In the television series, Supernatural, throughout the series it is shown that Sam and Dean have a symbol at their chest to protect themselves from possession by deamons.
But in S08E02, it is shown that a deamon can burm the symbol and possess a person.
My question is, What is the whole purpose and sense of the seal at all.
I've been trying to think of a good British English term for a summer job, the equivalent of American English Internship.
I'm sure that when I've worked with students my company had hired over the summer holidays, we used to the the term studentship, but researching a little further this seems to more correctly apply to a PhD scholarship in British English parlance.
I'm not specifically looking for a term which has connotations of either paid or unpaid work, but if the term has one of those connotations it would be useful for it to be mentioned.
Incidentally, it was my understanding that in American English, internship implied unpaid, but could nevertheless be qualified with either paid or unpaid. As @Martha points out however, it seems that limited duration is a more appropriate qualifier for the word.
I just rewatched the scene to see if he read their names off their uniforms, but they were all standing way too far away when he addressed them. The only other explanation that makes sense from what's shown is that Agent Smecker is driven to the crime scene in the back of a marked police car (he's shown arriving at the beginning of the scene, when he flashes his ID to the police chief from the back of the squad car). He could have met with the uniformed officers at the police station before being taken to the scene, and he almost certainly would have chatted up the two officers that he rode over with.
Tony Thorne, The Dictionary of Contemporary Slang (1990) repeats one of the origin theories that Partridge notes (as quoted in user3286's answer), but also suggests an alternative involving "the African colonial term dash":
dosh n British[:] money. This is a working-class term from the early 1950s which was falling out of use in the 1960s, but which, like many similar words (bunce, loot, lolly, etc.), was revived in the money conscious late 1980s. It is a favourite with alternative comedians and 'professional cockneys'. The original would seem logically to be the old African colonial term dash, denoting a tip or bribe, but other authorities claim that it is influenced by doss [defined in its own entry as meaning "a place to sleep," "a period of sleep," or "a very easy task"], in the sense of the price of a bed (for the night).
John Ayto & John Simpson, The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang (1992), meanwhile, stick to the OED line of "origin unknown":
dosh noun Money 1953–. ** 'America! The money's in America!' ... ''Tis true. The Yankees have the dosh all right' (1970) {Origin unknown}
In the movie version of Les Miserables, the final scene is the very upper class and opulent wedding of Marius and Cosette. Is Marius completely selling out the revolutionary cause and abandoning all his friends who have died? This point seems to be glossed over in the movie and Marius isn't portrayed in any negative way for this, but in my mind should be very damning of him.
Okay -- this is just a guess, I do not really know what I'm talking about, but my guess is that they portrayed some of the characters in the movie as being less than ideal people. THUS, it is possible that someone could claim their character was defamed. SO, to give themselves legal wiggle room " ... characters, names, businesses and certain locations and events have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes." This way, SHOULD they ever end up in court over something in the movie, they could say, "We weren't talking about you ... WE were talking about a FICTIONAL character." (i.e., the disclaimer at the end of the credits). Net: Every component, such as the actual # of birds, would go to the defense of that concept, in such a situation. (Note, as they say, even the names of the real people were changed to protect the guilty.) But that is just my guess. Does that make sense?
Searching through Google supplied this:. I don't know if it is part of a series, though the site contains other videos which seem aimed at selling Legos and sets specific to the plots. This specific "mini-movie" is about five minutes long at most.
UPDATE: Actually, from the site search, I can't even tell if there are any more LEGO films there, or when this one was created.
UPDATE2: The Lego Site provides a series of animations that ARE linked to specific racer sets here.
This weekend, Marvel's re-releasing The Avengers into theaters in the US. At the moment there's little information on whether this release is identical to the original release. Many blogs are taking the text of the release to suggest there's some new footage post-credits, but when I read it, it just seems like they're pointing people to not miss the shawarma scene:
Marvel’s The Avengers is back in theaters for Labor Day Weekend!
Don’t forget to stay through the credits and enjoy your shawarma!
Is this re-release identical to the original release?
I've faced this problem many times!
the only solution is to remember that:
they will be seeing the 'question word' AND INDEED the 'selections' at the same time.
I find this to be critical in UI, these days, since everything is so tricky.
So my solution is:
Repeats ... < daily >< weekly >< monthly >
On ... < Monday >< Tuesday >< Friday >< Saturday >
SO, in a sense the answer is:
"Repeats" and "On"
Note that even if you don't dynamic it, it still looks good:
Repeats ... < daily >< weekly >< monthly >
On ... < Monday >< Tuesday >< Friday >< Saturday >< 1st >< 15th > .. etc
Hope it helps!
This is a very useful trick in such UI. Use the context of having both parts visible. After all, when writing you have "whole sentences" available to you, not just words. And it's analogous in this "on screen" problem.
It's Robin:
From TV Guide (May 2012):
"It had to be Robin."
That's what How I Met Your Mother co-creator/showrunner Craig Thomas says about Barney's big bride reveal on Monday's Season 7 finale.
"There was just no other way," he tells TVGuide.com. "We always knew it was gonna be Barney (Neil Patrick Harris) and Robin (Cobie Smulders)."
[...]
Q: When did you and Carter [Bays] decide that Barney and Robin will get married?
Craig Thomas: We decided literally years ago. As we were breaking them up, we knew there would be a rekindling and that wouldn't be the real deal ... and we would reveal them to be the groom [in the Season 6 finale] and bride now. ... Season 8 is gonna be filling in the steps between Point A and Point B. We know they do get married, but there are a lot of steps between Point A and Point B....
Moveable bridges are the ones that can move, to allow the boats, etc. pass, like this one:
For such purposes, the traffic on the road needs to be stopped, so that the bridge *move*s and allows the water traffic to pass.
Once when I was cycling, trying to cross the bridge, I noticed they had blocked the entrance to the bridge by putting signs and bands. I asked one of the technicians over there if the bridge is going to be opened, (meaning to see if they will fold(!?)/move the bridge away), to which he replied: "It will, but after midnight. You better take the other road".
This conversation was quite confusing, since each of us meant something totally different by the two words "open" and "close"; and "move" is somehow more general because it can refer to the both status changes, rather than specifying the current/next state; especially if you're having a conversation about this later to someone who wasn't there to see the situation.
Is there a clear alternative to use for this situation (when the bridge moves away), other than open, close, or move?
Update: I've already seen the Wikipedia article on moveable bridges, including the various bridge types and the names, and the verb move that's been used generally all over the article, but I would like a clear, preferably single-word verb to explain this independent of being on the roadway or the waterway, and avoiding using a phrase or a whole sentence to explain this.
Since that show was on the air for 8 seasons, and another decade after that in syndication, one would think that Skeeter's popularity would guarantee her a spot in a real Muppet movie.
I think the number of people aware of the Muppet Show (1976) and the older Muppet Movies foreshadow those that know about Muppet Babies (1984). Since in Muppet Babies most of the characters were the babies (except for the occasional parent figure), the gender roles were unbalanced. Thus the addition of Skeeter.
Though this is not to say that this is the reason why Skeeter was left out. There were other Muppet movies before "the Muppets" where Skeeter was not previously included.
I could be missing some, the full listing including 1 hour long tv specials could be found on the Muppets Wiki page.
I am just going with why Skeeter was included in the Muppet Babies but not the other way. So you will have to ask why Skeeter was not included in any movies from 1984 onwards.
In response to the rights, I think it is logical to believe that Disney owns the rights to all characters. Not taking up rights just for Skeeter does not make any sense.
I decided to do some digging on the forums, and I stumbled on to a thread that asked Muppet writer Jim Lewis about placing Skeeter into family in 2008,
No. Why? Not really sure, to be honest. It could work, but I still see
her as a Muppet Baby, a balance for Scooter (His Bookishness to her
tom boy-ishness). I guess if she could be developed into something
more, a force in her own right as an adult, it might work. But I'm not
convinced. Plus, I'm lazy which is why I'm going to stop thinking on
this too much before my head starts to hurt.
