everybody loves katya...
Question #53999 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear readers,

I've decided I'm way too addicted to the Board, so I'm quitting cold turkey. It's been fun answering your questions, and I hope I've been at least somewhat helpful and moderately entertaining. You have all been awesome. Thanks for all the good times.

- Cuddlefish

Question #53946 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm in a writing class right now where we all read each other's essays and then comment on them. So when it's your essay's turn to be workshopped, you get about 25 emails with comments. Most people comment in the comment-bubbles that you can put in a Word doc. They're all in their different colors and say who they're from anyway, so I'm wondering if there's a way I can merge all the comments into one doc so that when I'm revising my essay I don't have to look at 25 different copies. I can just look at one and see all the bubbles at once. Kapishe? Danke schoen!

-A secret admirer.

A: Dear Secretly Admiring,

Oh, I capisce.

On the Microsoft Office website there is a step-by-step guide to merging comments from multiple documents onto one document. It says that these directions apply to Microsoft Office Word 2007, but research tells me that there have not been any significant changes in the merging documents area since then, so do not fret.

I don't know if you want to trust my own experiences, but the last fifteen minutes have taught me this. While I haven't had anything merge-worthy saved on my computer lately, it seems that there is a really simple way to merge documents. Go to the "tools" tab where there is an option to "merge documents." Choose the other version of the document, with comments, and merge. Repeat this process until all twenty-five of your papers are together at last, in one nice document.

So those are the best options. Of course, one is probably more viable than the other. Good luck, friend!


Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have a teacher that perpetuates Mormon myths and stereotypes like no one else I have ever met. (And no, she doesn't teach religion, she teaches interior design. Go figure.) Last week, she told the class that the apostles all have specific assignment categories at conference and that Elder Holland's category is doctrine. I rolled my eyes when she said that because I always heard that the apostles just speak about whatever they think is important and she's told us several other things that definitely aren't true. But, then Elder Holland gave that awesome talk about the Book of Mormon which is definitely doctrine related. So, is there any truth to what my teacher said? And if so, what are the assignments of each apostle?

- Skeptical

A: Dear Skeptical,

Wait, you mean that 11 of the 12 apostles aren't allowed to teach doctrine at Conference? Even if multiple apostles were assigned to the "Doctrine" category, your teacher is still suggesting that there are some apostles who are asked not to teach doctrine. I challenge you to tell me which of the apostles taught mainly things that weren't doctrine.

Now, each of the apostles definitely has preferred topics. Elder Scott is known for speaking about repentance, and Elder Ballard often speaks on missionary work. But that's simply because it's a subject they like to talk about, and they feel strongly about its importance. (In addition, Elder Ballard was on the Missionary Committee for many years, though I'm not sure if he still is.)

So no. There is no truth to this idea.

Question #53943 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Is Grooveshark.com legal?

- (My Alias Here)

A: Dear Alias,

Alas, most of the music on Grooveshark is illegal; although they say they take down unlicensed music, I suspect that policy isn't enforced very vigorously, since it's still readily available. You can see the list of record labels they have licensing agreements with here; notably absent are the four big labels (Vivendi Universal, Warner, EMI, and Sony/BMG). Matt Rosoff of CNET puts it this way:
It seems that a lot of digital-music start-ups operate under the maxim that it's better to ask forgiveness than permission--they create the technology, launch the service, then count on the licensing details being worked out later.
—Laser Jock
A: "Legal" or not, I use it nearly every day.

I give props to Grooveshark for trying to effect some change in the digital music industry. I mean, they're offering to pay what is fair for the use of a label's music. Certain labels, I feel, are just being punks.

"What? Someone wants to pay us a fair amount of money to allow our music to stream and get more exposure, likely resulting in an increase in our sales? And hundreds of other labels have done it? ....Let's sue instead!"

Honestly, they're more bent on keeping their precious status quo rather than making a double profit: money for each time the song is played, and money for increased album sales. At least, that's how I see it.

Good game, EMI (who just filed a lawsuit against Grooveshark a couple of months ago)!

-Commander Keen
Question #53942 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I have some family coming to visit Happy Valley who aren't LDS. Do you have any ideas for fun things to do/see that aren't Church related? They saw campus last time they were out here, so non-BYU suggestions would be great!

