"He's only mostly retired. See, there's a difference between being mostly retired and all retired."
Question #76927 posted on 03/25/2014 5:36 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Recently in my first relationship and, well, I'm bad at relationships. I have a hard time just relaxing and getting to know someone better and having fun. Rather, I'm too busy being stressed bc they like me more (a fact we are both aware of), because I don't know whether or not I'm marrying them, and if we're around people I'm easily embarrassed. How do I learn to relax, enjoy, and not freak out about the future quite so much?

Thanks,
relationships are not my forte

A:

Dear forte,

Disclaimer: Like you, I am somewhat recently in my first relationship. I can't say that I'm doing everything, or anything, right, or how this will work out. Hence I don't have much experience, but the things below have helped me become more comfortable with the issues you mention in your question. I hope they help you too.

First, I feel like you have some misconceptions here about the timeline of relationships. Here are some truths I've found about relationships:

No one is a failure if their first relationship doesn't end in marriage. I've seen it work in some cases, but the majority don't have love at first relationship.

Some people date for just a few weeks or months (the record I've heard is 11 days) before getting engaged. I think these stories get passed around so often we forget that some people date for years before engagement and that's perfectly fine.

And don't think that even if this relationship doesn't work out, that means you'll never marry the person. Apparently a lot of people break up and then later get back together and marry.

All this is just to show you a few examples where people didn't know what would happen in the future and everything turned out alright. That is to say that not every relationship—probably not even most relationships—progresses from first date, first relationship, engagement, marriage, baby in the baby carriage. As I learn about other people's timelines, it's amazing to see just how few people follow the "traditional" courtship. Sometimes people will say "...and the rest is history!" and we think that everything was smooth sailing from the time they met to the time they married. In truth, the "history" part usually contains a lot of confusion, fun, work, love, service, and freaking out. Hopefully learning about and gaining perspective with real relationships can help you understand that it can be fun and enjoyable despite the uncertainty. Here are some other thoughts:

Pray. Almost every night when I first started dating, and now every so often, I will talk about the relationship with my Heavenly Father. You might try praying about receiving comfort, about being calm and able to enjoy the time you have with your significant other, or about if it is right to continue the relationship. I've never received more than a feeling of "you shouldn't break up right now," but that is enough to fulfill my need for certainty until the next time I get on my knees.

Communicate. You say that your S.O. knows that they like you more. I'm hopeful that means you two communicate well. Keep this up! Or, establish good communication if you don't feel you have done so. The beginning seems to me the best time to have the awkward conversations because you know it's something new and not as committed as a more serious relationship might be. Tell him or her that you're not entirely sure of your feelings, but you enjoy spending time together. Tell him or her that you'd like to keep things low-key until you're more sure of yourself.

Set guidelines for physical affection and how you'll act around people. It might be hard for you to display physical affection when you're unsure of your feelings. This point goes along with the one above—while you're being open about everything, make sure you discuss what you're comfortable with physically. Let him or her know that you'd like to go slowly. It took me a month to be okay with kissing, and another month to actually like it. Also, I totally know what you mean by being easily embarrassed when the two of you are around people. I couldn't invite my boyfriend to ward activities for a long time because it was too weird and embarrassing and what if people teased us? I still have a hard time putting pictures of us on Facebook because what if people ask me questions I can't answer like "Are you guys going to get married?" (This has happened. You guys, if I knew we were going to get married, we'd actually be engaged.) It's hard to be proud of a relationship you're unsure of, so going slow really helps with that. Try not to compare yourself or your relationship with others (the examples above were meant to help you understand how futile comparison can be). Try going to fun events with just the two of you for a while, and then work in being around your roommates, being around his or her roommates, being at each other's ward activities, etc. As you communicate with your S.O., be honest but kind. Instead of saying "I don't want you to be there," say "I'm not ready to have my boyfriend/girlfriend at my ward prayer just yet." This shifts the motivation from being "I'm embarrassed by you" to "I'm unfamiliar with relationships and would like to keep some things the same for a while." Adding "yet" also gives the comforting feeling that someday you will be okay with it, but right now you're still progressing toward it. Plus, regardless of how you feel about the person, it's a big change to worry about two people instead of one. Your S.O. should respect your desire to continue to do some things independently.

Tell your S.O. the things you like. He or she would probably appreciate knowing the ways that they can be more attractive to you. Obviously, we're not setting out here to change anybody—you shouldn't date someone to change them, etc., etc. However, I've found that saying nice things such as "That shirt looks great on you! Do you think you could wear it to our group date next week?" or "I love it when you style your hair that way!" or "I think, to make tonight's date special, maybe we could dress up or something. I'll wear makeup and you can wear cologne or whatever you want to do," can be really helpful.

