Need help identifying science fiction short story about a board game

I am trying to identify a short story I once read in a science fiction anthology. It resolves around a father and his children playing a new board game. The originator of the board game is some country or alien race that was recently defeated in a war. The game is wildly popular and addictive, and everyone is playing it.

Apparently, the game is very simple to play, so no one bothers to read all the rules, including the father. You just launch into the game, where you acquire properties and businesses. The father is close to winning the game (he thinks) when his son, who has bothered to read the rules, informs him that the goal is to LOSE all of your businesses and die broke. The children are now brainwashed by the game. The defeated enemy crafted the game to destroy the economy of their conqueror, or something along those lines.

What techniques are used by directors to make an actor cry?

Wikipedia leads back to Constantin Stanislavski and the Stanislavski system, a system of acting techniques to access emotions. He prefered to refer to it as system (little 'S'). The system is the result of Stanislavski's many years of efforts to determine how someone can control in performance the most intangible and uncontrollable aspects of human behavior, such as emotions and art inspiration. The most influential acting teachers, including Richard Boleslavsky, Vsevolod Meyerhold, Michael Chekhov, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, Harold Clurman, Robert Lewis, Sanford Meisner, Uta Hagen, Ion Cojar and Ivana Chubbuck all traced their pedigrees to Stanislavski, his theories and/or his disciples.

Lord Laurence Olivier wrote that Stanislavski's My Life in Art was a source of great enlightenment" when he was a young actor.

Sir John Gielgud said, "This director found time to explain a thousand things that have always troubled actors and fascinated students." Gielgud is also quoted as saying, "Stanislavski's now famous book is a contribution to the Theatre and its students all over the world."

Stanislavski once insisted that all actions that a person must enact, such as walking, talking, even sitting on stage, must be broken down and re-learned. For example, his book, translated into English as "Building a Character," gives a description of the correct way of walking on stage. Such rigors of re-learning were probably constant throughout his life.

Stanislavski's system is a method for actors to produce realistic characters on stage. His original studies of techniques led to the use of 'Emotional Memory' that required actors to trigger the emotions of their characters internally.

The example of crying is specifically covered in the article. Stanislavski developed the "method of physical actions," to solve the dilemma of spontaneous emotion in a created environment. In this technique, the actor would perform a physical motion or a series of physical activities to create the desired emotional response for the character. Emotions were considered to be formed from the subconscious, so this technique allowed the actors to consciously target and control their subconscious emotions through movement. For instance, if an actor needed to weep, he could sigh and hold his head in his hands, a physical action that many who are crying instinctively do...

The correct physical action does not come automatically for every psychological response nor are they stimulate identical responses for every individual. Many times, actors need to experiment until they determine what best works for them and for the character they are trying to portray. The best way to experiment with this is through improvisation. The best improvisers are those who can intuitively act and behave onstage as though they are in a real situation.

Additional techniques are explained in the wikipedia article - an interesting read.
For the TLDNR crowd, here's a different take, a quick-and-dirty:
An Actor's Guide to Crying and Tears

star trek - How does the Federation determine how to set their clocks?

On the NX-01 Enterprise ("A Night in Sickbay"), Hoshi is taken to task by a bureaucrat for not changing their on-board clocks to align with planetary local time. He is displeased at having been woken in the middle of the night:

KREETASSAN: [on viewscreen] Why haven't you adjusted your time to our capital city?

HOSHI: I apologise. We weren't aware that it was required.

KREETASSAN: [on viewscreen] It isn't a requirement. It is simply a courtesy. Something your species doesn't seem to understand.

HOSHI: I'll explain it to the Captain immediately.

---

It makes no sense for individual planets to maintain Federation Standard Time so I think we can reasonably assume that for anyone who intends to deal with someone on-planet, that you would simply maintain your usual day/night cycles and timezones.

If you had any dealings off-world there would presumably be a second clock on the wall marked "Federation Time" which would show the time at Federation HQ, San Francisco.

If one is in doubt of the time (perhaps as a result of a temporal anomaly), you can always access a Federation 'Time Beacon'.

---

In numerous episodes (TNG: "Chain of Command, Part I", "Data's Day" & VOY: "Night", "Warhead", "One Small Step", "Renaissance Man", "Author, Author") we see that Starfleet ships tend to maintain a 3-shift and occasionally 4-shift shift rotation off a standard 24 hour clock. The exception to this is DS9 which maintains a 26 hour day in line with Bajor (DS9: "The Assignment"; DS9: "Starship Down, DS9: "Accession"). Despite this, we never see the crew schedule any activities to happen between 23:59 and 25:59 local time :-)

Given that only unexpected events occur during the 'Night Shift' (a Borg attack in VOY: "Survival Instinct" and a Magnetic Constrictor Explosion in VOY: "Investigations") it can be reasonably assumed that other Federation ships, even those from other worlds also maintain UFP time.

On a personal note, I like to think that Harry Kim has one of these in his quarters...

marvel cinematic universe - Why did Captain America give Nick Fury a ten dollar bill?

When Captain America walks onto the bridge of the ship, he gives Nick Fury a ten dollar bill. Is this because he is amazed by the ship or is it some reference to the fact that he is from a time when African Americans weren't quite treated as equals yet?

Good + preposition - English Language & Usage

The relevant OED definition of good is 3b.

3b. Skilled or thoroughly competent in a particular activity.

Nothing new there; let's keep going. The OED then breaks this definition down farther. 3b(a) is attributive and irrelevant to this discussion.

3b.

(b) In predicative use. Chiefly with at or (less commonly) in (also occas. †for, †of, †to).

(c) In predicative use with with: skilled or highly competent at using, handling, or dealing with the specified thing. Originally in to be good with one's hands (see hand n. Phrases 3i).

The difference here appears to almost just be the prepositions themselves, which is a pretty disappointing answer.

But there is still a difference. Good at and good in refer to competence in an activity, whereas good with refers to competence at using something.

We can expand the examples you provide to demonstrate the difference:

Good at: "She is good at the activity of speaking English."

Good with: "She is good with the English language."

I struggle to find a meaningful difference between the two, or any situations in which one would apply but not the other. This difficulty, though, is perhaps due to the elision present with "English".

"He is good at child care" works while "He is good with child care" does not.

"She is good at hammers" doesn't work while "She is good with hammers" does.

Is "Breaking In" canceled or not?

Yes, I’m afraid Breaking In is officially canceled. Just like I Hate My Teenage Daughter, it got a second chance (to be aired during breaks/summer) thanks to FOX’s weak list of filler shows. Unfortunately both shows performed poorly (despite Breaking In trying to shake things up in season two), and were not renewed for a third/second season.

As a side-note, Odette Yustman’s timely departure of Breaking In for House is interesting because both shows were cancelled by FOX, so she was no better off in either, though her presence (or lack thereof) may be conjectured to have had an effect on the fate of the shows.

comic adaptation - Is the story of 'Man of Steel' a fresh idea or is it inspired by any existing work?

In a Screen Rant article with the title "Zack Snyder’s ‘Superman’ Not Based on
Comics", Rob Keyes noted that director Zack Snyder has previously been known for making
quite literal adaptations of his source material. But this film is different:

With the Superman reboot however, Snyder will take a different route and will instead deliver a new origin story not based on any specific origin story or mini-series from the DC comics.

The same point is made more recently in a review from Examiner.com:

Snyder, Nolan, and Goyer have each gone to great lengths to explain that their picture is an all-new approach and interpretation not based on any particular comic book story and not connected in any way to anything Donner or Reeve.

Is Ferris Bueller's Day Off intentionally inspired by Blues Brothers?

I don't believe it was.

Wikipedia says this about the location of the movie:

"Chicago is what I am," said Hughes. "A lot of Ferris is sort of my love letter to the city. And the more people who get upset with the
fact that I film there, the more I'll make sure that's exactly where I
film. It's funny—nobody ever says anything to Woody Allen about always
filming in New York. America has this great reverence for New York. I
look at it as this decaying horror pit. So let the people in Chicago
enjoy Ferris Bueller."

So there doesn't' seem to be any indication that the location was inspired by Blues Brothers, but rather it was Hughes' fascination with the city that inspired him to shoot there.

I think they just happened to have some similar characteristics.

Usage of comparative with a set of adjectives

Both are valid. "More just and fair" means "More (just and fair)", by which I mean that more is applied to both just and fair, giving you juster and fairer.