- Thanks for all your hard work

A: Dear Thanks,

Oh, can I ever! Last summer I was totally prepared for this very question with experiences. I even have a list sitting in an old GChat. This is the "tentative" list, in part:

Seven Peaks
Arches National Park
Laser Tag (Laser Assault - you may want to get an even bigger group, but it is definitely fun.)
Utah Lake windsurfing
A play (BYU has a lot of good plays, but you should also look into Orem's Hale Center Theater, and the Covey Center for the Arts.)
Horseback riding at Sundance (since I don't know what time of year your family is visiting, I would suggest looking into other Sundance outdoors activities. Keep in mind this is relatively expensive.)
Thanksgiving Point
Antelope Island/Great Salt Lake
Timpanogos Cave? (1.5-mile hike required)/Nutty Putty cave? (hard hat & light required)/other cave?
The Living Planet Aquarium in Salt Lake City
Arches Fiery Furnace tour
Bonnevile Seabase Tropical Lake (This is actually SCUBA diving and snorkeling in Grantsville!)
Inlet Hot Springs

If you want more ideas for outdoor activities, visit this website. Finally, I suggest to all Provo visitors, first-timers and old-fogies alike, getting a malt at the Malt Shoppe - yummmm.

-Mico, who could really go for a pumpkin-Oreo shake about now.
Question #53941 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Hopefully most people are familiar with SB 81, passed last year, concerning immigrants. (http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/sbillint/sb0081.htm, for reference) The quick and dirty of it is, when any person interacts with any sort of government official, through school, police, or trying to obtain any sort of business license, for example, the state has the right (is obligated, actually, by the language of the bill) to try and ascertain that the individual has the legal right to be in this country. If they cannot, it gives them the ability to negotiate their deportation.
My question: how legal is this? I mean, it seems like Utah State government is taking a lot of rights reserved for federal government. And, if it IS legal, what is your take on it? It seems a bit much to me; I'm reminded of Jews in Germany being required to carry identification cards. Your thoughts?
- Marduk, slayer of Tiamat

A: Dear Marduk~

"Legal" is an interesting term to use, since it was passed into law, and is therefore legal. However, I think you're asking whether this is Constitutional, and in all honesty, I'm not sure. I hope another writer can comment on that intelligently.

You may be interested to know that the Salt Lake City Police Department has refused to enforce the aspect of this law that would require them to check for legal status of anyone they interact with. At best, I could see this evolving into perpetual racism, and at worst, it would endanger the lives of illegal immigrants who were afraid to contact the police.

Let's get this straight--I'm a Conservative. I believe that illegal immigration is a problem that we're not dealing with, and on principle, I oppose amnesty ideas in general in favor of upholding the law. However, illegal immigrants are human beings with inalienable rights that we should protect, even if they are breaking our laws. Denying them certain government services makes sense to me, but we should still do everything in our power to protect their safety and dignity.

This is my way of saying I have mixed feelings about SB 81.

A: Dear Marduk,

I agree with Hobbes, so I would just like to respond to your comparison of Utah under SB 81 to Nazi Germany.

To start, I guess we should get my political beliefs out of the way, so everyone knows where I'm coming from. I'm pretty moderate. I lean pretty far to the left on some issues, and pretty far to the right on others. Lately there has been more left-leaning, but, when it comes to illegal immigration, I am about as conservative you can find 'em. Like Hobbes said, illegal immigrants are still human beings. While I do not think that people should be granted amnesty for doing something illegal, I also do not believe that they should be treated like dirt.

Now, on to the comparison.

I don't think that this is at all like the Jews in Nazi Germany. Let's compare the Nazi attitude toward Jews during World War II with that of present-day Utah police officers who enforce SB 81. I can see where you would begin to connect the two situations, since both require that a person prove werf's "status" to an official. I believe, however, that the similarities end there. The Nazis had a vendetta against the Jews, simply because they were Jewish. Utah has no vendetta against Hispanics--it just asks that they come here legally. I think the main difference here is that in Germany, Jews had no way of escaping punishment of some form, simply because they were Jewish. The ID cards helped the Nazis to punish people because of their identity. This law does not outlaw a certain race or religion. It does not take away anyone's ability to come to Utah. It simply helps to ensure that the people who are here are here legally (you could argue that identification cards did the same thing, but I would argue that they caused the Jews to be punished for who they were, whereas illegal immigrants would be punished for what they had done.