Date to learn and to serve. I'm tempted to say "Date to learn, not to marry"; however, I do believe that eternal marriage is a worthy ultimate goal. The problem is when we don't have any short-term goals, which makes the long-term goal seem vague and unreachable. As you said, dating is for getting to know someone and having fun. Make those your goals, not marriage, for now. Were you two friends at all before dating? If so, or even if not, try to at least do things for him or her out of the love you have for them as a friend. Maybe you'll come to love them as more than a friend, maybe not. That's not your goal right now. Have fun, and know that it's okay to make mistakes.

Finally, try not to worry about how you're "supposed" to feel. Hollywood really makes everything confusing, doesn't it? You sound like you have a good head on your shoulders. I think the best way to learn to relax is to give it time and not try to propel things faster than they need to go. After a while, when the two of you have grown more comfortable around each other, you can revisit the concerns you mentioned. Good luck!

-Owlet

Question #76875 posted on 03/22/2014 10:36 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Is it cheapest to buy brown rice in bulk at the Asian market (500 and main), the Indian market (I know there's at least one in Provo; where is it?), or Costco? How much do they each cost?

Many thanks!!
Almost out of brown rice.

A:

Dear brown rice, 

Wow there are a lot of different rice types! I had no idea that there were so many different varieties. 

I first tried to locate the Indian market you were talking about. My Google searches came up with Bollywood Market in Orem, but it has been closed. 

I then went to Costco...on a Saturday. Please don't do that to yourself. Ever. 

Here is the only brown rice they have at Costco, costing $1.10 per pound:

10150546_10152018582132689_517180668_n.jpg

The Asian Market had more selection, including some Indian brands. 

Option #1, costing $0.80 per pound:

923521_10152018581812689_1569189534_n.jpg

Option #2, also costing $0.80 per pound:

1012267_10152018582092689_120583320_n.jpg

And here we have option #3, which will run you $0.98 per pound:

1959969_10152018582047689_849043159_n.jpg

Option #4, costing $0.94 per pound:

1609589_10152018581952689_2088797490_n.jpg

And option #5, costing $1.60 per pound:

1978851_10152018581692689_1753037001_n.jpg

Hopefully this helps!

-Ms.O'Malley

Question #76797 posted on 03/31/2014 9:36 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Re: Board Question #76699 I clicked on the link given in the answer. I was disappointed to find that the article only listed a salsa-like substance that was tried in the experiment. Sure, the short article also said that most dips contain bacteria. I want to know how true the notion is that double dipping doesn't contribute lots more germs, not only in salsa, but in other things like:

-Ketchup
-Mustard
-Salad Dressing
-Chocolate Fondue
-Cheese Fondue
-Chocolate Syrup
-Milk
-Marinara Sauce
-Basically anything edible that food can be dipped in

So, in conclusion, double dipping isn't as bad as we think in salsa, but how bad is it in other foods besides salsa and other chip dips?

-Chef N

A:

Dear Chef N,

In order to answer your question, we decided to conduct an experiment to see if the type of condiment affected how much bacteria/fungi would grow in culture. (For all the nerds out there, this is a factorial design (2x14) in which we tried to see if there was an interaction between double dipping and type of condiment being tested.)

Chef, if you are disappointed in this, there is nothing we can do to help you.

Method

Twenty-six homemade petri dishes were prepared. We then grew cultures in them using 13 different food items, which were:

  • Soy sauce
  • Raspberry jam
  • Peanut butter
  • Ketchup
  • Salsa
  • Mustard
  • Vinaigrette
  • Sour Cream
  • Chocolate syrup
  • Pancake syrup
  • Nutella
  • Honey
  • Mayonnaise

A small amount of each food item was mixed with saliva and placed in a dish and grown for four days. For comparison, each food was also cultured without saliva for a control. Then each saliva-mixed food and its control were compared to see if there was a significant difference.

Results

Here are pictures of each food item and its control:

Soy Sauce:

soysauce.jpg

Raspberry jam:

jam.jpg

Peanut butter:

pb.jpg

Ketchup:

ketchup.jpg 

Salsa:

salsa.jpg

Mustard:

mustard.jpg

Vinaigrette dressing:

vinaigrette.jpg

Sour cream:

sourcream.jpg

Chocolate syrup:

chocsyrup.jpg

Pancake syrup:

regsyrup.jpg

Nutella:

nutella.jpg

Honey:

honey.jpg

Mayonnaise:

mayo.jpg

Discussion

Before I say anything else, one important consideration for this experiment is that we used gelatin-based medium instead of agar, which is the gold standard. This means that certain types of bacteria are unable to survive on these homemade dishes. Also, we definitely couldn't culture anything viral.

