Cute version of "sleep together"
Is there a phrase that means sleeping with someone without sex?
Possessive form of coordinated noun phrases? Which of the following is accurate in British English to describe our own wedding?        Alex and Jen's Wedding   Alex's and Jen's Wedding   Alex and Jens' Wedding Spoilers for A Storm of Swords / Season 4 episode 2 "The Lion and the Rose".  At the Purple Wedding,      Littlefinger and Lady Olenna Tyrell   perform their plan of      poisoning King Joffrey.   A short summary of their plan:  Littlefinger orders Ser Dontos Hollard to give Sansa Stark a beautiful silver hairnet adorned with amethysts. At least some of the amethysts are actually strangler crystals in disguise. Ser Dontos also, still under orders of Littlefinger, urges Sansa to wear the hairnet at the wedding, which she then does. At the wedding, when Lady Olenna greets Sansa, she fusses her hairnet a bit, while secretly taking one of the strangler crystals. Later, during the wedding, Lady Olenna puts the crystal in Joffrey's royal cup, poisoning him.  But why was their plan so complicated? Why couldn't Lady Olenna just bring a strangler crystal with her to the wedding (as suggested in )?  Then they wouldn't depend on Ser Dontos and Sansa who could unknowingly have done something to prevent the success of the plan.  The only reason that I could think of, is Littlefinger and Lady Olenna plan for Sansa (and Tyrion as her husband with her) to take the blame for Joffrey's death.  They put the crystals on her person, so that upon examination it would clearly show that Sansa had the murder weapon on her. But Littlefinger had a plan he did not tell Lady Olenna, namely rescuing Sansa during the chaos ensuing the murder (and thereby leaving Tyrion behind as the only accused).  Is there anything confirming or debunking this theory? If my theory doesn't hold up, is there another explanation for why the plan was so needlessly complicated? Can you contract the main verb '[I] have' in a sentence? Electric Flux - What is the point? Electric flux is a defined quantity that is proportional to the no. of field lines passing through a given area element for a given electric field. It is not proportional to the relative density of field lines, which would supply information regarding the strength of the field at that point. Electric flux, it seems to me, does not supply us with any practical information. It seems to me that electric flux is a quantity defined and modeled specifically for Gauss' law, to introduce some kind of mathematical elegance to it and to introduce an additional visual aspect to the concept of electric fields. Perhaps this is why for symmetrical situations especially, Gauss' Law can be used to easily determine the electric field due to the given charge distribution. Am I wrong here? Is there a physical significance to electric flux that I do not understand? What happens with lethargy when Haste is cast again on a creature before first cast runs out? Possible Duplicate:             I faced this issue today when I was replying to a comment posted which used @Transaction annotation.     @Trevor: @Transaction and ... @Transaction   When typing this comment, I got a warning. Is it okay to use the phrase "try and"? Is it grammatically correct? e.g. "I will try and answer ..." I read the following sentence in book (App).     I will try and answer any questions you ask.   Why don't they use the following? (it is much common):     I will try to answer any questions you ask.   Is there any difference in meaning?  Update:  I noticed that a lot of books and news websites are using this phrase:        Although Katty will try and answer as many questions as she can.    He puller would have a chance to try and answer the question on her own ... Active versus passive transformations How can i limit the character length in excerpt? Possible Duplicate:          I have a question after reading this post (). I like this function(Search Term Without Plugin) very much but the character length is too long. What php code should i add to make the excerpt shorter? Would appreciate if someone can suggest it. Thank you! If you're interested in grammar, as I am, I am sure you have delved into a thought process about infinitive to, and like me, you have probably questioned what it is, or what it could be defined as. My mind always wants to place it in the Eight Parts of Speech, and I know this is foolish of me to some regard, so I stray from it, but I still wish to designate it under something that can be explain it. So, this is the motivation for this post, this question: What is the infinitive to, and why?  