everybody loves katya...
Question #54136 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dearest 100 Hour Board,

I have a friend who is currently serving a mission. In a recent letter he sent me the link to a sound file (.wav) for a couple of talks that he gave last month. I typed the link into both Windows Media Player and iTunes (on two different computers - one at home, one at the library) and neither of them work. Windows told me it was a code error C00D1197. Now, I know it sounds as if it's a bad link but I'm not all that confident in my technological skill. I was wondering if the 100 Hour Board in its infinite wisdom might have any suggestions? Thanks for your time!

- A very confused PC user

A: Dear very confused,

There's not a lot we can do from here, but that error message looks like it's most likely due to an incorrect address. It's also possible that it's an unsupported format. (See here and here.)

My suggestion would be to try going to the link in a regular web browser. See if you can get to the page at all. If you can, your browser will either just start playing it or will prompt you to download the file. (If it just starts playing and you'd like to download it instead, go to the "File" menu and try "Save as".) If it says there's an error (something along the lines of not being able to find the file), then either (a) he sent you a bad link, (b) the server is temporarily down, or (c) the file has been removed since he put it up.

Good luck!

—Laser Jock
Question #54135 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Monday, October 19th, I was walking around campus at approximately 10:30am from the JSB to the WILK. I saw multiple pairs of people where one person would be blindfolded and the other was, presumably, making sure they didn't run into anything (or anyone) and was guiding the blindfolded person to various locations around campus (I heard "The Statue" and "The SWKT" were two of these locations). Do you know what they were doing, exactly? And why they were doing what they were doing? It was really weird.

- 5 years at the Y and I've never seen that before!

A: Dear I've experienced it,

I didn't witness this odd occasion, but I experienced something eerily similar last year, and it was what we young people call a Creative Date.

The premise of the event was for my date, Guyname, to lead me around campus, blindfolded, as his hands were tied together, and do Silly Things together. For example, he had to lead me from my place of residence to the Cougareat, where he ordered our dinner, BUT I had to do all the work because he couldn't use his hands. So, I had to get his wallet (don't worry, he got it out of his pocket, or else I would've called the date off), pay for it with his money, get our beverage, carry the tray to our table, and feed him and myself...without the use of my eyes! Now that is creative, is it not?

It was an interesting way for me to get to know Guyname. Especially considering the fact that I really did not know him up until this date. Since then, my mind has erased every ounce of awkwardness I experienced on this date and we're now great friends. So maybe the people you spied were performing a similar ritual of dating/getting-to-know-each-other-ness. Either way, it brought back a fond (weird?) memory to my heart.

A: Dear 5 years,

The exercise is a sensory appreciation lab for Dr. Steffensen's Sensation and Perception class (listed under both Neuroscience and Psychology). Dr. Steffensen didn't have much else to say about it, except that "it seems like an elementary exercise but it turns out to be pretty profound." It sounds like a good way to appreciate our sense of sight.

Question #54128 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Has there ever been any official Church opinion about the book of Job? Somehow I can't visualize Jehovah having a conversation with Mr. Evildude. Don't the scriptures say that evil could not be accepted near deity? Or does God need Satan in order for His Plan of Salvation to be carried out? What's the board's opinion?
not visionary

A: Dear not~

In the CES manual it suggests that it's uncertain whether Job is metaphorical or literal, which implies that the Church has not made an official statement about the same.

However, it also mentions that the Lord tells Joseph Smith in D&C 121:10 that "Thou art not yet as Job." It would be somewhat unfair to compare Joseph Smith to a person who never existed, which is strong evidence that the Book of Job is at least in part literal.

As for God speaking face-to-face with Satan, I agree with you. It seems odd, although I don't think it's beyond the realm of my imagination, either.

A: This response does not have the proper approvals.
Question #54126 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm not actually sure how to phrase this question, but here goes!
I read Maureen Johnson's "13 Little Blue Envelopes" a while ago and really liked it. I would like to read more books (either fiction or nonfiction written as a novel, if that makes sense) about young adults traveling or living in England. I'm not really interested in "historical" novels; I'd prefer the timeframe to be the 1980s-present. London is the most interesting to me as a setting, but any book where the setting is England (and where the setting is a major part of the story) is fine.