Also in a separate Ask Jim session
Ahh, Skeeter. I wasn't there for the creation of the "Muppet Babies"
animated series, but I suspect she was added to the show so there'd be
another (dare I say, more balanced than Baby Piggy) female character
on a show aimed at kids. We threw around various bizarre scenarios
about what happened to Skeeter after "Muppet Babies," but none of
these were ever confirmed. Frankly, I suggest contacting the Federal
Witness Protection Program for more info. Let us know what you find
out.
Yet has a slightly different meaning to however or but - both of which are assuredly negative with respect to what precedes it, whereas "yet" is only slightly or partially negative, and does not need a comma (not for this reason, just for syntactical ones).
Yet nearly always implies that the second (negative clause) is not fully justified or explained by the first (positive) clause: "She was really well off, yet she refused to have any work done on her house."
So in these contexts, it means "but still ...", so "yet still ..." would be tautologous.
He erases whatever he wills, and fixes.
This is grammatically incorrect, because "to fix" is a transitive verb. It requires an object: something which gets fixed. "He [...] fixes." is an incomplete sentence, because it is not apparent what he is fixing.
He erases and fixes whatever he wills.
This is grammatically correct: he fixes "whatever he wills". He also erases "whatever he wills".
With him is the original record.
This is correct but archaic. Modern English would reverse this and put the adverbial phrase "with him" at the end: "The original record is with him." The original construction is, strictly speaking, correct, but it is a more old-fashioned - even archaic - way of writing the sentence.
So, the first option is grammatically incorrect because "he fixes" is lacking an object (the thing being fixed).
Excerpt from my essay:
Coming to my industrial experience, I am currently working in...
My professor's comment on my essay:
I think you want to transition to industrial experience from undergrad
exp... but use a better starting phrase maybe."
Can someone suggest a better transition phrase than "Coming to"?
Just after their awakening, Men were able to communicate directly with Eru ("the Voice"), as illustrated in this tale present in Morgoth's Ring (part of Tolkien's unpublished drafts):
The Voice said: 'Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time ye will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you.'
In that time we called often and the Voice answered. But it seldom answered our questions, saying only: 'First seek to find the answer for yourselves. For ye will have joy in the finding, and so grow from childhood and become wise. Do not seek to leave childhood before your time.'
This changes, however, once Morgoth's lies lead Men to abjure the Voice (calling it the manifestation of void and darkness):
The first Voice we never heard again, save once. In the stillness of the night It spoke, saying: 'Ye have abjured Me, but ye remain Mine. I gave you life. Now it shall be shortened, and each of you in a little while shall come to Me, to learn who is your Lord: the one ye worship, or I who made him.'
This is the original sin of Men alluded to in the Silmarillion, and the reason why Men tries hard to forget their past before arriving at Belerian.
The gimmick in Gremlins 2: The New Batch with the projector is actually inspired by the film The Tingler which first introduced it.
Apparently The Tingler was screened in theaters and in drive-ins. When the film went black, a voice warned:
Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The Tingler is loose in this theater!
However, in the drive-in version, the voiceover was changed to say
Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The Tingler is loose in this drive-in!
Of course in 1959 there was no such thing as home video.
In S3E12 of Arrested Development ("Exit Strategy"), Lindsay and Lucille tell Michael they're checking into rehab, while they actually go to a spa instead. In their place, they send two other people to rehab in their place:
The woman on the right, pretending to be Lucille, is clearly her housekeeper Lupe. But who is the woman on the left pretending to be Lindsay?
America claims the tanks so it would become independent of other nations (on the helium 3 front). All nations then begin to fight over the claim, making them turn on each other. It is not shown if the tank survive or not, only the burning wreckage of the nazi base is visibly shown.
Now, it may very well have been just your good old fashioned MacGuffin, HOWEVER on closer inspection of the scene at the end.
You never actually see Sam or the mounted White Walker make eye contact. It is cleverly implied. Sam clearly hears the hooves padding through the snow and hears the rattling chains and the White Walker looks off to the left and then shrieks an order/battlecry.
BUUUUUUUUUUUUT, when the pan out begins, we see:
The large rock is IN FRONT of the mounted white walker.
The only other rock in the entire pan out is tiny and there is no shallow on the other side.
And Sam is clearly seen getting behind a rock with a shallow which, when he sits down, gives about a foot of cover above
Therefore
The council for the defense rests m'lud, although I would like to say at this point. This whole bit feels like it was just rammed in for a cliffhanger, and is actually full of gaffs!
A couple of days ago I watched this new musical comedy, Pitch Perfect. Here's one question that puzzles me: Why was Beca's riff-off considered invalid? What "it" did they need to match and how? I've watched this particular scene, like, 50 times and I still have no clue. Maybe there's something in the book that they forgot to include in the movie?
He didn't enter the Shire after becoming King (from Appendix A):
There were fourteen Chieftains, before the fifteenth and last was born, Aragorn II, who became again King of born Gondor and Arnor. ‘Our King, we call him; and when he comes north to his house in Annúminas restored and stays for a while by Lake Evendim, then everyone in the Shire is glad. But he does not enter this land and binds himself by the law that he has made, that none of the Big People shall pass its borders.
c.3000 [Saruman's] spies report that the Shire is being closely guarded by the Rangers.
3027 King Elessar issues an edict that Men are not to enter the Shire, and he makes it a Free Land under the protection of the Northern Sceptre.
3036 King Elessar rides north, and dwells for a while by Lake Evendim. He comes to the Brandywine Bridge, and there greets his friends.
As to whether he entered the Shire while he and the Dunedain were guarding it, it's not specifically mentioned. It seems likely that he probably crossed the border at some point during the years of guarding, but they most likely avoided doing it frequently given there appears to be no knowledge in the Shire of their guarding.
I firmly believe in paying for what I watch - they paid to make it, I should pay to watch it. Completely fair. However, I hate physical media: DVD, Blu-ray, you name it. I'm happy to buy them to pay my royalty to those involved, but my understanding is that despite having paid for the film, in the UK it is illegal to have a ripped or downloaded copy of any movie, regardless of whether or not you own a physical copy.
I thought "Digital Copies" sold in Triple-play packages might be the solution, but they force ridiculous limitations, like tying it to one computer for the rest of forever. I'm not going to have one computer for the rest of forever, rendering it useless.
So my question is, is there a robust, legal means for me to be able to carry my movies on my hard drive (for travelling and suchlike) given that I am more than happy to pay, and even pay a premium, for the privilege?
I understand this is quasi-legal in the states, but generally falls into a grey area.
With the spread of American popular culture (movies, books, franchises, etc.) and technical jargon (manuals, Web syntaxes, default spell-check settings, etc.), I'm wondering if there have been any studies on a resulting general change in the use of traditional British English conventions, particularly in places such as Britain and Ireland, in the direction of American conventions.
In particular, I'm looking for the results of systematic studies on the topic, or strong evidence for change or lack of change of British English usage. (For example, the change of a few key conventions over the past 5, 10 or 20 years.)
I refer equally to spoken conventions (e.g., "come and see" vs. "come see") as well as spelling (e.g., "centred" vs. "centered").
We don't know any Lannister before Lann the clever ( and we don't even know if he was called a Lannister), who founded House Lannister and the first King of the Rock, Loreon I Lannister (Loreon the Lion).
This info is given in the World of Ice and Fire. It is also said (rumored more like it) that Lann had a hundred sons
Lann the Clever supposedly lived to the age of 312, and sired a hundred bold sons and a hundred lissome daughters, all fair of face, clean of limb, and blessed with hair "as golden as the sun.
The World of Ice and Fire; The Westerlands.
Besides these, there is speculation. It is possible that Lann started calling himself a Lannister, or one of his many sons.
We also don't who the parents of Loreon where, so we cannot know for sure if there were other Lannisters before him.
Pharos and lighthouse indicate:
- a tall structure topped by a powerful light used as a beacon or signal to aid nautical navigation.
Ngram shows that lighthouse usage has been preferred to that of pharos from the beginning of the 19th century.
Etymology:
- as a word for a lighthouse, 1550s, in reference to the island of Pharos off the coast of Alexandria, on which Ptolemy Philadelphius built a mighty lighthouse.
- 1620s, from light (n.) + house (n.). (etymonline)
Is there a reason for the fact that a different term was coined just a few decades later just for such a specific construction and for the fact lighthouse became the more common between the two (nautical paper jargon for instance) ?