I think of it this way: the Nazis were like a security guard who arrests someone for setting off the metal detector with the metal rod in werf's leg, while Utah police officers would be the security guards who ask everyone to walk through the metal detector before entering the plane, but still allow people who have a legitimate reason for setting it off to board the plane.

I actually hadn't really bothered to look into this law before now, so thank you for opening my eyes to it.

A: Dear Marduk,

As far as legality is concerned, it's entirely legal, seeing as it's a law.

As far as constitutionality goes, I submit the following:

First, the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution (Article One, Section 8, Clause 18) states that "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof," and one of the "foregoing powers" listed is "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization" (Article One, Section 8, Clause 4).

Also known as the "Elastic Clause," this basically gives Congress the ability to enact any law they see necessary to enforce the powers given to them, immigration and naturalization being one of those explicitly stated (if not gleaned from other loosely interpreted Section 8 Clauses, such as the Commerce Clause).

Now, this explanation has to do with this particular law because there is federal precedence to back Utah's SB-81. In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which dealt with the way government welfare was distributed. Part of what this act did was "allowed states to set up separate, state-funded programs for legal immigrants" (source; 2nd to last paragraph). This most definitely increased federalism and states' powers as they pertained to immigration as far as it concerned welfare and other governmental public services.

Then, SB-81 itself states this:
The attorney general shall negotiate the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the state and the United States Department of Justice or the United States Department of Homeland Security as provided in 8 U.S.C., Sec. 1357(g) for the enforcement of federal immigration and customs laws within the state by state and local law enforcement personnel, to include investigations, apprehensions, detentions, and removals of persons who are illegally present in the United States...
8 U.S.C., Sec. 1357(g) reads (in part):
...the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local law...
You can read the rest of that here, if you'd really like to.

Basically, that's the U.S. government giving states the go-ahead to enforce immigration standards on their own, so long as they're pals with the feds in doing so.

But beyond the constitutionality of it, what's so wrong with a law that gives a government further powers to enforce an already existing law (that is, that illegal immigrants are just that: illegal)?

Let's look at what the actual law says. To quote a bit/paraphrase, this law does the following:

- "Requires a county sheriff to make a reasonable effort to determine the citizenship status of a person confined to a county jail for a period of time and to verify the immigration status of a confined foreign national"
- Prohibits the issuing of a restaurant liquor license or private club license to an illegal immigrant
- Clarifies in-state tuition benefits for illegals
- The maximum state income tax is withheld from independent contractors who can't prove that their employees aren't illegal aliens
- Identification documents can only be issued to legal U.S. residents (citizens, nationals, etc.) or those whose immigration status is pending (meaning they've gone through the appropriate channels)
- Requires employers to verify their new employees' immigration status
- Prevents an employer from firing a legal resident if they have an illegal resident in the same job position
- Requires the state (any department, agency, etc.) to verify the lawful presence of a person in the U.S. before werf can receive government benefits
- Provides penalties to any agency employee falsely reporting an immigrant's status
- Creates an agency to investigate fraudulent documents and their distributors
- Basically, establish understanding with the U.S. Department of Justice or Homeland Security so as to better enforce national laws
- Prohibits a government agency or organization from prohibiting their employees/officers from communicating or working with the feds
- Makes it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly transport or harbor an alien

So...it's officially illegal to be illegal!

Alternatively, we could have everyone swear by the honor system. "You guys PROMISE that you're legal? Well...okay then, here's some taxpayer money!"

Just in case people think I'm saying that we shouldn't even allow illegal immigrants such basic rights as healthcare, you should be informed that PRWORA essentially states that "Immigrants in the U. S. illegally [are] barred from benefits, except for assistance for medical emergencies" (source). As far as I know, this law has not been overturned and isn't affected by Utah SB-81, so healthcare in emergencies isn't a huge concern in this issue, as I see it.