More importantly to me,

more just and fair

is more elegant (and more eloquent) English than

juster and fairer

although I believe most politicians would choose

a juster, fairer system

Which is still more elegant English than juster and fairer while being less formal (and so more accessible) than more just and fair

star trek - Are Romulan scientists involved in politics?

In the middle of "The Next Phase" episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, a Romulan scientific officer (the top rank one at that moment) decides to destroy the Enterprise. This is clearly political and diplomatic decision in Romulan vs. Federation war.

This decision (and attitude) is completely different from what we can see in the "Eye of the Neddle" episode of Star Trek: Voyager. Where Romulan scientist clearly declares that the only reason for him to help Voyager crew is, because he is a scientist, not involved in any kind of politic "games" between Romulan and Federation.

I wonder, if Romulan scientist are really involved in politics and which of these two behaviors more closely describes majority of Romulan scientists?

Looking for a short story about time travel; characters attempting to fix a boat

I'm looking for a short story that I read once about time travel. One thing that I remember from the story was that the characters were attempting to fix a boat using a time travel device that took the same part from a point in the past, or something like it.

I'm quite sure that this short story was in a collection of other short stories in the same genre.

film techniques - Walking around someone who is moving in Slow Motion?

Can't recall the particular shot, but the effect is commonly created using multiple composite layers

Typically there will be three layers

• the person walking in real time,


• the person in slow time,


• the background

Each is filmed separately as individual layers.

For the "people" layers only the people (and I guess the punchbag in this case) are used - the rest of the layer is transparent.

Now in editing a composite is done with the background layer, then the Buffy layer, then the Giles layer. When Giles moves behind Buffy the editor simply swaps over the order of those two layers at that point. So

• Background > Buffy > Giles

Becomes:

• Background > Giles > Buffy

The result is that they then appear behind.

Filming wise this probably means that both actors were acting in front of a Chroma key (green) screen. Also if the camera was moving in the shot then a motion controlled camera is likely to ensure that each element of the composite was filmed from the same angle throughout the shot.

Need help identifying a science fiction story

I have Googled, Binged, hit up Reddit and looked everywhere else I know to look and I simply can't find what I'm looking for :(

The story (I don't think it was a novella) is about a family reunion taking place (might be an engagement party, I can't remember). There's a kid there (preteen, maybe?) that nobody seems to know -- he sort of looks like both sides of the families that are represented at this gathering. Long story short, he's the son of a couple that is at the reunion. He came back in time to tape record them saying that when they had kids of their own, they'd never make their kid do homework, chores, etc. Really cute! I don't remember when I read it ... I want to say late 90's/early 2000's.

I'd be SO grateful for any help!

hitchhikers guide - What the zark is this all about?

Who, or what, is "Zark" in the Hitchhiker's Guide series? When did it, he, or she originate, and what does the word "zark" refer to?

The first time I remember {it / him / her} being mentioned is on page 360 (of the Ultimate Guide, the beginning of chapter 9 of Life, the Universe, and Everything):

[The door said:] "It is my pleasure to open for you..."

[Zaphod:] "Zark off."

"...and my satisfaction to close with the knowledge of a job well done."

"I said zark off."

"Zark" is then used several times throughout the rest of the series. For example, in Mostly Harmless:

[Ford:] "An RW6, for Zark's sake. I've got this great relationship going now between my credit card and the Guide's central computer. You would not believe that ship, Arthur, it's..." (page 768 in the Ultimate Guide, chapter 18)

I know that I've seen it mentioned elsewhere in the series, but I can't find any other references right now.

The capitalization in the quote from Mostly Harmless suggests that Zark is a person, humanoid, creature, or at least a proper noun of some sort. If this is true, I don't recall Zark (I'm just going to give up on the pronoun game at this point) ever being mentioned as a person or other creature elsewhere in the book.

Is this just a creative replacement for a certain other word that has the same length and ends with the same letter? Or is it a reference to someone or something, fictional or real?

grammar - in minds or in mind

You say, to a group

What do you [guys, fellas, all, people,...] have in mind? (singular)

It is possible to use use the plural; for example, you could also say

What's on your minds?" (plural)

The distinction is the former, using in, speaks of containment, and the latter, using on, of placement.

But be warned: the two idioms have very different connotations. The second means, essentially, "What's bothering you [guys]?".

Anyway, that's why you cannot say "What do you have in minds?" (in + plural); it breaks the metaphor of containment.

Where did the clues come from?

The three challenges were:

• The Breath of God - "Only the penitent man will pass"




• The Word of God - "Only in the footsteps of God will he proceed"




• The Path of God - "Only in the leap from the lion's head will he prove his worth"

---

Indy used his father's Grail Diary to guide him through the traps:

The Grail Diary was a possession of Doctor Henry Jones, Sr. In it, he recorded all of his findings on the topic of the Holy Grail, the study of which he had made his life's work.

He did many travels between America and Europe, contacted many scholars and sought several historical documents during his studies, always carrying it with him.

Indy's knowledge of his father's research in the diary helped him slip past the traps in the Grail Temple and recover the Grail to save his wounded father.

(the above images are from this site, which contains an extensive amount of information about the diary)

film industry - What role do screenwriters play, after handing in the script?

Their role is to get their next gig, stay off the set. There are exceptions, of course. No one would ask Aaron Sorkin to leave the stage. But if you just wrote your first 800K horror movie, it's unlikely, but not impossible, that a new writer would be asked for much more than that. That said, directors who know they like reading but not writing, often will ask the writer to visit to help with dialog, especially with dialog, when circumstances require. Powerful stars will also, under some circumstances ask (demand) that a writer be present to help with situations after its clear no one on the company, including the director, can write quickly and effectively. I've worked with directors of some standing who are incredibly ill-suited to oral communication. Once can only guess at the consequences of an actor saying "I can't say this line. It makes no sense. I don't understand it. My character would NEVER say this." Without trained writing talent ready to go, on set, in the conversation, a delay is inevitable. Delays cost money, shots made, shooting light and other perishables. So then the writer is there for protection. Doesn't happen often, but does happen.

What happened to Thomas Granger?

In the original timeline, Rachel is injured or killed at the party. The first Aaron to emerge from the original failsafe box (hooded Aaron who drugs his "innocent" pre-time-travel self) knows this.

When he is challenged by the later version of himself, he agrees to leave because the newer copy of himself has already done what he intended (record the conversations, then come back again to prevent the incident). So he knows that saving Rachel's life should eventually be successful but not in this timeline.

Before she is killed in this timeline, he explains to Granger that he can save her and how (probably proving to Granger that he has already live through these days using his knowledge of the March Madness sports events).

Granger gives him money as a reward (or agrees to release it when Rachel is saved), and he shows Granger how to go back in the latest failsafe box, with another box inside to re-set as the failsafe box (so that neither Aaron nor Abe will know he came back), so that Granger can follow them around and make sure they do the right things to save Rachel (because Hooded Aaron already knows that even though he's met the later copy of himself, events may play out differently). Aaron is the most money-oriented character, and he knows that he is a quantum-copy and therefore will have to leave his life, so figures he may as well cash in.

Granger goes back to the start of the week and is following the around boys all week (although this isn't seen in the movie). He probably collapses because of the long journey through the box (we saw Abe's fatigue and Granger is older), plus the added stress of worrying about his daughter, plus being awake a lot so he doesn't miss anything (hinted at by the several days' beard growth).

At the end of the movie, Hooded Aaron is starting to build in a much bigger space - this may be a larger box or a facility of multiple boxes. He has said "you won't find me", so he may be setting up multiple failsafes to always allow him to come back to this point and prevent himself being discovered later. Plus he can make it more comfortable, in case he needs to be in there for a long time - e.g. watch the stock market over three months, then travel back and make a real killing (with more chance of avoiding the insider-trading investigation that the original timeline versions would have been hit with if they had placed individual trades on the top-performing stock 5 days in a row), then six months later travel back another three months, etc. [Remember that this version of Aaron hasn't seen the physiological effects the others are starting to suffer].

Or it may be more sinister - know he knows timeline change is possible, he could be planning to use his multi-box facility to give himself the option of going back and tweaking history to his liking. This may involve more interference with his other selves -or at least, the other Abe (the copy from the airport who was going to sabotage the boxes, so the original them wouldn't know time-travel worked meaning the Abe-copy would be the only other person who knew how to build one - perhaps Aaron is making plans to tie up that loose end at a later stage.)