Here are my thoughts: There are three real possibilities, going back through the times. First, we can say that it is part of the verb that comes after it (to go, to run, etc.). This could be supported by the claim that you are not supposed to "split" infinitives ("To boldly go"), but only that.   Secondly, we could consider it a subordinator. I came across this designation most recently in my studies of modern and transformational grammar. As of right now, it is still the one I accept, especially as a result of the trend of designating more phrases as clauses. It works, except it's weird. Do we call this a unique subordinator as a result of how it operates? For example, to-infinitive clauses call for non-finite verb forms, which typically have an implied subject as a part of their clause. For example, "I want to go to the store." In the infinitive clause, "I" is the implied subject, as a understand. So, again, this works. However, things get a little weird when other subordinators come into play. For example, "I'm excited for you to win the competition." Now, if I'm right, those of you will say that "for" is a preposition here, as a result of the new-grammar stuff, but I'm going to count it as a subordinator, as defined by my own beliefs and that of a lot of other grammars. So, how do the clauses work in such a sentence? According to transformational grammar, "for you to win the competition" is defined as an ordinary clause. So, does that mean that it also contains a secondary clause within itself (the infinitive clause part)? If so, how do those two clauses work in conjunction to each other when one is so integrated? "For you to win the competition" looks to just be one clause, but if that's the case, doesn't "to" have to represent something else?  This moves us on to the third way to look at things, which is to consider "to" as auxiliary verb, a defective one at that. There are a lot of things to support this, and it even allows for the split infinitive. Furthermore, it calls for a non-finite verb form to follow, like an auxiliary. But, as I said before, it's defective in the way that is all it can function as.  As I said, I still accept to as a subordinator, but I want to be proven wrong or right. Wrong by showing evidence of it being something else, or right by showing how clauses operate when it seems to be layered up. Viewport pivot point changed from scene objects to around viewport camera origin I am starting to learn using blender, and at some point I managed to do something to the 3D view camera.  Usually the camera orbits around an object, but now the rotation seems to happen (atleast very close to) around the "camera's origin". Neither the input setting in "User Preferences", the pivot point selection nor Ctrl-Alt-Shift-C (as suggested on some forum) do anything to the issue. I read this quite a while back, part of my parents library (they're in their 50s now) I think the book was probably published in the 70s or 80s, my copy was paperback. I don't recall the cover art, but I have vague recollections of a satellite on the cover and maybe blue with grid-lines below it?  I've made concerted efforts to find it again but to no avail. My parents don't remember it either, but mum's an avowed book-aholic and buys a lot of books, reads them once and forgets about them, so that's not so surprising.  The key parts I remember:   Both the Soviets and Americans were working on psychic techniques and technologies, with real and tangible results including Remote Viewing. MK-ULTRA was explicitly namedropped in relation to the American psychic program. The Soviets and Americans both had orbiting superweapons, One was a microwave laser (or something very similar) and the other used slivers of the brains of psychics to blow people's brains up in a wide area. A super-psychic (male) took offence to the state of the cold-war and took control over the orbital weapons by manipulating the onboard computers psychically. There's a gruesome description of a psychic weapon being tested on monkeys in a lab, the POV character throws up afterwards in horror. I think there might have been more than one POV character. There's an extended description of the psychic orbital weapon as experienced by people in its area of effect. Similar to the monkeys, it builds up, starting with alzheimer-esque hand-shaking and building up to seizures and screaming before their brain liquifies fully and either comes out the nose and ears or outright blows the skull open. (this is one of the more vivid recollections I have of the book) I remember that the super-psychic was working wholly alone and did most of his psychic stuff from motels halfway around the world from events. I believe the super-psychic also killed other psychics explicitly. The weapon satellites had code-names Both weapons were used on cities in the course of the story I vaguely recall an office building getting targeted specifically at one point. CPU clock speed versus CPU core count - higher GHz, or more cores for SQL Server? We are beginning to provision a set of physical servers for a virtual cluster of SQL Server 2016 nodes within VMware. We will be utilizing Enterprise Edition licenses.  