(Of course, I fully admit that I could be interpreting all of this entirely wrong, seeing as I'm a former-political-science-hopeful-turned-biological-science major, so I invite someone to correct me if I'm entirely off base. My legal expertise is very limited.)

Again, I'm not a fan of treating other human beings like animals, but I don't think denying someone the ability to live off of the government of a country they don't belong to counts as cruel and unusual punishment. Just sayin', the connection of this to Jews in Nazi Germany, at its very best, on a good hair day after a nice night of beauty sleep, is extraordinarily distant. Heaven forbid that a state requires its residents to show their legality before enjoying the same rights as taxpaying citizens.

There's much more that could be said, but this response is already ridiculously long and I'm late for FHE. If you want to do a bit more reading on the subject, you can check out this website, or a Google search reveals plenty.

-Commander Keen
Question #53940 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Would you recommend taking Accounting 200 with Nemrow twice a week for 1 hour and 15 minutes or one night a week for 2 and a half hours? (I prefer not having evening classes, but the twice a week class that works for me is at 8 in the morning......) Just wondering if any of you have personal experience with that.



A: Dear K,

Although I have not taken Acc 200 I would nevertheless recommend taking the class twice a week. Last Fall semester I took the Introduction to Astronomy class once a week for two-and-a-half hours. I so love Astronomy, but holy goodness was that class hard to sit through. It didn't help that that class took place in the planetarium, so most of the time the lights were off and we had to lean back in comfortable chairs.

Ahem, anyway, Acc 200 may not be as comfortable, but that is such a long time to be in class. Falling asleep, getting bored, and simply wanting to do other things are only a few of the side-effects of an evening class. And if you decide to skip the class one week then you have missed out on a lot more than if you miss one class that takes place twice a week. Waking up early, though a sacrifice, would definitely be easier for me in the long run.

A: Dear K,

I understand all sections of the class, despite whatever it says on the registration site, actually use the Accounting 200 software. Class is typically a TA help session, and as I understand it most people never go (and I think this includes Master Nemrow).

I once considered majoring in Accounting in our beloved* Marriott School, so I took Acc 200. My class was a three-hour thing in the evening; I think I attended at that time exactly once and then the rest of it was based on the software. So I speak of that which I know.

So the time almost definitely doesn't matter at all.

~Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe

*I trust everyone's heard that Forbes' Let's Make Fortunes of US News and World Money Report Magzine recently ranked the Marriott School number =roundup(rand()*4) in some category or other blah blah etc. (We all know this type of announcement happens about every three weeks, and I'm going to poke fun at it, and you're going to enjoy it. Deal? Yay.)
A: Dear Very short alphabet,

I have never taken accounting, but I have a lot of experience in three things:

1. Taking evening classes
2. Having to wake up early
3. Skipping class

Based on my experience no normal human being would EVER wake up willingly at 8:00 in the morning to go to an ACCOUNTING class. If, for whatever reason, you do plan on going to class*, I would suggest taking the evening class. For one thing, you won't have to worry about sleeping through class (and if you do, you have bigger problems). Secondly, if it really is all TA and no professor, you can stay for the first part of the class where they typically talk about tests, etc., and book it shortly thereafter. It's the perfect plan.

Or, you can take the morning class and hate your life. Whatever works for ya.

I haven't skipped class this week! Oh, wait...


*Who does that?
Question #53939 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

This question is really aimed at those of you who are married...

My husband and I were married in the temple 7 months ago and to make the understatement of the year, we've had a lot of fights. We live in the apartment connected to his mom's house right now because we can't really afford to pay high rent and also because his mom is a widow and he is the last child so he feels obligated to help her out with every possible thing.

So my question is about time management. If I had to categorize our fights, I would say that the majority of them center around me feeling like he doesn't spend enough time with me and make me his number one priority. We've talked a lot about this and I'm just wondering if I am being selfish by wanting to come before his family, calling, etc.
His calling is in young mens, so the majority of the week I am left home by myself while he plays dodgeball with the young men. I'm never opposed to him going to important meetings, home teaching, Duty to God, BYC, etc. but I just feel like I am always #2 after his calling and his family. My family lives in Oregon and we live in Tennessee and I don't have many friends here.
I have had so much heartache over my feelings about consecration and trying to decide why I feel so angry at his calling. Doesn't he have a calling as a husband? Or does everything in the Church come before a wife?