Anyways. Although for most of the condiments the experimental condition (spit) and the control (not spit) looked similar, some of them showed pretty significant differences. The peanut butter was probably the most striking. Soy sauce was pretty different as well. Both of these foods are relatively high in protein, so I'm thinking the bacteria enjoyed that.

I only noticed green things growing on ketchup and sour cream. I'm thinking those are probably fungi, and I'm not sure why only ketchup and sour grew them. How mysterious.

Everything else looked pretty similar to me. Some of the controls looked like they grew even more than the experimental saliva condition. Needless to say, there are a ton of confounds: we didn't use standard amounts of saliva or food, I chilled the medium in my fridge uncovered and maybe there were spores floating around (EW EW EW EW), we might have breathed on them accidentally at the beginning, and so on. 

Overall, it doesn't seem to me like saliva makes that big of a difference for most condiments, but protein-rich foods seem to be better for growing bacteria. That makes sense. Keep in mind that these were allowed to grow for four days though - I'm guessing you won't leave something out to that long (if you do, cease and desist).

If you want to double dip your food, I say go for it. Just don't double dip with someone who has a cold.

-Sheebs, who the mold never bothered anyway, with help from Tally M.

Question #76788 posted on 03/17/2014 11:30 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I heard a statistic on NPR that only 2 out of 10 homes has one parent that works (I'm assuming this is for a 2-parent household). Whey is there such a high percentage of families where both parents work? I'm not opposed to both parents working, but I know that for hundreds of years only one parent worked and it seemed to play out just fine (enough money, nobody hungry etc). Are things just more expensive these days?

People tend to have much, much smaller families today (outside of Utah, generally, people have more like 1 or 2 kids), and get married later (so more money saved up). Do people just have a higher expectation of what life should be like? (Big houses, two or three really nice cars, timeshares, etc). Are we living more extravagantly? Or is the minimum wage just too small (people keep saying that)?

-Confused

A:

Dear Confused,

Your questions touch on a number of economic topics, and I would like to point out just a few things.

  • Female participation in the labor force: It is actually not true that "for hundreds of years only one parent worked." Before 1920, a large percentage of Americans had farms or were involved in agriculture. Anybody who grew up on a farm should know that this is a whole family effort. Not only did both spouses work hard, but children were also expected to significantly contribute to the farm from an early age. Also, even after 1920 and up until the 1950's, because of the lack of automation the responsibilities of the wife were vast and required much of her time. It's true that women did not work out of the home as often (except, perhaps, during World War II), but they worked nonetheless. So I don't think it is fair to state that women working is a recent trend: they have worked through most of history, and only for a few decades because of automation and high US incomes have they been able to spend less time working.
  • Real wages over time: Your question "are things more expensive today?" is significant and difficult to answer. One way to measure "are things more expensive today?" is to look at the "real wage." The real wage is the wage divided by the overall price index of the economy. Basically, if I am paid $100 and things cost on average $25 to me, my real wage would be $4. If in five years I am paid $110, but the price of things in the economy have increased to $44, then even though I am being paid more in wages nominally, my real wage has decreased to $2.50. In a very crude way, the change in real wage shows the purchasing power of the money we make. Here is a graph of real wages over time (from The Current Moment):

 1024px-US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg

The red line shows real wages, which appear to be flat since 1975. This graph of real wages does not paint the whole picture and there is some debate over various aspects. For example, if you include non-wage compensation (like medical insurance, social security contributions by employers, etc.) then real compensation isn't as flat. Also, this is a good outline, but it isn't very accurate because our consumption patterns have changed. In the 50's we weren't measuring costs of personal computers or cell phones. It's just very hard to compare these things, so take it with a grain of salt.

This flat trend of real wages shows that while standards of living have risen (implying we spend more on more things), wages are only tracking this rise. That implies that families that are larger or want to have a higher standard of living than the average must work much more than others: one way to do this is to have both parents work.

This trend also simply shows the average. If you look at unskilled labor, their real wages have increased even more slowly than somewhat skilled labor (see this page)! 60 years ago a man could earn a decent living for his whole family by being an somewhat-skilled laborer (eg. in manufacturing). This is absolutely no longer the case. The only group that has seen an increase to real wage are skilled laborers. This trend will continue into the future, which is why a college education is critical for most Americans.