I can't think of any way to find books based on this criteria, because I can't search by genre (pretty much any genre is fine with me, it's the setting that I'm looking for). I'm looking for either book recommendations or suggestions on how to search for books meeting these criteria.


A: Dear Anglophile,

To Ama-zon!

Or you might try a more visually stimulating site, Wikipedia, Fictional Cities, or Biblio Travel.

If that's not enough to sate your craving for London literature, search "good books set in London." It might also help your searching to know that the technical term for "non-fiction written as a novel" is creative non-fiction.

Happy Reading,
Question #54122 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

So I'm dealing with my "Hey, I'm not going on a mission yet/ever due to worthiness issues, so I'm essentially wasting my life and living with my parents for now" depression as best I can. So far it's not been too bad, aside from, you know, being depressed. No trying to kill myself (except that one episode early on), so that's good. Talking to the bishop every week or so.

I have, however, noticed an interesting side-effect of my depression: a compulsory need to be charitable. It's been hard for me to do any physical service, what with my difficulties regarding doing anything these days (which, of course, gets my dad yelling at me about how I'm being lazy and not preparing myself for my mission, which gets me yet more depressed, which makes me want to sleep more and do less.... etc.), but I have signed up to be an organ donor, and also listed myself on the bone marrow donation registry.

It was when I found myself looking at options for living organ donations that I decided to stop and think about what I was doing. It's kind of the same as my immediate compulsion to join the army, in a way. I want to feel like I'm doing something. It's like a sort of atonement, I guess.

So! Here's my question: Even if my motivation is simply depression and feeling useless, should I still consider giving a kidney or part of my liver or intestine to a stranger? Or should I talk to a psychiatrist, etc, wait a while until I'm sure that my motives are correct?

Keep in mind when answering that every day I deliberate is a potential life I could have saved, but didn't.

- Useless in.... Uzbekistan? Uruguay? Utah? U-something.

A: Dear Useless,

Please consider this passage from C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters. If you don't know the book, this is some advice given out to an amateur demon to tempt a young man (the "patient"):
Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient's soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary. There is no good at all in inflaming his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train.
It's great that you're a donor and that you want to help strangers. These are good things. But they're hardly the apex of charity. The notion that you feel charitable, but not to the extent that you're moved to actually physically do something is contradictory.

If your depression is really affecting your life this much, it's probably clinical depression and you need help. Please see a psychiatrist or a therapist. And then, put your charity where it really makes the most difference: go volunteer at the hospital, or at your local library or elementary school, or in after-school programs, or at an old-folks home, or as a youth mentor, or anything. Serve in your community.

Further: I can't pretend to analyze the psychological implications of your desire to donate your organs. But I can go into the religious implications. You say "It's like a sort of atonement." Please don't take this harshly, but you don't understand the atonement. Please, learn all you can about it. Read your scriptures. Pray. Talk to your bishop about it. Read Ensign articles about it. Read Believing Christ by Steven Robinson. When you understand the atonement correctly, it will heal you spiritually. You may still need outside psychological help—that's okay—but the atonement will wash away your guilt and sins.

Your mention of the atonement seems to have the implication that you believe that your self-sacrificial actions can redeem you from sin. Not true. Only one person's sacrifice can redeem us from sin, and that's Jesus Christ's. To appropriate a phrase from Mormon, likening any good work, no matter how self-sacrificial, to the atonement is "mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works." Good works are important in showing your faith, but they will not save you. Remember the words of Jesus, "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent." Sacrificing your own flesh will not bring you an iota of salvation: only the flesh of Christ.

So, if I haven't misread your question, and you are in any way trying to save yourself, stop it. There's a reason Christ is called the Savior. He saves people. He's the only one who can. He's already paid the price for your salvation, so realize it and accept it, and devote not your body, but your soul and life to him.

As Omni said, "I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved."