In Course: Oblivion, the duplicate of Chakotay indicates that Voyager has not been traveling in a straight line. The most logical conclusion would be that they were traveling along one of the galactic arms in a kind of s pattern toward, and eventually away from, the galactic core. Alternatively, they could be traveling down an arm until they were close enough to Federation space to "make a run" across one of the "null" regions between two arms/spurs.
Either would make sense since they would need to stop for supplies, fuel, repairs, maintenance etc. and the best places to do that would be in areas where there were stars, planets and, hopefully, advanced civilizations.
In The Gift, Kes throws Voyager "about 10 years" (9,500 LY) further along on their journey and safely past Borg space. In Night, they find a wormhole that takes them to the other side of a 2,500 LY "void" in space (don't get me started) which should equate to at least another 2 years. In Timeless, they use the slipstream drive and take another 10 years off their trip (somewhere between 9,000 and 10,000 LY based on previous statements). Finally, in Dark Frontier, they use a Borg transwarp coil to go another 20,000 LY, which Janeway oddly estimates to be 15 years (odd since up to now 1,000 LY = roughly 1 year).
Based on statements made on screen they should be about 42,000 LY further along by the middle of season 5 not including their normal progress which should, in itself, account for between 3,000 and 4,000 LY (since they like to stop and poke at stuff). That accounts for a great deal more than half of their trip by the middle of the 5th season.
Assumptions:
All of that said, shouldn't Voyager have crossed the boundary into the Beta Quadrant while they were using their stolen transwarp coil in Dark Frontier at the latest?
I don't think everyone is surprised. The only people who mention Apparating into, or Disapparating out of, Hogwarts are students (generally Harry and Ron, repeatedly). Why would students be surprised/not know that you can't Apparate into Hogwarts?
The only place that particular piece of information is ever mentioned as being recorded is in the book Hogwarts: A History. Up until Harry's second year Hermione seems to be the only student who has read the book and remembered parts of it. Even in Harry's second year people likely would have only read the parts concerning the Chamber of Secrets (since that was why they all checked it out of the library).
For Muggle-borns this is obvious: they're unfamiliar with Apparating because they're unfamiliar with almost everything relating to the Wizarding world. For those born to at least one magical parent, they may not actually know anybody who does Apparate. We know that it's dangerous, that you have to pass a test in order to do it, and that a lot of witches and wizards don't bother with Apparition, preferring slower but less hazardous forms of transport.
As a result, many students are likely only familiar with Apparating on a very, very basic level. They know what it allows you to do but have no idea how it works.
At least parts of the Ministry of Magic can be Apparated to. The Ministry of Magic is, essentially, a public place, since it accepts visitors and not just government employees.
If you can Apparate to the Ministry, why wouldn't you be able to Apparate to Hogwarts?
If your home has been magically protected against Apparating, unless you're explicitly told that's the case you're probably never going to think that it is. Even if you notice that nobody ever Apparates into your house, you'd probably just think that wizards Apparate to a spot outside your house because that's good manners, not because they're physically unable to do anything else. I think it's unlikely anybody would ever notice that nobody Apparates into their house, though.
"Bo Peep" is a character in the film:
Bo Peep is a porcelain figurine attached to Molly's bedside lamp inspired by the heroine of the famed nursery rhyme; a beautiful, sweet-natured shepherdess accompanied by a single figure merged to resemble three sheep, who serves as Woody's romantic interest of the films. In spite of her status as one of Molly's toys, like Mrs. Potato Head she may fall under the category of Andy's toy.
Here's an image of her... you can see a bit of her skirt and her shepherd's crook in the image your question asks about.
In general, "Bo Peep" is the subject of one of many traditional nursery rhymes, "Little Bo Peep":
Little Bo-Peep has lost her sheep,
and doesn't know where to find them;
leave them alone, And they'll come home,
wagging their tails behind them.
In-universe, this is one of those instances where a closed time loop was interfered with and had to be corrected:
Chakotay: And every few years, there's been an equally revolutionary advancement in computers, all from Chronowerx Industries, all based on Starling's crude understanding of 29th century technology.
Janeway: Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Chakotay?
Chakotay: I wish I weren't.
Janeway: The computer age of the late 20th century-
Chakotay: Shouldn't have happened.
Janeway: But it did. And it's part of our history. All because of that timeship.
So no, there was no alternate timeline during the 90s. The anomaly mentioned at the end of Part II was simply Voyager's existence in the past, not the timeship in the 60s - restoring the timeship to the future would've set Earth back decades, maybe centuries, and not led to the timeline we know.
Within canon, an explanation for there not being any Eugenics Wars simply isn't given.
However, stepping outside of canon, authors recognized this problem and came up with a solution of sorts: The Eugenics Wars were a behind-the-scenes fight, more like a chess game with nations, and the general public did not know about the existence of the Augments.
This particular retcon makes it entirely possible that the Eugenics Wars did/are still happening...
To answer the comment on the question:
And don't forget that prime Braxton had no memory of it. This entire episode is kinda contentious, though Richard makes an excellent point that I'd never considered, in Braxton's own ship forking the timeline. I guess that basically solves it. – Lightness Races in Orbit
The original Braxton that went back in time was from further in the future than the Braxton at the end of the episode. That's why he didn't have memories of being in the past. The timeline split, if there was one, was either when Voyager left the 90s, or when Voyager returned in the 24th century:
Their existence in the past caused a younger version of Braxton to go and retrieve them, preventing the temporal explosion from happening in the first place - and splitting the timeline such that the explosion now occurs in a future that is not in the Voyager's future, but is still a possible future of the 1960s and 1990s - hence no paradox occurring.
I'm desperately searching for an old cartoon I saw when I was a little child in the mid-90s. Unfortunately I don't remember all the details, rather the strange feeling it evoked in me. Here is a keyword like sketch of my memory/association with it:
Surrealistic black and white cartoon, utopian atmosphere, machines develop own's life, dark mood, flying typewriters or sewing machines, machine which spills a lot of oil, some kind of engines.
I remember that this "machines" started to fly and making a disturbing roaring sound. based on my biased (now adult) reconstruction I would say that the motif of this flick tried to capture a deep angst that came along with more and more industrialisation, but that could also be utterly wrong. (but looking at the images I get back when searching for "industrialization" capture this feeling pretty well)
Without limiting the suggestions I would date it in a range of 1920-1940.
I searched several hours on YouTube and similar sites, no result. I know that my description is very vague but I don't have more info and I just hope that this keywords trigger some associations of movies/cartoon where one of them might be the one I search for.
Pureblood status was irrelevant to the majority of witches and wizards. To those who it did matter to something as inconsequential as having a Muggle-born mother would be more than enough to "taint" you, likely for multiple generations. The "best" you could hope for, if you actually cared, is to be Half-blood.
Of course, in practice the application of these "rules" is inconsistent at best. Families like the Malfoys were more than willing to serve Lord Voldemort, whose father was a Muggle (not even a Muggle-born wizard). I'm sure Ministry officials like Dolores Umbridge - during the period when Voldemort controlled the Ministry of Magic - would have been more than willing to trade "Pureblood" status for valuable information (I can't remember if there's any hard evidence for this in the books, though).
Blood status in the Harry Potter books has huge parallels with the Nazis treatment of the Jews. There's a famous quote from a high-ranking Nazi (I believe it was Hermann Goering) that goes "I decide who is a Jew."
The same applies here, I think: Harry is a Half-blood because the people blood status matters to said so.
I read all the answers and I decided to post my first answer ever on this site too! :D
These two came to my mind:
since you might want to forgive, but you should not forget!
In Greece, my mum says sometimes to me, when I do something relevant to your scenario: "You fill the bawl with water and then you kick it once and spill all the water!".
However, I think that she knows that proverb (I would say phrase, but thanks to your answer, I googled and find out the difference, thanks), with the goat and the milk, since in the village she is coming from, goats are more common that cows. So, yes, basically, it's the same as the one in Iran, with local changes, to meet the Greek standards (I would ask my mum, but she is sleeping now).
