Answer Desk

Two possibilities that I can think of, really. Quite likely a bit of both.

Odo shared his faith in the solids. Quite literally.

The Great Link was described waaay back in Season 2 by the female changeling as "A merging of form and thought, the sharing of idea and sensation." When Odo linked with her, their minds melded in a much deeper way than the Vulcan mind meld. He showed her everything, from his perspective. For example:

The morphogenic virus implanted into Odo was created by a small subset of the Federation that only cared because the Dominion was the enemy. The greater whole of the Federation (the part not working outside the public eye) worked to cure it, and succeeded.

The Federation is all-inclusive, former enemies (Klingons) and exiles of their current enemies (Garak) included.

It wasn't a faith thing, it was a negotiation

Odo was cured of the morphogenic virus. No one from the Dominion had the same skill. So he cured the female changeling during that link, but didn't pass the cure on to her - he held it back, and the Great Link continued to suffer until after he returned in the finale episode.

So he made a deal with her: Stop the war, or all the Changelings would die, regardless of whether or not they trusted the solids. And believing themselves to be "above" the solids - presumably including "more honorable" - they couldn't go back on the peace treaty.

Jigsaw was just testing her and her husband he didn't intend to survive that's why he recorded that little tape that he ate at the bed, also he was testing Amanda along the way.

In Saw 3D you can see Lawrence Gordon suggesting Lynn Denlon as a test subject to John along few other quick cut scenes of him setting the traps.

Why would he test Lynn since she doesn't look like bad person? Actress who played her told (source):-

"But I think, in his mind, because my character's depressed ... so she's been dead inside. She's totally dead inside and this is Jigsaw's way of waking her up and saying, 'What the hell are you doing?' And she does. You see the metamorphosis in her."

I remember seeing a movie around 2000-2005 on the premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.). I believe that it had a wide release, but I'm not sure.

The movie is about a space ship (I think they're some sort of hospital spaceship or science ship) that responds to an emergency. They end up with this alien artifact on board. A crew member (or someone they saved from the emergency) becomes obsessed with the artifact, and it starts to change him. He ends up going psychotic and kills most everyone save the captain(?) and a black woman.

The movie ends with the white guy and black woman using a pod to escape the explosion of the alien artifact. During the pod jump, the two end up swapping some dna because they shared the same pod, and the woman becomes pregnant.

It is exactly as you say, all of Bane's henchmen are willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause.

Due to Bane essentially taking over the League of Shadows, being a mastermind of his own accord, and having a cause that all his followers believe in, he attracts such skilled zealots and is able to use them as he pleases.

He shows no remorse for this because he believes that all the lives that are given to this cause of wiping Gotham clean will be worth it in the end, and it doesn't matter how much of his men fall, as long as the goal is reached.

So the short answer is no, he does not have any powers over one's mind. Just a cause that they all believe is worthy of their lives.

As far as Bane's nationality, that has already been answered in the comments and on another question.

From the Encyclopedia of Arda:

Even Gandalf had never explored there, and though Aragorn had travelled there, we have no report of his doings.

Of its ancient geography we can glean a little from the Silmarillion:

Sea of Helcar:

On its eastern shoreline lay the mountains of the Orocarni, and at their feet on a small bay was the land Cuiviénen, where the first Elves awoke in Middle-earth.

It was there that Oromë discovered them, and ultimately led many of them on a Great Journey around the northern end of the Sea of Helcar as they set out for Valinor in the distant west.

Orocarni:

A lost range of mountains in the far east of Middle-earth, near Cuiviénen, beneath which the first Elves awoke.

Called the Mountains of the East, the name Orocarni literally translates as 'Red Mountains'.

We know little more about them, except that they were apparently the source of the many streams that ran down into Cuiviénen.

Blue Wizards:

After landing in Middle-earth, they travelled directly into the far east with Curunír (better known as Saruman).

The mission of the Blue Wizards was to travel to eastern lands occupied by Sauron, and help to foment unrest among his subject peoples.

Whether they succeeded or not, even Tolkien was unsure, though he imagined that they had probably failed. It's also uncertain why they remained in the east while Curunír returned

I saw a movie a few years ago but can only remember some elements of the plot.

A guy starts working at a new company. I think they were selling stocks over the phone. The company were either selling crooked stocks or else the stocks they were selling all dropped causing all the buyers to lose money.

I can remember two scenes. In the first one the lead goes out to a bar with work colleagues and gets in a brawl with another group of guys.

In the second scene the lead is on the phone with a customer trying to help him either get his money back or sell the stocks before they drop.

I thought Edward Norton played the lead but I went through his Imdb page and couldn't find the movie.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen The Tommyknockers, but from what I remember the plot goes like this: blah blah blah, midwestern American town, blah blah blah, alien things show up, blah blah, A GUY PULLS OUT HIS OWN FUCKING TEETH.

If I gave you a better explanation than that I’d pretty much be copy/pasting the IMDB or Wikipedia entry. But, c’mon. He pulls out his own goddamn teeth. With pliers. And then shows them to his wife. C’moooooon. Did I mention it has aliens?

I couldn't find anything in the canon to suggest that such a structure/role existed. The only medical structure that I could ascertain is along the lines of what you have listed, starting with clone trooper medics and various medical droids (FX- and IM-6 series) in the field, alongside Republic Mobile Surgical Units, and then clone medical officers serving aboard one of the 20 Medical Centers that the Republic had (Kaliida Shoals, Felucia and Ord Cestus were three of them). Each center could serve up to 80,000 clones at a time, and they each worked for a Sector Army which was headed up by a senior Jedi general.

In The Clone Wars tv series, Kaminoans were always shown as being in charge of dealing with the clones' medical issues, such as when Kaliida Shoals was attacked by Grievous with the Malevolence in TCW 1x3 and Nala Se was the administrator of the center, or when the clone Tup malfunctioned and Fives investigated the inhibitor chips in TCW 6x1-4. Though Kit Fisto was temporarily stationed at Ord Cestus and Nala Se worked under him during that time.

The Jedi had their own medical structure. They had the Medical Corps which was part of the Service Corps of the Jedi Order. The Medical Corps was organised by the Circle of Jedi Healers (made up of Jedi healers, headed by the Chief Healer) both of whom operated from the Halls of Healing in the Jedi Temple. Both Medical Corps-people and Jedi Healers also worked out in the field when necessary, for instance when Jedi Healers were dispatched to Kaliida Shoals to heal a virus that Cad Bane had tried to use on the clones there.

The Jedi medical structure was run by Jedi and the GAR medical centers were overseen by Jedi and served the armies run by the Jedi. The only people who really demonstrated either the aptitude or the profession to treat the clones were the Kaminoans and the clones themselves. I can't find any evidence that anyone else was involved.

It sounds like Laserblast (1978):

"... Billy wanders into the desert and discovers the laser cannon and pendant. He starts playing with the cannon, pretending to shoot things, then realizes he can fire the weapon while wearing the pendant..."

An edited version was shown on MST3K.

As I remember it from the book's ending, Hannibal kept Clarice more-or-less continually drugged and they live happily ever after.

The difference is covered in AboutFilm's note on the ending, in 12 paragraphs and a synopsis of the book's ending. An extract:

Admittedly, I haven't read it, but the
novel's ending sounds just awful to me.
And yet, it still sounds better than the
movie's ending. At least the novel's
ending explores the psyche of both
characters. At least Starling asserts some power, as preposterous as her
therapeutic techniques may sound.

Could it be they just didn't have the time to give the book's ending the full treatment it deserved to be fully explored? Hannibal escaping into the sunset is certainly easier and quicker than working through and resolving their psychological problems as mentioned in the synopsis.

It concludes:

In the movie, Hannibal is Starling's self-
appointed protector and is the same
person from beginning to end. But he's
not the same person he was in The
Silence of the Lambs, nor is he the same
person Harris portrays in his novel, in which Hannibal is not so much trying to
protect Starling as he is trying to get her
in his clutches. In the novel, as ludicrous
as it may sound, we have a
transformation and a resolution. That's
something we have a right to expect at the end of a trilogy. However, in the
movie, Hannibal just flies off into the
sunset. He is still an enigma. We're just
set up for another sequel, and perhaps
another. Don't look now, but Hannibal IX: The Resurrection is just around the corner.