Maybe there's enough potential for an even more confusing sequel.

community - How did Jeff become the Dean's favorite?

TylerShads' answer already covers pretty well where in the series we see evidence that Jeff is being favored by the Dean, so I will just add a bit of my view on the "why":

Throughout the series it becomes a running gag that the Dean is, lets say, a major oddball.

For example he dresses up regularly in strange outfits without any proper reason, more than often in woman's clothes too. In later episodes it also becomes apparent that he seems to have a dalmatian fetish.

It is also hinted at more than once that the Dean might be gay. We can see this for example in the interaction in his strange love/hate relationship with the rival Dean from City College.

In my opinion it is pretty clear that this is the reason why he has a soft spot for Jeff. He feels attracted to him and regularly makes remarks about how attractive Jeff is. An example of this can be found in the episode 3x12 "Contemporary Impressionists" where Jeff wears Aviator sunglasses and as soon as the Dean sees him, he falls to the ground screaming

Oh my god, even his shadow! Look at his shadow!

So in conclusion, I think the Dean likes Jeff so much because he is very handsome and the Dean feels attracted to him.

A TV show about a fotoreporter involved in "strange" adventures?

A TV show about a fotoreporter involved in "strange" adventures. By strange, I mean to be in the wrong place at the right moment.

The main clue is that in the opening credits, the voiceover of the main character says:

19XX in a civil jet crashes all passengers die except one, myself.

While the video shows through the thousands of aircraft scrap a 5 year old child sitting and unharmed.

This TV series is set in a U.S. city, tells the adventures of a photojournalist (uses a camera Leica). He happens to be in the wrong place at the right moment to survive and sometime to take a picture.

Not animated.

casting - What rules govern how TV show opening credits are structured?

The rules for how the order of credits is produced is very long and convoluted. They also vary from show to show, so for any one "rule of thumb" it's almost guaranteed you can find an exception on the air right now on some channel.

The basic guidelines that most shows follow most of the time are drawn from the rules for the various industry guilds. In the case of actors, that would be SAG (the WGA and DGA would determine how/when a writer or director get credited.) The Wikipedia articles linked in a few comments/answers gives a basic rundown of all the guild rules that have to be followed in the "typical" credits sequence. Note that movies opening and closing credit sequences differ a lot from television ones (in particular, you rarely see the name of the production company in a TV show's opening credits.)

However, there's a lot of variation on the basic theme, because the placement and styling in the credits sequence is often part of an actor's individual contract with the studio. Studios will rearrange the credits or give certain actors special consideration in the credits as part of the negotiations.

The basic flow of credits is as you mentioned: core actors first, followed by guest actors, followed by a handful of top-level production staff. In TV, it's rare to have a full set of closing credits the way you have in movies, where the entire cast would appear with their character names, for simple time reasons: they would take a really long time that could instead be used for commercials. (In fact, many networks now show split-screen closing credits side by side with a promo for the upcoming program.) So those credits are usually limited to production-level people and companies, copyright/legal notices, and other minutia.

Why a particular actor gets a particular spot in the credits is mostly a matter of PR, and explains some of the variations you mention in your question:

• Being billed before the title is "more prestigious" than after the title; usually only the one or two top-tier stars will get this billing, if at all. In ensemble shows it's rare to see this type of split billing.


• Actors are generally billed in rough "order of importance" to the show.


• Being billed last, however, is also considered a key position, as long as it is somehow differentiated from the rest of the cast. For example, in the Buffy TV show, Anthony Stewart Head (arguably the most "famous" cast member prior to the show) was billed as "and Anthony Stewart Head as Giles" - the only cast member whose character was named.


• Since the opening credits are pre-recorded, typically only season regulars make it into the "core" credits sequence (think "theme music") for shows that have them. Recurring guest stars are usually billed overtop of the opening scene, introduced with "Also Starring".


• Single-episode guest stars go last; depending on how famous/important they are, they may also get the "as charactername" treatment.

In general, having a unique style of credit (e.g. being specifically associated with a character) is a bonus given out to special guest stars and particularly important actors that lets them stand out from the rest of the cast. This is something a well-known or highly-priced actor would negotiate as a condition of their appearance. They even negotiate down to the exact wording, which can include "guest" vs. "special guest", are they "starring" or "appearing", etc (I have seen shows that had multiple guest stars, each billed slightly differently).

Another key distinction to make is between series regulars and recurring guest stars. A series regular will still appear in the opening credits, and be given credit for the episode, even if they don't actually appear in the episode.

The general idea here is that a series regular, even if they aren't in a particular episode, is contractually required to be available to appear in that episode. A recurring guest actor, on the other hand, is typically contracted to appear in only a specific number of episodes, and can usually skip a particular episode if they have prior commitments. A recurring guest star, with lower billing, may actually get more screen time than a series regular that gets top billing. This happened in House in seasons 4-6, where Olivia Wilde, Kal Penn and Peter Jacobson were given lower "Also Starring" billing, while rarely-appearing Jennifer Morrison and Jesse Spencer continued to be billed as series regulars. As always, this was entirely down to the contracts the latter two had with the show.

marvel cinematic universe - What operating system does Tony Stark use on his office desktop?

I cannot exactly recall the scene but I would bet it is one that they have pretty much made up for the film. You could probably knock one up similar based on linux if you had the skills and inclination.

The hacking dongle would, most likely, do nothing for real. If you had a secure system it would not allow anything on the dongle to run without the admin password and the admin password would be strongly typed and closely guarded.

However, consider the fact that actual hacking is quite boring to watch. It is mainly a numbers game combined with some specialist knowledge. Not very cinematic.

Hence film makers have to find ways of making hacking scenes quick and obvious to viewers, that is probably what the dongle is doing. It is a plot device that keeps the story going.

How did Angier know not to appear in The Prestige?

So here is my grand theory (if I understood the question correctly):-

Angier was Lord Coldlow from the very beginning. He just pretended to be the American Robert Angier, to spare his family the embarrassment of his theatrical career. So existence of Lord Caldlow is clear.

---

Later on the day of the accident, Angier called spectators to check the machine. Borden came and examined. Given the fact, they knew each other the best, we can assume Angier caught him right then when Borden was on stage to check the machine.

---

So when Angier understood the right time has come, the time he has longed for a long time, he did not turn the machine on simply i.e. no extra copy of him was made on that day! But he tried to befool the viewers by the sparks of the machine and all that, but it was not really working like other days. So the existence of Angier remained as Lord Caldlow (whom no one identified as him) and Angier could make Borden his murderer by killing a copy of himself, the then present person in the centre. Simple yet a compact plan!

stunts - How is it decided whether to use a stuntman?

I believe you are talking about stuntman/actor decision since every dangerous scene is mostly a stunt.

For minor stunts(backflips,jumps...) it is determined by director if he wants it to be real or shoot with ropes,secondarily it is up to actor if he can do the desired trick,sometimes actors even go through training courses just to do a good scene of a small stunt.

Major stunts with explosions,cars,... are first decided by insurance companies you can have problems even if a stuntman gets hurt(contract),if you minimize the risk enough the stuntman gets in action.With current CGI technologies most scenes can now be filmed safely so it gets back to directors choice and actors capability.

grammaticality - there is a lot or there are a lot? over here or at here?

In addition to other reasons given, it's singular because English speakers don't like putting multiple (unstressed) R sounds in a row; "there is" or "there's" is easier to say than "there are".

It's very common to hear things like "There's over a hundred people in here!" or "There's too many to count"; grammatically, those should have are instead of is, but when you're actually pronouncing the sentence, "There're" just doesn't roll off the tongue smoothly, and "there's" is just as understandable, so the substitution is made naturally and frequently.

In situations where the word "are" is more emphasized, it will be used much more readily:

There are ways to get what you want

With this sentence, normally "There", "are" and "ways" are all pretty equally stressed during pronunciation.

Compare that to

There's loads of ways to get what you want.

With this sentence, "There's" is relatively unstressed, and "loads" is heavily stressed. Because of this stress pattern, "there's" will often be said instead of "there are".

star wars - Why do battle droids need to speak in Basic?

In-universe, the most likely reason for programming the battle droids to speak in Basic is communication with non-droid personnel.