How nice is to see how the knowledge (such as proverbs) travels from culture to culture, with Middle East coming first and then Greece taking the baton, thanks from the base of this proverb then!
So what to use? It depends on the origin of the person you are targeting.
On a second thought though, if I were you, I would go with your local proverb, since it's actually the best IMHO, you see proverbs that are formed from the people of cultures that existed way much earlier than now, are (almost?) always the best.
Tip: They should apologize always. Teach them to, they will become better humans then.
I can't find a screencap of this character just yet, as the movie was released only very recently. But every now and then in scenes set backstage at the Muppet Theatre, there's a sheep chowing down on some non-food items, either in the background of the shot or at the very end of the scene. It's just a little (ADORABLE) sight gag.
Is the sheep a character from past Muppet films or TV shows? Does it have a name? As far as I can tell, it isn't one of the sheep listed here. So who is our little sheep friend?
Found a screencap. I'm not sure which iteration of the Muppets this screencap is from, but it sure ain't the 2011 movie. The sheep in question is blurrily visible on the second level in the background, just above and a bit to the left of Kermit's head. It appears to be gnawing on a cowhide.
It's probable the Daleks did not know what that fixed point in time would be -- perhaps she would turn out to be a fixed point in time in the future they were bringing about. They can't see the future, but apparently had some notion that it would be "wrong" (in the sense that Captain Jack is "wrong") to kill her.
It isn't stated what exactly the criteria are for making a point in time fixed. If there are rules, they may not be revealed to the audience. More likely, "fixed points" are entirely plot driven and in-universe explained just that certain time travelling characters/species are able to "feel" in some way.
I don't think we have enough information to say how much the Daleks knew -- perhaps they just got a queasy feeling and decided it was a bad idea without ever formalizing the thought "oh, hey, she's part of a fixed point in time".
The whole "fixed point" concept is firmly in Timey-Wimey ball territory; the only decent explanation in-universe is that the concept is too advanced for us to understand on any meaningful level either because of our relatively primitive science or because of a lack of some sort of temporal physiology. Out-of-universe, it is a mechanism to allow writers to sometimes block the Doctor from tinkering so much with time.
I have seen this similar question here, but my particular case seems to differ still. I wish to use the word or phrase in charge as a noun, not as a verb. So for example, I have this usage scenario:
I didn’t write an application letter. Instead, I went to their advertised premises, and asked to meet the in charge myself.
And perhaps, to stress the unusual usage of this term, I wonder if adding a little emphasis such as in:
I didn’t write an application letter. Instead, I went to their advertised premises, and asked to meet the in-charge myself.
Or italicising the term when I use it
I didn’t write an application letter. Instead, I went to their advertised premises, and asked to meet the in charge myself.
Might render such an application plausible or meaningful?
Which of the above should I use, and if none is legit, then what better, expressive ways can I put it?
According to J. K. Rowling's article on Pottermore regarding the Hogwarts Express, originally students arrived at Hogwarts by any means available: brooms, apparition to Hogsmeade, carts or carriages, and even magical creatures. When the International Statute of Secrecy was enacted in 1692, it became vital to prevent Muggle sightings on the way to Hogwarts. At that point, the Ministry set up a complicated system of Portkeys to get to Hogwarts. That caused so many problems, Minister for Magic Ottaline Gambol eventually solved the problem by establishing the Hogwarts Express.
Nowhere does the article address how Muggleborns arrived at Hogwarts specifically, but I would imagine they would arrive there just like regular children; after all, Hermione's parents successfully found Platform 9 3/4 and got her to Hogwarts. I'm sure a Muggleborn's letter would explain all the particular's necessary to get there. Harry's didn't, but at that point, I don't think any one really realized how little Harry was aware of the magical world.
In a request for proposal (RFP) I am attempting to edit the following sentence-fragment which isn't grammatically correct:
"...except for staff permissioned to update..."
My problem is with the word "permissioned." The correct english word is "permission" and it should probably read:
"except for staff with the permission to update..."
That doesn't seem correct for an RFP though.
Is there a better word or phrase to use that conveys the technical meaning of permissions for an IT system?
It is unknown in the future exactly the level of police corruption the Mob will attain, but they may have their hands in how law enforcement is run, i.e. payoffs, kick-backs, etc, due to the ever-suffering/impoverished people in the future as the movie depicts. All they (the Mob) would have to do is put the word out on "Old Joe", that he's a deadly criminal...and game-on for the cops.
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'm looking for a word that would describe the class of people who either went to college and dropped out, and did something more timely with their skills (starting a business, programming, etc) and never achieved a degree.
This word should be used for established professionals, but I suppose I can also use a word for a driven intellectual who doesn't have the typical earmarkings of success as popular society defines it.
Yes, they are. In the novels, this is made very clear, though it's possible they've glossed over it on the show and I didn't notice (knowing the truth already I didn't pay much attention during that bit).
Near the end of Game of Thrones (staring around chapter 40-ish), Ned is trying to retrace Jon Arryn's investigation that he suspects got him killed. He eventually comes across a book that describes all of the highborn children dating back many, many generations. According to the genealogy book, in every case where a Baratheon father had a child with a Lannister mother, they always favored their father very strongly - broad shouldered and dark haired (e.g. like Gendry). Later on, when Sansa remarks that Joffrey will father lovely golden-haired children for her, Ned finally connects the dots: all three of the Baratheon children are described exactly the same way, and those characteristics are those of Cersei and Jaime.
Later on, when Ned confronts Cersei about his discovery, he includes all three of her children in his accusations, and Cersei doesn't deny it.
While someone else provided an answer straight from the director, I am rather fond of the idea that the Infinity Stones do not work against each other.
Erik Selvig tells Black Widow that the scepter can be used to disable the portal because "Loki's scepter, the energy...the Tesseract can't fight. You can't protect against yourself." That sounds like the stones' powers do not work against each other, and therefore the shield will not stop the scepter. The space stone's shield does not work against the mind stone, and we see Black Widow breach the Tesseract's (space stone's) shield with the mind-stone-powered scepter. The stones do not work against each other.
Recall in Iron Man 2, Tony uses his father's research on the Tesseract to create a new element to power his arc reactor. So in his chest is an arc reactor powered by an element derived from the space stone. When Loki tries to use the mind stone's mind control powers against a space-stone-powered Tony, it likewise fails. The stones do not work against each other.
When the stones go up against each other, their powers fail. The shield does not work against the mind-stone-powered scepter, and the mind control does not work against a space-stone-powered Tony.
What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym? asked about pluralising acronyms, abbreviations and initialisms, but is there a standard way to add verb endings e.g. -ing and -ed (what are these called?), at least in informal English?
For example, which of these is/are best?
I know I can rephrase it to "I'm sending her an SMS." but I wish to use SMS as a verb.
Similarly,
In the latter set, as the verb is actually the F ("foul", or something more explicit) — the expanded sentence being "He fouled up beyond all recognition." — should it even be "He FedUBAR." or similar?
For the old John Wayne fights, they coordinated a swung punch just missing with the recipient moving their head quickly as if they were hit. Sound effects fill the credibility gap.
Sometimes in comedy shows, the person being hit will move their head the wrong way.
In modern digital action scenes, there can be wires, harness and such which are removed from the image later.
Also an actors face can be digitally added to a stunt performer. In Titanic, in the scene where our heroes run away from the gushing water, there was digital face replacement.
Whenever characters run from an explosion or fireball, it is always chromakey. It's actually easier to do it that way as well as safer.
Don't forget, there is such a complex set of insurance, Producers can't put a star at risk without the insurance company approving, otherwise a dead or injured star costing a hundred million or more might come out of the Producers own pocket. Double ouch!
The Naked Gun is a fabricated title designed to evoke the old police thrillers of yesteryear.
The film is an offshoot of a short-running TV series, Police Squad!, which starred Leslie Nielson in the same role and which itself is a pastiche on an older series from the 50s called M Squad - even going so far as to emulate the theme tune and keep the main character's christian name.
The title might also be an homage to Naked City, another TV show from the 50s and 60s that dealt with the day to day lives of homicide detectives in New York's 65th Precinct.