A posting by Lectermate on the Hannibal Lecter Studiolo says:

In an interview, Ridley Scott said about the end of the book that it was too fast, that it should have been another book before we saw Hannibal and Clarice together.

Scott thinks that Hannibal is in love with Clarice but she rather feels some kind of respect for him, that's why he decided to do another end for his film.

To which Clariz replied:

That is what he said in the interview, but in real life, there was a big ado, between TH [Thomas Harris, author], Dino/Martha [De Laurentiis/Schumacher, producers] and [director Ridley] Scott, whereupon TH didn't want to agree to the modified ending.

After they were locked for 5 days engaged in the argument. TH gave in, not without a feeling of disappointment.

What it odd here, is that the book was written with the foreknowledge that it will turn into a movie. When it was finished up and up until the production of the movie began it seemed clear that the book ending would prevail. Dino and Martha had approved it.

It always seemed as if they modified the ending to the movie with the idea of a sequel. Scott definitely had a sequel in mind. One wonders if he actually READ the book or just an abridgment.

There is no substantiation that might lead even remotely to believe that TH wrote the ending of the book to satisfy any fans. That would be soooooooo unlike TH...

The Star Wars Battlefront game trailer features the use of a man-portable area deflector shield at the Battle of Endor (taken from this Youtube video starting at 44 seconds):

The shield generator is carried by a Rebel infantryman, powered up in the middle of battle, and used to protect several Rebel infantrymen from AT-ST fire. Does such a device have a predecessor from the Clone Wars era?

Similar (but generally much larger) area shield generators already exist in canon. For example, the Gungan shield generator seen in Episode I:

The area shield seen at the Battle of Christophsis:

The area shield protecting the Ray Shield Fortress:

However, none of these previously known area shields are man-portable (the Gungan shield generator comes closest, but is carried by a pair of fambaa war beasts).

(The Gungans do have a personal energy shield which is of course man-portable, but this shield does not protect an area -- it doesn't even fully protect one infantryman -- so such a shield isn't really a predecessor of the shield generator seen in Star Wars Battlefront.)

It seems odd that there doesn't seem to be any device from the Clone Wars era similar to the one seen in the trailer, despite the fact that similar (but larger) shield generators as well as smaller personal shields were in use by the Gungans well before the Clone Wars. I would think that the Republic would want to use shields like the one in the trailer to help protect their valuable and expensive clones, and perhaps even the Separatists would want to use them to protect their relatively expensive super battle droids.

To be clear on criteria, I'm looking for a shield generator that is

Man-portable (stationary shields and/or shields that require large animals to carry them don't count)

Able to cover an area large enough to protect at least two human-sized infantrymen (i.e. personal shields like the Gungans' don't count).

Used for blocking blaster bolts, whether from small arms or vehicles like an AT-ST

From the Clone Wars era

In the Spanish thriller Sleep Tight (2011) [original title: Mientras duermes], why is César obsessed with Clara? Does he have a past relation with her?

Additionally, César occasionally goes to hospital to see his sick mom, and tells her about the bad things he's done. Why does he need to tell these to his mom?

I can't find anything definitive, but:

The two main characters are researching the Blair Witch for a book they are writing.

The characters are a Wiccan and a Goth Psychic.

A "Book of Shadows" is a Wiccan text containing spells, rituals, etc.

The television show 'Charmed' was wildly popular at the time and the "Book of Shadows" is a critical element to the show.

The "Book of Shadows" is never mentioned in the movie.

Based on those items, barring anything else definitive, I think the title is tenuous and convenient and has nothing to do with the movie itself.

Genre - horror

Story - A boys journey throughout a road is shown. Where he faces different things. A dog(May be German Shepard ) which attacks him and many other weird things. The main plot is about a man who give him a ride but turned out to be a ghost who met an accident on the same road and became ghost. He ask him to give his soul to him or his mothers soul. He chooses to give his mothers soul (he hates her because of a childhood incident when she slaps her when he refuse to go to giant wheel in amusement park). After that he realizes that he loves his mother and goes to the hospital where her mother is admitted. I think there is also some fight between the ghost and boy. In the end mother and son both survive.

Broadcasting Channel - MGM (I watched it on MGM in India)

I didn't know any other details other than these. Its appears to be of early 90s or late 80s but not sure about that.

Rather conveniently, producer Stuart Cohen has a blog devoted to his experience while working on The Thing, and it includes an entry about the score.

In a perfect world, given unlimited time and resources, I think John would have preferred to compose the music for THE THING himself. The realities of the work yet to be done, however, combined with the need for a more expansive and layered approach to the score led us to consider other options. We initially offered the film to Jerry Goldsmith who was unavailable, doing both POLTERGEIST and TWILIGHT ZONE for Spielberg. Availability on musician John Corigliano (ALTERED STATES) was checked. The legendary Alex North read the script, had ideas, and wanted to meet but at that point I felt the only composer John would possibly entrust his film to other than himself was Ennio Morricone.

The film was far from complete or coherent - John was still filming in Stewart, so the film lacked most of the exterior scenes as well as amost all of the special effects, save the kennel . Morricone complained about the lack of continuity ( normally we wouldn't have run a film for any composer in this shape, and with the director not present ,but we did not have the luxury of time - we needed to secure his commitment, and were trying to wedge ourselves in to his schedule ) but agreed that if we were to come to him in Rome he would "see what he could do".

Doubts were definitively dispelled two months later when Morricone opened up his tattered valise and removed a reel of two inch tape containing the now-emblematic "heartbeat " theme. As we heard this for the first time in the recording booth at Universal I looked over at John, whose expression was initially one of relief, followed by something close to wonder... it seemed that Morricone had understood John perfectly. At the orchestral recording session the next day, I remember John coming in late and shyly taking a seat in the back, an observer for the first time as Morricone recorded the rest of the music for his movie. Having been recorded in large brushstrokes of sound, there was still the need for more specific transition and suspense cues which John, along with his partner, Alan Howarth, then supplied.

So basically, Carpenter already had too much on his plate, and was forced to turn over responsibility for the score to an outside composer. The only person Carpenter trusted with his baby was Ennio Morricone. In the end, everyone walked away happy.

Update: I found a quote from Ennio Morricone himself:

Regarding The Thing, by John Carpenter, I've asked him, as he was preparing some electronic music with an assistant to edit on the film, "Why did you call me, if you want to do it on your own?" He surprised me, he said - "I got married to your music. This is why I've called you." I was quite amazed, he called me because he had my music at his wedding. Then when he showed me the film, later when I wrote the music, we didn't exchange ideas. He ran away, nearly ashamed of showing it to me. I wrote the music on my own without his advice. Naturally, as I had become quite clever since 1982, I've written several scores relating to my life. And I had written one, which was electronic music. And [Carpenter] took the electronic score.

Only certain types of deception or misdirection are prohibited in football; specifically, anything that simulates a snap or the beginning of a play is prohibited (so a center making jerking movements, a back starting to run forward, etc.). The talking, slow standing, moving backward, etc. is all allowed.

Having said that, there is another rule that states that those on the line (and there must be at least 6 when the ball is snapped) must be completely set at least 1 second before the snap. Notice when Crewe is heading over to talk to Scarborough ... several linemen stand up. This is legal, but if they don't either A) get back down in their stances for at least one second, or B) stay perfectly still for at least one second, then they would be penalized. The last view we see is of Crewe, and then the ball is snapped, so we never see what the linemen do.

To sum everything up, it is certainly plausible as a legal play, but the camera angles make it impossible to confirm or deny whether it was executed legally.