Waldorf and Sauron
A: Dear Useless in.... Uzbekistan? Uruguay? Utah? U-something.,

There shouldn't be that one episode early on, and there shouldn't be depression for any reason that keeps you from functioning. No circumstances justify that for an extended period of time. (I don't mean that nothing makes it okay for you to feel that way. I'm just saying that you haven't done anything bad enough for you to deserve to feel that way.) I hope that along with seeing your bishop and working toward spiritual healing, you will see a therapist.

- The Black Sheep
Question #54121 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Will the 2009 Air Force @ BYU football game be broadcast live on TV this year? If so, what network is broadcasting it?

Many thanks - RICK

A: Dear You're Welcome

Yes, it will be aired live. Unfortunately it will be aired live on CBS College Sports, which is a channel that is not as commonly available as ESPN or even Versus. Whether or not you get that particular channel will depend on your cable/satellite package.

-Humble Master
Question #54120 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

Lately, every time I make hard-boiled eggs the outside layer of eggwhites sticks to the shell when I peel it off, reducing the amount of egg by almost 1/3! I tried letting the eggs sit in cold water for almost 30 min before peeling them, but it didn't seem to help. Am I cooking them wrong? Is there a way to ruin hard-boiled eggs?

Miss Lovett

A: Dear Miss Lovett,

There is actually a way to ruin hard-boiled eggs, but you have to really try--one of my freshman-year roommates actually cooked one until all the water had completely boiled away, and our apartment smelled terrible. Anyway, I was rather curious about your question myself, so I ran an extremely informal, non-scientific experiment. One egg I just stuck in room-temperature water, brought it to a boil, then turned down the heat and let it simmer for 20ish minutes. Same procedure for the second egg, except I added 1/2 tsp. of salt to the water--a lady on my mission always claimed that was the key to having easily peeled eggs. The third egg I cooked in the manner of (another) old roommate: I put the egg in room-temperature water, brought it to a boil, then completely turned off the heat and let it set in the hot water for 10 minutes.

Well, not to disappoint, but there was practically no difference between the three eggs. And they all peeled perfectly smoothly, though the salted egg's shell slid off in one big piece. Also, I'm not going to lie, I did use your question as an opportunity to try this out! Unfortunately, it didn't work. At all. I guess you could say that that technique for removing egg shells blows (ha ha!). Anyway, from this experiment it would seem that it really doesn't matter how you cook your egg, provided it gets fully cooked, but rather it is something about the egg itself that affects whether or not it peels easily.

I cracked open my food prep class textbook for the second time this semester, and lo and behold, it gave some useful information on hard-boiled eggs. Apparently, fresher eggs actually don't peel as well, because the pH level is lower. As they age, carbon dioxide leaves the egg, raising the pH level--egg whites with a pH of at least 8.9 peel the best. If you look at your eggs, the bigger the air pocket, the older the egg. I'm guessing you must have just had fresh eggs, and that's why yours didn't peel well. Mine are on the older side--don't worry, eggs stay good for about 5 weeks, as long as they're refrigerated! If your eggs ARE fresh, raising the pH of the water ought to help with peeling. Try adding a teaspoon of baking soda to the water you boil them in.

Happy cooking!

-Miss Scarlett
A: Dear egg-xactly, heh heh... d'oh!

Apparently if you don't change the temperature quickly, that helps. This article suggested to start the water off really cold, bring it to a boil, and then carefully chill the eggs before shelling them.

My grandfather had this plastic dealie that pricked a very small hole at the base of the egg, where the small air cell is, before he boiled it. That worked too; I guess the water didn't ruin the actual egg, but just seeped in between the shell and the albumen.

And hey, if you're really lazy, just get one of these things. You pop in a boiled egg and it poops out a peeled one! What could be more simple? ...or appetizing!

Question #54119 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

A few years ago I took Intro to Film from Dean Duncan (great guy). When we were learning about the use of sound, he showed us a clip where a guy is walking over the ice and falls in. Then the film cuts between shots of the guy struggling under the ice full of frantic sound and shots of the surface of the frozen lake with no sound at all (and there might even be a white bunny). But for the life of me I can't figure out what that film was and I'm dying to watch the rest of it!

Help, please!