We plan on setting up 6 nodes, but there is a bit of a debate on what the ideal way to provision the physical servers with regards to CPU clock speed versus CPU core count.  I know this is largely dependent on transaction volume and number of databases stored among other software-specific factors, but is there a general rule of thumb that is advised?  For instance, is a dual 8-core, 3.2 GHz physical server (16 cores) more preferential to a dual 16-core, 2.6 GHz server (32 cores)?  Has anyone come across a white paper that further delves into this type of topic? It is company policy for admins to login to the servers via a personal username, and then run sudo -i to become root.  Upon running sudo -i, sudo will create an environmental variable called SUDO_USER, which contains the original user's username.  Is there a way to log ALL commands within syslog with something akin to the following syntax:  ${TIME/DATE STAMP}: [${REAL_USER}|${SUDO_USER}]: ${CMD}   An example entry would be:  Sat Jan 19 22:28:46 CST 2013: [root|ksoviero]: yum install random-pkg   Obviously it doesn't have to be exactly the above syntax, it just has to include a minimum of the real user (eg. root), the sudo user (eg. ksoviero), and the full command that was run (eg. yum install random-pkg).  I've already tried snoopy, but it did not include the SUDO_USER variable. Let $G$ a group with normal subgroups $M,N$ such that $M\cap N=\{e\}$.   i) Show that for every $m\in M$ and for every $n\in N$, $mn=nm$.   ii) If $G$ is generated by $M\cup N$ then $G\cong M \times N$.   This is an homework question for abstract algebra. I think I can prove $i)$. But I have no idea how to prove $ii)$. Can anybody give me a hint for this one ?    Here my proof for i): Let $n \in N$ and let $m\in M$. Let $x=mnm^{-1}n^{-1}$. As $N$ is normal subgroup, $mnm^{-1} \in N$. Therefore $x \in N$.  As $M$ is normal subgroup , $nmn^{-1} \in M$. Since $m\in M$, then $x=m(nm^{-1}n^{-1})\in M$. This implies that $c\in M \cap N$, then $c\in \{e\}$, then $c=e$, and we get $mn=nm$. How do I suspend a whole process (like the Process Explorer does when I click Suspend) in C#.  I'm starting the Process with Process.Start, and on a certain event, I want to suspend the process to be able to do some investigation on a "snapshot" of it. Are enemies with immunity to the Poisoned condition unaffected by Contagion? After the , the spell  now inflicts the  condition upon a successful melee spell attack. The relevant spell text is below, with updated portions highlighted in bold:  Your touch inflicts disease. Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, the target is poisoned. At the end of each of the poisoned target's turns, the target must make a Constitution saving throw. If the target succeeds on three of these saves, it is no longer poisoned, and the spell ends. If the target fails three of these saves, the target is no longer poisoned, but choose one of the diseases below. The target is subjected to the chosen disease for the spell's duration. Since this spell induces a natural disease in its target, any effect that removes a disease or otherwise ameliorates a disease's effects apply to it.  The wording of the spell leads me to conclude that this spell still inflicts a disease, which has the immediate effect of poisoning the target. Therefore, even if a target has poison immunity, they will still make Constitution saves as designated to see if the disease takes effect. However, the line, &quot;At the end of each of the poisoned target's turns...&quot; also leads me to think that an enemy with poison-immunity cannot be the Poisoned target, therefore disallowing the remaining sequence of events. Are targets with immunity to the Poisoned condition therefore immune to contagion? Can there be a function that's even and odd at the same time? How to get the length of longest string in an array Any help with this problem is appreciated. It comes up in the context of Lusin's theorem, where it was assumed to be true.     Suppose $E$ is a closed subset of $\mathbb{R}$ and $f:E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous. There exists a continuous function $g: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $f(x)=g(x)$ for $x \in E$ and $g$ satisfies $$\sup_{x \in \mathbb{R}} |g(x)| \leq \sup_{x \in E} |f(x)|\;.$$