EDIT (to address rest of question): Nothing throughout the rest of the movie really sticks out in my mind as being obviously illegal or implausible, although admittedly it's been 4 or 5 years since I watched the whole thing ... I refreshed my memory on Netflix of those final scenes last night. One thing to note about the final scoring play (before the two-point conversion); while the Fumblerooski is a perfectly legal play in pro football most of the time (it was banned in college football in 1992), a while ago the pro rules were changed that outlaw it in the final two minutes of either half or when it's fourth down (in those situations, the rule now states that an offensive player can only advance a fumbled ball if he is the one who fumbled it). I don't believe that rule was in effect at the time the movie was made, however, so we'd have to assume the game was being played under pro rules (or some form of house rules).

From interviews with director Christopher Nolan, it would appear that the goal was to create a non-specific setting (the film was actually shot in Pittsburgh and LA as well as New York and New Jersey), that felt both "operatic" and real.

From an interview with James Rocchi at MSN Entertainment:

MSN Movies: You knew you were doing a third film. Is the pressure to do things bigger, better -- is that from the studio? Is it from the
audience? Or is it that all from you? Are you the person saying,
"Let's do more with this"?

Christopher Nolan: Well, I was trying to push filmmaking from the point of view of the audience. I'm trying to make a film that I would
want to go see on a Friday night and lay down ten dollars or what have
you and be thrilled and moved by or whatever. And that's what was the
impulse, and so when you know you're dealing with characters the
audience have a relationship with, you're asking the audience to come
back to Gotham City. So you feel a huge creative responsibility to
give them a reason to come back to Gotham City.

From an interview with Emanuel Levy:

For the first time, three separate cities provided locations and
backdrops for Gotham City, with scenes filmed in Pittsburgh, Los
Angeles, and the city sometimes nicknamed Gotham, New York.

Nolan offers, “When you look back on the films, you can see the world
we’re living in reflected, but we don’t want to be specific about it.
We just come at the stories from the point of view of what concerns
us. What gives us fear? What gives us hope? What would require a hero
of Batman’s stature to rise up in our world?”

And from an interview with Alex Tucker at TV-Film-News:

**‘The Dark Knight Rises’ magnifies and resolves the main themes of the
trilogy, one of which is mythmaking, and the discussion of the Batman
Gotham needs.

Christopher Nolan:** One of the things I’ve enjoyed about working with
these characters is that they have the potential to be topical. And
the reason for that is they’re not real. It’s not real life. You’re
dealing with a heightened reality. You’re not dealing with Chicago or
New York; you’re dealing with Gotham City. And that gives you a very
interesting world to be able to play with in a very heightened way, in
a very operatic way.

And some practical reasoning from the Chicago Tribune:

Chicago-less Gotham

Chicago, don't take this personally, but: "The Dark Knight Rises," the
first of Nolan's Batman movies not to be shot here, was wise not to
shoot here this time. For variety's sake, sure. But also, a better
reason: A quick shot of the Chicago skyline screams money and
prosperity. A quick shot of Pittsburgh, where a lot of the film was
shot, reveals working-class areas within yearning range of gleaming
skyscrapers. You'd have to find a pretty wide lens before you could
hold the poor of Chicago and the rich of Chicago within the same
frame. True, in "Rises" the Manhattan skyline is liberally mixed in;
all the better to play up the 1-percenters. (Still, two nods to
Chicago do sneak in, sorta: Batman swings by a historic neighborhood
named "Old Town," and those Gotham license plates are hilariously
reminiscent of Illinois license plates.)

Incorporating caesarsgrunt's suggestion:

Would you be so kind as to send the letter to your boss?

If you would be so kind, send the letter to your boss.

The speaker is very politely asking the listener to do a menial task. This is very formal speech and might sound "stuffy", "pompous" or even worse, "patronising" to some. Very much depends on tone.

Kindly, send the letter to your boss

Again the speaker is asking for a favour but it is less formal. It means I am asking you kindly to do something for me.

However in a British context, it would be more appropriate to hear the follow:

If you wouldn't mind sending the letter to your manager.

Would you mind sending the letter to your senior manager?

Oi, you! Send this off to the boss. (Very informal!)

EDIT: I've added the more formal expressions, manager and senior manager as suggested by Tim Lymington.

The first asks a question about the past. The second asks a question about the future on the assumption that certain conditions, unexpressed in your example, are fulfilled.

When would is used about past events or actions it does so to show that someone acted against advice (‘He would eat it when I told him not to’) or to describe something that was habitual (‘He would eat five burgers every day’).

There are plenty of synonyms for "prejudiced" on Thesaurus.com, including:

bigoted, discriminatory, dogmatic, intolerant, intransigent, one-sided, opinionated,
racist, sexist, xenophobic, blind, inclined, influenced, leaning, narrow,
preconceived, predisposed, prepossessed, presupposing, closed-minded,
doctrinaire, extreme, hidebound, illiberal, narrow-minded

Depending on the context, any of these should be suitable for your needs.

Here's one consensus from many in the Harry Potter fandom on why Albus Severus, in the movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, is seen with a ferret familiar:

Many believe it's an insider's nod to Harry's rivalry with Draco Malfoy, and a reference to when Mad-Eye Moody turned Draco into a ferret after Draco (in the movie) gets ready to curse Harry when Harry's back is turned. In the book Goblet of Fire, Ron, in particular, is thrilled by Moody's stunt.

‘Don’t talk to me,’ Ron said quietly to Harry and Hermione, as they sat down at the Gryffindor table a few minutes later, surrounded by excited talk on all sides about what had just happened.
‘Why not?’ said Hermione in surprise.
‘Because I want to fix that in my memory for ever,’ said Ron, his eyes closed and an uplifted expression on his face. ‘Draco Malfoy, the amazing bouncing ferret ...’
_{Goblet of Fire - pages 182 - 183 - chapter thirteen, Mad-Eye Moody - Bloomsbury}

I know it sounds from that passage that Ron is the one with the intense rivalry with Malfoy, but I think he's just enjoying the moment -- after all, Ron's been at the receiving end of Draco's bullying numerous times (Weasley is Our King, anyone?). I think it's likely Draco just didn't consider Ron a worthy rival in the same way he did Harry. The seven books demonstrate Harry and Draco's ongoing dislike, although I interpreted canon text as Harry caring much less about what Draco thought of him than vice versa.

Anyhow, right before we see Albus Severus's ferret in its cage, the camera pans over the now grown Draco Malfoy and his wife, who are seeing Scorpius Malfoy off to Hogwarts for Scorpius's first year.

I think it's entirely plausible that the ferret is an inside joke on the part of the movie makers that pokes a little fun at Draco. The ferret does not appear in the books.

Draco Malfoy, the amazing bouncing ferret!

The Craig series is a new continuity that merely pays homage to the old one. The 1964 Astin Martin is won by Bond in Casino Royale, tricked out with guns and gadgets sometime after, and makes another appearance in Skyfall.

The only truly confusing link to the previous series-- which is a different continuity-- is the use of Dame Judy Dench as M. Otherwise, no actors cross from one series to another. Either way, the M of the Craig run is not the same M as in the previous Bond series, despite being the same actress from the later films in the previous series.

Felix and Moneypenny are also both obviously not the same people as the ones in the previous series. This continuity's Bond doesn't even meet Moneypenny until Skyfall.

So, James Bond is the man's ACTUAL NAME. It's not a code name. He is not a timelord, but a man who became 007 in the reboot Casino Royale, continued that adventure in Quantum of Solace, and then reached a later point in his career in Skyfall.

The previous, other continuity's Bond (Connery, Moore, et al) was also not a timelord, but an agent who was with MI6 from the 1960s until 2002 in Die Another Day. There was always a science fiction element to Bond films (look at all the gadgets and the schemes of the villains!) so it's not an amazing stretch of the imagination to believe that he was the recipient of some sort of "super soldier" serum that slowed his aging and made him a bit more durable than a man who took those kinds of bumps should have been for so many decades. Either that, or you can assume that Brosnan's Bond was really supposed to be an elderly man in his late 70s or 80s, but was poorly cast. And why did he look different from time to time? If you really need an in-continuity explanation, think "plastic surgery"-- He's a spy. He needs to change his look after a while, and MI6 has top specialists who can re-sculpt a man's face (and figure!)