A: Dear Confused,

My dad has had fairly demanding callings for much of my parents' life together, so I decided to e-mail my mom with your question and see if she had any useful advice that might help you. Here's her response; it's addressed to me but shared here with her permission:
When we lived in [name of state], your dad was in graduate school getting his Ph.D., and he was also the stake clerk. The stake center was 1 1/2 hours away or so, and he had to go there every Wednesday night for stake meetings, and sometimes on Saturdays and Sundays. Other nights, he worked pretty late, trying to do research and other school-related things to get his degree. He was also a very committed home teacher, and was called often to help his families. At the same time, we had three children ages 5 to a few months, and I was pretty overwhelmed at having to handle everything at home while he was gone most of the time. One day I was chatting with a friend of mine, and she asked me where your dad was. I sighed, and said he was at a meeting again (not quite complaining!) She said something that has stayed with me and changed my attitude forever. She said that she wished her husband would fulfill his calling. She wished he would go home teaching and go to meetings. She wished he would live the gospel. Wow! All of a sudden my burden was put into new perspective! I was and am grateful that I am married to a man who takes his covenants and commitments seriously. Sometimes I get less time than I would like, but I don't resent it. I am as supportive as I can be.

That being said, it sounds like Confused has a somewhat different situation. She doesn't mention whether she and her husband make time each week for each other, which is very important. Maybe if she knew she was going to have some quality time every week that was just for her, the other times when she comes in second wouldn't be so tough. She is right, a husband should put his wife first (and so should a wife put her husband first) since they are developing a relationship that will be eternal. A weekly date, weekly Family Home Evening, daily scripture study together, daily prayers together, and dinner together each night could make a lot of difference. Your dad and I spend time together every day, usually as we are getting ready for bed. We get ready together, and talk about the day, write in our journals together, say prayers together, etc. It can take an hour to get ready for bed! She may have to instigate some of this at first, but it can turn into time that her husband will appreciate, too. And if he feels supported instead of resented, maybe he will want to spend more time with her. Can she not go with him to the YM activities? A batch of cookies and an enthusiastic audience could make her a very welcome addition to the activities! Although I don't think she is being selfish for wanting his time (after all, they probably spent a lot of time together before they got married!) it does sound like she is going about it the wrong way. Arguing and demanding time is not going to make him want to spend it with her!
I don't have much to add, except to say that my parents have one of the best, closest marriages I know of. I sincerely wish you luck in figuring out how to work together with your husband on this.

—Laser Jock
A: Confused-

I agree that fulfilling callings and spending time with family are important things, but your husband's first priority should be his family, and that is you. Your parents and siblings have suddenly become extended family, and your time with them should be curtailed accordingly. I recognize that this is hard while you live so close to his mother; I live in an apartment in the second floor of my parents' house, and it can be difficult to balance your time. However, it's important that you do things together. Don't spend every evening with your mother-in-law, but maybe have dinner once a week or something. Talk to your husband about his calling, and see if you can't get him to cut back the amount of time he spends on it. It should not be replacing his time with you. If he truly can't figure out how to cut back his time, you might try something my parents did back when my dad would leave for work by seven in the morning and not return until nine at night. My mom would put us all to bed (since you don't have kids, you can skip this step), and she'd set the table with the nicest dishes and make sure dinner was hot and ready when he got home. Then they'd sit and eat whatever it was (my parents were not rich, so the food itself was simple), and talk about their days and spend time together. Sometimes we'd sneak onto the stairs and watch them be together. It was very sweet, and a good way of connecting during those busy times.

I hope that helped.

- Cuddlefish
Question #53938 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Of all the students at BYU, who has the most Facebook friends and how many do they have?

Faithfully Facebook Flummoxed,

Prancing Paradox

A: Dear Prancing Paradox,

It's against Facebook's terms of use to write a bot program to definitively answer your question by searching all the BYU profiles. Even if it was allowed, we still couldn't measure people with higher privacy settings. So a definitive answer isn't possible without completely hacking Facebook's servers, which we are much too virtuous to even consider.