Those are some very good questions. They are not always entirely clear, partly because you don't always define your terms, such as "participle adjective"; but I will answer as best I can. The definition of "clause" that I use is the traditional one: a finite verb and its dependencies. By that definition, a participle and its dependencies don't make up a clause, but a phrase, hence "participial phrase". I am aware that some people use different definitions, and each definition has its benefits; but this is the one I have chosen.
Ad 1: yes, both are participles, and all participles function as adjectives to some degree, in that they modify a noun (or replace one, just as normal adjectives can when used substantively). Externally, participles function like adjectives, since they depend on nouns; internally, they function like verbs, because they can have verbal arguments that depend on them, just as other verbs have them (like objects and adverbs).
Ad 2: yes, the present participle generally describes something that happens at the same time as the main verb (but it's complicated).
Ad 3: a present participle can be equivalent to either continuous or simple clauses. I'm not a fan of the term "reduce" in linguistics, because it implies an actual historical or mental process of reduction (from clause to participle) that I believe never happened. By equivalence I mean two constructions that are different in form but have the same meaning (different syntax but same semantics).
Ad 4: again, I object to this notion of "reduction". In my opinion, there is only equivalence, and equivalence never has the last word in syntactic analysis, because you can often create several, different constructions equivalent to whatever phrase you're analysing.
What those books mean is that participles can be replaced by equivalent relative clauses, but also by equivalent adverbial clauses, as in your example, and also by other constructions. This is not unique to participial phrases.
The lying man deceived us. (participle)
Lying, the man deceived us. (same as above)
The man who lied deceived us. (relative clause)
The man deceived us when he lied. (conjunction: adverbial clause)
The man deceived us with his lies. (simple adverbial phrase containing a noun)
The man deceived us by lying. (simple adverbial phrase containing a gerund (gerunds function like nouns))
In your example, passing is simply a present participle modifying the subject, he. The only unusual aspect to the example is that the present participle can be said to happen before the main clause, which is normally not possible with present participles; but that is debatable. At any rate, that aspect is not relevant to adverbiality in general.
Ad 5: that depends on your definition of "tense", which is a hot topic in linguistics; but I would say that participles don't have tense according to most definitions. They don't refer to a specific time: the time to which they refer generally depends on the time to which the main verb of the sentence refers. A present participle refer to roughly the same time as that of the main verb, a past participle to a time before that of the main verb. So their tense is relative, one could say. In this respect, there is no difference between the ways the participle can be used (e.g. "participle phrase" or "participle adjective", or whatever distinctions the various grammar books choose to make).
I have given you some general answers; to everything I said there are most probably exceptions and nuances.
Much to my surprise, I've read recently that some adverbs do not inherit prepositional constructions from the adjectives they come from, for example:
"The proof of Theorem 3 is similar to that of Theorem 2"
is OK, but
"Theorem 3 can be proved similarly to Theorem 2"
is not quite correct.
Is that indeed true?
This may be the reason why sometimes one can find "similar" in phrases playing the role of "sentence adverbs", like
Similar to the situation in Section 2, we will now consider etc.
This default of English adverbs causes problems when translating e.g. from Slavonic languages, where adverbs like "similarly", "analogously" connect with prepositions.
I was recently watching Schoolhouse Rock with my son and the cartoon for "Nouns" came on. There is a rectangular portal that acts like a giant television that the animated girl watches and at one point jumps into.
On this watching I was reminded of a science-fiction movie I'd seen as a kid that had scientists doing something similar. I remember very little about the movie apart from them I think initially falling thru the portal, and then at the very end finding their way back to the original lab where they see themselves moving at very slow speed. They step thru the portal again and then the movie replays at very high speed showing quick clips.
If I can remember more about this film, I'll add it. Obviously, googling for "Science fiction film" "Portal" didn't really give me any helpful hints.
This has come to my mind,
person doing test is a tester, person doing development is a developer, person doing consultation is a consultant, etc. My question, as written on the title, is, what's a person doing an assurance? If you need it more specific, what's a person doing a software quality assurance.
I'm struggling to recall the name of a young children's book (maybe ages 8 - 10?) about colonist on another planet. I read it in the mid 80s but it might have been older than that.
The planet had large creatures which hid in tall orange grass. For some reason I think the grass was called Zork Grass or something like that, but I don't think the book had any relationship to the Zork computer game, though I could be wrong.
I can see the picture on the front cover in my mind as clear as can be. The creature looks kinda like the ghost in Mario: http://www.mariowiki.com/images/thumb/a/a0/Boo_Artwork_-_Mario_Party_Island_Tour.png/180px-Boo_Artwork_-_Mario_Party_Island_Tour.png (without the tongue). A white body, kinda featureless face, huge mouth with jagged teeth.
This was not answered in the movie, and was not meant to be answered...I think it's just supposed to be a moment where she mysteriously wows the brothers and Bang Bang: normally they're the ones with the plan, but she manages to mystify and amaze them (and the audience) with her escape. An explanation would cheapen the intrigue of "how the heck did she manage that?!"
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say she pretended to be a museum employee who, when the museum was threatened, was making every effort possible to preserve a historic artifact and escape the attack. But that's just a guess. :)
I have been following the show Burn Notice very closely since it's inception, but one thing has been bothering me. Who burned Michael?
I was always under the impression that a burn notice was the way in which a spy was fired, so naturally, I had assumed it was CIA sponsored.
In the most recent season(s), the team has been chasing a man named Anson Fullerton, who is supposedly "rebuilding the organization that burned Michael."
Now, that was where I became confused. I can understand if he was the person, working for the CIA, who was in charge of the burning of Michael, but what was this "organization" they were talking about, if it wasn't the CIA?
If the CIA wasn't the organization that burned Michael, who was it?
You are thinking of Pleasantville from 1998.
A brother and sister from the 1990s are sucked into their television set and suddenly find themselves trapped in a 1950s style television show. Here they have loving parents, old fashioned values, and an overwhelming amount of innocence and naivete. Not sure how to get home, they integrate themselves into this "backwards" society and slowly bring some color to this black and white world. But as innocence fades, the two teens begin to wonder if their 90s outlook is really to be preferred.
An awesome film, I might add.
The series premiere for TOS (The Man Trap) opened with a Nielsen rating of 25.2 (albeit facing dramatically less competition than future shows). This is a figure that would never again be matched by any trek episode.
The series premiere DS9 (Emissary) garnered the largest overall Nielsen rating for a modern show with a score of 18.8.
The next most popular was the series finale of TNG (All Good Things) with a score of 17.4
The highest rated episode of Voyager was the series premiere (Caretaker) with a score of 13.3.
The highest rated episode of Enteprise (Broken Bow, Part 1) was a limp 9.1, declining to a positively flaccid 2.2 before finally being put out of everyone's misery.
While there are a number of sources that attribute the origin of this phrase to R.L. Stevenson's Treasure Island (pub. 1883), or alternatively, to the National Biscuit Company (Nabisco, c. 1876) which used it as a popular slogan, neither of them appears to be the right one. As James McLeod has pointed out in another answer, "Polly want a cracker" can be verified to have been in use even before these dates.
The earliest entry in Google Books is from Bunkum Flag-Staf and Independent Echo", a satirical fake newspaper published in The Knickerbocker (or, New-York Monthly) magazine, Volume 34, in 1849. The reference to Polly's crackers can be seen in the following excerpt:
A radio show named A Way with Words has also attempted to trace the roots of this phrase. According to the host, the earliest reference he could find was the following cartoon from 1848 in another satirical magazine named The John-Donkey:
The use of cracker in the cartoon is a pun on the word for the biscuit as well as the fact that the boy is ready to crack the skull of the parrot open, presumably for annoying him (perhaps by asking him for a cracker?). The hosts of the show go on further to make a connection between the use of crackers on ships (as long-lasting food) and perhaps parrots being on board as well. At any rate, they conclude that even in 1848, parrots named Polly wanted crackers and that the phrase might have been commonly used.
Now, cracker biscuits were invented in 1801 (or perhaps earlier in 1792) which should date this phrase. Incidentally, the use of the name Polly for a parrot can apparently be dated to at least 1606 to Ben Jonson's play, Volpone. According to the source, the OED (somebody please clarify) expounds on this matter thusly:
Polly is a diminutive of Poll "as a female name, and name for a parrot," and Poll, altered from Moll, familiar form of Mary, is the traditional name for any parrot. The earliest quotation the OED gives for Polly as a name or designation for a parrot is from Ben Jonson's "Epigrams," 1616.