In several scenes, we see battle droids interacting with non-droids - usually their Nemoidian masters & operators. Here's an example from Episode I, but there are plenty throughout the prequel trilogy movies:

The droid invasion force moves out of the swamp and onto a grassy
plain. OOM-9, in his tank, looks out over the vast ARMY marching
across the rolling hills. A small hologram of RUNE and NUTE stands on
the tank.

OOM-9: Yes, Viceroy?

RUNE: Captain, we've searched the ship and there is no trace of the
Jedi. They may have got on onto one of your landing craft.

OOM-9: If they are down here, sir, we'll find them.

NUTE: Use caution. These Jedi are not to be underestimated.

While it would seem to make sense for droids to communicate with each other via some sort of binary language or wireless communication, it's possible that the Trade Federation simply cut costs by giving them a single, verbal communication method. Since they needed to communicate in Basic anyway, perhaps that was deemed enough and warranted no further research/spending.

Why did Victor die?

Just before Gus kills Victor, Walt monologues about how Victor is not as good of a cook, how he needs Jesse alive to help him cook, etc

Gus's subsequent actions act as a punishment to Victor for being substandard, while simultaneously yet silently "accepting" Walt's request to leave Jesse alive.

The act of Gus slicing Victor's throat demonstrates his ruthlessness and willingness to "just get the job done", which serves as a message for Walt and Jesse, that he won't accept excuses or messing around. Gus eyes them both up afterwards to ensure they understand their place and then leaves.

expressions - Phrase to describe a moving goal that is forever just out of reach

As others have commented, but not directly answered, you can say it is a case of moving goalposts.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online

move the goalposts
To ​change the ​rules while someone is ​trying to do something in ​order to make it more ​difficult for them.

In addition to another answer of will-o-the-wisp, there is also a pipe dream, which while not directly giving the exact connotations you're asking for, does give the idea of endless pursuit of something that can never be realized.

Merriam-Webster

pipe dream, noun
a hope, wish, or dream that is impossible to achieve or not practical

Putting them together, you could say something like:

"Because you keep moving the goalposts every time we make any progress, I'm afraid that getting this project done has become nothing more than a pipe dream."

In the case where there is no identifiable source intentionally moving the goalposts, you can say it in a more passive voice to indicate that, despite no person actively doing it, the effective results are tantamount to the same thing:

"This situation is no different from one where the goalposts keep moving, and I'm afraid that getting this project done has become nothing more than a pipe dream."

or

"It feels like the goalposts keep moving, and … ."

Addendum

I re-read your question and have some off-topic-for-English-Language-but-on-topic-for-your-situation comments for you:

1. Disruptive technologies are more disruptive the earlier they're introduced. They're successful not because they beat their predecessors in all areas, nor because they're perfectly polished, but because they fill an unrealized need. An unreleased software product can't meet any needs.




2. The process of delivering incremental improvements in software is absolutely crucial to saving money and making the best product possible. Without people actually using it and being in a position to find out in the real world whether it meets needs correctly, what parts are missing, and what parts aren't even needed, you're almost guaranteed to build the wrong thing. Study the agile software development lifecycle and its philosophies; you will find that the primary benefit of iterative improvement is early feedback.




3. Speaking of early feedback, it's your users who give the best feedback—never in-house resources. There's always someone who doesn't need all the features, and is willing to try a new product that does certain things better without having all the bells and whistles. Get users involved in the development process and you've got, for free, what would normally cost big bucks to pay for in-house as a focus group or something! You want people to bang on your product as early as possible to reduce the cost of fixing stuff that's wrong with it or could be done better--especially if the change is to key architectural aspects that permeate the entire product and would be more painful to change later than earlier.

Where did Hollowface come from, and how was he defeated in Intruders?

The movie opens with a young boy, Juan, in Spain having nightmares about
Hollowface, a monster with no face. The plot then moves to England, following John and his family.

It shows two parallel stories with a connection;Juan is actually John (Mia's father).

At the end, John realizes his Hollowface connection with his daughter. Hollowface is disguised as a monster to suppress post traumatic stress.

John's mom relocated to England to escape the death of Juan's father in Spain. John's biological father is Hollowface, who he created as the young Juan through storytelling. Mia and John shared a psychic connection, so Hollowface is a fabricated spirit.

John's biological father who was released from jail attempted to abduct him. As a result, Juan and the mom watch the father fall off the ledge and into cement/soil. The mom refused to confess to the priest about the traumatic event that caused Juan nightmares.

Original synopsis found at Twist Endings.

props - What is this item in Sheldon & Leonard's apartment?

On the wall in the living room of Leonard and Sheldon's apartment is an antique fuse holder with fuses.

This odd item was the subject of much discussion by fans who couldn't work out what it was. Eventually, someone identified it on Twitter.

Here's the link of Big Bang theory wiki page.

Look closely, each row has a fuse connected from the left to right. Each fuse is bolted to it's connection on the terminal block with two bolt. Each fuse has two eilets (one on each side) where it is bolted onto the terminal block (or strip).

Give a look here

Here's the photo linked there:

Does "...you're a cantaloupe" have any meaning?

In True Romance, there is a scene where Vincenzo Coccotti (Christopher Walken) interrogates Clifford Worley (Dennis Hopper) on Worley's son's whereabouts.

After Worley tries a couple of failed lies, he then decides to give a derogatory history lesson on the Sicilians. This speech infuriates Coccotti to the point where his only focus becomes to put several bullets in Worley's head.

So, before the gunshots, everyone is smiling and laughing and Coccotti says to Worley

You're a Cantaloupe

This is in response to being called another type of fruit by Worley.

I don't understand why Coccotti called Worley a cantaloupe.

Is there any meaning behind this or was he just trying to go tit-for-tat and that was the best response he could come up with?

What is the name of this rhetorical device

Preterition, proslepsis or apophasis, not to mention the many other derivatives with either (late) latin or greek root: praeteritio(n), occupatio on the one hand, cataphasis, paralipsis, parasiopesis on the other hand.

While they vary with sources, nuances might be:

• proslepsis: the pretence of passing over a subject while at the same time describing it fully,


• apophasis: an allusion to something by denying that it will be mentioned,


• praeterition: a rhetorical device in which the speaker emphasizes something by omitting it.

story identification - Sci-Fi book with 4 prison planets

I read a book once where an agent of a futuristic multi-planet government was sent on a mission, and in doing so, used a machine to impress copies of his mind on other people to send them.

I remember no names, of people or locations, but I can describe what I do remember.

The place the copies of this man were sent was a planetary system that was used as a prison.
The planets were used as a prison because of a unique type of bacteria or virus that lived there. Whenever that bacteria would go too far from the planet, it'd die, and take any organism that it was inside with it.
There were 4 planets in the system, and copies of this man were sent to each one. Each planet granted the copy one "power", unique to the planet, through the bacterium.
In one world the bacteria would break down everything man-made remarkably quick, but some people could control them enough to stop, and even create things for you.
Another gave people the ability to swap minds during sleep, waaking up into a different body altogether.
A third gave the man "adaptive DNA", so to speak. He subconsciously would change his DNA to match the environment, which could've meant a sex change, if he lived in an all-male environment.
And sadly, I dont remember the 4th well at all. I just know someone became a dragon at some point, and that someone was blind.

Anyway, I read this book at my high school library. That copy was a plain brown cover, no title or anything, and although the name was inside, I have forgotten it. I have forgotten it and the author and all the unique names to search for, and all my searching for the things in this description have yielded nothing. If anyone knows this book, please tell me its name, or anything that could lead to me finding this book again.

Rango's Western reference?

As I've written before, I don't watch westerns, but I just found a clip of Rango that shows the few minutes up to the above screencap. The surrounding area looks like Monument Valley, which is where John Ford is known to make his westerns. Feeling that Rango was looking to employ the well-known, I was concentrating on the John Ford/Monument Valley combination of films in IMDB. I found: Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine, Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Wagon Master, Rio Grande, The Searchers, Sergeant Rutledge and his last western, Cheyenne Autumn. Both Stagecoach and My Darling Clementine have IMDB images showing similar geography. the My Darling Clementine image shows Henry Fonda on a similar overlook. Also, one of many trailers for Rango seemed to concentrate on a shootout; My Darling Clementine is described as "A Western retelling the tale of the Shoot-out at the OK Corral". So, that's my new guess.

Movie about fishing family who buy their own boat and end up losing everything

The movie was old and about a family who were living in a coastal village (probably Italy). The traditional occupation of villagers was fishing. There were masters who owned boats and workers. Business cycle was working in warm seasons, and keep fishes in salt for cold seasons were the prices was high.