  • Minimum wage adjusted for inflation and effects on secondary earners: Your question of "is the minimum wage too low" probably does not play as much of a role as you might think in the discussion of two working parents. The evidence seems to show that minimum wage changes mainly affect secondary income-earning workers and teenagers. In other words, most primary workers (dads for the most part) are making more than minimum wage, so a change to minimum wage is unlikely to bump up their income to the level where it would affect the need of the other spouse to work. However, here is a graph of the minimum wage adjusted for inflation over time (source: US Department of Labor):

 chart-minwage-1938-to-2012.jpg

The red line is the minimum wage adjusted for inflation, showing that our minimum wage now is less than the minimum wage throughout most of the 50's, the 60's and 70's, and the early 80's if you adjust how much a dollar was worth then. I think there is a slight need to again increase the minimum wage for other reasons, but I don't think it will greatly affect whether both parents work, since the primary earner rarely makes minimum wage.

  • Cultural notes: After the shift to machines and automation in the early-mid 20th century, duties around the house required significantly less time. This was accompanied with a large shift from the "do-it-yourself" mindset to "now-that-it's-cheap-at-the-store-just-buy-it." Of course, there were still costs to homemaking but instead of being paid with a woman's time, they were paid with money. Around the same time, it became more culturally acceptable for women to work outside the house and many women took up this opportunity. This contributed to the shift of women into the labor force. I think we are seeing similar forces at work now, pushing women back into the labor force today.

That was a rather long answer to your question because I think it's difficult to properly analyze. In summary: yes, things are more expensive and we live more extravagantly. Wages have risen to some extent to match this rise in prices, but not across all industries and not equally among skilled and unskilled laborers. Yes, the minimum wage is probably too small (in my opinion), but that probably doesn't have much of an affect on whether both parents work. This trend will continue into the future, and that's why it is so important to get an education so you are a skilled laborer who will see a rise in real wages into the future instead of a slow and steady decline.

-Ozymandias

Question #76766 posted on 03/15/2014 12:24 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Jello sets in the refrigerator, right? But it won't set just sitting on the counter. So therefore the setting process must have something to do with low temperatures - what would happen if you put dry ice in unset jello?

-B.Fuller

A:

Dear Fuller,

Observe:

If your browser doesn't like the video, you can download it with this link (right-click, "save link as..."): Dry Ice Jell-O.mp4

For the video-averse:

Not much happens.  It bubbles and as the gel solidifies it captures the gas.  In the end you have carbonated Jell-O—which is alright.

I used one of the larger boxes of strawberry Jell-O. I added the 2 cups of boiling water and after stirring in the mix added the 2 cups of cold water. Then I added the dry ice. I added about 0.5 pounds at a time and overall used about 1.5 pounds. I'd say if you wanted Jell-O in a hurry you could use dry ice to prepare it in about half an hour (however you will probably have chunks of dry ice in your Jell-O and it will be carbonated). And you'll need to stir it around a bit during the early stages to help the dissipate the heat in the liquid. Probably wouldn't hurt to stick it in the fridge at the same time as well.

-Curious Physics Minor

Question #76547 posted on 02/26/2014 7:38 a.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

What are some sights I should see or some easy hikes in Utah I should take before leaving the state in a year? The weather has been so nice, I've been thinking of doing things outdoors, although I'd still love suggestions of good hikes for the summer! I'd especially appreciate it if you could tell me if any of the activities allow dogs and if there is any camping close by.

I feel like there are a lot of beautiful canyons I've been missing out on and I don't want to regret not doing things once I've moved away.

-February Summer

A:

Dear friend,

Thanks for asking this question! I was able to revisit memories of some of my favorite Utah sites, as well as create an epic to-do list for this summer. Here, for your viewing pleasure, is Stego Lily's List O' Utah Nature Awesomeness:

