent to kill and when the twin died, both were autopsied to observe differences, and various surgeries (without anesthesia) that included amputations, castration, sex changes and organ removal. Of the approximately 3,000 twins experiments on; only around 200 survived. He also liked to study others with deformities, including a family of seven dwarfs. Like the children, the dwarfs were subjected to frequent blood tests, but they also had regular tests on organ functions as well as doctors alternately pouring boiling and freezing water in their ears (for what purpose, I can't fathom. Two other dwarfs, not related to the family of seven were executed and their bodies were either boiled or dropped in a bath of acid to separate their flesh from their bones so they could study the bone structure. Dr. Mengele had no problems experimenting on other prisoners, especially children. 
 
There are also plenty of lists on human experimentation that list studies I hadn't thought of or even heard of:
 
Seven Absolutely Evil Medical Experiments, along with a few I mentioned, also lists the murders committed by William Burke and William Hare for the purpose of selling bodies to medical facilities for study; Dr. J. Marion Sims gynecological surgeries (without anesthesia, of course) on slaves and the Guatemalan Syphilis study where prisoners and mental asylum patients were purposely injected with syphilis.
 
Top 10 Evil Human Experiments adds to our list with Project 4.1 where the government studied residents of the Marshall Islands exposed to radioactive fallout after a nuclear test; Project MKULTRA which is a CIA mind control experiment where LSD (and other drugs) was administered to people without their knowledge; North Korean Experimentation which is similar to Unit 731 in that subjects were poisoned and suffocated in horrific ways, and the Soviets poison laboratory where poisons were developed to be tasteless, odorless and not detectable postmortem. Of course they tested it on people. Listverse wins for knowing about more horrifying studies than I do.

Listverse also has a Top 10 Unethical Psychological Experiments where we learn of Little Albert, a small child who was taught to be afraid of mice by hearing a startling noise any time a mouse was near him and David Reimer, a boy who had a botched circumcision so the doctor (with his parents approval) decided to make him a girl. The doctor believed that gender is determined by environmental factors. David, after all kinds of crazy gender identity issues, eventually became male again and committed suicide. They list a few more experiments on animals, but I'm ignoring those since you just care about people.

Top 10 Immoral and Unethical Psychological Experiments gives us the Third Wave Disaster which was a companion study to the Milgram Experiment and ended badly when the students being studied were out of control with aggressive behavior and The Tony LaMadrid Case where scientists convinced schizophrenia patients to give up their medications in hopes of studying why schizophrenics relapse. That study ended with the aforementioned Tony LaMadrid jumping off a building.

Science! 

-Marguerite St. Just
posted on 09/03/2013 3:54 p.m.
Awesome answer Marguerite St. Just. Just one tiny correction. It's Institutional Review Board, not international. There's one for every institution that performs human subjects research (including BYU).