But make no mistake: Daniel Craig's James Bond is NOT in the same continuity as the previous James Bond films.

It was set in the distant future, on a world humans had settled such a long time ago that Earth is never mentioned. Humanity enslaved a native species called spacules (or maybe spicules).These were hobbit sized creatures that were green and lumpy did not have discernible facial features. They communicated through honking and booming.They were seen as only semi-sapient and there seemed to be some factor that was holding their intelligence back. The humans had some sort of noble class that ruled the planet. There were other sapient species that had immigrated from other worlds.They lived in slum like areas and once lizard like race was not happy about the situation. Any idea what novel this is? I think it may have come out between 1994-1998

A few other details that I remember.

There was a young woman with red hair from the lower classes that worked as a servant. She was fond of a spacule kitchen slave name Sugar. At one point Sugar is making some pastries and the humans observes the was the light catches off the transparent membrane between the spacule's fingers make it look like she is folding rainbows into the dough.

There is also a warrior of the reptilian race from off world who is disgusted at how humanized his people have become,-right down to keeping the same pet animals that humans do such as dogs and jade-wing lizards.At one point he gets in a dominance fight with a young member of his race.The fight ends with the young one's neck in his jaws.He spares him and says something like "Your throat tastes like piss"

IIRC the human woman encounters what seems to be a sapient hologram at one point

As the name suggests actions you make in life are irreversible, one action leads to another and you can't go back to change them.

This film analyzes what actions lead to the brutal actions of Marcus (Vincent Cassel).
Doing this in reverse order forces the viewer to reevaluate his view of Marcus, because in retrospect his actions can be justified by the unfortunate events that happened to him.

Shown in chronological order this film would be a "normal" revenge thriller but the reverse chronological order gives this film a special psychological aspect.

Buying and sending medicine over to them are good ways to them

You need something before to them, so you might use an infinitive verb and write to get it to them.

Also, buying and sending medicine over to them would be considered one thing, and so you would use the singular verb is and the singular noun way.

Finally, if you think buying and sending medicine over to them is better than all other methods, you should use the adjective best rather than good.

The final sentence might look like this:

Buying and sending medicine over to them is the best way to get it to them.

Episode IV was not in opening of the original release, it was added for the re-release a few years later. This is one of those we will never know type questions. Lucas has made many claims and who knows what the real story is.

He broke movie making rules when he made this movie, got kicked out of the directors guild if I understand it right. Changed the world from a lot of unhappy ending movies to the heros win at the end with a happy ending. My guess is he was probably happy to have had at least had this project at all. If it failed who cares if there were other stories, if it succeeded then use the money and success to make more movies. From star wars to jedi, the little furry animals were supposed to be wookies, but that would make chewbacca an also-ran not a special character, and other reasons the story was changed. How much time was there from star wars to jedi and from jedi to episode 1? The better question might be how many hundreds of versions of these stories were there before settling in on the 6 we have? There were supposed to be 9, three prequels and three sequels after this set, where are the other three, why waste time messing up star wars every so many years and just finish the series?

The problem with a pre-quel or set of them in this case, esp with a cult classic like star wars, you have to get all the facts right, you have to create darth vader, the empire, luke and leah and so on. episode III is 100% checklist, nothing else, kids born, check, kids distributed, check, create vader, check, empire in place, check, etc etc.

bottom line the Episode IV tag was not part of the original, it was added after the original was a huge success, big enough to have a re-release (this was before vcrs and cable tv with movie channels), we will never know...

The Martians in the film Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) look near identical to those in War of the Worlds (1953).

Was this a deliberate story element, an artifact of production such a cost-saving (they have the same director), or something else?

1953:

1953

1964:

1964

Well according to me, among all the girls.. Sanjana was the only one who was normal.

By normal I mean she was not representing any social message and was going through simple day to day problems that a normal girl goes through. Neither she was pampered nor was she too open or too shy.

She was kind of the girl next door.

Plus they both had a lot in common and had built up attraction towards each other.

The family also approved Sanjana during the end.

Finally, the movie was about how people belonging to different sun sign's had different personality and characteristics. Many people believe that some sun sign's are more compatible with each other then the rest.

So maybe she was the right girl for him in this respect as well.

to put it straight, gonna stands for going to while wanna stands for want to.

gonna will be used to indicate that something is actually going to happen soon. In the other hand, wanna means I am deciding to do something. It doesn't mean that I have actually planned or scheduled it.

for example:
I am going to see the movie on tuesday's night. (means that I will actually watch the movie.)

I wanna see the movie someday. (means that I would like to see it someday.)

Might it be The Bubble (1966) (AKA Fantastic Invasion of Planet Earth)?

Here is a plot description from an IMDb user review:

A small prop plane flying through a rainstorm must land because one of the two passengers is about to have a baby.

When the young couple and the pilot put down in the small American town, they find all the townspeople are in a near-catatonic state. The three explore and find fallen Roman columns. They try to drive out of the town but run into an invisible barrier surrounding it. Is there anything left alive on the outside, or is this the last town on Earth? The pilot is plucked from above, is a giant alien collecting specimens? The couple find a small factory producing alien food for the townspeople. Will the baby survive if the food source is destroyed? Is there a limit to the barrier, and can it be surmounted?

There are parts of Dagobah that are "strong with the Dark Side."

After Emperor Palpatine came into power and there was a purge of the Jedi, the few Jedi remaning alive hid, hoping to be able to do something more in the future.

Because Yoda was a powerful Jedi, he hid near a source of darkness that would hide his presence so any Sith looking for him would not be able to sense his presence easily.

(Much of this comes out in Revenge of the Sith.)

^{[As requested, posting this as an answer instead of a comment]}

There's lexiphanic, which is using pretentious wording or language, but it doesn't have the sense of intermittence you wanted.

(I found the word by plugging "using long words" into a reverse dictionary. The first two results, sesquipedalian and sesquipedality, are also good, but they don't necessarily have a negative connotation like lexiphanic.)

entertain (v.) (<--)
late 15c., "to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind," from Middle French entretenir, from Old French entretenir "hold together, stick together, support" (12c.), from entre- "among" (from Latin inter; see inter-) + tenir "to hold" (from Latin tenere; see tenet).

Sense of "have a guest" is late 15c.; that of "gratify, amuse" is 1620s. Meaning "to allow (something) to consideration, take into the mind" (of opinions, notions, etc.) is 1610s. [...]

Per the link above, the prefix inter- never explicitly meant 'together'.
So did among evolve to mean together?

The OED's entry for 'entertain, v.' never uses the 'adverb' together in its etymology.
But then how did *entre- + tenir evolve into all these definitions?

Please expose and explain all (hidden and missing) semantic drifts and links. What is a right way of interpreting the etymology, to understand how the semantic jumps abstracted and severed from the original literal meaning?

Beware that the modern French 'entretenir' means far less (ie: is a hyponym) than its English cognate 'entertain'. Why? Did 'entretenir' simply cease its semantic drifter earlier?

In Community episode S03E19 Curriculum Unavailable, when the study group is talking about what a crazy year they have had, they show an incident in which Troy slams his hand against the table.(This incident could not have happened after they were expelled, for obvious reasons)

This happened 2 months after they were expelled(according to Shirley's words at the start of the episode)

After they finish telling the Doctor about these incidents we see that Britta squeezes Troy's hand and he cries out in pain.

Now, I guess there has been a mistake because I think even a broken hand will be repaired in two months
So is there a problem with the Community Timeline?

It might have something to do with the amount of pessimism Marvin displays. He's convinced terrible things will come of just about everything, and that people are going to treat him poorly, hence him being paranoid.

As noted there are also a number of points where he's referred to as being very depressed.

Overall though... this is Douglas we're talking about, his MO is inconsistency, contradiction and throw away jokes. I am quite comfortable accepting the notion that he went along with labelling Marvin paranoid just because it sounded nice. Need I remind people of the story behind Zaphod's third arm and second head and just how much trouble that caused when they tried to make the TV series? ;)

I guess someone is sick (they have a cold) that is so bad that it feels as if it was sent straight from hell.