This family has three sons and at least one daughter. Although the family was poor like other worker families one of the sons was educated and started to thinking why we should not be master. He convinced family to loan from bank and buy a boat and after debt payback they have the house and boat and become master of their own.

Everything went good until a day which seems to be stormy. They was under pressure for loan and despite other workers warning they went fishing. They lost the boat and problem begun. They started by selling stored fish in wrong season under the price. They lost their house. The junior brother started working with a criminal and the daughter became a whore.

Moral: Incomplete knowledge is much more dangerous than complete lack of it.

grammaticality - Why is it "on *the* one hand"?

The definite article is used to signal that one is talking about specific items, not items in general.

For example, this exchange at the reception desk of the hotel.

Guest: I'd like a room.

Clerk: Will you be staying the weekend, sir?

Guest: No, just the one night.

The guest could have said "No, just one night," but adding the definite article makes it more emphatic and specific at the same time. This applies to "on the one hand" constructions as well.

game of thrones - Which book, if any, continues the storyline after the season 5 finale?

In most cases, the television show has already reached the point where the most recent novel (A Dance with Dragons) has left off; the finale on Season 5 lines up pretty cleanly with the end of that novel. (In some cases, like Bran, the show ran out of story last season).

In other cases, the show has deviated quite a bit from the novels, especially with Sansa, Arya, and Tyrion.

In either case, it's been made pretty clear at this point that the producers on the show are going to need to diverge from the novels from this point forward.

While I strongly recommend you read the books, starting with A Game of Thrones and in order, you aren't going to find anything "beyond" the TV Show in them. It will fill in some extra details, especially about the backstory of some of the characters. In addition, Martin is currently writing the next book, Winds of Winter, which he plans to release "before Season 6". However, I'm not sure how much of what going into the books from here on out will really come into play in the show.

In short: you should read the books because they're good books and you'll probably enjoy them. Just don't read them expecting to "get a head start" on the show, or you may be disappointed.

Word or phrase for doing something poorly so that someone else does it for you?

I refer to this tactic as, “Strategic Incompetence”. It is a tactic that, however effective in the short term, can prove disastrous in the long run, as one might eventually convince their significant other that one is as dumb as rocks, and that’s even worse than doing one's own dishes.

"Avoiding Strategic Incompetence"

• “He began to milk his lack of picnic knowledge for all it wasn’t worth. He responded to any inquiries or suggestions with questions and comments such as ‘how do you do that’, or ‘what did you guys do in the past’ or even ‘help me remember why we’re talking about this’. Ultimately, responsibility for the picnic was reassigned. Mission unaccomplished.”

• “Strategic incompetence isn’t about having a strategy that fails, but a failure that succeeds. It almost always works to deflect work on doesn’t want to do – without ever having to admit it. See, Bill Bilanich Avoiding Strategic Incompetence

lord of the rings - What happened to Tom Bombadil when the last ship left for the Undying Land?

Letter 144:

And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).

The end of Lord of the Rings is not a traditional wrapping-up of loose-ends and Bombadil is one that is (perhaps intentionally) left hanging. There's no mention of a subsequent history for him in either the Letters or the HoME volumes; that doesn't mean that such a subsequent history doesn't exist, of course, just that Bombadil's part in the story was done.

The nearest hint we get is in Gandalf's response to Frodo shortly after the passage you've quoted:

'As well as ever, you may be sure,' said Gandalf. 'Quite untroubled and I should guess, not much interested in anything that we have done or seen...'

Bombadil's part in the world is not to be involved in the Great Events; he doesn't get involved and they don't interest him. I'd even dispute that he's a "great power": he's very much a stay-at-home who doesn't get involved. This is also well-summarised by the discussion of him at the Council of Elrond:

'He is a strange creature, but maybe I should have summoned him to our Council.'
'He would not have come,' said Gandalf.

'Could we not still send messages to him and obtain his help?' asked Erestor. 'It seems that he has a power even over the Ring.'

'No, I should not put it so,' said Gandalf. 'Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others. And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them.'

'But within those bounds nothing seems to dismay him,' said Erestor. 'Would he not take the Ring and keep it there, for ever harmless?'

'No,' said Gandalf, 'not willingly. He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.'

So Bombadil is definitely someone who doesn't get involved, and any subsequent part he may have to play will most probably be along the same isolationist policy.

Why does the Driver not have a name?

I'll expound a little on what Christian says above as, while I think his answer is correct and sufficient, it was this very same question that led to a deeper understanding of the film for me.

I also wondered about the lack of a name for the driver - until a specific moment in the film which I think explains most of the motivation for what is presented. When the driver asks his benefactor if he's familiar with the story of the scorpion and the frog, all one needs to do is look up the fable (see wikipedia) - it went a long way to answering most questions I had about the film. It also made me realize that his name was not important. I'm reminded of the Shakespeare quote "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Stop reading here if you don't want to see spoilers.

The driver's scorpion jacket represents his backstory (almost literally). As Christian alludes to, the title "drive" probably refers more to the character's nature than his vocation. The "kid", or driver, is by nature like the scorpion - a natural killer. The film is likely examining the questions, (1) can one's nature be suppressed? And, (2) can redemption be found by going against nature when one's nature is evil?

The scorpion (the "kid") appears to be willing to suppress his nature and replace it, for a limited time, with the nature of his victim, the frog. The car is the vehicle (sorry) by which the scorpion transforms into the frog and carrying passengers safely to their destination is the scorpion's view of a frog's nature. However, the scorpion is only willing to suppress his own nature for a limited time (5 minutes), after which, he returns to being the scorpion.

The transformation is what allows him to find love with Irene. In most scenes with her - they are either driving together or he is out of his skin (without scorpion jacket). The elevator scene (wearing jacket) is where he reveals his true nature to Irene and she is horrified by it.

The final scenes showing the kid reawakening inside the car and then driving away is perhaps a sign that he has found redemption? Maybe signifying his rebirth as the frog? Pretty cool film.

A word describes the person whose homeland/origins cannot be assurely identified

In the U.S., where historically race was a more important social distinction than ethnicity or class (or, given the hypodescent standard, even skin color), people who are racially ambiguous are a subject of interest, both in popular (“10 most racially ambiguous celebrities!”) and intellectual (“What Are You?”: Racial Ambiguity and the Social Construction of Race in the US) sources.

By extension, ethnically ambiguous would be a broader application of the concept, and to my surprise, turns up almost the same number of Google.com results. A 2003 New York Times article suggests

ethnically neutral, diverse or ambiguous

I think few people would self-identify as "ambiguous" alone as a description of phenotype, or if they do it would be interpreted as androgynous. Rather, this is a label others apply. People who know they are of mixed descent could self-identify as multiracial (U.S. Census category), mixed race, or multiethnic— but in a modern professional setting in the U.S., calling attention to such characteristics is usually inappropriate and even outré.

For similar reasons, terms like mulatto or quadroon are considered outdated, and may be taken to be offensive.

etymology - From the horse jockey to the disc jockey

1. Jockey is the diminutive or pet-form of Jock, originally Scots and northern English. Jock is the Scotch equivalent of Jack.

OED, Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins (by Julia Cresswel), Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English (by Eric Partridge) and A Dictionary of Scottish Phrase and Fable (by Ian Crofton), all give the same etymology.

Hence, the origin of the word is also the original meaning and OED defines as below:

A diminutive or familiar by-form of the name Jock or John, usually with the sense ‘little Jock, Jacky, Johnny’; hence, applicable (contemptuously) to any man of the common people (chiefly Sc.); also, a lad; an understrapper.

OED's earliest citation is from a1529:

Kynge Iamy, Iemmy, Iocky my io.

_{J. Skelton Against Scottes (1843) 90}

A Dictionary of Scottish Phrase and Fable (by Ian Crofton) adds that the word Jockie was originally (in the 16th century) applied to stable lads, before coming to denote a professional rider. In the 17th and 18th centuries it was also used in English broadside ballads as a name for a Scottish soldier.

2. The informal meaning of jockey, (someone whose work involves the use of a particular object or machine) in expressions like computer jockey, desk jockey or disc jockey is an analogy to a horse jockey. It doesn't directly derive from the original meaning of jockey.

OED's earliest citation for this meaning is about driving a car and it is from 1912:

Some are, so to speak, ‘gentlemen jockeys’, and own, enter, and drive their own cars for the fun of the thing.