But, using our omniscience, we've concluded that it's likely Adam Ruri, last year's BYUSA President, with 2,512 Facebook friends.

Being BYUSA obviously makes him very evil, so you might find his number of friends surprising. But maybe BYU students are just putting D&C 82:22 into action on Facebook.

~Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe
Question #53937 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I got an email forward that had a poem in it without attribution, and I can't even find the poem on the Internet. Can you track down who wrote it?

Here it is:

Poinsettia on the Moon

Sitting alone
at the base of a dune
far, far away
on the face of the moon
a ruby red poinsettia

Explanation she defies
“Look at me!” to Earth she cries
a miracle which sadly eyes
never have beholden

How could nature be so cruel
to hide this rare and precious jewel
up where none could ever see
gifted yet in misery
special yet neglected

Perhaps if she were less amazing
easier to find
planted on a lower level
more of the Earthly kind
then she’d be detected

but then she’d miss the view

what would you do
if it happened to you?

- person

A: Dear person,

You are absolutely right. This poem refuses to be locate-able even after exhausting all my research skills, and for that, I apologize. I am now of the belief that this author, for whatever reason...doesn't want to be found...In fact, this entire poem was most likely a secret code, meant for another people in their evil little world domination scheme as a signal that the operation is ready to begin.

Red poinsettia poet? I'm onto you. You'll never get away with this!

Question #53936 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I miss my drum set from back home. I thought about taking a drum class in the HFAC this semester but they require at least an hour of practicing a day which I don't have time for unfortunately. I was hoping they'd have a free access room or something but I've found it's only open to music majors, which I am not. Do you know of a place I could play drums? Whether its lessons or not I just want to jam once in a while.

- Missing His Groove

A: Dear Missing His Groove,

We've actually answered a very similar question before in Board Question #50020. Unless you can make friends with someone who has a drum set, it looks like your best bet might be to just sign up for Music 160R Percussion.

If you already have some experience with playing drums, then maybe you could slide by with a little less practice time and still do well in the class.

-Sky Bones
Question #53934 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

If I were to choose a religion, ANY religion, based solely on the awesomeness of its music, which one should I choose? Sorry, peeps, but Mormonism wouldn't even make the top 5 on this one, in my book.

Harriet Smithson

A: Dear Harriet Smithson,

I nominate all Christian sects that embrace handbells because handbells are just that awesome. (Should you watch the movie I linked to, make sure you get to 2:50 or so and ask yourself how that is humanly possible.) Catholics, Methodists, and Lutherans come to mind. Seriously, talk about an under-appreciated art form. And if you want to learn how to count complicated rhythms, there's no better way.

I also nominate all of the India-based religions, just for being cool.

- The Black Sheep, handbell-ringer extraordinaire
A: Dear Harriet~

Pentecostals win, hands down. Whatever your taste in music, they do it somewhere, and they probably do it moderately well.

In second would be Catholics, primarily because they have those nice cathedrals that really carry the sound well, although Eastern Orthodox Christianity has much the same advantage.

Islam has some interesting musical performances of the call to prayer and the Qur'an, but I'm not sure they qualify as "awesome" per se.

A: Dear Harriet Smithson,

Southern Baptists, and not white Southern Baptists neither. Never before have I enjoyed music in church so much as the time I went to a Black Baptist church. The music was awesome and the performance was awesome. It was all-around awesome!

Oh, and Hobbes; I lived next to a mosque all summer and I would qualify the call to prayer as awesome, even at 3:50 AM...

Dr. Smeed
Question #53919 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear Commander Keen,

From your responses thus far, you seem to be intelligent, kind, interesting, and friendly, and you have a good sense of humor. Do you have a dating application or process? If not, would you like to create one?

- CK makes me think of Calvin Klein before Commander Keen

A: Dear mistakenly thinking of Calvin Klein first,

The first thing I thought when I read this was, "Bahahaha!"

But really, I was having a conversation with my sister a couple of days ago, and it went a little something like this:

Her: "You know [CK], I like reading your responses on the Board, but if I didn't know you, I'd say you were a really sarcastic jerk!"
Me: "Yeah, me too!"