It's probably not very different from someone describing a boss they particularly hate as the boss from hell, or a bus driver that seems to be trying to get everyone on board killed – if not from a crash, then from a heart attack – as the driver from hell.

I guess the example you give is some kind of social media status and is a shortened form of:

I have done some physical exercise, and currently I have a cold. It is a very, very bad cold.

I'm planning on writing a blog about computer programming, and I'm having trouble finding the right voice. I'm looking for something that feels personal and conversational. Third person seems sterile, first person singular comes across egotistical, second person comes across as bossy.

I've been using second person plural, which has an inclusive feel to it, but that takes away from the conversational feel of the non-technical parts of the piece.

Here's a quick example:

Let's say that we have a pipe delimited text file called 'addresses.txt' where
the first line of the file is a header with column labels:

 First Name | Last Name | Street Address         | City        | State | Zip   |
 Homer      | Simpson   | 742 Evergreen Terrace  | Springfield | OR    | 97477 |
 Marge      | Simpson   | 1094 Evergreen Terrace | Springfield | MO    | 65802 |
 Bart       | Simpson   | 1092 Evergreen Terrace | Springfield | IL    | 62704 |
 Lisa       | Simpson   | 59 Evergreen Terrace   | Springfield | ME    | 04487 |
 Maggie     | Simpson   | 94 Evergreen Terrace   | Springfield | WI    | 53176 |

We can use a for loop to pull and print each field of the header

for i in {1..6};
do 
    header="$( head -1 addresses.txt |  cut -d '|' -f $i )"
    printf "%d: %sn" $i "$header"
done

This works when I'm describing how I want the reader to write a piece of code, but it doesn't work when I'm describing the programming language as a whole:

The Bourne shell is a full fledged programming language, complete with
branching and looping constructs.  These constructs can be used on the
command line, affording us a great deal of expressive power without a
lot of typing.

This comes across as dry, and the token 'affording us' is weak. Furthermore, writing the whole blog in the first person plural seems artificial.

How should I approach this?

Magical performances comprising of spirits being summoned on stage where pretty common even in the 19th century. The effect was achieved indeed with the use of smoke and mirror. However, a typical tool in usage was the Fantascope aka Magic Lantern. This apparatus is also seen in the movie but can be easily overlooked as normal lanterns.

I found this interesting piece of trivia on IMDB:

The method for creating the ghosts as shown to inspector Uhl involved the projection of a pre-recorded image into a hazy background. Since the ghosts Eisenheim conjured could speak to and interact with the audience, he most likely used a different method popular among magicians at that time. A fantascope was used to illuminate a real person off stage. The image was reflected off of a mirror or glassplate, creating a ghosted image. The lanterns that Eisenheim tells his assistants to leave behind when they are packing up the workshop bear a strong resemblance to fantascopes.

Bane appears to be an incredibly effective leader, commanding dozens or perhaps even hundreds of criminal underlings in a successful campaign to capture Gotham and hold the entire city hostage for five months.

But I am confused about Bane's leadership style:

In the opening plane scene, Bane uses the term "brother" affectionately as he orders one of the guys with him to die in the crash. The guy does not hesitate to accept and indeed appears to be honored to help "start the fire" with his death -- giving the audience the impression that Bane is a powerfully beloved leader with dedicated followers who will do anything for him.

Later, in a sewer scene, Bane seems to run things more like Darth Vader, occasionally killing his minions when he is not pleased with them -- a character trait that would seem to inspire a different type of obedience than that conveyed in the plane scene.

In another early scene, a street kid says that there are employment
opportunities in the sewers, suggesting Bane was paying at least some
of his minions for their efforts.

So how exactly did Bane so impressively motivate his people as he carried out his dastardly plan? Did Bane motivate his minions through love? Through fear? Through money? Or all of the above?

So, does anyone know when and where this expression was used for the first time?

No; nobody knows when and where this expression was used for the first time. Nobody was copying it down and publishing it at the time. So we'll never know who, where, or when. Too bad, but that's the way it is.

As to what it means, it's a metaphor for cyclically-recurring social/popular trends in art, fashion, politics, games, movies, reality shows, and practically any other cultural phenomenon.

X is not dead; in fact, this season it's the new Y.

You thought that X was dead; I'm here to tell you that you're wrong.

X can be anything at all which everybody recognizes by name, and which some (are said to) claim is "dead", i.e boring, old-fashioned, not the done thing any more. To say

X is not dead

is to claim that X has been resurrected from the past and rebranded in a new, modern, up-to-date, luxuriously chic way that everyone will want, so why don't you?

I think that's remarkable specificity for just adding three syllables after X.

I am having a massive debate about whether the following sentence is grammatical:

The tag was created and is printed.

The issue is the switch of tense between was created and is printed. Some argue that this is invalid English because of the inconsistency of the tenses. However, it seems to me that the presence of the conjunction and allows for this because the tag applies to both verb phrases and makes the above sentence a short hand form of something like:

The tag was created. It is printed.

It's possible that this is only the case with forms of to be, however, or perhaps just the passive. For example, the following certainly does not seem grammatical:

He threw the rock and catches the ball.

But there is a fundamental difference between the two examples, besides the forms of to be. In the latter, the subject of the sentence is not also the object of the verb as it is in the sentence under question. As such, such a shift in mentality with just a conjunction is not warranted.

It gets very confusing. Is it grammatical to switch tenses in a predicate at all? If so, under what circumstances?

In the mid nineties I received a short story anthology as a gift. I believe it was either a Weird Tales anthology, or White Wolf. My favorite story was called Mask of the Silver King, (I think, I may be a little off.)

It was a fantasy story about a child and his older brother coming of age. The child's older brother becomes a criminal, and the younger child becomes a musician (I think) and somehow rises to power and becomes a god like creature known as the Silver King. I cannot find the story for the life of me, and I am hoping that someone here may be able to help.

The only other detail that I can remember is that (I think) Tanith Lee's "The Sombrus Tower" was in the same anthology.

Any help at all is appreciated!

Shevliaskovic's answer is correct, based on the tv-show.

As an aside: I know that you have asked the question in regards to the tv-show; but I will offer some further insight from the books.

[A Storm of Swords and A Feast for Crows spoilers]

Jon Snow is sent by Ser Alliser Thorne and Janos Slynt to "treaty" with Mance. This is after a prolonged tortuous stay in a cold room.
They see Jon as a threat to their leadership as well as a thorn [pun intended] in their sides; so they send him in hopes that Jon will be able to get deep into their lairs and slay Mance or die trying in a suicide mission.
Note that it was Mance who requested someone to treaty with, as he had an important message ('let us in, we don't want to kill you, we just want to hide behind your wall'); but Slynt and Thorne take the opportunity and use it to their advantage.
In the books, Jon does take Longclaw (his sword) in order to do this.
Jon does not rejoin with Ghost until later (after Stannis' arrival and Mance's capture), hence why they are not together at this scence!
So, essentially, in the books, Jon was not with Ghost, therefore in the tv-show, they must have come up with an idea to keep that part of the story consistent [IMO].

I remember watching a movie years ago (late 90's) which started with either a plane or helicopter crashed into the side of a mountain. If I recall correctly, there were kids on board (they survived) and the mountain was snow covered.

It wasn't an action movie (i.e. didn't get shot down) - it was a survival drama.

It's not Alive.

Part of the problem is the difference between open and opened. The first is an adjective meaning

not closed or barred: the door is open

The second is a participle, a verb form

to move (as a door) from a closed position

As a verb it can be active

He opened the door

It can be passive

The door was opened by him

Using your original sentence, the better form would be

The door is open

In this case, the verb is does not really convey active or passive. Rather, it is a state of being. There is no action. The predicate adjective makes sense.

If you want to emphasize the action, you need an actor.

The door was opened by him

or

He opened the door

In these cases, opened is part of the verb conveying the action of opening rather than the state of being open.

We have a saying in my country:

He doesn't need music to start dancing. He is already dancing without music!