  • Zion National Park: This is, quite easily, the most beautiful place in the state. There are quite a few easy to moderate hikes, such as Weeping Rock, Emerald Pools, and the Narrows. If you're feeling brave, you could also try out Angel's Landing. It's terrifying, but the view is phenomenal. There is camping available both in and outside the park.
  • Bryce Canyon National Park: Just all of it. I love this place. Same deal on camping.
  • Kanarra Creek Canyon: This is a really easy slot canyon outside of Cedar City. It is also absolutely gorgeous.
  • Kodachrome Basin State Park: This is just outside Bryce Canyon. It's named for the colorful rock formations that surround it. There are also some great campsites.
  • Arches National Park: You can't leave Utah without having hiked to Delicate Arch. It is such a bizarre feeling to see it in person when you've only seen it on license plates for years. I also recommend Sand Dune Arch and the Fiery Furnace. 
  • Goblin Valley State Park and surrounding canyons: I wrote about Goblin Valley in Board Question #75113, so I won't go into a lot of detail here. The canyons surrounding Goblin Valley are pretty fun to hike as well. Little Wild Horse Canyon is nice, and Ding and Dang Canyon have a lot of fun, easy, rock scrambling. There are campsites just outside Goblin Valley and within five minutes' drive of the other canyons.
  • Squaw Peak: this is a little closer to Provo. It's a steep hike, but that view is worth it. This is probably my favorite hike within a half an hour drive. There's a nice camping spot about halfway up. 
  • Stewart Falls: this is a Provo canyon classic. Don't be stupid and try to climb to the top of the falls, that is how people die.
  • Big Springs: always a nice hike. In the summer, there are a few nice meadows full of grass and flowers. There's also a beaver dam.
  • Timpanogos trail: You specified "easy" hikes in your question, so Timpanogos' summit was intentionally left off the list. However, if you take the Timpanogos trail from Aspen Grove, there are a couple of really nice waterfalls to hike to. These falls bear the ever-so-creative names of First Falls and Second falls. There is also a campsite at the trailhead that is very well-maintained.
  • Timpanogos Cave: Easy hike, beautiful rock formations, and a pretty sweet guided tour of the cave. This is worth your time.
  • San Rafael Swell: I don't actually know this area super well, but there is some nice backpacking.
  • Lake Blanche: I've snowshoed here, but I've never been in the summer. It has a nice camping area by the lake and some truly majestic mountains.
I haven't been on the following hikes, but I want to:
Most National Parks, National Monuments, and National Forests won't allow your dog on unpaved trails, though many allow dogs on leashes in campgrounds. Check out this site for more detailed information. State parks don't typically allow dogs to run loose either. However, most of the other trails I listed should allow your dog.

Board Question #62433Board Question #75431 and Board Question #63832 have some great suggestions as well.

Peace,

-Stego Lily

Question #76532 posted on 03/04/2014 8:26 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have wondered for years how much faster early church missionaries traveled (walked) to and from Salt Lake City than did companies in wagons or pulling handcarts. Wagon trains and handcart companies traveled on average about 10 miles per day. That is quite slow when compared to normal human gait. According to research done on the subject of normal walking speed, most people walk about 3.1 miles per hour. A seasoned male adult traveler should be able to put in 12 to 14 hours walking per day, which would result in 37.2 to 43.4 miles distance. Assuming 1500 miles from Salt Lake to rail or riverboat transportation and traveling 6 days/week and resting on Sunday, the walking missionary should be able to make the trip in a little over 6 weeks. Can you find out what the actual time expended was? It would probably be recorded in missionary journals. Can you also investigate how the missionaries carried or obtained sufficient food for the journey? If they had to forage along the way or carry a heavy pack, that would slow them down considerably.

-dadfulness c/o yayfulness

A:

Dear Martha,

Before I start this, I'd like to point out that I took significantly less time to answer this question than it took yayfulness to answer mine. I'd also like to apologize for errors in transcription. I was tired, it was taking longer than I expected, and I really only wanted to include pertinent information. This is not an official transcription. Additionally, one of the journal writers didn't believe in complete sentences or really punctuation or capitalization. One final apology: I didn't look at Margetts' trip back across the plains, which I'm sure was recorded. Once again, it had been an hour and a half of transcribing at that point. But this should be enough information.

Alright, so your first parameter of this question is that the missionaries had to be sent out between 1847 (the year the Saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley) and 1869 (when the Transcontinental Railroad was completed). But even while the railroad was being constructed, it was sort of in use, making it dependent on the year as to how far they would've had to travel.

Since our only source for this information really  is missionary journals, that's what I've turned to. Unfortunately, there are very few missionary journals from this time period that I have access to. It's entirely possible that the Church History Library has more, but since I'm in Provo and it's in Salt Lake City, I have to depend on Special Collections instead. 

Luckily, there were two resources for this. One was a microfilm, and the other was available as a microfilm (as well as available as his original journal).

Our first resource is from John Lyman Smith. He was called on a mission to England in 1855 and on a mission to Europe in 1860, both dates falling within the specified timeline.

On page 22 of his journal, he begins to record his mission to England:

April 6th, 1855 at a general conference held in Great Salt Lake City, I was appointed to take a mission to Europe. April 28th I was set apart by Elders Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, George A. Smith and Wilford Woodruff at my house in G.S.L. City, being ill with the rheumatism and unable to turn myself in bed. On May 7th President Brigham Young called and blessed me and said I would begin to amend from that very hour. At 2 pm I was lifted into the wagon and laid on a bed being unable to sit up. Thus I started for Europe. While going down East Canyon Creek, the wagon was overturned. I was still on a bed and unable to help myself. At Fort Bridger the horses ran away and the wagon was only saved from being dashed in pieces by the horses breaking away from it. June 20, we met Seth M. Blair’s company from Texas…We laid hands on several of them and pursued our journey to Atchison, or Mormon Grove, on the 21st. On the 22nd in company with Elder David A. Curtis, I started for St. Louis, leaving the other brethren to sell our part of the horses and wagons of our outfit. On the 26th I arrived at St. Louis in the morning. On June 27 we took steamer for Keekuk, where we arrived on the 28th.