Collier's 28 Sept. 11/2

Additionally, the slang meaning of jockey is a driver as mentioned in a 1936 reference below:

Here is a short list of busmen's slang phrases:..Jockey (Driver).

Daily Herald 5 Aug. 8/4

3. Disc jockey was not the first expression where the term "jockey" was used to refer to someone outside the horse racing contexts.

The 1912 citation from OED has "gentlemen jockeys" that refers to the car drivers but it is not a set phrase.

Then, OED gives the following slang terms from The American thesaurus of slang (by Lester V. Berrey and Melvin Van Den Bark) from 1942:

• Automobile racer, auto or buzzer jockey,..speed jockey,..suicide jockey.


• Motorcycle racer, broadsider, jockey,..motor jockey.


• Commercial driver (bus, taxicab, truck),..jockey, motor jockey.


• Truck driver, truck jockey or spinner... Spec. juice jockey, a gasoline-truck driver; grunt-and-squeal jockey, a stock hauler;..suicide jockey, a nitro-glycerine hauler.

OED's earliest citation for disc jockey is from 1941:

Disc jockey solves vacation. Turning a program over to the public while the emcee is vacationing is big stuff from a listener's angle, WEBR is finding.

Variety 23 July 34/4

OED says that there is no evidence for the 1935 reference:

It has sometimes been suggested that the U.S. journalist and radio commentator Walter Winchell first used the term in 1935, but there does not appear to be any evidence for this.

OED also mentions the term record jockey (defined as n. U.S. colloq. temporary = disc jockey) which is from 1940 (slightly earlier than disc jockey):

[Quoting J. Kapp] The name bands are come on for the record jockeys who ride herd over not only Decca records but all the others.

Variety 3 Apr. 39/3

production - How does the budget breakdown for a US TV season compare to a UK TV Season?

The cheapest TV shows cost around $60,000 per episode (reality shows), but the most expensive go up to $11,000,000 (all seasons of Friends). Pre-recorded broadcast shows with a host and guests cost from $55,000 to $700,000 (main evening show) which makes it difficult to give a true average to answer your question.

A highly-rated TV sitcom--which means the actors are getting a huge amount of cash--adding the salaries of all concerned plus the sets and other fees, has a budget of about $1,000,000 per episode. An average sitcom would be somewhat less.

Most shows do not make a profit until they go into off network syndication. Popular stars of popular sitcoms can make anywhere from $500,000 to millions of dollars per episode.
It also depends on language and how popular show is.

See TV Comedy/Budgeting sitcoms

names - Why was Marvin called "the paranoid android"?

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? ;)

Movie with character named Toed?

I saw the handle Toed used on the Internet today and I am trying to identify what it refers to, but I cannot recall where I know it from. Does anybody know what movie (or maybe television show) has a character named Toed?

I’m almost certain it is a fantasy genre like Lord of the Rings and the character is a lowly troll-ish type of character. I’m pretty sure (his? his.) name was spelled Toed, but it may have been Tode.

I tried Googling for both but found nothing that fits. Toed just returns sloths, frogs, etc. and Tode returns seemingly random results.

technical - Synonyms for multiplexing and demultiplexing

I have developed a software mechanism which operates on a certain kind of software entities which are called interfaces. If you want technical details about the mechanism you can read this post on StackOverflow, but it should not be necessary in order to understand the question and give an answer.

The mechanism consists of two parts: one performs an operation upon interfaces which could be called multiplexing, and the other performs an operation which could be called demultiplexing. Now, these terms are already used for various other things in the general domain of computers and electronics, so if I were to use them I would have to always be speaking of interface multiplexing and interface demultiplexing, otherwise I would be confusing people. The problem is that these terms are now way too long and cumbersome. I need to come up with simpler terms, preferably unique, so that when people hear them either they realize immediately what I am talking about, or they realize that I am referring to something previously unknown to them, about which they might wish to ask for explanations.

So, I need to give you non-technical descriptions of what these things do, and ask you to help me find better terms. Of course, there is no way to do this but with similes. There are a few similes that I can give, and terms that satisfy any single one of them would be fine. (I do not expect to find a single term that would satisfy more than one simile.)

Simile #1: wires through a tube

The job of the multiplexer is akin to taking a bunch of wires and making them fit into a tube, so that we have a single inconspicuous tube crossing the room instead of a bunch of separate wires dangling around. The job of the demultiplexer is akin to taking the wires out of the other end of the tube and separating them from each other so that we have the wires that we started with. Note that in actual cabling this process usually involves twisting the wires, but for my purposes conveying such a notion is entirely optional, perhaps even slightly undesirable.

Simile #2: generalization-specialization

The job of the multiplexer is akin to taking objects, each one of which is unique in shape, color and function, stripping them of their properties, and making them completely homogeneous and barren of any characteristic features. The job of the demultiplexer is akin to taking these homogenized objects and restoring their properties and their characteristic features back to what they originally used to be.

Simile #3: assembly-disassembly

The job of the multiplexer is akin to taking things and putting them together into conglomerations thereof; the job of the demultiplexer is akin to taking these conglomerations and breaking them down into their constituent parts.

Simile #4: translation

The job of the multiplexer is akin to translating the language that someone speaks to some cipher suitable for transmission, and the job of the demultiplexer is akin to translating from the cipher back to the original language so that someone else can understand it. (But note that cipher/decipher are not applicable because they already mean other things.)

Please consider the fact that I need six terms:

1. a synonym for the act of multiplexing.


2. a synonym for the performer of the act. (The multiplexer.)


3. a synonym for the verb of the act. (To multiplex.)


4. a synonym for the act of demultiplexing.


5. a synonym for the performer of the act. (The demultiplexer.)


6. a synonym for the verb of the act. (To demultiplex.)

(I am mentioning this because someone suggested "fusion" and "fission", which would have been fine if all I needed was names for the acts, but then I tried to think of the corresponding names for the performers and for the verbs for "fusion" and "fission" and I realized that there is a slight problem.)

It goes without saying that the terms need to be as symmetric as possible, preferably even with the same number of letters for each part.

To help to get things started, here are some sets of terms that I have been able to come up with so far. I do not know which, if any, I should choose. You can pick one of these sets, or suggest your own set.

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   generalizing     generalizer        generalize
demultiplexing: specializing     specializer        specialize

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   normalizing      normalizer         normalize 
demultiplexing: denormalizing    denormalizer       denormalize

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   entwining        entwiner           entwine
demultiplexing: untwining        untwiner           untwine

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   enmeshing        enmesher           enmesh
demultiplexing: unmeshing        unmesher           unmesh

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   enplexing        enplexer           enplex
demultiplexing: deplexing        deplexer           deplex

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   coalescence      coalescer          coalesce
demultiplexing: separation       separator          separate

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   twisting         twister            twist
demultiplexing: raveling         raveler            ravel

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   folding          folder             fold
demultiplexing: unfolding        unfolder           unfold

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   braiding         braider            braid 
demultiplexing: unbraiding       unbraider          unbraid

                name of action   name of performer  verb
multiplexing:   enlacing         enlacer            enlace
demultiplexing: unlacing         unlacer            unlace

The answer that I will accept is the one that I will end up using.

I finally decided to call the terms entwine/untwine, and since the software project in which these words are used deals with interfaces, the name of the project is intertwine. If you want to read about it, here it is: michael.gr - Intertwine: Normalizing Interface Invocations

pronouns - Is "none" singular or plural? How can I decide?

It can be both, depending on the subject that goes with it.

From http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1026513/9903.htm:

A common misconception is that none
must always be treated as singular.
The customary support for this view is
that none necessarily means "not one"
(implying singularity); in fact,
"none" is just as likely to imply "not
any" (implying plurality). As noted
in The American Heritage Dictionary:
"the word has been used as both a
singular and a plural noun from Old
English onward. The plural usage
appears in the King James Bible as
well as the works of John Dryden and
Edmund Burke and is widespread in the
works of respectable writers today."

The most sensible rule is the one that
governs similar words designating a
portion of something (fractions,
percentages, and indefinite pronnouns
such as some, most, many, all, and
more). Just as we write "some of it
is" or "two-thirds of it is", we would
write "none of it is"; just as write
"some of them are" or "two-thirds of
them are", we would write "none of
them are."