Which figuratively means:
He doesn't need any special, real, or necessary excuses for taking advantage of a situation or to interfere in other people's affairs. He uses the smallest pretext for his unwanted intervention/taking advantage. Let alone you encourage him with more excuses or opportunities.

The saying expresses one's disapproval: He is ready to use any excuse, even the smallest one, for doing something, and this behavior really bugs me! This sarcastic observation is in fact criticizing the person's behavior. And we're also warning the listener not to give that person any excuse.

Here are two scenarios which illustrate the saying:

A: Suppose that my son doesn't like studying math, he continually postpones doing his assignments, and uses any excuse to avoid doing them. For example, his father asks him to help with some chores in the garage when he has lots of math homework to do! The next day he goes to school with his unfinished assignment, and when I ask for an explanation, he replies: "I had to help Dad!"; in this instance I might scold my husband like this:

"He already dances without music! Why did you give him an excuse to escape from doing his assignment? You should have asked for his help after he had done his assignment."

B: My mum has diabetes, sometimes she doesn't follow her diet plan and eats sweet food in secret. Whenever there is a family gathering, everybody feels sorry for her and tells me: Don't tell her not to eat this, not to eat that, so often! Let her eat anything she likes just this time! At which point, I reply:

"Sorry, but you don't know something, she is already dancing without music!

by saying this, I mean that she is already eating everything she wants (secretly), let alone I actually give her permission to ‘bend the rules’!

(Actually when we say "he dances even without music", it implies that he knows how to dance, even without the music, so if you play music for him, he will dance better.-[he knows how to take advantage even there is a small chance, so if you provide him with more chances, he would/might take even more advantage.]

Question: Is there any word, term, idiom, expression, saying, quote, or proverb that conveys the same meaning, when talking about someone with this * opportunistic* character?

To start with, most boarding schools, like private and public universities, have an endowment fund, which is essentially their nest egg. The money for the endowment fund comes from alumnae donations, donations from other parties (like the parents of the students, or just general supporters of the school) interest on the fund itself from the bank, and outside investments made from businesses and companies.

Financial aid often has its own funding, but can be tied to the endowment fund. Hogwarts had a financial aid fund:

‘I haven’t got any money,’ [said Tom Riddle]
‘That is easily remedied,’ said Dumbledore, drawing a leather money-pouch from his pocket. ‘There is a fund at Hogwarts for those who require assistance to buy books and robes. You might have to buy some of your spellbooks and so on second-hand, but –’
_{Half-Blood Prince - page 256 - Bloomsbury - chapter 13, The Secret Riddle}

Now it is my understanding that any magical child who is accepted at Hogwarts is able to go there; I don't believe Hogwarts charges tuition, if I recall correctly. The fund for children in need is for books, robes, a wand, etc. If Hogwarts charged tuition, how could five Weasleys possibly attend the school at once (Ginny, Fred, George, Percy, Ron)?

I think, based on canon, that the Ministry does not help fund Hogwarts' expenses, otherwise it would have far too much pull at Hogwarts. The Ministry, aside from Order of the Phoenix, doesn't really interfere at Hogwarts.

There is, however, canon evidence that in the Wizarding world, inventions require patents that must be purchased:

‘Level Seven, Department of Magical Games and Sports, incorporating the British and Irish Quidditch League Headquarters, Official Gobstones Club and Ludicrous Patents Office.’ - The Elevator, Ministry for Magic
_{Order of the Phoenix - page 119 - Bloomsbury - chapter 7, The Ministry of Magic}

I'm not quite sure how patents work in the UK. Here in the US, I believe the inventor who wishes to take out a patent pays for the privilege to do so, from their own private funds. I don't know if any of Dumbledore's inventions were patented. There's the Deluminator, but would he have wanted to disclose the full capabilities of the Deluminator to the patents office? Dumbledore truly doesn't strike me as a man who would even bother to fuss about patents. If he did, though, I'm not sure why anyone other than himself would pay for the patent. As well, any money that came from the patent portion of the sale of an invention would seemingly go to the Ministry as some kind of taxation, with the rest going to the patent holder. I don't think any money would go directly to Hogwarts.

I can't find any evidence in canon that suggests there are taxes in the Wizarding World. I could be entirely wrong on this, though. It kind of goes back to the question on Gringotts on whether or not the Goblins pay interest on their deposits. If there are taxes in the Wizarding World, then undoubtedly some might go to Hogwarts, just as taxes here (US) go to fund education. If it's different in the UK, please leave a comment and I'll adjust this accordingly.

The Malfoys contribute a lot of money to causes that they feel will ingratiate themselves with persons in positions of power, which is mostly the Ministry of Magic. I couldn't find any information on the Malfoys contributing money to Hogwarts, although Lucius Malfoy did provide the Nimbus 2001 brooms for the Slytherin Quidditch team in 1992. Malfoy 1, 2, and 3

There's the Fountain of the Brethren inside the atrium at the Ministry of Magic, which people throw coins into. I would have to figure out how much the average fountain makes in change per year and then convert it from Wizarding currency to pounds/dollars ... But again, there's no guarantee that the money from the fountain would go to Hogwarts.

Hogwarts is home to many magic antiquities, such as the Sword and Gryffindor and the Diadem of Ravenclaw (until it was destroyed in Deathly Hallows), the Sorting Hat, and the jewels in the house hourglasses. I would imagine this is but the tip of the iceberg and that Hogwarts has many, many more priceless items sequestered away. NOTE: This is just my guess, that Hogwarts has a lot of treasure-like items in store. It's not canon.

Canon doesn't specify where Hogwarts' money comes from, as far as I know. So I'm going to suggest that Hogwarts has an endowment fund or the Wizarding equivalent, and that's where its income comes from, to pay teachers, stock the school with supplies, take care of the students, maintain the Hogwarts Express, and provide food and drink for the students.

Remember, also, that they utilize slave labor in the form of house-elves. Can you imagine how much money that must save them? Not a small amount, I'd wager.

Open you the door isn't the exception at all. Most verbs capable of having both a direct and an indirect object don't readily accept the possibility of just specifying both objects without using any prepositions (but if/when you can do that, you always have to put the "indirect object" first).

There's a significant US/UK divide here, as illustrated by these Google Books results...

American usage: cash a check for me" (954), cash me a check (82).

British usage: cash a cheque for me (242), cash me a cheque (305).

As a Brit, I don't have any real problem with OP's exact usage and context, though I'm aware some people would find it anywhere between "slightly odd" and "totally ungrammatical". Taking it a bit further though, probably almost everyone would say that...

**"Look who's in the driveway, Johnny! Go and open Auntie Ethel the door!"*

...is "totally unacceptable".

EDIT: I don't really disagree with John Lawler's observation that the "ditransitive, prepositionless" dative alternation construction largely turns on whether the beneficiary ends up possessing the direct object. But it's not a hard-and-fast rule - particularly, I feel, in BrE.

As this source says, the above intended reception constraint [beneficiary ends up possessing object] comes with a certain amount of inherent fuzziness. And to illustrate that fuzziness, it gives actual "acceptability" figures for a few "marginal" constructions...

a: Could you iron me these shirts? [76%]
b: Could you wash me the dishes? [54%]
c: Could you clean me the windows? [47%]
d. Could you open me the door? [25%]

My own feeling is that this form is becoming more common (those figures were collected almost 40 years ago), and that it's more likely when the beneficiary is a pronoun (particularly, me). I'd be prepared to bet that if the above survey were repeated today, b above would score higher than 54%, but "Could you wash Mum the dishes?" would score significantly less.

To spark off the Clone Wars, Palpatine/Sidious had the clone army ordered a decade in advance, so that when the time comes they are ready for battle, and all that is needed is for him to "make it legal" for him to form a Grand Army of the Republic which, to the Jedi, is conveniently ready to defend the Republic when the Separatist droid army was discovered.

During the Clone Wars, new orders of clones were voted and approved by the Senate. Since the Kaminoans are in league with Palpatine, it is reasonable to assume these new orders were intended by Palpatine to fan the flames of war. As such, are these new orders for new baby clones or for new fully trained clones born ten years prior to the vote?