In conclusion, there is no concrete proof of the exact origin of the phrase. However, my best guess is that crackers became the staple food/snack for pet parrots who ended up parroting their owners during feeding time - "Polly, want a cracker?". I believe that the phrase was popularised by Nabisco's slogan and has been in use ever since. In other words, this exercise was quite pointless; but, I wouldn't have it any other way :)
According to Memory Alpha, the Klingon capital is located in the Beta Quadrant, as is Vulcan, Andoria, and a number of other well-known planets.
So, as one example, much of Sins of the Father was set on Qo'noS, and hence in the Beta Quadrant. Similarly, a number of episodes were set on Vulcan, and The Aenar was set on Andoria.
From the fact that the Enterprise NX-01 visited both Andoria and Vulcan at least once, without apparently needing to travel any unusual distance to do so, we can even speculate that most of Enterprise was probably set in the Beta Quadrant. (This is supported by Star Trek: Star Charts.)
Support for this interpretation in primary canon is limited.
Are there any significant differences in meaning or usage between "everyone" and "everybody", or "anybody" and "anyone"?
As far as I know, there are some grammatical points involving "everyone" and "everybody", or "anybody" and "anyone", but books/internet/professors cannot identify any differences of meaning or usage between these two pronouns.
IMHO, I think Bruce Wayne was still wearing his knee brace. We never saw his knee to confirm that Bane took it off.
We just assumed that Bane took it off, because it seems logical. However, think about it from Bane's perspective:
Bane was talking about breaking Batman. He said that he would break his body and soul. He did break his back leaving him crippled. All was left is to break his soul.
He was so sure that Bruce wouldn't even try to fight back or come after him (Remember his surprise when he saw him again).
A man so sure of his victory won't bother by simple details as a knee brace (which is neither a weapon or a communication device) when your opponent is already half dead and prisoned in a pit he himself failed to escape (again remember when he was fighting batman and bragged about being born in the shadows contrarily to batman who training in shadows ).
In the movie Avatar, Neytiri refers to "Ninat" as being the best singer, this sounds awfully similar to Ninet Tayeb, the first person to win on Israel's version of American Idol. (Supposingly, the "best singer").
Is it possible that they are related?
From OALD, entrench is defined as:
to establish something very firmly so that it is very difficult to change
Does establish here means to cause to be accepted or recognized?
Edit: I came across the word from this passage:
Some people feel that this term is a bit negative, given the association with hunting and death, and they prefer more positive twists on the saying. Several organizations have even sponsored contests to come up with a new and more animal-friendly version of “to kill two birds with one stone.” However, the idea has become so entrenched in many societies that it is unlikely to fade from usage anytime soon, negative or not.
Note I'm trying to understand the meaning of establish in the definition of entrench and not a clarification of the meaning of entrench.
Kate, Steve, Mick, and Jenn Jones move into a high income suburb under the pretense of being a typical family relocating due to the changing nature of Kate and Steve's careers. In reality, Kate is the leader of a team of stealth marketers, professional salespeople who disguise product placement as a daily routine.
By the time of Voyager, we were reasonably familiar with most of the players in the Alpha and Beta quadrants of the galaxy. We knew that the Borg were our main adversary from the Delta Quadrant and that the Dominion were in the Gamma Quadrant, but there was fairly little known about the Gamma and Delta Quadrants still. My question is out of universe, why did the Production team decide to set Star Trek: Voyager in the Delta Quadrant rather than the Gamma Quadrant, or another galaxy altogether?
OED has this for eponym:
1.a. One who gives, or is supposed to give, his name to a people, place, or institution; e.g. among the Greeks, the heroes who were looked upon as ancestors or founders of tribes or cities.
and this for protonym:
The first person or thing of a certain name; something from which another person or thing takes its name.
The distinction appears to be that with eponym, the later thing takes its name from a direct relationship with the earlier thing; whereas with protonym the second thing has simply been given the same name as the first.
Wikipedia gives an example:
A synonym of eponym is namegiver (not to be confused with namesake.) Someone who (or something that) is referred to with the adjective eponymous is the eponym of something. An example is: "Léon Theremin, the eponymous inventor of the theremin."
OED has this:
1880 Scribner's Monthly Mar. 667/2: "The wrecked canal-boat, the Evening Star,..quenched in the twilight, with its heavenly protonym palpitating in the vapor above it."
The instrument called the theremin takes its name from its eponymous ("name-giving") inventor; whereas the boat Evening Star was simply given the existing name of an unrelated thing.
In the question, David Beckham is the protonym of the child.
In British English, the word namesake is a "bi-directional" relation: David Beckham and the child are namesakes. It appears from the Wikipedia entry that in American English namesake can mean protonym as well, and imply a uni-directional relationship.
I recently reread the book Dracula by Bram Stoker and I am searching for a movie that resembles the book closest. The 1992 film Dracula seems to have gotten only decent reviews and the love story kills it for me.
What is the most faithful adaptation of the book?
PS- I don't mind watching a movie in a language other than english if it has subtitles.
tl;dr: So far, we do not have any solid information about where The Others (which are called White Walkers on TV, to avoid confusion with the general term "others") came from. We also don't know a whole lot about the Night's King, but he definitely was not the first White Walker, since they pre-date the Night's Watch.
Unfortunately, there's no truly reliable records of anything that happened during that time, as written history did not begin until 6,000 BC with the arrival of the Andals. Instead, history was passed down by word of mouth, though stories, which became myths and legends. This means that our most "reliable" source of information comes from people like Old Nan. While Nan does tend to be right about a lot of things, her information is still anecdotal and heresay, and she's more interested in having good stories than good facts, so we should be properly skeptical of what she has to say.
The Others first appeared sometime around 8,000 BC (Before Conquest -- before the start of Aegon I Targaryen's reign), which puts it right in the middle of the Age of Heroes. (For reference, the First Men arrived on Westeros sometime around 12,000 BC, and made peace with the Children of the Forest around 10,000 BC). At that time, the First Men and the Children were at peace, and many of the Great Houses were just getting started. All of the legendary ancestors of the current houses lived during this period - Bran the Builder, Lann the Clever, the Grey King of Iron Islands, etc.
About 2,000 years after The Pact was signed between the First Men and the Children, Westeros underwent an unprecedented long winter, putting Westeros in pretty bad condition. In the middle of this winter, there was an even worse catastrophe: the Long Night, in which the sun did not rise for an entire generation (which likely means at least 20 years). It was during this Long Night that the Others appeared, from the extreme furthest reaches of the North of Westeros.
The climate in the far, far North is akin to that of Antarctica, and was thought to be completely unpopulated. Thus, the Others appearance was a complete surprise. Again, we don't know for sure, but it seems as if they were something brand new to Westeros, as the Children of the Forest did not know how to defeat them. The Others pushed down into the south of Westeros before their weakness -- obsidian -- was discovered, and they were pushed back.
The Nights Watch was formed during this time, specifically to fight the Others. (This part of the history is commemorated in a song, "The Night That Ended", which is sung in the North and referenced a few times, though since this isn't Tolkien we don't get any lyrics :( ). The Watch fought the Others back and ultimately defeated them in the Battle for the Dawn.
After that, Bran the Builder and his allies built The Wall, again specifically to fight back against The Others. It was meant to ensure that they could never sneak up on Westeros again. The Night's Watch, being the ones that knew how to fight them off, were set to man The Wall.
Again, there are no written histories of anything during that time, so we don't know the names of the commanders. Only the ones who did something worthy of song or story are remembered.
The Night's King was the thirteenth person elected as the Lord Commander of the Watch. According to his legend, he forsook his Oath, took a bride, and raised the Night's Watch in rebellion against Westeros. His Bride is described as:
with skin as white as the moon and eyes like blue stars
Given this description, it's obvious why many fans assume she is an Other, though the maesters in-universe apparently think her description matches that of the men and women of the Barrowlands. In either case, we know almost nothing more about them personally. We know that he was eventually defeated by the King in the North and the King Beyond the Wall. We know that he was ultimately discovered to have been making sacrifices to The Others (much like Craster), and that every possible record of his or her name was destroyed, and subsequent stories and songs only use his sobriquet.