So, this came as somewhat of a pleasant surprise.

But you know, you're right; I've been doing various things to meet new people, but maybe it's time for something different - something to take things to the NEXT LEVEL:

Blind dating through internet petitions!

So, I present to you (as in, the general readership of ladies) the CK Dating Application!

Go to!

-Commander Keen
Question #53915 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

About 70% of BYU tuition is subsidized by the LDS Church. (See Board Question #2.) Has BYU tuition always been partially subsidized? Has the percentage varied?

- Katya, who does not think she has ever cited such a low question number

A: Dear Katya,

BYU's tuition has not always been subsidized. Prior to 1914 BYU was paid for in full by super-nice beneficiaries (like Mr. Jesse Knight), fundraisers by locals, and students. Yet these donations did not cover all the costs of running a university, and when 1918 rolled around BYU owed upwards of one hundred thousand dollars. That is a lot of debt, and this was before the LDS Church began teaching about saving money on a larger long-term scale.

Anyway, once BYU had fallen into so much debt the Church claimed the school as their own and this is when subsidizing of BYU began. Church tithing funds originally paid for approximately one-third of BYU's annual budget. Now the Church pays for seventy percent of every student's tuition, so yes the percentage has varied. The Brigham Young High School currently maintains this website with the history of BYU from its time as Brigham Young Academy through the modern day.

Question #53914 posted on 10/13/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I know that Jane Austen died without ever marrying or having children, but are there any relatives of hers living today? If so, who are they, what is their relation to Austen, and whereabouts (generally) do they live?

Temperance Brennan

A: Dear Bones

I don't have any names, locations, or other information useful for stalkers, but I did find proof that descendants of her brothers are alive and kicking. From this site:
On March 25, 1996, the Wall Street Journal published a front page article by Amy Stevens entitled, Poor Jane Austen Didn't Live to See "Sense and Sensibility." The article noted the recent spate of films based on Jane Austen's works and the grousing of some of her distant descendants. (Jane Austen herself died childless, so the grousers are descendants of her four brothers--great, great, great nephews and nieces of the author.) The complaints were of two types: Some just wanted a share of the earnings from recently created works based on the public domain Jane Austen novels. One factory worker, for example, said he had been working at a "dead boring" job for 25 years so it "would be quite nice" to have some income from the newly found popularity of Jane Austen's works. Another said he was pleased with the family connection but would rather be able to buy a Mercedes to replace his old VW. The second group complained about having no control over Jane Austen's "artistic legacy." One claimed to be "depressed" at resiting Emma in a southern California high school, for example. Others were "furious" at some of the risque scenes in the TV miniseries version of Pride and Predjudice. According to another, Persuasion was "perfectly frightful."
The Wall Street Journal article I quoted generated some debate, including the following response:
The page-one article by Amy Stevens on March 25 nicely illustrates the dangers of an ever-longer period of copyright protection. (Congress is now seriously considering legislation to extend this period by another 20 years,) Put aside that the fifth-generation descendants mentioned in the article are not those of Jane Austen herself but rather of her brothers. What moral claim do such distant descendants in any event have to avoid the "dead boring" jobs with which most of the rest of us are saddled by participating in the income generated from current creative uses of Ms. Austen's works? If they had Ms. Austen's or even studio screenwriters' creativity, they could write and profit from their own works.

The article also indicates that some of these relatives are appalled by what they regard as distortions of Ms. Austen's artistic legacy. What gives this particular set of some 100 people uniquely apt qualifications to judge whether a use is "good" or "bad"? There are probably hundreds of true students of Ms. Austen's works who understand her artistic legacy much better, and some of whom may be equally appalled; yet no one seriously thinks even a group of knowledgeable scholars should play the role of thought police. The whole point of placing works in the public domain after authors have had a reasonable chance to profit from their works is to allow everyone the opportunity to use them as the basis for new works. This maximizes the number of new works that the public can enjoy, and the market decides what is good and bad.
-Humble Master
A: Dear Temperance Brennan,

According to Wikipedia, British actress Anna Chancellor is an eight-times great niece to Jane Austen. That's the only name I was able to find.

- The Black Sheep