I don't disagree with System Down's answer; it's a good in-universe response. But there is also a real-world answer: If the Decepticons didn't have some kind of advantage, there wouldn't be a story.

Before any Transformers movie is made (or, indeed, virtually any Hollywood action movie), there are some guidelines the story is expected to follow: the heroes must be placed in jeopardy, they must appear to be on the verge of defeat, but they must somehow emerge victorious. You can see this structure clearly in sports movies: they are nearly always
about underdogs who somehow achieve an unexpected victory.

So how are you going to set up the next Transformers movie? The Decepticons need to
seem more powerful and dangerous than the Autobots, so they had better start off with
better weaponry. (But it will turn out all right in the end.)

I want to disagree with the assumption that the number of cuts in a film has increased over the last 20 years.

To say the number of edits has increased is to also say that film techniques have also changed, and while technology and style have changed. The basic techniques of filming have remained mostly intact. With the except of the few directors who challenge the norm (Quentin Tarantino as an example).

An editor tries to stay true to the script, and will make changes under the guidance of the director. The point here is the script. Scripts, how they are written, how they are structured has not changed much in the last 20 years.

While we can use MTV as an example of fast editing. Let's remember that most of the MTV style is copied from classic great directors. There are many films of the 1960s and 1970s that used fast editing to build drama, action and mood.

The central rhythm of a film is called its beat. Beats are specific, measured, and spaced to create a pace that moves the progress of the film forward. Script writers have been using beats long before films. Scripts for the theater contained beats.

To say films contain more cuts now than before, is to say that films have a faster beat now than before. That simply isn't true.

What has likely happened is that you are now watching more films that have a faster beat than you did when you were younger. So your perception is that films now have more cuts. There are many adult drama films being produced that have a slower beat that you are likely not watching.

The New Oxford American Dictionary reports the following definitions for in-:

in- 1
prefix
1. (added to adjectives) not: inanimate | intolerant.
2. (added to nouns) without; lacking: inadvertence | inappreciation.

in- 2
prefix
in; into; toward; within: induce | influx | inborn.

Looking at the origin of infamous, and inflammable, I read the following:

infamous
ORIGIN late Middle English: from medieval Latin infamosus, from Latin infamis (based on fama 'fame').

inflammable
ORIGIN early 17th century: from French, or from Latin inflammare (see inflame).

In both the cases, the words are not built adding the prefix in- to existing words.

I knew I wanted a satin jacket because I knew I wanted him to shine at night.

When you deal with very good actors, you often let them figure out their wardrobe themselves because that’s very much how they build their characters, through wardrobe. So Ryan would go out and find a jacket that he’d feel comfortable in and he’d bring it back and we’d make it satin. A lot of them were old military jackets with symbols of eagles and other iconic American symbols, and I thought “oh that would be great if he had a symbol on himself, like a logo!”

We decided we were going to put some kind of animal on the jacket, but then by coincidence I was with the costume designer in a garage looking at how mechanics dress.

Ryan was there working on his car because he was building his own car at the time, and he said that I should show the costume designer my visual reference for the Drive, which was Scorpio Rising. The film starts with the logo of a scorpion, and the telekinetic minds of myself and Ryan simultaneously said “it’s a scorpion!”

Then Ryan had the idea that we could use this design to incorporate this story about the scorpion and the frog, and it turned out really great.

“And they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth; it is for us who still dwell here to deal with it.”

This can have two interpretations:
1. The ring belongs to Middle-earth so we can't bring it to Valinor. Therefore we have to deal with it here
2. As the ring belongs to Middle-earth, we are responsible for dealing with all the problems it's causing it; we can't hide it in Valinor.

I am in favour of the second interpretation: the problem is not the characteristics of the ring, if it's powerful or corrupting, the problem is that Sauron wants it and bringing it to Valinor will (eventually) cause conflict as Sauron will scheme (maybe send Saruman as a spy?) to get it back. And They don't want conflict, that's why Valinor was hidden in the First Age.

Additionally, it fits the theme of leaving Middle-Earth alone and letting people handle the problems (e.g. by imposing restrictions on what the wizards can do); allowing the Ring in Valinor would contradict this completely.

On the other hand, nobody (powerful) desires the Three (especially if they've lost their power) so allowing them in Valinor will not bring any more conflict than bringing a sword.

I'm going to go against the grain of the current answers, and say that this is indeed wrong. That said, I should qualify that in a couple of ways: first, whether something is grammatically correct is dependent on a number of factors - what is acceptable in colloquial speech may not be in formal writing, and what is acceptable in one region may not be in another; what's more, there is no "language police", and accomplished writers often "break the rules", either to achieve a particular effect, or because doing so allows them to express their meaning more clearly - and there is nothing wrong with this. It's also worth noting that the original context is a lecture, and therefore speech (albeit more formal than conversation) rather than formal writing, so criticising it in the way I am about to is somewhat unfair.

With that out of the way, I would advise against this in formal written contexts (though it is absolutely fine in speech, where sentence fragments and disjointed sentences are the rule rather than the exception!). My reasoning is as follows:

The word "which", in this context, is a relative pronoun (functioning as a determiner). As such, it functions as the link between something referred to in the main clause and the same item in a subordinate clause:

I am learning mathematics, the study of which subject goes back to ancient times.

Here the relative pronoun is used to join together the two sentences

I am learning mathematics.

The study of this subject [i.e. mathematics] goes back to ancient times.

with the first as the main clause, and the second as the subordinate.

To look at the example in the question:

You may find the moral category too severe [...]. In which case, you may want to change the title [...].

Here, the second sentence contains only a subordinate clause, with no main clause - and this is what is "against the rules", so to speak - and many readers may find it jarring. It is parallel to:

*That is a dog. Which I saw yesterday.

...which is much more clearly wrong.

Joining the two sentences with a comma (or perhaps a dash to provide greater separation, since in this case there are already several clauses separated by commas) remedies this.

[ On a separate note (for clarification): this usage of "which" - as a determiner qualifying a noun - is different from and much less common than using it as a pronoun in its own right, for example:

I am learning mathematics, which is a difficult subject.

In both cases the "which"-clause is subordinate. ]

Based on your question, we're ignoring the fun times around Seth at the start of the film, and focusing on Joe. Having seen the film twice, there are some nuances I missed the first time through, so I'm altering my answer. There are three timelines that matter:

First, there's the original timeline where Old Joe is taken, his wife is killed, but then he fails to overpower the mob henchmen. He is sent back slightly late, and is promptly killed by Young Joe.

Second, the timeline is similar to the above, except Old Joe overpowers the henchmen, and decides to go back to kill the Rainmaker. This is where the bulk of the movie happens. As the ramifications of Old Joe and his mission ripple through the present, they impact the future history of Old Joe. Young Joe carves 'Beatrix' into his arm to arrange the meet with Old Joe. Old Joe kills the first child, then remembers a future where he and his wife had a kid. It seems that once Young Joe learned of this, it impacted his original-timeline decision to not have children with his future wife.

Third, Young Joe kills himself, Old Joe ceases to exist. Sarah is safe, and raises the widdle Rainmaker to not be a monster.

The director acknowledges there are some oddities around the timelines, as the Rainmaker is described as having a fake jaw and seeing his mother killed in front of him, which would suggest that we always see timelines where Old Joe shot widdle Rainmaker.

Within the film narrative, I think it's stating that one of the ramifications of timeline 1 above was that because Joe knew his loop would be closed, that he then was able to successfully overpower the henchmen and choose to go back in time. Thus, he created the 2nd timeline, because the causality loop of him killing himself wasn't tight enough, due to the possibility of overpowering the henchmen.

In the chapter Flotsam and Jetsam in the The Two Towers, Aragorn has this to say of Saruman:

‘Once he was as great as his fame made him. His knowledge was deep, his thought was subtle, and his hands marvellously skilled; and he had a power over the minds of others. The wise he could persuade, and the smaller folk he could daunt. That power he certainly still keeps. There are not many in Middle-earth that I should say were safe, if they were left alone to talk with him, even now when he has suffered a defeat. Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel, perhaps, now that his wickedness has been laid bare, but very few others.’