Idiomatically, few of us would be
comfortable with "None these people is
happy" or "None of my friends is going
with me." The sense here is plural:
not any. Yet the myth of the
singularity of none persists, even
among people who frequently say, "None
. . . are." (Why is it that some
people cling to a simplistic rule,
even when it's wrong, rather than face
the necessity of making a choice based
on sense?)

When the sense is plural (as indicated
by a plural noun or pronoun in the
following prepositional phrase – "none
of [plural entity]"), none is plural;
when the sense is singular (as
indicated by a singular noun or
pronoun in the following prepositional
phrase – "none of [singular entity]"),
none is singular.

Futhermore, we may have some instances
in which either is correct. The
American Heritage Dictionary notes:
"The choice between a singular or
plural verb depends on the desired
effect. Both options are acceptable
in this sentence: None of the
conspirators has (or have) been
brought to trial." And that is true
because the sense of none may be
construed here as either "not one" or
"not any."

Two last points are worth noting. It
is difficult to avoid treating none as
a plural when it is modified by almost
– "Almost none of the children were
[not was] well-behaved." And, in
constructions such as "None but a few
of the students were able to complete
the test," none must be treated as a
plural.

grammaticality - simultaneous dialogue - English Language & Usage

[[The question has been edited in an attempt to address the reason it was originally put on hold.]]

Suppose that several individuals are speaking. There are two conversations occurring at once in the same place. Both are heard simultaneously by each person that is present. Each person participates in one and only one conversation.

How does one write dialogue so that it is obvious without explanation that both explicitly quoted speeches occur at once, but without violating conventional grammar?

QUESTION: Specifically, does (1) or (2) as literally heard by the perspective character (PC) violate modern grammar? Which one if any---and in that case, how can it be rewritten without such a violation, yet without rewriting it into (3)?

*COROLLARY**: Are there published modern precedents in novels or short fiction regarding dual but explicit dialogue?

1) There is the em dashery from Tristram Shandy:

"So I told him---This salad is floating---that he doesn't know how---in its dressing!---to fix cars. I look at it and---He needs to get---it's disgusting!---a professional to look at it." Tom spits in the salad and goes on complaining. Janice continues speaking to Bob---who nods and smiles periodically. I don't believe that he can hear what she's saying.

OR

2) There is the symbolic indication of simultaneousness via brackets:

"So I told him that he doesn't know how to fix cars," says Janice. ("This salad is floating in its dressing," Tom complains. "I look at it and---" he spits in the salad.)

"He needs to get a professional to look at it." ("It's disgusting.")

Bob looks at Janice and nods and smiles periodically. I don't believe that he can hear what she's saying.

OR

3) One can summarize who says what and when, or write explicitly the loudest dialogue and summarize what is also said, or separate the speeches and join them with a while clause.

"So I told him that he doesn't know how to fix cars," says Janice. "He needs to get a professional to look at it," she tells Bob.

"This salad is floating in its dressing!" Tom complains while Janice speaks. "I look at it and---" he spits in the salad. "It's disgusting."

Bob looks at Janice and nods and smiles periodically. I don't believe that he can hear what she's saying.

However this cannot achieve the effect which simultaneous dialogues can achieve:

@P.S. I agree: following several overlapping conversations at once is typically confusing if not usually impossible. That's also the point.

"It's noisy and she cannot understand anything that is said ..." is unclear and vague; the reader isn't given the information they need to visualize any realistic group interactions that cause the noisiness mentioned---if that's all the writer tells them.

Several conversations at once that are described as they are heard by the PC is a technical device. It allows the author to reveal information where the PC is present and yet the PC is plausibly unaware of this information despite they fact that they are present there in fact. They hear it but they also have a reason in that context to be insufficiently attentive or incapable of parsing it. (That is not true about the readers, who are made aware of it, because those conversations which are difficult to follow in real time are typically more easily parsed and followed if they are read not heard.)

star trek - What is this trail of 'pixie dust' left when the Enterprise warps out?

This could well be plasma residue which is a byproduct of warp drive engines.

In previous incarnations of the star ships from the films and TV shows, it was revealed that the plasma residue needed to be purged from the ships' warp nacelles on a regular basis to avoid dangerous build-ups of the substance in the warp engines.

As the plasma residue has always been portrayed as blue matter, the same color as the 'pixie dust' seen in the latest film, I think it is safe to assume that the plasma residue is being purged simultaneously with the activation of the warp drive - resulting in those lovely trails.

Information disseminated from the official Star Trek wiki - here and here.

cinema history - What was the first full-length feature film shot completely with digital cameras?

Beginning in the late 1980s, Sony began marketing the concept of "electronic cinematography," utilizing its analog Sony HDVS professional video cameras. The effort met with very little success. In 1998, with the introduction of HDCAM recorders and 1920 × 1080 pixel digital professional video cameras based on CCD technology, the idea, now re-branded as "digital cinematography," began to gain traction in the market.

In 1994 Sony executives approached Party of Five (FOX) producer Ken Topolsky and director of photography Roy H. Wagner, ASC, in an effort to photograph side by side tests with Sony's prototype High Def camera and 35mm film. This resulted in one of the first network broadcast television series, FOX Pilot PASADENA (2001), directed by Diane Keaton, photographed by Wagner. The results were so successful, shown to directors and Industry decision makers at the Directors Guild of America and Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) meetings, that many were encouraged by the film like images.

Soon many series were considering HD originated image capture.

In May 2001 Once Upon a Time in Mexico became the first well known movie to be shot in 24 frame-per-second high-definition digital video, using a Sony HDW-F900 camera, following Robert Rodriguez's introduction to the camera at George Lucas's ranch whilst editing the sound for Spy Kids. In May 2002 Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones was released having also been shot using a Sony HDW-F900 camera. Two lesser-known movies, Vidocq (2001) and Russian Ark (2002), had also previously been shot with the same camera, the latter notably consisting of a single long take (no cuts).

I've read the Digital cinematography wiki page. You can read more about that. Hope that's what you were looking for.

style - Stative and Dynamic Verbs

There are incongruous parallel constructions, but this is a result of incongruous concepts, not of whether or not one or both are stative:

active + active:

I travel around the world and visit all the well-known beauty spots. :-)

I travel around the world and visit all my neighbours. :-(

active + stative:

I travel around the world and own my own plane. :-)

I travel around the world and own my own hamster. :-(

stative + stative:

I have a diploma in cooking and own my own restaurant. :-)

I have a diploma in cooking and own my own hamster. :-(

How could Lt. Hicox fluently speak German and then give himself away by using the wrong gesture?

I'd say this gesture was something so subtle and unconcious that it just falls below any cultural assimilation. He has "counted to three" in the "British way" all over his life and even excessive exposure to German native speakers and culture probably won't change such a highly non-descript and intuitive gesture. You can speak fluently in a language and be acquainted with many of its cultural subtleties and might still not be aware of the most subtle an non-descript differences. It's not that if you do it the "wrong" way among a bunch of natives everybody will shout "hey, you're counting wrong". In most situations nobody will notice and thus nobody would have ever told him how to do it "properly". That's because in all but this particular covert operation nobody would have cared about how he counts to three.

Add to this that Hicox actually wasn't a professional spy trained for such situations. He was really only a British soldier who happened to have good knowledge about German movies and language (maybe even mainly from movies). It is true that they would have to face a situation amongst many German officers sooner or later (yet on a film fest, a métier Hicox would be much more familiar with). But in this particular situation they weren't prepared for any German soldiers at all, let alone such a cunning officer like Major Hellstrom, who continuously needled them and tried to bring them into revealing situations. Lt. Hicox just wasn't prepared well enough for this battle of wits and espionage where even the slightest misbehaviour counts (The situation may not even have gotten that far hadn't he spoken with such an Irish accent, which actually aroused Hellstrom's attention in the first place).

(As a counter example, I for myself think to speak English pretty fluently, even if maybe with a slight accent (though not stronger than Michael Fassbender's either), and have quite a bit of knowledge about Hollywood movies. This might even be sufficient to play an American film expert on a quest to bomb the Academy Awards. Yet I never ever heard about this difference in counting to three until this movie and would indeed intuitively order my drinks in the "German way" even when sitting in a bar full of U.S. officers.)

Why is Walt special?

Walt is "special"

According to Lostpedia:

People have noticed something "special" about Walt throughout his life, and he seems to have psychic powers of some sort.

In his flashback episode, called "Special":

Brian also admitted that he was afraid of Walt, saying: "There's something about him. Sometimes, when he's around, things happen. He's different somehow."