Martin has been very intentionally coy about revealing information on things that are magical in origin. (e.g. See The Bridge on the River Rhoyne for a case where he cut something out because it was potentially "too magical.") However, he has also said that he will eventually reveal much of this eventually, towards the end of the series. He's also said we'll learn more about the Others (though he hasn't promised we'll learn where they came from) in the next novel.
Martin has implied that the screwy weather in Westeros is magical in nature, and the Others are also clearly supernatural. They also seem to be extremely closely related -- both times they appeared was during what was supposedly an extremely harsh Winter. So, it's very likely their origins are tied closely together, and we will find out about them both at the same time.
I am looking for a word that describes the exact opposite of identity.
I have this sentence that says The identity operator returns true if the operands are strictly equal.
In other terms is there a word for not strictly equal / strictly unequal?
There is an operator that does the opposite: The opposite word operator returns true if the operands are strictly unequal.
I tried to google the antonyms and such, but none of the proposed words match or satisfy this case in my opinion. Or did you see or do you think one them could be used?
Definitions for this case:
equal - only very few characteristics cannot be in common.
strictly equal - all characteristics are in common.
unequal - only very few characteristics can be in common.
not strictly equal - none of the characteristics are in common.
I don't want it to be a Math question. They use symbols not words.
I think the movie you are looking for is A Feast at Midnight
This is from a user review:
Young Magnus Gove (Freddie Findlay) is sent away to an austere boarding school that manages to serve the most unpalatable of meals. Even the Headmaster (Robert Hardy) can barely stomach the overly healthy menu. Magnus' father (Edward Fox in a short cameo) sends him a number of enticing recipes, which spur Magnus and his oddball group of friends to venture, in the dead of night, into that forbidden no-boys land of "The Kitchen". There they discover the true meaning of friendship as they concoct the most unlikely of meals. The interaction between the boys that make up "The Scoffers" club is priceless. All handled with just the right tone by director Justin Hardy (son of The Wicker Man's Robin Hardy), to avoid falling into the bottomless well of gushing sentimentality.
Gandalf never reveals all of his powers, but some sort of telepathy is clearly one of them.
"I bent my thought upon him, bidding him to make haste; for yesterday he was far away in the south of this land. Swiftly may he bear me back again!"
And Hasufel and Arod were with him because they had run off just the night before to hang out!
"Now I understand a part of last night's riddle," said Legolas as he sprang lightly upon Arod's back. "Whether they fled at first in fear, or not, our horses met Shadowfax, their chieftain, and greeted him with joy. Did you know that he was at hand, Gandalf?"
(These two quotes are out of order for the sake of the question, and are both from Book 3, Chapter 5: The White Rider in The Two Towers)
As Jimmy Shelter points out below, this ability is not limited to just animals. When Frodo is on Amon Hen and puts on the ring to escape Boromir, Sauron sees him. But:
Then as a flash from some other point of power there came to his mind another
thought: Take it off! Take it off! Fool, take it off! Take off the Ring!
At that moment, Gandalf is in Lothlorien, and when telling his story in Return of the King:
Very nearly it was revealed to the Enemy, but it escaped. I had some part in that: for I sat in a high place, and I strove with the Dark Tower; and the Shadow passed.
As additional evidence of Gandalf's powers of telepathy, he also reads Frodo's mind while the latter is unconscious and recovering in Rivendell after barely escaping the Nazgul:
"You have talked long in your sleep, Frodo," said Gandalf gently, "and it has not been hard for me to read your mind and memory. Do not worry! Though I said ‘absurd’ just now, I did not mean it. I think well of you – and of the others. It is no small feat to have come so far, and through such dangers, still bearing the Ring."
(Book 2, Chapter 1: Many Meetings in The Fellowship of the Ring, emphasis is mine.)
While re-imaginings of stories have been told over and over in film and other media since long before film began, the first instance of the use of the term "reboot" was 'The Incredible Hulk' in 2008, which came out only five years after the previous movie 'Hulk'.
The studio felt that they needed a word to help describe what they were doing with the movie because it was not a sequel, nor were they starting over with another origin story. Instead, 'The Incredible Hulk' started with a quick gloss over the origins of the Hulk and then jumped ahead four years, leaving it open-ended as to if the events from the previous movie were considered to have happened or not in this story arc (as we now know, they did not).
It's also worth noting that there were questions at the time as to why the movie was being remade so close to the previous film, and no one could call a movie with a full recast a "sequel." This put Marvel in a position where they needed to create a marketing spin, and thus the term "reboot" was born. At this time, they didn't want to tip their hand to the idea that they were going to start a series of Marvel movies that all had plot tie-ins to each other, nor had they constructed any long term plan for such a series (the series we now know as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, beginning with 2008's Iron Man).
As pointed out above, the term was needed because of the proximity of the two movies. In 2005 when Christopher Nolan's new vision of Batman surfaced with 'Batman Begins', it was referred to generally as a "re-imagining of the Batman universe." It has since been retroactively deemed a "reboot," but the time gap as well as the complete change of tone between Nolan's Batman series and the 1989-1997 Batman series makes it unnecessary, particularly when considering how long ago the first series began.
Ultimately, the term has given us a much needed word for movies that fall into a certain category, we just never knew we needed the word until 2008. The word has since gained a more concrete definition: to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning. It's overuse in the comic book genre has generated some push back from fans when the term gets retroactively applied to media older than the term itself, which may also have to do with the vague and ever-changing definition.
I think this was a made for TV movie, and a Stephen King novel, but I just looked up his works and nothing rang a bell.
The story was about an airplane that flew through some kind of portal or vortex while the passengers were asleep. When they woke up, everyone else on the plane was gone. They landed in a world which looked like the normal world except there were no people. The world appeared as kind of drab, colorless, lifeless, but I'm not sure about that. One of the cast was a blind girl, about middle school age.
Eventually, some kind of monster appeared, which was depicted (pretty cheesily) as a big floating pac-man looking thing that ate the people. Eventually they realized they had to get back on the plane and fly back through the portal while they were sleeping. Except the pilot offered to stay awake to pilot them into the portal, and then he died or went off to where everyone else disappeared to.
Rough estimate of time was the 1990s.
Simple answer: the Borg are alive. If the Borg were dead entities then there would be no way to bring them back "from the dead" after assimilation.
In my opinion (eek) there is no need for quotational evidence here. The evidence is on-screen in (amongst others) "TNG: I, Borg", "TNG: Descent" and Voyager season 4 onwards. Borg have emotions and desires, they are just suppressed by the implants. Don't confuse "unable to breed" with "unwilling to breed". The Borg are living organisms hosting parasitic nanoprobes that have suppressed almost everything about the organisms that made them "human". Once those probes are removed the "victim" can start to build a normal life that includes procreation and the fluffy bits around it. No jokes about "what is this human thing called 'kissing'?" please. ;-)
Picard's description of what life was like as a Borg (TNG: Family) included the sheer horror he felt as the part of him that had become "Locutus" committed atrocities that his suppressed personality was horrified to witness, and this (coupled with a more-than-possible case of PTSD) resulted in a man who would shoot one of his former officers out of mercy if he saw them becoming Borg.
Seven of Nine, spending most of her formative and adult years as a Borg, had been brought up without emotions but developed some emotional connection to people again following her "liberation". Icheb and the others introduced in VOY: Collective are other examples of former Borg managing to re-integrate into humanoid society after their emancipation, further proving that there is life under the Borg nanoprobes.
No-one involved with Borg throughout the run of the Next Gen era ever stated that a Borg they encountered was "dead" - not until they killed it, anyway.
It's...complicated. Fortunately, Tolkien wrote about this extensively in an essay titled "Laws and Customs Among the Eldar".
To summarize:
It seems a little bit silly to talk about Elvish death in the first place, since the Elves are frequently described as immortal, a word which literally means "not susceptible to death." However, to Tolkien, Elves aren't really immortal; they're functionally immortal, but the natural span of their lives is not actually infinite:
[T]he Eldar do indeed grow older, even if slowly: the limit of their lives is the life of Arda, which though long beyond the reckoning of Men is not endless, and ages also.