This indicates that Aragorn was fully aware of the abilities and nature of Saruman. Was this information second hand via Gandalf/Elrond or is there in any work indications that they had crossed paths previously?

We know Aragorn has never been to Isenguard:

I have never been in Isengard, but I have journeyed in this land, and I know well the empty countries that lie between Rohan and the Shire.

But that doesn't exclude the possibility that they met elsewhere.

How well do Aragorn and Saruman know each other personally, had they ever met or had dealings prior to the attack on Rohan?

The Yosemite, the ship with the missing crew, was in a plasma stream that stretched from a star to a black hole (or neutron star). The crew members had been infected with "quasi-energy microbes." They had reprogrammed the biofilters to filter them out and that's what they tried to do when they were caught in the beam.

There's two factors that make transport unique here. The first is the plasma stream, which includes a distortion field and ionic interference. The other is the quasi-energy microbes in the plasma stream.

Barclay gives a answer, which is basically a hand-wave to explain it. After he rescues one crewman, who explains they were trying to use the biofilter to rid themselves of the microbes, Geordi says, "It looks like you pushed molecular dispersion past the integrity point. Your patterns got caught in the beam." Then Barclay responds with, "The residual energy from the plasma stream. It must have amplified the charge in the buffer in order to keep your patterns from degrading."

So the extra energy from the plasma stream allowed the pattern buffer to maintain the data for more than several days.

Alternate spelling - "cachability" (seems perhaps less popular/proper)

In Computer Science, the word "cache" is used in a specific sense to mean a place (usually in a specific memory location) where looked up values are stored temporarily so that they can be retrieved more quickly on the next request for them.

In web development, we cache pages or pieces of code, images, etc. in order to be able to serve more requests and take load off of application servers (ie, prevent the slashdot effect).

And so we talk about "caching" this page or this data, how to make data or pages "cacheable", and finally about the overall "cacheability" of certain pages or structures or apps.

For example:

"We need to evaluate the cacheability of our index page."

meaning something like

"We need to see how cacheable the index page is and to what degree."

The only problem is, the word cacheability isn't really a word... is it?

Is this a technical term that some computer folks are throwing around? Have they invented a new word? I'd be pedantic and say "it's not a word" and we're just using it wrong - go with cacheable and reform your sentences - but I know that not one of my coworkers would bat an eye if I were to use "cacheability" in a sentence, so it seems that it's meaning is clear in certain contexts and can express an idea that "cacheable" doesn't necessarily do as succinctly.

Earlier on in the episode it was detailed that the DEA were already on to the Laundry place (the scene with Hank discussing why a laundry place would need two 1700 amp power panels, and how a laundry of that size would need less than half of that).

While destroying the lab focused the attention of the DEA, they were already hot on the trail anyway. Furthermore, Gus had just been killed, which would have bought additional heat down on the laundry place. Leaving it in tact would have left more evidence behind than what they actually found and clearly demonstrated the scale of the current operation. I'm not sure that blowing it up would have left much evidence tying Jesse and Walter to the scene though, since the vast majority of their work in the lab was done in protective clothing with gloves on.

Proximity is a state, or condition. It is not a measurement. Consider the common phrase 'in the proximity of', which I imagine as the object inside a circle or zone around the other. Think 'neighborhood'.

So saying you have reduced the proximity to zero is almost meaningless, and as you suspect, might be twisted to mean your two objects have no proximity to each other at all, are in fact very far apart.

When you re-state your intended meaning as 'My intention is to describe that the distance between two objects gets very close together' again the condition (close together) is mixed up with a measure (distance).

Perhaps you are thinking to say '. . the distance between two objects gets very small. They get very close together.'

In the 2005 "War of the Worlds" screenplay there's no canon explanation of the interval between the invasion and the first alien deaths from disease. It's merely described as;

"Voiceover : From the moment the invaders arrived, breathed our air, ate and drank,
they were doomed. They were undone, destroyed, after all of man's
weapons and devices had failed, by the tiniest creatures that God and
his wisdom, put upon this earth."

In the original "The War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells, the chapter heading for Book 2 : Chapter 6 is headed 'The Work of Fifteen Days' and indicates the destruction wrought by the aliens in the two weeks of their initial invasion. Our hero finds his first dead alien two days later.

I see no reason to assume that the film-makers departed from this timeline.

I am trying to remember the title of an 'old' (pre 2000) fantasy novel.

The parts of the story that I remember include (essential ingredients):
1) it involved a staff, with an iron symbol on the shoe of the staff.
2) it starts off in winter.
3) it has as a theme throughout the book ravens or crows, and this might be in the title.

I recall thinking at the time I read it that it was not the usual type of fantasy novel, but persevered and loved it by the end. It was written very much from point of view of the main character, and the difficulty they had with their limited knowledge, they had beeen flung into the deep end and were fighting for their life.

The book starts first chapter with someone struggling with a staff as their only weapon, they don't know what it is and can do, they use it to fend off the crows, and its deep winter.

Magic works circumspectly, we don't get into the inner workings of the magic system used in the world. By the end of the novel the main character had become an accomplished magic user, nothing dramatic or large scale, the whole point of the novel was their struggle to make modest gains. It was very different to most of the fantasy literature of the time which posed massive leaps of power gains once magic is mastered.

I hope this is enough detail, I read the book a very long time ago.
I have tried looking up every fantasy novel with crow or raven in the title, with no luck. :(

Main protagonist might be a woman.

In philosophy the expression would be mutually necessary:

Definition: A necessary condition for some state of affairs S is a
condition that must be satisfied [in order to obtain] S.

Example of mutually necessary conditions:

Jack and Jill will go up the hill only if they both go up the hill.

Jack will not go up the hill without Jill.

Jill will not go up the hill without Jack.

so

Jack going up the hill is necessary for Jill to go up the hill.

Jill going up the hill is necessary for Jack to go up the hill

Jack going up the hill and Jill going up the hill are mutually necessary.

In a broader context:

Interdependent implies a certain level of mutual necessity:

ADJECTIVE

(Of two or more people or things) dependent on each other:

OED

Codependent relationships exhibit an intensity of interdependence that increases the sense of necessity:

Derivative of codependency:

NOUN

[MASS NOUN]

Excessive emotional or psychological reliance on a partner, typically
one with an illness or addiction who requires support:

Symbiotic relationships do not all exibit necessary, but the mutual benefit is a specialized expression of interdependence:

derivative of symbiosis

NOUN

[MASS NOUN] Biology

1.0 Interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both.

There is a brand of symbiosis referred to as obligate symbiosis, which does imply the must of the OP:

In animals, a common mutualistic symbiosis occurs between many
herbivores and microorganisms of their digestive tracts. Ungulates
(hoofed animals) and some other animals eat plant material that is
high in cellulose , even though they lack enzymes capable of breaking
down cellulose molecules. They obtain energy from cellulose with the
help of symbiotic bacteria and protozoa living within their digestive
tracts. These microbes produce enzymes called cellulase that break
down cellulose into smaller molecules that the host animal can then
utilize. Similarly, wood-consuming termites depend upon symbiotic
protozoans living within their intestines to digest cellulose. These
are obligate symbioses. The termites cannot survive without their
intestinal inhabitants, and the microorganisms cannot live without the
host. In each of these symbioses, the host animal benefits from the
food provided by the microorganism and the microorganism benefits from
the suitable environment and nourishment provided by the host.

Read more:
http://www.biologyreference.com/Se-T/Symbiosis.html#ixzz3R4tP9zIU

Emphasis mine

Synergetic, a derivative of synergy approaches the meaning you are looking for:

NOUN

[MASS NOUN]

The interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations,
substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than
the sum of their separate effects:

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Odo shared his faith in the solids. Quite literally.

It wasn't a faith thing, it was a negotiation

Monday, 29 June 2015

Sunday, 28 June 2015

Saturday, 27 June 2015

Friday, 26 June 2015

Thursday, 25 June 2015