One thing that made Brian suspect Walt was "different" happened shortly before his mother Susan's death. As Brian and Susan were discussing her recently diagnosed illness, Walt was studying a book of Australian native birds, seemingly oblivious to the conversation happening in the room. He wanted Brian to look at the entry for the Australian Bronze cuckoo. When Brian ignored him, Walt became angry and insistent, demanding "You're not looking!" Suddenly a bird slammed into the sliding glass door, killing itself on impact. It was an Australian Bronze Cuckoo.

He's referred to as special at least three times:

• 
  

  Ben refused, saying Jacob wanted him there, and that Walt is important and special.

  
  




• 
  

  Later, Juliet commented to Michael that Walt was special, that he wasn't an ordinary boy, and that's why she was worried about him.

  
  




• 
  

  As Walt brought up his kidnapping by Ben years ago, Ben apologized and once again referred to Walt as "special."

  
  




• 
  

  Tom said that while in their care, Walt was safe, along with Zach and Emma. Tom also said that Walt is "special".

  
  

Boring "official" answer

The Triva section answsers:

At Comic-Con 2011, co-creator Damon Lindelof stated that the source of Walt's powers was never meant to be full-throttled mystery. He said the answer to question, "why is Walt special?" is that "because he is" and nothing more.

The cited source, HitFix adds:

(That said, because they had expected to be canceled after the first 13 episodes, they never banked on having to deal with Malcolm David Kelley's growth spurt, and at that point had to write him out, only giving Walt some semblance of closure in the bonus epilogue, "New Man in Charge," on the complete series DVD set.)

Unofficial fan answers

Lostpedia lists as one of the Unanswered Questions:

Why is Walt "special"?

These Unanswered Questions are not to be answered on the main page, and are to be kept open-ended and neutral without suggesting an answer. Instead, many fan theories are offered. There are many; some are:

• Walt is "special" because he can manifest his thoughts into reality.
  
  
  • In the episode "Special" (Season 1) while playing backgammon with Hurley, Walt thinks a number out loud and then rolls it.
  
  
  • In the episode "Special" when Locke is teaching Walt how to throw knives, Locke says, "Imagine it in your mind's eye." When he does, Walt is right on target.
  
  
  • In the episode "Special", When studying native Australian birds, Walt tries to get his distracted stepfather's attention to look at the bronze cuckoo and when he can't a bronze cuckoo flies into the back door and kills itself.
  
  
  • In the episode "Special", Walt is chased through the jungle by a polar bear after reading a comic book with a polar bear in it.
  
  
  • All of the above stems from the exposure Walt had to a source of electromagnetic energy in Australia.
  
  


• Much of the apparent psychic ability Walt has displayed while on the Island may stem from his reading of the Green Lantern comic book. Inspired by this, Walt may be the so-called "the magic box".


• In "Special", Walt's ability to see with his mind's eye is a sign of the artistic vision he received from his father.


• Walt's powers may be, in essence, a "younger version" of the same abilities that Desmond has.


• Walt is "special" because his body and mind both travel time as opposed to Desmond who has only traveled with his mind.


• Walt can teleport because the MIB could not have been Walt so he had to of been the actual Walt who appeared to Locke and Shannon.

There are lots more theories at About.com's lost pages: Unanswered 'Lost' Question - Why and How was Walt Special?.

What characters in Monsters Inc. have cameos in Monsters University?

I loved Monsters University, but it was such a complex movie that I had trouble catching all of the characters from Monsters Inc. For instance, George Sanderson, the 'sock' guy from the first film, is in the JOX fraternity. We had hoped Jennifer Tilly would reprise her role as Celia, but we didn't find her.

Is there a canonical list of characters appearing in both films?

prefixes - What is the history of adding the a- prefix to form words?

I don't think that it's the same prefix as much as it is the remnant of a number of different grammaticalised pre-fixings. Most of them seem to have happened during the period when then curious admixture of French, Viking Danish, Anglo-Saxon and a sprinkling of Gaelic were distilling themselves down into the various dialects of Middle English. The spelling's kind of arbitrary, but a is the letter we tend to use when a word starts with a schwa that's flatter than we'd represent with a short e.

English was essentially an unwritten language during that period (and the population essentially illiterate), so it could be a time of great flux. A lot of words were repartitioned. All one became alone, the n sound migrated from the ends of words like mine and thine to become the initial (and previously non-existent) consonant of words (especially eke names -- thine eke name also became thy nickname) and so on.

As with a lot of what happened during this period, what we have now in the language is mostly what was present in and around London when the orthography was fixed by printing. Many of the a- words that one recognises as quaint regionalisms today (like a-hunting) were standard in dialects that did not, themselves, have the good fortune to become the standard themselves.

As for new words, well, printing (and general literacy) sort of put a stop to arbitrary movement of word boundaries. A question was posted here earlier asking about the meaning of "grab a hold", and it didn't take long for somebody to reply that the phrase was actually "grab ahold" (something my spell checker has decided is a problem). I would bet that "grab a hold" or "take a hold" (hold being synonymous with handle, as preserved in hand-hold) was the original phrase. They sound the same, and if you hear a hold often enough without seeing it written down, there's no real reason why you might not think of them as a single word.

star wars - Is there an in-canon explanation for how "manual" hyperspace exits are possible?

I am not aware of any canon source explaining the manual exit from hyperspace, but I have an answer:

Manual hyperspace exits at a precise moment aren't as difficult as it looks. The movie never showed that Han didn't do pre-jump calculation. Han just needed to manually override during last seconds.

The manual exit should be computer-aided. Starships use famous Fly by Wire technology of 60s. When Han Solo pulled the controls, it wasn't like he pulled a lever which was connected to engine with gears, ropes and pulleys. The pulling of control signalled the computer to start the procedure of exiting hyperspace. So, it shouldn't be thought that Han Solo pulled the control just after the Falcon passed the shield.

As for how Han Solo was able to pull the trigger precisely during the last seconds (even with computer aid, the margin of error is high), the answer is gut feeling. Here, experience matters and this is what movie tried to show. What's special about Han Solo? He has got lots of experience with reckless things.

grammar - Would I say "I can sometimes..." or "I sometimes can..."

The answer is rather complex.

There are some rules that regulate the position of an adverb of frequency, such as: sometimes, often, occasionally, always etc.

 subject aux/be  adverb   main verb  object/place/time


  I             *often*     go swimming        in the evenings.
  He    doesn't *always*    play      tennis.
  We    are     *usually*   here               in summer.
   I    have    *never*     been           abroad.

but real usage is different for each one of them. One first distinction must be made between adverbs of frequency that can be used at the beginning (less frequently at the end) of the sentence, an adverbs that cannot.

In the example in question there is a modal verb can which functions as an auxiliary verb and therefore the correct position of the adverb should be between the aux and the main verb, as in this quote from Noel Coward:

"I'm not a heavy drinker, I can sometimes go for hours without touching a drop."

     You    can    *never*    leave
     I      can    *usually*  drink
     I      can    *sometimes* go

But,

• sometimes is one of the frequency adverbs that can be placed at the beginning of the sentence, and this is felt more natural by many native speakers, and, in addition,



• it is an exception to the rule, since it has a peculiarity of its own: it must be placed at the beginning in a negative sentence, you say:

  
  
  
  1. I do not [always / usually / often / frequently / regularly / generally] go to church.
  
  
  2. I have not [always / usually / often / frequently / regularly / generally] gone to bed after midnight.
  
  
  3. I can't [always / usually / often / frequently / regularly / generally] go for hours...
  
  

but, if you want to use sometimes in all these examples, you have to place it right at the beginning. You don't say:

"I don't sometimes go to church", "I have not sometimes gone..", "I can't sometimes go for hours", but you say: "*sometimes I don't/have not/can't..."

Any other position, including the one suggested by the general rule, is felt as wrong.

The non-negligible presence of the incorrect I sometimes can...." in the ngram quoted in another answer is due to the fact that it is quite correct in an answer: "Can you go for..." - "Sure, I sometimes can!"
If you consider it a modal verb followed by another verb, the result of the * ngram is different and gives "Not found" for the wrong form, and the other two are on the same level.

The representation of the three variants in the other ngram is misleading, since it suggests all of them are correct.

Lastly if you search for another adverb occasionally in the truncated, ambiguous form : "I occasionally can..." you get "Not found", which confirms, in a way, the peculiarity of sometimes