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 3: "The Later Quenta Silmarillion" Chapter 2: "The Second Phase" Laws and Customs Among the Eldar
"Death", therefore, is the unnatural span of an Elf's life: Tolkien defines it more precisely as the separation of feä (spirit, or soul) and hroä (body):
Now the Eldar are immortal within Arda according to their right nature. But if a feä (or spirit) indwells in and coheres with a [hroä] (or bodily form) that is not of its own choice but ordained, and is made of the flesh or substance of Arda itself, then the fortune of this union must be vulnerable by the evils that do hurt to Arda.
[...]
If then the [hroä] be destroyed, or so hurt that it ceases to have health, sooner or later it 'dies'. That is: it becomes painful for the feä to dwell in it, being neither a help to life and will nor a delight to use, so that the feä departs from it, and its function being at an end its coherence is unloosed, and it returns again to the general [body] of Arda. Then the feä is, as it were, houseless, and it becomes invisible to bodily eyes (though clearly perceptible by direct awareness to other feär).
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 3: "The Later Quenta Silmarillion" Chapter 2: "The Second Phase" Laws and Customs Among the Eldar
As above, their spirit becomes "unhoused". That's when things get interesting:
Those feär, therefore, that in the marring of Arda suffered unnaturally a divorce from their [hroä] remained still in Arda and in Time. But in this state they were open to the direct instruction and command of the Valar. As soon as they were disbodied they were summoned to leave the places of their life and death and go to the 'Halls of Waiting': Mandos, in the realm of the Valar.
If they obeyed this summons different opportunities lay before them. The length of time that they dwelt in Waiting was partly at the will of Námo the Judge, lord of Mandos, partly at their own will. The happiest fortune, [the Elves] deemed, was after the Waiting to be re-born, for so the evil and grief that they had suffered in the curtailment of their natural course might be redressed.
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 3: "The Later Quenta Silmarillion" Chapter 2: "The Second Phase" Laws and Customs Among the Eldar
Basically, the houseless Elvish feär are invited to return to Aman. If they do so, they get a period in purgatory and, eventually, if they desire it, reborn in Aman. In exactly one case, an Elf was re-embodied and then returned to Middle-earth; but that's an exceptional case.
However, not all feär in Mandos are reborn; some of them did not wish to return to life, and a small number (Feänor chief among them) did such bad things in life that they were not permitted rebirth).
Tolkien is unclear on this. In "Laws and Customs", he suggests that, in the vast majority of cases, Elves are reborn through childbirth, and therefore get new bodies:
A houseless feä that chose or was permitted to return to life re-entered the incarnate world through child-birth. Only thus could it return. For it is plain that the provision of a bodily house for a feä, and the union of feä with [hroä], was committed by Eru to the Children, to be achieved in the act of begetting.
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 3: "The Later Quenta Silmarillion" Chapter 2: "The Second Phase" Laws and Customs Among the Eldar
He suggests that it's possible for an Elf to be reborn into their old body, but it's rare; the old body would need to be perfectly preserved and undamaged, which is an unlikely occurrence.
However, "Laws and Customs" was not Tolkien's last word on the subject; Christopher Tolkien discusses his father's changing view on the subject in an appendix on "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth"; in particular he reproduces part of a discussion between Manwë and Eru:
Manwë spoke to Eru, saying: 'Behold! an evil appears in Arda that we did not look for: the First-born Children, whom Thou madest immortal, suffer now severance of spirit and body. Many of the feär of the Elves in Middle-earth are now houseless; and even in Aman there is one. The houseless we summon to Aman, to keep them from the Darkness, and all who hear our voice abide here in waiting. What further is to be done? Is there no means by which their lives may be renewed, to follow the courses which Thou hast designed? And what of the bereaved who mourn those that have gone?'
Eru answered: 'Let the houseless be re-housed!'
Manwë asked: 'How shall this be done?'
Eru answered: 'Let the body that was destroyed be re-made. Or let the naked feä be re-born as a child.'
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 4: "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth" Appendix "'The Converse of Manwë and Eru' and later conceptions of Elvish reincarnation
According to this version, an Elf may be reborn either in a new body, or their old body may be recreated for them; which one is at the discretion of the Valar (presumably meaning Mandos).
However, Tolkien's final word was that the Elves were reincarnated either into their original bodies (if it was available) or into exact recreations of their original bodies; Christopher Tolkien devotes a good portion of the appendix describing how Tolkien came to this conclusion, but the final word on the matter comes from a note on "Athrebeth":
They were given the choice to remain houseless, or (if they wished) to be re-housed in the same form and shape as they had had. Normally they must nonetheless remain in Aman.
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 4: "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth" Appendix "'The Converse of Manwë and Eru' and later conceptions of Elvish reincarnation
Astute readers will note something about one of my quotes above (emphasis mine):
If they obeyed this summons different opportunities lay before them. [...]
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 3: "The Later Quenta Silmarillion" Chapter 2: "The Second Phase" Laws and Customs Among the Eldar
As implied, it is entirely possible for a feä to ignore the summons of the Valar, although that reflects rather poorly on the Elf who does so. The result of that choice is also described:
[I]t would seem that in these after-days more and more of the Elves, be they of the Eldalië in origin or be they of other kinds, who linger in Middle-earth now refuse the summons of Mandos, and wander houseless in the world, unwilling to leave it and unwilling to inhabit it, haunting trees or springs or hidden places that once they knew.
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 3: "The Later Quenta Silmarillion" Chapter 2: "The Second Phase" Laws and Customs Among the Eldar
These Elves essentially becomes ghosts; some are dangerous, and willing to try to "steal" bodies from the living:
Some say that the Houseless desire bodies, though they are not willing to seek them lawfully by submission to the judgement of Mandos. The wicked among them will take bodies, if they can, unlawfully. The peril of communing with them is, therefore, not only the peril of being deluded by fantasies or lies: there is peril also of destruction. FOr one of the hungry Houseless, if it is admitted to the friendship of the Living, may seek to eject the feä from its body; and in the contest for mastery the body may be gravely injured, even if it be not wrested from its rightful habitant. Or the Houseless may plead for shelter, and if it is admitted, then will seek to enslave its host and use both his will and his body for its own purposes.
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 3: "The Later Quenta Silmarillion" Chapter 2: "The Second Phase" Laws and Customs Among the Eldar
In most cases, they simply die of their own volition, and their fate is no different to any other Elf who dies. Elves are able to will themselves to die, and this typically only occurs in Elves who "gave up hope":
[S]ome feär in grief or weariness gave up hope, and turning away from life relinquished their bodies, even though these might have been healed or were indeed unhurt. Few of these latter desired to be re-born, not at least until they had been long in 'waiting'; some never returned.
History of Middle-earth X Morgoth's Ring Part 3: "The Later Quenta Silmarillion" Chapter 2: "The Second Phase" Laws and Customs Among the Eldar
In principle there's no reason why an Elf in Middle-earth who had given up hope couldn't simply take a ship over the Sea, rather than choosing to die, but I'm not aware of any examples off-hand.
The closest I can think of is Celebrían, the wife of Elrond, who left Middle-earth after being captured by Orcs:
In 2509 Celebrían wife of Elrond was journeying to Lórien when she was waylaid in the Redhorn Pass, and her escort being scattered by the sudden assault of the Orcs, she was seized and carried off. She was pursued and rescued by Elladan and Elrohir, but not before she had suffered torment and had received a poisoned wound. She was brought back to Imladris, and though healed in body by Elrond, lost all delight in Middle-earth, and the next year went to the Havens and passed over Sea.
Return of the King Appendix A "Annals of the Kings and Rulers" Part 1: "The Númenórean Kings" (iii) Eriador, Arnor, and the Heirs of Isildur The North-Kingdom and the Dúnedain
It's not clear that she actually lost the will to live, in the strictest sense, but does indicate that Elves suffering from mental health problems (e.g. depression after being held captive by Orcs) can depart over the Sea for healing, rather than simply giving up life.