A: Dear Damasta,

Never Cry Wolf

Waldorf and Sauron
Question #54116 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I saw in the archives that a question was asked as to what happens once we hit submit. However, an editor's note stated that the information was true at the time; I have not seen, in the archives, a similar question. Hence, I ask the same.

- Anonymous

A: Dear Anonymous,

Though this information may or may not be in the archives, we actually have a section of our website devoted to information about the Board that readers might find interesting; suitably enough, it's called "About Us" (found in the left-hand sidebar). And underneath "About Us" is a section called "Behind the Board," which includes an explanation ("From Question to Answers") of what exactly happens when you submit a question.

Much of the material under "About Us" is somewhat outdated* (this includes "Behind the Board," "Published Articles," and "History"), but this particular page is still accurate. Thus, I suggest you follow the link above to see how the process works. Enjoy!

—Laser Jock

* We'll be updating everything at some point, but our main priority right now is getting the next version of the website finished, so that'll probably come first.
Question #54103 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I'm not sure if I'm really colorblind or not. I usually see colors right, but there are times that I have trouble distinguishing colors, especially with green. What do you think?

- Greenie

A: Dear Greenie-

Well, fortunately for you, there are ways of measuring this. As a colorblind dude myself, I'm experienced in this realm and I can help you pretty easily.

First, are you a guy? Is your maternal grandfather colorblind? If you answered "yes" to both of these questions, you're already at 50/50 odds, genetically, of being colorblind. You may already be a winner!

Next, take some tests. There are plenty online (see here and here) which will quickly help you ascertain if you are, indeed, colorblind. It might be a good idea to have a friend or roommate around so you can compare answers (I'd hate for a misdiagnosis to occur just because of a faulty monitor). You could also see a doctor for a similar test, but an official diagnosis honestly won't do you much good. I'm not discouraging it, I'm just saying the doctor will either say, "nope, you're not colorblind!" or "yep, you're colorblind!" and the treatment will be absolutely the same: nothing.*

Should you discover you are colorblind (it sounds to me like you probably are), then continue reading for...

Foreman's Introductory Guide to Colorblindness (for kids!):
So, you've discovered you're colorblind! What comes next, you may ask? Not a whole lot, really. Unless you wanted to be an astronaut or a pilot. Then you're screwed. Start reevaluating your career plans now! (Some countries, such as Turkey and Romania, don't allow colorblind individuals to drive. Yikes.)

You may have noticed that things still have color, which seems funny, given the terminology. Well, colorblindness is not (in most cases) a monochromatic phenomenon; it just means your eyes don't respond to every color quite right, which can cause confusion in certain cases. Sometimes red and green look very different, and sometimes it's impossible to tell the difference (even--perhaps especially--if they're right next to each other). Crayons without wrappers or cheap colored pencils without the colors printed on the side may present you some difficulty, especially when the colors are dark (blue/black/green). If you're silly enough to pick Geography for a major, like your host, you will suffer hours of frustration wondering why books can't print density maps with patterns, which everyone can see (it's easy to tell that there are different colors on the map and different colors in the key, but good luck matching them up!).

Other than those (typically minor) difficulties, you will likely find that your worst enemy is, as usual, other people. Whenever it comes up, the two reactions apparently mandated by international law are as follows:

1- The informed individual will point at something and ask "What color is this?" You'll take a stab at it, and you'll either be right (in which case they may not believe you. Really.) or wrong (in which case you will feel kind of silly).

2- They will ask "What's it like?" In which case you will want to hit them, because you have never had a different set of eyes with which to compare. A good strategy in this case is to ask them to describe "red" to you without using examples or science. A slightly nicer response is to show them. Use this website to load a webpage through colorblind filters. Try opening Google normally in one tab and through this website in another, then flip between the two. Chances are you'll notice a very minuscule difference (it's not perfect), but your friend will probably be shocked by the difference. They'll tell you how "greyed-out" it looks, which will make you wonder what kind of crazy neon world everyone else is living in.

But, despite some frustrations, it's not all bad! You can use it as an excuse if you ever commit a fashion faux-pas or are asked to consult a girlfriend/fiancée/wife on color choices ("I like that one, but I'm also colorblind, so I should probably abstain" *runs away*). Wedding planning? Oh no, my friend. XBox. Totally worth the trouble.
Hopefully all of that helps, but it was a pretty basic overview based on experience. There's a lot more science on the Wikipedia article, which I also recommend.