On page 28, he records his travels back from England in 1958:

Arrived in New York March 10, and went to Burlington Iowa, remained a few days, and then went to Florence and waited one month for the arrival of the Elders from the east. On May 2, 1958, I started from Florence (Winter Quarters) for Great Salt Lake City, having been absent three years and forty five days. The last day I walked fifty(?)-five miles.”

On page 34, he records his travels to Europe in 1860:

September 22nd, 1860. Salt Lake City. At the Historian Office, I received from under the hands of seven of the Twelve Apostles, a blessing and setting apart for a mission to Europe...My cousin Jesse W. Smith, William W. Cluff, John H.? P. Johnson, and myself arranged a light wagon, one horse and harness each, provisions, bedding etc., reading for starting; and on the evening of the 25th we attended a party at the social hall under the auspices of the presidency, especially in behalf of the missionaries going east...Wednesday 26th we bade adieu, received the parting blessings of all and at two pm started for Europe. Before reaching the Weber river the company chose Claudius V. Spencer captain of travel under the direction of the Apostles three of whom were with us. Some twelve or fourteen wagons were in company. October 3rd 1860. -- We passed Fort Bridger and on the 8th crossed over the South pass. Upon the 18th we passed Fort Laramie at 2 pm. The road is lined with teams en route for Denver and the Pike's peak mines. We arrived at Florence (our old "Winter Quarters") on the 6th of November. On the 13th the Elders had all gone except Elder John T. Gerber who remained with me as his mission is to be with me in Switzerland. Brother William D. Johnson took me in his spring wagon to Omaha and we took passage by steamboat "Chippoway" for St. Joseph Mo. Where we arrived on the 18th; took railroad train for Palmyra, 192 miles, crossing river Mississippi...

On page 76, he records his journey back across the plains in 1864:

Wednesday, 27th - We arrived at Quincy at twelve noon. At six pm we ferried the Mississippi river. Here we received a dispatch that Salt river bridge and Shelbine(?) station on the Hannibal and St. Joseph railroad had been burned by guerillas and we had to camp in the woods near the station. Thursday, 28th - Three trains were got in readiness and we reached the vicinity of the burned bridge at noon. We left the train and forded salt river and camped in the woods. Our luggage had to be conveyed across the river three fourths of a mile, mostly on men's backs, as only three wagons were obtainable for the heavier packages...Saturday, 20th - We all arrived at St. Joseph Mo. The last train at three pm. The roughest railroad ride I ever experienced. Sunday, 31st - After much delay, trouble and bother we left ...

Now, before I summarize all of this information, I'm going to provide for you one more source. Bear with me.

Phillip Margetts was called on a mission to England in 1857. On page 4 to page 30, he describes his journey across the plains. I've transcribed a lot of it here. Once again, I wasn't entirely sure on some words, and there are some dates where I just didn't know what to transcribe, so I didn't. (I'm sorry. It really was getting difficult to concentrate at that point.)

On the 23rd of April 1857 I started on Company with 76 missionaries from Great Salt Lake City to nearly all parts of the world, myself bound for England. This morning we started with handcarts instead of teams, hundreds of saints following us out of the City, when on the bench(?) we had the misfortune to bend our axel tree(?), sent it back to the City and in two hours we were ready to depart(?) again and traveled 2 1/2 miles of Emigration Canyon and camped for the night...

April 24th. Arose this morning and after breakfast we organized ourselves into a company...and proceeded up the Canyon and acsended the little mountain first ? and camped to noon at the willow things, after which we proceeded to the foot of the Big mountain and camped for the night where it was very cold being considerable snow.

April 25. After a very hard hill(?) we succeeded in getting to the top of the big mountain where we found about 12 feed of snow...and traveled down the mountain and ate dinner on the first crossing of Canyon Creek. We crossed the creek several times upset our cart and camped at the sixth crossing of the creek.

Sunday, April 26th arose this morning all well and ate a good breakfast than traveled along and crossed the creek ascended (?) hill and then went at a good speed and arrived at Weber river and by the end aid of the teams we crossed first late and camped on the east bank.

April 27. Arose at 4 o'clock...packed up and traveled 5 miles before breakfast. After...we went 9 miles and rested till the wagon arrived with the provisions then traveled 5 miles farther and camped. traveled today 19 miles -- all well. 

April 28th. Camp called at 4 o'clock traveled 5 miles and ate breakfast, then went over to Yellow creek for dinner after resting a short time we started again and arrived at bear river about 6 o'clock where it commenced to snow and continued all night, ell about 6 inches.

April 29th we arose this morning all well, snow almost 4 inches deep, after breakfast it commenced hailing, we traveled 6 miles and stopped for dinner as the (??) on the (?) after dinner it cleared up, we then assembled the hill and traveled 8(?) miles then camped for the night at Soda Springs.

April 30th. The ground was covered with snow this morning about 4 inches deep, after breakfast traveled to muddy and managed to get and cross without wetting my feet we made a campfire and after a good warm by our fire, we proceeded to Fort Bridger after ascending the Rocky patch, which was not accomplished without a long and a strong pull, we arrived at the fort about 7 o'clock, the day was very cold.

May 1st...ate our dinner and started from Fort Bridger at 2 o'clock traveled over a beautiful road and arrived at Smith's Fork at 6 o'clock traveled today 12 miles

May 2nd we traveled 5 miles and crossed Black's Fork 2nd time before eating breakfast this morning the water was tremendous cold ice about 1/4 inch thick the banks was likewise froze which almost froze our feet after walking 12 miles we ate dinner. we then crossed "Thames" fork were 6 miles and then camped.

May 3rd after breakfast we traveled 17 miles and crossed green river which was about two feet six inches deep...we all got over safe and camped for the night on the east bank, held a meeting in the evening...

May 4th this morning we crossed the green river cut off, ate dinner on big sapay(?) after dinner we traveled 17 miles to the next crossing of Big Sapay(?) and camped. traveled today 29 miles

May 5 traveled this morning eight miles before breakfast camped on little Sapay(?) traveled fourteen miles to Dry Sandy (?)

May 6th After breakfast we walked eleven miles and ate dinner on the "South Pass" or "Perifia Springs"(?) after which we crossed the Pass altitude (????) above the level of the sea traveled onto the first crossing of sweet water took some wagons and got a fresh supply of provisions...traveled today 22 miles

May 7th camp called at four o'clock traveled five miles on the (?) cut off before breakfast then went on twelve miles and stopped for dinner on the rocky ridge wind blowing...after which hurried on four miles and camped for the night traveled today 21 miles

May 8th this morning it was very cold traveled 6 miles...traveled today 30 miles

May 9th traveled today 28 miles

May 10th after hauling our carts 4 miles we ate breakfast on deep creek, 7 miles from "Devils Gate" after eating we hitched up and in two hours we all arrived safe at the above named place found all at the fort well...

May 11th this morning still as the devils gate after eating I repaired our cart and got everything ready for starting we left the place at 12 o'clock...then traveled 15 miles

May 12th camp called at four o'clock after traveling 4 miles we ate our breakfast on a little creek...then traveled 8 miles to willow creek this morning bro Mcintosh broke the axel of his cart which was (?) divided the food and hauled the empty cart travled ten miles and then camped for the night

May 13th we traveled this morning 5 miles to Alkaili Flats...after which we traveled 12 miles and camped for noon while eating dinner ait commenced to storm we rested 2 hours and proceeded to Platt Bridge arrived there about half past six o'clock and camped on the north side all night

May 14th after working about 4 hours in the blacksmiths shop we started down the south side of platt and arrived at muddy creek 6 miles from platt bridge ate dinner went 10 miles down the river and in consequence of thunder storm we camped for the night

May 15th traveled 6 miles and ate breakfast ...traveled 9 miles... 

May 16th traveled today 23 miles

May 17th this morning we traveled five miles and crossed the La Bonte river this day we made about 25 miles

May 18th after break fast we went over to horse shoe creek where we found Porter Rockwell

May 19th traveled 6 miles and ate dinner...Better cotton wood is 3 miles from here

May 20th. After eating breakfast we traveled through the black hills 12 miles and ate dinner on Platt 12 1/2 miles from Fort Laramie after traveling 4 miles we came to a blacksmith we then went 8 miles and arrived safe at the ferry at Fort Laramie 509 miles from the valley

May 21st Got supplies from the fort...then we traveled ten miles

May 22nd Traveled 7 and a half miles to raw hide creek ate breakfast and after we traveled for about 9 miles and camped for dinner...after dinner moved on 5 1/4 miles and camped for the night

May 23rd camp called at 4 o'clock and traveled five miles before eating breakfast, we went ten miles for dinner...traveled today about 29 miles

May 24th traveled today 29 miles

May 25th this day we made 25 3/4 miles

May 26th traveled 28 miles

May 27th made a distance of 28 miles today...

May 28th all tho we made 24 miles we crossed 10 creeks today

May 29th traveled 29 miles today

May 30th we traveled 4 miles and camped for breakfast...

May 31st traveled today 26 3/4 miles

June 1st Bro Richardson Shot 2 buffalo...traveled today 28 miles

June 2nd traveled this day 29 miles

June 3rd traveled today 30 miles

June 4th traveled today 28 miles

June 5th traveled today about 35 miles

June 8th traveled today 31 miles

June 9th traveled today 30 miles

June 10th our journey on the plains is at an end

ANALYSIS:

Alright, this is the part where I give you all of the information that you actually wanted.

It looks like they actually did walk on Sundays. (In a seven day period, there is never a "rest" day. I don't know why.) It also appears that they actually did use wagons, or as in Margetts' case, they used handcarts. This gives them the ability to carry food with them on their journey, and they mention getting provisions from forts. Also, they seem to have hunted along the way, as Margetts mentions two buffalo being shot.

From Margetts' journal, it took them 28 days to get to Fort Laramie, which was 509 miles from the valley, giving them an average walking speed of 18.18 miles per day. This increased to 21.2 miles per day after they left Fort Laramie. It seems that J. L. Smith's group took a lot longer, though they were using wagons more so than handcarts, and he was ill. On his way back, however, it seems J. L. Smith walked almost the entire way. Unfortunately, he didn't provide any details as to how he dealt with food. His second trip out to Europe took about the same time that Margetts' group did.

J. L. Smith's second trip back from Europe involved him traveling with a group of pioneers, so they traveled at the same pace as a normal group. It's entirely possible that this is what happened with Margetts as well.

So. Margetts' journey took altogether 49 days and covered just over 1000 miles, giving them an average walking speed of 22.44 miles per day.

J.L. Smith's first journey took 78 days, giving them an average speed of 14.1 miles per day. His journey back took approximately 51 days, giving him an average walking speed of 21.57 miles per day. His second journey took approximately 23 days, giving him an average walking speed of 43.42 miles per day.

-Tally M.

Sources:

John Lyman Smith. Papers (Typescript and Handwriting). MSS Film 920 #89. L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

I used the typescript of his journal, which was found after the Levi Savage biography on the same microfilm.

Phillip Margetts. Journal (Typescript). MSS Film 920 #56. L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

There's actually a microfilm of his journal available in the Family History department, and his papers are also available in Special Collections. 

Question #76492 posted on 03/03/2014 11:50 p.m.
Q:

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I've noticed that wherever there's two water fountains next to each other on campus, the shorter one always has colder water. Why is this? Is this true for every drinking fountain on campus?

-Sensitive teeth

A:

Dear Steeth,

Concealocanth and I decided to investigate your question in depth, because science. We divided drinking fountain water sources into four categories: high fountains, low fountains, high-volume water bottle fillers (henceforth known as "fwooshie things"), and low-volume water bottle fillers ("proto fwooshie things"). We also kept tabs on whether the fwooshie thing was on the higher or lower fountain, but it proved inconsequential.

IMG_2003.jpg

This is a fairly standard high-low setup.

IMG_2005.jpg

This is a high-low with a fwooshie thing attached to the low fountain.

IMG_2006.jpg

This is a high fountain with a proto fwooshie thing.

We sampled 12 fountain sets in six buildings. Here is the table of results (all temperatures are in degrees Celsius, because science):

Fountain ID Low temp High temp Fwooshie setup Fwooshie temp
Benson 1 10 10 regular high 16
Benson 2 11 8 none n/a
JSB 1 9 9 regular low 20
JSB 2 8 19 none n/a
McKay n/a 9 regular high 20
SWKT 19 18 none n/a
JFSB 1 11 10 none n/a
JFSB 2 11 11 regular low 20
Wilk 1 10 7 proto high 10
Wilk 2 n/a 6 proto high 19
Wilk 3 12 n/a regular low 13
Wilk 4 8 8 proto high 9

And here is the mean, median, and standard deviation temperature for each type:

Type Mean Median St. Dev.
Low 10.9 10.5 3.1429
High 10.455 9 4.2276
Fwooshie 17.8 20 3.1937
Proto Fwooshie 12.667 10

5.5076

Finally, here are my conclusions:

  • There is very little difference between the high and low fountains.
  • However, the high fountains do tend to be ever so slightly colder.
  • The fwooshie things and proto fwooshie things, especially the regular fwooshie things, give extremely warm water.
  • Don't use fwooshie things to fill your water bottle.
  • Seriously, don't.

-yayfulness and Concealocanth

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