If you do find yourself to be colorblind, welcome to the ranks. You'll do fine here.


*Okay, there's talk that reddish-tinted glasses and contacts can help, but I've never met someone who actually uses them. Also, scientists recently counteracted colorblindness in monkeys using gene therapy, which is pretty cool. But I'm not sure I'd take such treatment if it ever becomes available...everything would look crazy, it sounds like.
Question #54083 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

I was reminiscing with my sister today about all the delicious treats that they serve after the Honors forum on Thursdays (shout out to the Honors forum! If you've never been to one then it's definitely something you should look into, even if it's just for the treats). After regularly attending the forums for several semesters, I discovered there was a sort of pattern in the treats that were served, in that they rotated each thing and pretty much had the same 12-14 treats every semester. That's not important: what IS important to me is that every semester they serve the most delicious Sloppy Joes I have ever tasted. I always hated the ones my mom made (from scratch) and as a starving (both on money and time) law student I can't get out there and buy all the different types of mixes that they sell at the store and do a taste test.

So my question is: can you get me the recipe for the Sloppy Joes served at the Honors forum (I know they just barely had them last week)? And if you can't, what is the best Sloppy Joe mix out there? The ones at the Honors forum were more sweet than tomato based, if that helps.

Thank you so much!

- Lady Doomfiyah

A: Dear Lady Doomfiyah,

Unfortunately, BYU catering makes their sloppy joes from scratch, and they aren't sharing the recipe.

When it comes to tasty sloppy joes, I'm in the Del Monte camp myself. I think their sauce is a little smokier than the Manwich brand and not so bright looking. Combine one can sauce in a pan with a few generous splashes of Worcestershire sauce and half a chopped onion (add green peppers if you're ambitious). Once veggies are soft, add 1 lb. browned ground meat. Voilà, Sloppy Joe d'Ineffable. Bon appetit.

Question #53997 posted on 10/24/2009 3:01 a.m.

Dear 100 Hour Board,

How many people were killed, on average, by one bombing run of a B-17 over Germany during the last two years of World War II?

- Blasting away from a Fishbowl

A: Dear Fishbowl,

I'm doing this as a rough approximation, because if there are good numbers they are outside the omniscience of the Board.

We read here that "Of the 1.5 million tonnes of bombs dropped on Germany by U.S. aircraft, 640,000 were dropped from B-17s." So assume that the B17 is responsible for around a third of bombs delivered and that this translates to about a third of bombing casualties inflicted.

I'd assume that the bombing campaigns, which typically targeted cities, resulted in more civilian than military casualties, and that they resulted in a large-ish fraction of civilian deaths in the war. Based on this, let's guess that of 5,500,000 German military deaths and 1,840,000 German civilian deaths (source), about 1,021,763 total were the result of bombing. (Yes, I am making up numbers now. Fortunately, 87 studies have shown that accurate numbers aren't any more useful than the ones you make up.)

This website seems to indicate that there were 1,693,565 sorties flown in the air war against Germany. (It's not entirely clear if that's a number for Germany or Europe or what, but we'll assume it's for Germany). Obviously some large fraction of those were flown by fighters, and we might expect fighter missions to be more frequent, if shorter. Let's say a fifth of the war's sorties were bombing runs, meaning that there were about 338,713 bombing runs over Germany. Recall these resulted in a total of 1,021,763 deaths. This means that each bombing run caused approximately 3.016604 deaths (to continue my pattern of reporting inappropriately specific numbers). Using our above fraction of bombing runs that were performed by B-17s, this means that B-17s killed about 435,952 people in about 144,517 bombing runs.

That might seem a little low, but you have to consider the vast number of bombs that flat-out missed everything. On top of that, many of the primary targets (factories, refineries) didn't necessarily have many people in them, even when the air-raid sirens weren't running. And even when the bombs hit, humans are surprisingly resilient.

So, in the end, about three deaths per bombing run could be a sane-ish number - probably within an order of magnitude of the actual value.

~Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe