As a native American-English speaker, I can tell you 'spoilt' does not sound natural. '

Spoilt' would be better applied to food that has gone bad.

'Damaged' would be the better option of the two.

You might also refer to how the card was damaged, such as "You bent the card" or "You crumpled the card."

Although it's somewhat hyperbolic, the expression 'you've ruined it' comes to me in this situation.

Whilst the card will hardly be in ruin, someone annoyed about its being damaged may still simply complain that it was 'ruined', i.e. rendered in an unacceptable condition.

‘Spoilt’ does sound perfectly natural to me as a British speaker; damaged is obviously correct but, because it's so literal, sounds strange, given nothing is being conveyed that the addressee can't already work out.

Specifically for cards, you have "marked" it.

That's what makes it completely unplayable.

Marking a card means you can track it through the deck.

In British English 'spoilt' and 'spoiled' are equally correct past participles of the verb 'spoil'.

In American English, only 'spoiled' is usually considered correct.

Other verbs like this include 'burn':

burnt/burned (British) burned (American), and learn: learnt/learned (British),

learned (American).

I would prefer to use spoilt/spoiled since the card is no longer suitable for use in a card game, even though it is not completely destroyed.

Native Brit; to me the meaning of spoilt / spoiled in this context would mean the card were no longer usable in the game, for example if someone wrote the denomination on the back of the card for all to see.

I would expect that particular usage to be uncommon in comparison with something like ruined .

To damage or bend a card doesn't necessarily render it unusable.

The reason why the current accepted answer states that it doesn't sound natural to say a "spoilt card", is because the comment not quite correct.

You have damaged the single card - but spoilt the whole deck and the game.

The difference between them is that when goods are damaged, it's very rare in English culture to look at the components individually; but the functionality of the product as a whole.

The product is not a single card, but the whole deck...

Question: Two people were playing cards. So a person folded a card by mistake. So what sounds natural:   You have spoilt the card.  You have damaged the card.   Do both "spoilt" and "damaged" sound natural?

You've spoiled/damaged the card

'Damaged' would be the better option of the two. In British English 'spoilt' and 'spoiled' are equally correct past participles of the verb 'spoil' though  In American English, only 'spoiled' is usually considered correct. I would prefer to use spoilt/spoiled since the card is no longer suitable for use in a card game, even though it is not completely destroyed.

"Damaged" sounds more natural than "spoiled" but there are many other options including "burn" and "marked" which are more suitable.


Possibly one of "spray", "fizz", "surge", "foam", depending on how large/strong the flow of liquid, along with a preposition like "out", "from", or "over", depending on how you describe the movement of the liquid.

Why does a shaken soda fizz more than an unshaken one?

Does Tapping a Soda Can Prevent it from Foaming Over? when the shaken can is opened, there will be a surge of cola and foam out of the opening.

"Explode" is also used:

After shaking a soda bottle/can, what makes the soda explode out when you open it?

I suggest the word spew which is defined by Lexico as spew VERB 1 Expel large quantities of (something) rapidly and forcibly.

buses were spewing out black clouds of exhaust Edit: as commented, a better dictionary reference is the next item in the same definition.

1.1 Be poured or forced out in large quantities.

great screeds of paper spewed out of the computer

Your sentence could be The drink spewed out [of the can] after he shook the diet coke can and opened it.

Another possibility is erupt : From Merriam-Webster : 1a (1) : to burst from limits or restraint (2) of a tooth : to emerge through the gum b : to force out or release suddenly and often violently something (such as lava or steam) that is pent up c : to become active or violent especially suddenly : break forth war could erupt at any moment the audience erupted in applause 2 : to break out with or as if with a skin eruption erupt is most often used to describe volcanic eruptions, which I think is fitting because the sudden release of built-up pressure within a soda can is analogous to the sudden release of pressure during a volcanic eruption

I prefer the term burst.

The drink burst out of the can after he shook the diet coke can and opened it.

Burst - Merriam-Webster : to break open, apart, or into pieces usually from impact or from pressure from within

I believe the correct word is gush or gush out def: to flow or send out quickly and in large amounts: Oil gushed (out) from the hole in the tanker.

Blood was gushing from his nose.

Her arm gushed blood where the knife had gone in.

To me, the most natural way to say this would be

The drink spurted out of the can.

A close second would be

The drink sprayed from the can.

However, The drink exploded from the can would also be perfectly fine – and would in fact be the best choice if he shook the can really hard

and you want to emphasize that the drink came out very quickly and forcefully.

These aren't phrasal verbs, of course – but then, neither is "explode out of."

Question: What's the phrasal verb for carbonated drinks exploding out of the can after being shaken? "Exploded out" doesn't sound right, because it doesn't sound idiomatic. I also checked pop off, but it seems to be used for physical non-liquid things like the cork of a champagne bottle.  For example:   The drink ____ out of the can after he shook the diet coke can and opened it.

Phrasal verb for carbonated drinks exploding out of the can after being shaken?

Possibly one of "spray", "fizz", "surge", "foam", depending on how large/strong the flow of liquid, along with a preposition like "out", "from", or "over", depending on how you describe the movement of the liquid.   I believe the correct word is  gush  or  gush out  def: to flow or send out quickly and in large amounts:  Oil gushed (out) from the hole in the tanker. The drink spurted out of the can.

The possibilities are as follows: "spray", "surge", "foam", "sprayed from", "spewed out", "burst", "gush out" or "spurted out".


You parsed it in error.

It's not (not) felt (not)

a fury (not) that is not his own pound(not) through his body

The noun is not "pound" being modified by "fury".

It is "fury" being modified by "pound".

felt a fury that is not his own pound through his body "Pound" is what the fury is doing .

It's an action.

Note that two phrases are modifying "fury": "that is not his own" and "pound" .

If we simplify the sentence as much as possible by removing modifying phrases (except pound), we get

He saw a shadow and felt a fury pound.

Or simpler, He saw a shadow and felt a fury.

ell.stackexchange.com/users/99213/Harper - Reinstate Monica

The term "pound" in this instance means to pulsate or throb.

The sentence could have been written: "

He felt ...

fury ... throb through his body".

or "He felt ... fury ...

pulse through his body".

We often refer to blood "pounding" in a person's veins when a person is angry or fearful, because of the faster and harder heartbeat that is created by anger or fear.

The sentence above has an implied or sub-textual reference to a pounding heart or blood pounding through the veins of the person who is experiencing fury.

See definition of verb "to pound" .

"pound" is a verb form of "to pound" here.

It is the same construct as "I felt a bee sting me".

The core part means "He felt a fury pound through his body, a fury that was not his own".

I'd use "rush" instead of "pound" here maybe, because furies tend not to move in one's body in much of a pounding manner.

Pound = heartbeat

As in the hearts making a pounding from within.

The answer by Harper provides an excellent technical analysis.

For simplicity, the problem of comprehension can also be resolved by the minimal use of punctuation for clarification: "

He saw a large shadow and felt a fury that was not his own, pound through his body".

I have done work translating German technical documents into English.

As a result, I would not want to translate an English document into German.

Question: Harry had given a cry of pain; his scar had burned again as something flashed across his mind like a bright light on water. He saw a large shadow and felt a fury that was not  his own pound  through his body, violent and brief as an electric shock.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows   What does 'pound' mean in this context? I've looked it up in  free dictionary . But I don't know which definition fits.

Meaning of 'pound' in "felt a fury that was not his own pound through his body"

The term "pound" means to pulsate or throb. We often refer to blood "pounding" in a person's veins when a person is angry or fearful, because of the faster and harder heartbeat that is created by anger or fear.

"Pound" means when the blood pounds throughout the body and pulsates or throbs like a heartbeat.


It sounds much more correct to use "to", as saying "at", to me, sounds like you are "coming back" in terms of a "comeback", as though the door has insulted you, and now you're "going back at" it.

It's as though you are attacking the door in some way.

Also, I don't know what the context is, but I imagine that in the vast majority of cases you'd actually be wanting to say: I went right back to her door.

I think the correct phrase is: I came right back to her door.

In my interpretation, assuming the speaker intends to imply they are walking towards the door from another location, "I came back at her door" is incorrect.

"I came right back

" describes what action was taken. "at" or "to" defines the location at which the action took place. "her door." descibes the destination.

I would say "at"

implies the speaker was already at the door when they "came back" whereas "to" implies the target of the action of "coming back" as the speaker describes.

Consider the following:

I walked right back at her door.

I would say this implies the speaker is already at the door and then walked, whereas: I walked right back to her door.

I would say this implies the speaker is walking towards the door and did not necessarily begin there.

In conversational English (which is pretty lenient to errors like this and will provide better context) I think both could be used to say more or less the same thing, but the sentence with "to" makes more sense to me.

In writing at any level above conversational I would consider "at" to be an error assuming the writer intends to describe the speaker as walking towards the door.

I would use "at" in instances when you wanted to describe the speaker not moving relative the door, or observing the door, for example:

I stood at her door.

or I gazed at her door.

They are both correct but have different nuances:

I rang her doorbell

but she was not home

so I went to do some shopping.

Afterwards, I came right back to her door and tried the bell again.

compared to:

I was the duty firefighter when we were called out to her house.

On arriving, I looked through the window and could see her on the floor in the hallway.

I started to use the fire axe to break down the door

then there was an explosion which sent me backwards.

I came right back at her door , attacking it with the axe.

If you are going "to" the door then you are going to the location of the door but if you are going "at" the door then you are performing an action at the door.

One related thing that I don't see covered by the other answers: while "came right back at her door" means something quite strange, this doesn't mean that "at her door" is always wrong. "

to her door" emphasizes travel/motion/action, while "at her door" talks more about the door as a location or end state.

For example, you might write, Just an hour later

, I was right back at her door. to give the impression that your actions were beyond your control: you just couldn't help but go back.

You found yourself at her door without thinking about the act of going there.

Most often, you come to a door.

You don't come at a door.

Likewise, you come to a party.

You don't come at a party.

Well, I guess it depends on the party.

Another exception to this rule may be a bro.

You can come to a bro for help, or you can come at a bro to fight.

I guess what it boils down to is your intended action once you get to the door.

If your intentions are good, then you come to the door.

If your intentions could potentially cause conflict, especially against the door itself, then I suppose you could come at the door.

I hope that clears things up for you.

I came back to her door.

This means that I left, then at a later time returned to the location of the door.

I came back at her door.

This (could) mean that I was playing a game, was killed, and my respawn point was next to the door.

Both are grammatical.

The only difference I can fathom is that, if you're using the former, then your objective of going back is tethered with the door, and not her .

If it is spoken word as opposed to text; Coming right at the door of a female could be misinterperated as slang for directing your semen toward her vagina or buttock region at the point of sexual climax, depending on whether it was the front door (vagina) or back door (anus).

For example; "I'd like to smash her back door in" can mean

"I would like to have anal intercourse with her" .

The verbs 'to come' and 'to cum' are pronounced the same, however, 'to cum' means to ejaculate, hence the potential for confusion.

"At" also can mean "on the surface of", also it does not sound like one could use it in normal conversation.

Something like "my image on a door" may be a way to use it :

She had TVs everywhere.

She saw my image on the kitchen's TV and turned it off screaming.

I came right back at her door.

Question: What would be correct between these two lines (please explain) :   I came right back at her door.   Or   I came right back to her door.

"I came right back AT her door" or "I came right back TO her door"?

I think the correct phrase is:   I came right back to her door.

Both are correct but the meanings are different. The preferred expression in this context would be "I came right back to her door".


It's well worth watching

would be my preference From Lexico

A short train journey to the north, Blair Atholl and Atholl Castle are well worth a visit.

‘The book is well worth reading and you can make up your own minds.’

I find "very worth watching" to be acceptable English.

The intensifier "very" applies to the entire adjective expression "worth watching".

This is a link to an ngram comparison of the two expressions, "very much worth", and "very worth".

Ngram "very worth, very much worth" Examples of the use of the phrases in books are linked at the bottom of the page.

As usual, some of the examples don't fit, but many of the examples of "very worth X" are apt.

Not in this context (see other answers); but the phrase "very worth" can be used, albeit from old English, in a different context: Losing my fish took my very worth from me very here emphasises the completeness and importance of the worth that has been lost

Adjectives can be modified by adverbs.

The adjective "worth" can be modified by the adverb "very".

Its use as an adjective in "This presentation is very worth watching in its enterity.

" is recognized by definition 9.c.(b) in the Oxford English Dictionary: Sufficiently valuable or important to be treated or regarded in the way specified; deserving of the time or effort spent.

This is divided into three sections, depending on whether its complement is a) a noun or a pronoun, b) an infinitive, or c) a verbal noun or gerund.

c.

With verbal noun or gerund as complement.

"Watching" here is such a verbal noun.

Further, the verbal noun can be (a) preceded by a determiner, or (b) not.

(b)

With unmodified verbal noun or gerund, as worth trying .

My common casual usage if I were speaking extemporaneously would most likely be to use "really" for emphasis.

It's "really worth watching".

If I was suggesting it had particular value and wanted a more formal nuance

I would would say "well worth watching".

If I were writing E.G. email I would probably use "well".

I am a native American English speaker with a BA.

I would probably never say "very worth watching".

Don't ask me why.

In my social circle that would sound awkward.

Just my typical usage.

"Very much worth" is a good choice.

"Very worth" is technically good grammar, but nobody ever says it.

You could also use This presentation is very worthwhile watching in its entirety.

For me this is a much closer / smaller change, and reasonably natural usage.

Question: Is the expression "very worth" proper English, and if not, what are some alternatives?  Example:    This presentation is  very worth  watching in its entirety.

Is the expression "very worth" proper English, and if not, what are some alternatives?

It's  well   worth watching .    A short train journey to the north, Blair Atholl and Atholl Castle are  well worth  a visit.  he book is  well worth  reading and you can make up your own minds.’  It's "really worth watching". "Very worth" is  technically  good grammar, but nobody ever says it.

“Really worth" or "well worth" are far more appropriate alternatives.


We know very little about phasers -- they emit "nadion beams", but "nadions" are not known to modern science and little is told about them in the movies.

Yet, because light from phasers is seen in space, nadions are probably unstable and decay, producing light -- then one may speculate that the energy of the photons produced is proportional to nadion energy, and with this assumption the more blue the ray is the more energetic (faster?

more massive?

more excited?)

the nadions in the beam are.

What the impact of this fact to the destructive power of the beam is is an even more complex story.

I would say that Phasers, just like Lasers, have a variety of different reasons why the color can be different.

In general, a higher-powered laser would probably be blue, but not necessarily.

The color of a laser depends on the material that makes it up, and a bit on the shape of the laser-emitting-area of the device.

The reason why blue would usually denote higher energy is that higher wavelengths of light have more energy than lower wavelengths, given the same amount of photons.

I expect that phasers are somehow related technologically to lasers, and that a similar phenomenon exists.

Of course, not knowing specifically how phasers work, it's hard to say.

It may be that the phasers are intentionally colored a particular way for tactical reasons in the same way that soldiers wear particular uniforms to identify them as friend or foe, as well as to identify specialized soldiers from others.

Tracer rounds are often included in continuously firing weapons to help direct fire and monitor aim.

With this level of advanced technology, it seems like the ships of the Star Trek universe can color the beam however they like.

I don't recall any canonical mention on colour.

If you watch ENT's pilot, Broken Bow , the phaser is introduced and the characters do express some confusion over whether the phaser is on stun or kill.

One likely explanation

(but I admit this is speculation) would be the source material/reaction used to create the beam.

Neon signs, for example, have various colours because they use different noble gases.

It may have something to do with the resonance frequency of the phaser beam.

In

The Best of Both Worlds , Shelby orders Data to alter the frequency of the Enterprise phasers during their first battle with the Borg cube.

SHELBY:

Data, fluctuate phaser resonance frequencies.

Random settings.

Keep them changing.

Don't give them time to adapt.

When we see the result on-screen, the beam color does seem to fluctuate until they finally break free.

Also, from the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Technical Manual : When phasers are fired by a ship with deflector shields active, the beam is frequency locked to the second-order harmonics of the shield emissions.

This prevents the beam impacting on the shields and overloading them, or rebounding back at the firing ship.

This could explain why different space-faring races might have different color beams - it's reasonable to assume that each type of shield technology would operate on a different frequency range, so phasers (and possibly disruptors) would have to operate on a corresponding frequency to match.

Most likely, they are built using different technologies and parts.

For example, I'd imagine that they would use some kind of crystal lens to focus the energy, different crystal structures produce different visual properties.

This is not unlike light sabers in Star Wars... different parts.

I would like to comment on Mark's technological reasons above.

If you assume these things are highly engineered, the color is just energy being lost from the beam.

So it should be undesirable from a weapons effects standpoint.

So the visible beam is probably a deliberately engineered side effect, so that the user can see where he has shot.

It would be nice to have different colors so as to be able to discriminate between different sources (such as us versus them), or different classes of weapons users (lightly armed crewmen versus full-on military forces, etc.)

Question: On Star Trek when a Starfleet ship fires its phasers, the color of the effect is usually red/orange, but sometimes blue (in TOS). This is also generally true for the phaser sidearms (with green sometimes being the color for the stun setting in TOS).  I realize the color is most likely an aesthetic chosen by a visual effects designer, but what would a reasonable technological explanation be?  For example could the colors indicate temperature or power variations?

What would be a reasonable technological explanation for why phaser beams are different colors?

Phasers may be different cvolors due to resonance frequency, different noble gases or different technologies and parts used in their construction.

There is speculation as to why phaser beams are different colors. However, there is no canon reference to the reason for different color beams.

Phaser beams may be different colours for a number of reasons. It may be the frequency, the different materials used or the different technologies and parts.

There is no canon reference to phaser color.


Failure of a successful invention of a lightbulb would most likely result in a lack of hollow-state devices (called " vacuum tubes " in the US, and "valves" in UK).

MOS technology was discovered in the 1920s, however the inability to refine semiconductors to the required purity was why MOSFET devices were not invented for half a century.

"Tubes" are sometimes euphemistically called "glass FETs" as both vacuum tubes/vales and MOSFETs are voltage amplifiers.

In contrast, transistors are current amplifiers.

The technology needed to refine semiconductors to the purity required were offshoots of the technologies that had to be invented for the Manhattan Project.

So a world where there was no WW2, or no atom bomb project, would probably not develop the chemical refining processes needed to get the purity required for working semiconductors.

No transistors would exist in such a world.

And at a far more fundamental level, it was Maxwell who discovered the links between electricity and magnetism.

We humans live at temperatures where electricity and magnetism are readily convertible with each other: that electricity and magnetism are symmetrical and can be regarded as a single force called electromagnetism .

Without his equations, relating electricity and magnetism would have been far more trial and error rather than the engineering that it has become.

Too much colder, and one could not readily convert one to the other (generally, we call those areas "superconductivity").

And on a far more cynical level, based on how much technology had to be discovered, invented and developed for the Manhattan Project, the lack of crazy wild new technology shows that there are no UFOs at Area 51.

Not just crazy new things to put into the UFOs, but the tools and machinery required to make those devices would need entire new industries.

A look at the amount of effort that went into getting the titanium needed for SR-71s, as well as what tools had to be made to work with titanium is educational (most tools used for machine use are coated with cadmium - this causes extensive corrosion when used on titanium).

For an interesting history of technology, I recommend watching the series Connections .

First of all, this is not entirely true; steam was used to transport heat from some burning fuel to the engine, an was naturally replaced with engines with internal combustion -- this is a very natural and logic consequence of improving steam technology, so I think this step was almost inevitable.

On the other hand, we still depend on internal combustion (with cars as a most lurid example), nevertheless of electrification of most other machines.

The other (and in fact orthogonal) aspect of steampunk are the mechanic realizations of electronic stuff -- this is a it more probable if one assumes that for some reason electricity was not invented or rejected for some reason (religion?).

Although it is definitely not a stable alternative since (paradoxically) mechanical technology requires much more complex designs, huge precision in making parts (this is the reason why Babbage computer failed) and is just very slow.

I always got the impression that it happened because of a lack of progress.

Electricity in Steampunk tends to be treated as an oddity, not a tool.

Otherwise, it's treated as something cold and impersonal, whereas steam and mechanics are more "human".

It seems like the main reason electricity isn't used is because there are no transistors.

You can usually find more primitive things like switches, capacitors, and large (inefficient) generators, but good batteries and transistors always seem to be missing (an example would be Mortal Engines).

You also made a good point about physics.

In stories like Terminal World, the different "zones of technologies" make it a physical impossibility for electrical devices to exist in some places.

Just the absence of some rare elements used in semiconductors such as Gallium can be the reason behind the setback of the advent of solid state electronics.

For vacuum tubes, you would need another excuse, as any conductor can become an electrode with varying degrees of efficiency.

Perhaps Earth is experiencing a severe solar storm (yet unknown to people) that will last for a century or two, so any baby steps in electronics are bound to fail due to severe interference, and any attempts at developing electronic components are written off as chaotic, unstable and unpredictable as a result.

In Alastair Reynold's Terminal World, one of the theories about the "zones" is the "grid" on which matter is arranged changes from zones to zones, so that in some zones you cannot make certain connections or atomic placements needed for higher end biological/chemical/mechanical interactions.

While the book mostly talks about how stuff stops working, it seems like there's something about the physical organization of matter which would either prevent electricity from "flowing", or at least from correctly operating in circuits.

Only certain zones (such as "circuit city" region of Spear Point) can support electronics.

In a hypothetical alternate universe Electronics could have not arisen because it was seen as unclean or unholy.

A single Papal decree declaring the use of electricity to be the work of the devil would suffice.

Perhaps there is a deeper reason for this, maybe the catholic church is heavily invested in the coal industry which fuels the steam technology?

Or maybe they just think it's evil.

Also innovation comes from a need for innovation, if steam based solutions exist for problems that could be solved by electricity then the development of electricity would be stunted.

The only thing I can think of that can't be done with pure steam is generation of light, but you have gas lanterns for that.

You can even make a computer that operates on steam, arguably it would be a lot slower than the electronic ones we have today.

Question: I was thinking about the Steampunk genre the other day, particularly Gibson's Difference Engine, and basically thought to myself; Steampunk is what would happen to the world if we didn't have electronics. This got me to thinking: what would lead to a world without electronics? Lack of a certain discovery, compound, or law of physics?

Reasons why Electronics might not exist

At a fundamental level, imagine that Maxwell had not discovered the links between electricity and magnetism. Failure of a successful invention of a lightbulb would most likely result in a lack of hollow-state devices. A world where there was no WW2, or no atom bomb project, would probably not develop the chemical refining processes needed to achieve the purity required for working semiconductors. Consider a scenario whereby Electronics were decreed to be unclean or unholy. However, as innovation comes from a need for innovation, if steam-based solutions existed for problems that could be solved by electricity, then the development of electricity would have been stunted.

Various inventions lay the groundwork for the development of electronics. If they had not occurred, electronics would not have developed. However, there could be non-scientific reasons for hampering the development of something. For example, if the church is opposed to it or if the church has a vested interest in the status quo. On the other hand, innovation usually occurs when there is a need. Hence if a machine exists to do a job, innovation in that area is unlikely.

The lightbulb, work on chemical processes during WW2, Maxwell discovering the link between electricity and magnetism all led to the development of electronics.

The absence of some rare elements used in semiconductors would have hampered electronic development. Religion not accepting electricity or viewing it as evil could stop its development. Religious leader could be heavily invested in the coal industry and therefore had an incentive to promote coal use.

Innovation happens when there is a nedd. If technolgies exist for doing something, innovation is unlikely, so if a steam engine can do the job why develop something else.


I think this might be Killing Star by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebrowski.

After aliens destroy the Earth with relativistic bombs they explain to the last human that because all civilizations are potentially dangerous, and there's really nothing to lose by exterminating them before they get too strong, it was the logical choice.

Reminds me of The Screwfly Solution by James Tiptree, Jr - a short story in Warm Worlds and Otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwfly_Solution

Sounds a bit like "Protector" by Larry Niven.

In Stephen Baxter's Xeelee sequence, the Xeelee are fighting a dark energy enemy far superior beyond human comprehension and are simply annoyed that the humans keep pestering them with attacks in an attempt to bring"peace" to the universe by subjugating all other races.

The Xeelee are farsuperior to all other races including humans, and are forced by humans, whoinsist on attacking them while they are busy trying to save the universe fromthe dark energy photino birds, to simply and effortlessly wipe out the humanrace, though they save a small sample community of humans on an artificialworld with an artificial sun so they can continue to exist in a harmlessfashion; see Ring and Vacuum Diagrams by Stephen Baxter.

There's The Genocides by Thomas M. Disch.

Humanity isn't even noticed in that, or The Forge of God by Greg Bear, where we get annihilated just to be on the safe side.

Question: I don't remember the title/author of a Sci-Fi novel, where the author demonstrated that in case of an encounter with a more advanced alien life form, they would consider most convenient for them to exterminate the human race instead of every other alternative...

What Sci-Fi novel is about aliens who consider it simply convenient to exterminate the human race?

Suggestions include Killing Star by Charles Pellegrino and George Zebrowski; The Screwfly Solution by James Tiptree, Jr; Protector by Larry Niven; or The Genocides  by Thomas M. Disch.

Books where aliens consider it covenient to exterminate humans include Killing Star, The Screwfly Solution, Protector and The Genocides.


That's difficult to answer, because the SF-ness of a work is not an objective criterion.

There's the added difficulty that the Nobel prize is usually awarded to an author for the sum of his work, not to a specific work.

Taking having an entry on ISFDB as a criterion, here's a list (not exhaustive, I just tried names that I thought might be considered ISFDB material).

They tend not to be published as SF — though some came too early and are now considered classics, and some would probably be published as SF if they weren't from a non-habitually-SF writer.

Several are typically classified as magical realism — when supernatural elements are used in a story but play a background, decidedly metaphorical role.

Rudyard Kipling , Nobel 1907, well-known for stories involving talking animals (most famously The Jungle Book ), but these are generally considered children's literature.

Selma Lagerlöf , Nobel 1909, now mainly remembered for The Wonderful Adventures of Nils , a children's book involving a child transformed into a pixie, but that book may not have played a big part in her being awarded the prize.

William Faulkner , Nobel 1949, Pulitzer 1955 for A Fable and 1963 for The Reivers .

A

Fable is sometimes classified as speculative fiction.

Isaac Bashevis Singer , Nobel 1978, sometimes incorporated supernatural elements from Jewish folklore in his tales .

Gabriel Garcia Marquez , Nobel 1982, played on the passage of time in One Hundred Years of Solitude .

William Golding , Nobel 1983, wrote some stories with SF-nal elements, such as The Inheritors .

Günter Grass , Nobel 1999, occasionally used SF-nal elements in his novels, most famously The Tin Drum (whose protagonist decided to stop growing up at age three).

Doris Lessing , Nobel 2007, wrote a few stories that can be considered SF.

Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie , Booker 1981, uses an SF-nal element (telepathy).

The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood , Booker 2000, has a science-fiction story within the story, which turns out to be closely linked to the main story.

The Famished Road by Ben Okri , incorporates supernatural elements from Nigerian folklore.

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Michael Chabon , Pulitzer 2001, is technically not SF, but full of SF-nal elements.

The Road by Cormac McCarthy , Pulitzer 2007, is post-apocalyptic and thus firmly SF.

None of the authors in this list are generally considered SF writers, though Michael Chabon comes close.

The Road by Cormac McCarthy won the Pulitzer Prize a few years back.

The Nobel Prize for Literature is not awarded on the basis of a single novel but is given to an author for their contribution to the world of literature.

A quick scan of the list of Laureates suggests Doris Lessing who wrote the Canopus in Argos sequence which is most definitely Science Fiction.

The Booker prize list didn't suggest any Science Fiction although The Famished Road by Ben Okri has some fantastic elements (the Spirit World is perceived by the main character).

Harry Martinson was a Nobel laureate.

One of his best-known works is Aniara , about a starship.

Strictly speaking, Aniara isn't a novel, it's an epic poem.

But it's book-length, and it's science-fictional enough

that we carried it (along with many of the titles in Gilles' awesome list) at an SF bookstore I managed in the late 80s.

I'd say Marquez too.

Magical realism is basically just fantasy marketed towards readers who don't generally consider themselves people who "read fantasy".

Add Winston Churchill to the list -- Nobel Prize for literature, and he wrote some alternate history SF ("What

If Lee Had Not Won The Battle Of Gettysburg").

Hermann Hesse, Nobel 1946 for

The Glass Bead Game

aka Magister Ludi -- a work set about four centuries from now, centering on a game of intellect.

Among the people it has inspired are the architect Christopher Alexander, whose Pattern Language is arguably a form of the Game, and the "father" of genetic algorithms, John Holland.

Speculative fiction should be proud to claim it.

Question: The big 3 awards are the  Man Booker International Prize , the  Pulitzer Prize , the  Nobel Prize in Literature .  I can't recall any novel, classified as Science Fiction/Fantasy by author/general public, that has won any of these awards.  Are there any?

Has any Science Fiction/Fantasy novel won any of the big 3 literary awards?

"The Road" by Cormac McCarthy won the Pulitzer Prize a few years ago. Laureates include Doris Lessing, who wrote the  Canopus in Argos  sequence, which is most definitely Science Fiction.  Harry Martinson  was a Nobel laureate. Marquez is also a suggestion.

Major literary awards have been won by Cormac McCarthy, Harry Martinson, Doris Lessing and Marquez. All have written books that could be classed as science fiction.


There's a real-life basis for that:

mosquitos trapped in amber can remain intact for millions of years.

It is plausible for an insect with intact DNA to be thus recovered from up to the late Jurassic.

DNA in exposed bones decays too fast (a few million years at most) to be recovered from a dinosaur fossil.

In real life, there have been plausible but eventually disproven reports of dinosaur DNA findings .

Bones turned into fossils cease being bone; fossilization is the slow process of replacing biological matter with deposited minerals, but retaining the shape of the bones.

Few fossils actually have any biological proteins left, let alone the obnoxiously fragile DNA.

Critters preserved in amber, however, are protected in a closed organic polymer container, in an anaerobic state, and have little, if any, chemical replacement.

The mosquito's DNA is readily obtained; the meal, less so, as the insect's own digestive system contains chemicals which break down blood.

Even so, it's still often fragmented due to age.

Some DNA from blood in mosquitos has been sequenced, but I recall it not being able to be identified as to source.

I think the whole point is something like "quality rather than quantity".

As I understand it correctly the reason they are using DNA from mosquito is because it is in amber.

Therefore it is said that the DNA is well (fully) preserved.

On the other hand because a bone would be exposed to outside elements it should be fragmented.

I think the concept is that the insects trapped in amber are essentially unchanged as they are completely sealed off.

From what I've heard though, the DNA still deteriorates, and the oldest viable DNA that's ever been recovered is less than 100K years old.

So no hope for dinosaur DNA.

Fossils aren't bones.

They're rock, there's little if any DNA because a fossil of a bone has been virtually mineralized into a rock.

There's no DNA to obtain.

Even if a mosquito with dino blood in it's gut was preserved in amber, at geologic burial underground temps are ambient as much as 58 degrees Fahrenheit, not ideal preservation temps.

The DNA is at least 65 million years old, so given it's composition (DNA is made of sugar and phosphates)

it would biodegrade over time.

PLUS mosquitoes have nuceloese enzymes in their gut to break down blood for digestion.

Question: In Jurassic park, Dinosaurs are resurrected by DNA stored in mosquitoes, who had sucked dinosaur blood. Is there any particular reason why more DNA would be stored in a mosquito than in a bone or similar device?

Would more DNA be stored in mosquitoes than bones?

Mosquitos trapped in  amber  can remain intact for millions of years, as they are protected in a closed organic polymer container, in an anaerobic state, and have little chemical replacement. Therefore, it is plausible for an  insect  with intact DNA to be recovered from the late Jurassic period.  It is said that some DNA from blood in mosquitos has been sequenced, but the source of that blood was not identified. Conversely, DNA in exposed bones  decays too fast (a few million years at most) to be recovered from a dinosaur fossil.

There is a better chance of finding DNA in a mosquito trapped in amber than in bones. This is because the amber acts as a seal and preserves the DNA whereas DNA in exposed bones decays fast.

DNA trapped in amber is better preserved because the amber acts as a seal. Therefore the chances of finding DNA are qualitatively higher.


The short and easy answer: because those make for cheap, quick costumes.

The long and hard answer:

Jawas look like "gaunt, rodent-like creatures, with shrunken faces and yellow eyes".

And for the robes, those are used much like the ones from Dune, to hold in moisture, hide their identity and to dissipate their body heat.

The glowing eyes they seem to have is the result of polished orange gemstones that are sewn into the robes to protect the Jawas’ eyes from the bright sunlight (no mention about WHY they would evolve such delicate eyes in such a hostile environment).

The robes are also soaked in some liquid which smells awful (to us), but helps keep them hydrated, and helps them communicate (with smell).

Reference: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jawa

Why wear a hood, even indoors?

Why do you wear clothing over your groin, even when it's really hot?

Why do women cover their chests, even when they don't cover much else?

Why do Muslim women wear veils?

Why do orthodox Jews wear those little hats?

Clothing is not always functional.

It is also cultural, and in that regard, it ceases to require rational explanation.

Because in the original Star Wars movie the actors were children.

So they needed a costume to hide that fact.

Sometimes these props come about only due to the practical, real life problems the producers face.

According to Ralph McQuarrie, the intention was to keep their identity purposely mysterious.

Although he mocked up some "under the mask" concept art (and later books claimed that they were "rodent-like"), the reality is that the hoods were an artifice to hide their appearance from the camera .

The robes are cultural and practical (cultural as in tradition, practical as in their doused in chemicals that allow for scent to become a factor in communication, they keep in moisture allowing for cooling, and if a jawa steals something its pretty much impossible to tell which one).

No one's 100 percent sure what they look like, but from skeletal remains it seems they are rodent-like.

Also, they DON'T speak Ewok, they speak their own language called Jawaese (really, look it up) which Lucas based on sped up Zulu.

The reason for delicate eyes is likely they interrupted the evolution process, by wearing veils beneath their hoods with gemstones over the eyes, leading to no need for stronger eyes.

As for Tantooine's desert appearance, Tusken raider legends claim that the ancestors of the Tuskens and the Jawas insulted some great traveler or another, who then fried the planet with a death star-esque cannon which turned the surface of the planet into glass, which then shattered into sand.

Plus two interesting facts

Sandcrawlers were left behind by a mining company which failed to make a profit, and most were salvaged by the Jawas Jawas smell so bad that swarms of insects collect under their hoods, providing sources of food for a desperate Jawa.

Because they don't like people to see them.

They obviously love garbage so they probably just wear cloaks because they like random things.

They wear the cloaks to hide like camouflage as well.

They probably also wear the cloaks to categorize themselves as a whole race.

They're maybe kind of relative to the tuskens, because the fact their not revealing their self's is because of their influence to the tuskens tradition that is not removing their clothing in front of someone.

Because jawas like to dwell with each other (and with the droids)

they don't even will remove their hood or even robe.

Question: What are Jawas supposed to look like under their heavy clothes?

Why do Jawas always wear hoods? Even indoors. What do they look like?

Jawas are supposed to look like "gaunt, rodent-like creatures, with shrunken faces and yellow eyes".  The glowing eyes they seem to have is the result of polished orange gemstones that are sewn into the robes to protect the Jawas’ eyes from the bright sunlight. Their robes are also soaked in a liquid which smells awful, but which helps keep them hydrated, and helps them communicate (with smell).  The robes are also a camouflage and also a way to categorize themselves as a race.

The Jawas are gaunt and rodent-like. They wear robes that hide the wearer and keep their identity a mystery. The robes also serve to identify them as a race. They also serve a practical aspect by keeping the Jawas hydrated. From the perspective of the film, the robes were a cheap costume that hid the fact that the actors were children.

The robes were cheap and served to hide the fact that the actors were children.

Th Jawas are gaunt and rodent-like, with glowing eyes that are actually orange gem stones.

The robes serve a number of purposes: camouflage, they are practical and cultural, they hide the Jawas, they help them categorize themselves as a race and they keep their identity a mystery.


I do not recall any detailed description, but I would assume that it is a curved sword, simply because it is meant to be used as a slashing weapon by a mounted rider.

Think of the curved sabers used by cavalry for centuries.

What I do recall from the books is that arakhs are always described as very sharp.

Personally, I did not like the way arakhs looks in the series.

They look much more like ancient Egyptian sickle-swords than cavalry sabers.

And since the Dothraki did not plant crops, there is no reason for their swords to look like sickles.

I assume that the Dothraki were modeled after the Mongols and other Asian nomadic peoples, so I picture their weapons looking like this .

You're not alone in describing an arakh as half-sword and half-scythe.

The Wiki of Ice and Fire suggests reading chapter 11 of A Game of Thrones .

According to the Game of Thrones wiki , Jorah Mormont remarks that it is an effective weapon for a mounted warrior but poorly suited to infantry.

The GoT wiki shows a (poorly framed) picture from the TV adaptation.

George R. R. Martin has confirmed that in his mind (at least in the book versions) the Arakhs looked like scimitars:

This is an extract from a post on westeros.org by user " Valyrian Steel " (who are the official creators of Valyrian Steel merchandise ): Actually...

GRRM doesn't like HBO's arakhs.

I thought, and HBO thought (I suppose), and many people thought, that because of the kh consonant group and the descriptions, he modeled arakhs after khopeshes, which is not an invented type of sword.

HBO arakhs are basically khopeshes.

It seemed to me personally these shape of sword would do well from horseback.

I thought for sure

I had it pegged down,

all while reading I always pictured a khopesh.

I told as much to GRRM

and he corrected me, in his book version, arakhs are more like scimitars, though what you may think of as a scimitar is far less than what he explained.

Something more like this .

A very significant curve.

If we have our way we'll do both versions.

- http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Category/C91 From the text

, this is the main description we get about Arakhs: Dany looked away from the coupling, frightened when she realized what was happening, but a second warrior stepped forward, and a third, and soon there was no way to avert her eyes.

Then two men seized the same woman.

She heard a shout, saw a shove, and in the blink of an eye the arakhs were out, long razor-sharp blades, half sword and half scythe.

A dance of death began as the warriors circled and slashed, leaping toward each other, whirling the blades around their heads, shrieking insults at each clash.

No one made a move to interfere.

-A Song of Ice and Fire:

Book One - A Game of Thrones, Chapter Eleven ( Daenerys II ).

[emphasis mine]

Further reading: Discussion post on Westeros.org

Discussion involves Ran (Elio Garcia) as well as some industry professionals, including a representative of "Valyrian Steel".

I don't know what Martin had in his mind when he was writing the books, but the way these swords are depicted on the tv show is just wrong.

In the show they are basically really sharp HOOKs.

Not exactly something you would want as a weapon for horsemen.

Bone is tough, so even riding down an unarmored man and slashing at him with a hooked weapon like that, well, it would get HOOKED on him and either pull the arakh out of your hand or pull you off your horse.

There is a reason why cavalry sabers are swept back

, it's so the blade slices while you and your horse are moving forward.

That way they won't get lodged in bone and flesh.

Yes, there have been real hooked weapons like that used in the past, but they were infantry weapons.

The Dacian's falx was something like the arakhs in the show.

The foot soldiers would have the ability to hook around an opposing infantryman's shield, weapon, or legs and drag/slice him.

But it WASN'T a cavalry weapon.

Just my two cents on the matter.

I guess they wanted something unique for the show to impress gullible people; it's like how they sell all of those fantasy knives and swords at the headshop.

I always assumed they were very similar to scimitars: Wikipedia as these were used by horseback fighters, especially Middle East (which the Dothraki reminds me a bit...)

Question: I keep imagining it as one end scythe and the other end sword. Though, I couldn't imagine the practicality of using such a weapon. Are there any pictures or concept arts depicting what GRRM thought an Arakh should look like?

What does an arakh look like?

Arakhs are always described as very sharp, and are thought to be like the curved sabers used by cavalry for centuries.  George R. R. Martin confirmed that in his mind, the Arakhs looked like scimitars. However, many people imagine them as being half-sword and half-scythe.

Arakhs are curved swords. George Martin confirmed he thought of them like sciimitars. They are weapons to be used by cavalry.


At his reading of Wise Man's fear in Boston last winter, he answered that specific question by saying he really had neglected his wife and baby while he rushed to try and finish book 2 by it's deadline.

As a result, he said he will take his time to write book three.

He did not say any certain time frame.

Hope this helps!

As of February 2017 , the book remains stuck in development hell .

The author, unhappy with the final edited product has apparently taken the book back to the drawing board for extensive rewriting.

Q. Is there a publication date for book 3?

No:

PR:

I would share it if I had it.

Q.

How does he feel the writing is going on book 3 today (as opposed totwo years ago, when he jokingly rated it 3.5 stars out of 5 onGoodreads)?

PR:

It’s at best a star and a half because I dismantled a big piece of itand

haven’t quite put it back together.

Patrick Rothfuss Announces The Name of the Wind Tenth Anniversary Edition and Shares Updates on The Kingkiller Chronicle Book 3

The author has confirmed that the book will end the series, but that future works will be set in the same continuity

Q. Will book 3 will be the last in the series?

PR:

Yes and no.

Book 3 closes this arc of story.

Book 3 will not be the final book set in this world.

Big distinction there!

Q.

But will he wrap everything up?

PR: Think of any series that was wrapped up.

Think of The Lord of the Rings, which has a pretty solid ending:

Was everything wrapped upat the end of the third book of Lord of the Rings?

No.

That’s whathappens in any sort of realistic world, in any sort of realistic storywith realistic characters.

There was some good closure in that book,but what happened with Aragorn, and Minas Tirith, and now that he wasback?

[…] And what about Sam and his kids?

What really happened to theGrey Havens?

Did Frodo every bounce back from that?

What did Gandalftalk to Tom Bombadil about?

There’s a ton of unanswered questions—soyeah,

that’s actually the mark of a good story, and so I won’t beanswering everything, but the truth is, you don’t want me to.

Youmight think you want me to, but you don’t.

And even if you really do,I still won’t.

Just because it’s impossible.

Patrick Rothfuss Announces The Name of the Wind Tenth Anniversary Edition and Shares Updates on The Kingkiller Chronicle Book 3

Actually, he says in an interview which followed The Name of the Wind that he had both sequels already written and was planning to publish in a regular sequence.

In the interview he speaks of "one per year".

Given that The Wise Man's Fear was published almost 4 years after the first book though, it's anyone's guess how soon the final installment will hit the shelves (and how much editing

he is still planning to do).

I went to a book signing for the Wise Man's Fear, at Borderlands in San Francisco and this question came up.

The authoritative answer for this from Patrick Rothfuss himself was, and I quote, "One huNDRED years!"

He doesn't want to give a close deadline that can be missed, I would guess a couple of years though.

He states that he likes to take a lot of time to edit and that his fans understand that.

Given that, I do know that #2 won't be in paperback until next year, so maybe around then?

It would not surprise me if he times it out like that.

According to Goodreads, King Killer Volume

Three: The Doors of Stone will be released on 5/1/13.

Question: I read  The Name of the Wind  a few years ago and was grumpy to find out that the following two books had not been published. The second book has finally come out, and I want to know if anyone knows when the third book will be released.   The author's site claims that book 2 and 3 were written a while ago and just needed to go through some editing.

What's happened to 'The Doors of Stone'?

The authoritative answer for this from Patrick Rothfuss himself was, and I quote, "One hundred years!"  He has said that he likes to take a lot of time to edit and that his fans understand that. As of  February 2017 , the book was still in development.

Patrick Rothfuss says the next book will be out "in one hundred years" as he likes to take a lot of time to edit. However, in Febrauary 2017, the book was stuck in development hell.

He has stated that he likes to take a lot of time to edit and that his fans understand that.

In February 2017, the book was stuck in development hell.


A bit from JKR on the subject:

Hayleyhaha: Why did regulus have a change of heart J.K. Rowling:

He was not prepared for the reality of life as a Death Eater.

It was Voldemort’s attempted murder of Kreacher that really turned him.

As far as the death attempt, the Harry Potter Wiki talks about it.

In 1979, when Lord Voldemort told Regulus Black that he needed a house-elf, Regulus volunteered Kreacher, saying it would be an honour to serve the Dark Lord.

Voldemort took Kreacher to the Horcrux cave and forced him to drink the potion in the basin so that Voldemort could place Salazar Slytherin's Locket in the basin.

The potion, (the same one Dumbledore drank) caused Kreacher to have nightmarish delusions, intense stomach pains and made him dehydrated.

Voldemort then left, leaving Kreacher to drink from the lake (as any water conjured evapourates) and die at the hands of the Inferi.

However, Voldemort did not remember (or did not realize or thought that the cave's magic was too strong for anyone or anything to disapparate out of)

that house-elves have their own special type of magic and Kreacher was able to Disapparate from the cave as Regulus told him to come home when he finished his task.

From the books, the way Kreacher tells it, Regulus turns anti-Voldemort when Kreacher tells him the tale of what Voldemort did in the cave.

So that leaves us a combination of two black deeds that might have turned him: The knowledge that Voldemort made a Horcrux, which is very bad ass even for a Dark Wizard.

The knowledge that Voldemort was cruel to Kreacher.

According to Kreacher, he and Regulus were somewhat close.

I think it was mostly the first that horrified him and made him a turncoat, but the second can't exactly be ruled out.

(I wouldn't try to kill my PM because he killed my favourite pet, but I suppose some people might).

For many death eaters, the Dark Lord's persuit was a big hat that covers a wide range of causes: many did follow the same line as the Dark Lord's, ie subjugation of the Muggles; but some they simply wanted to live an open public life, free of the secrecy law, and all its trappings.

Regulus seemed fall in this latter category, as illustrated by JKR's writing in the book by Kreacher's telling of his young master.

He saw the Dark Lord simply as someone who could bring out this change.

Now he was a proud young man, proud of his heritage, not only his magic ability, but also his long-line Anglo-Norman aristocracy background (Motto: TOUJOURS PUR).

He was very close to Kreacher, a house-elf.

Serius might have only seen Kreacher as a servant, hellbent on hatred to Mudblood, but I suspect Regulus saw him as part of the family, a member of his magic world:

British Aristocracy's complex and somewhat paradoxical attitude of their family servants, lower social ranking, living downstairs, but still a family, and deemed family member's affection and protection.

With the Dark Lord's disposal of Kreacher like some ragdoll, I suspect Regulus saw through him, someone cruel not only to Muggles, but would inflict destruction to his fellow wizardry without hesitation.

At that point, Regulus had had enough, and decided to switch side.

I think maybe he just didn't realize what it really meant to be truly completely evil, as was required to be a death eater.

He maybe just didn't realize that the tales and rumors were actually 100 percent true, or worse.

And then he got to witness it firsthand, and decided it was enough.

He got disgusted by it, like when you watch happy tree friends.

YOU put on the video, but there comes a point when your like: Ew.

This is too disgusting.

I'm gonna turn this video off, throw up a little, and google pictures of puppys.

Regulus had just enough good in him to realize how big a mistake he made in joining the Death Eaters.

He saw Voldemort's capacity for evil and decided to fight against it, even if it meant sacrificing himself to the Inferi.

It looks to me like he and Sirius were more alike than perhaps either of them knew.

Question: Regulus Black was a Death Eater, but he was also the infamous R.A.B., who was the only person besides Dumbledore to discover the Horcrux's, and to hunt them down (Or at least, one of them). So, why did he have such a change of heart, to trying to kill Voldemort?

Why did Regulus Black change his mind?

It was Voldemort’s attempted murder of Kreacher that really  turned him.  With the Dark Lord's disposal of Kreacher, Regulus saw through him, someone cruel not only to Muggles, but who would inflict harm on his fellow wizards without hesitation.

S3: It was Voldemort’s attempted murder of Kreacher that turned him away from becoming a death eater.


Chances are they could see what changes would come about from Janeway altering the timeline, just as whatever his name was from the Year of Hell episodes could.

The Time Cops then probably weighed the good of the many (mainly the Federation) versus the good of the few (the Delta quadrant) and felt that everyone was better off with Voyager back in the Alpha quadrant 60 years early.

I would imagine that, in order for a temporal governing body to effectively function, a baseline timeline or epoch date would have to be established.

Timeline manipulation originating prior to the advent of the Temporal Integrity Commission would have to be considered part of the timeline, and therefore not subject to their laws.

Think of it as temporal ex post facto : timeline manipulation laws cannot be applied to violations that occurred (or originated) prior to the advent of such laws.

For example, according to Memory Alpha, timeship Relativity was from the 29th century.

Any timeline manipulation that occurred prior to the 29th century would have to be considered historical, and therefore not subject to Relativity 's timeline enforcement.

Since Janeway's actions took place during the 24th century, where time travel was not so common a thing that enforcement of laws was necessary, no actions were taken to stop her.

One of the trek books ( DTI: Watching the Clock ) answered this question.

It was a series about the timecops.

They said the galaxy with Janeway's time travel was the only one in which the Borg didn't take control of the whole galaxy.

I always had it in my head that Relativity only fixed timeline changes if the time traveller was from their time anyway, otherwise they can't detect it as it had already happened before the ship and temporal shields and whatnot were built.

Before they went back in time, there was probably an investigation, similar to what occurred in the frame story in Trials and Tribble-ations .

At that time, it could have been decided that corrective action was unwarranted.

Question: In the series finale " Endgame ", a future Admiral Janeway travels 26 years into her past to take the ship and crew through a Borg transwarp hub to the Alpha quadrant.  However, in " Relativity ", Captain Braxton and his timeship tried to prevent and correct any timeline interferences (so-called "temporal disruptions").  Why didn't they travel back in time to fix the paradoxes that Janeway created?

Why didn't the time cops try to stop Janeway when she traveled back in time to rescue Voyager?

They could probably see what changes would come about from Janeway altering the timeline, as was the case in the Year of Hell episodes. Also, in order for a temporal governing body to effectively function, a baseline timeline or epoch date would have to be established. At that time, it could have been decided that corrective action was unwarranted.

There is a lot of speculation of what could have been going on behind the scenes i.e the time cops could have seen what Janeways actions were going to bring forth and chose to not act or certain requirements needed to be met for them to to take action or to even know what was going to happen. Though it was stated that the galaxy with Janeway's time travel was the only galaxy where the borg's did not rule the whole galaxy.

The time cops decided not to act, because it was the only time fram where the Borg's  didn't take control of the whole universe.


There's no in-Universe answer.

The Borg Queen was simply there to be a temptress and, yes, to draw parallels to insects as you pointed out.

One speculative thought is this:

Whatever Species 0 (original Borg species) was, she was a member and was the driving force behind their creation of the Collective.

The bodies fashioned for her could then be patterned on her original form, and she could be the 'personality' of the Collective.

It's speculation, but it's the only explanation

I can think of

that fits the facts.

I think the writers were trying to strengthen the connection to the hive, bee-like elements of the Borg Collective.

In Star Trek: First Contact, it was revealed that Locutus was made to be both a connection to humanity, a species that the Borg were having trouble assimilating, AND be a companion to the Borg Queen.

The Queen having a gender makes sense because the Star Trek canon throughout the TNG run was not really able to deal with non-binary gender issues in a particularly thoughtful or open-minded way.

Being either male or female remained the 'default' throughout the universe at this time, so a 'female' Queen to a 'male' Locutus makes sense in the (pretty narrow-minded) universe they had been writing within.

While the real world answer may have been to draw parallels to insect hives, the in universe answer may be as simple as thats what gender the host body was.

As far as I know only two Borg leaders have been seen in Star Trek and while both of them were female that isn't really enough data to draw any solid conclusions off of, considering how long the collective had been around.

The queen was initially of species 125, then got assimilated into the Borg queen.

It's never explained why she became a queen and not a leader.

The only presumable thing is in nature if there is a large colony its 90% of the time led by a female and workers are male (bee's ants

etc)Although

the Borg aren't insects, that's my only reason.

Just wanted to point out that the queen wasn't the first Borg and she wasn't species

I'm not an expert on Star Trek even a little bit, but a comment to one of the other answers links to Species 125 from the Memory Alpha wiki, which says: In the Star Trek:

Legacy segment "The Origin of the Borg", it is stated that the collective found the females of certain species (likely referring to Species 125) displayed a mental prowess, enabling them to sift through thousands of thoughts and bring order to chaos.

Star Trek: Legacy was a video game, and I'm not sure where that falls in the Spectrum of Trek Canonicity, but this suggests an in-universe explanation: the trait which allowed the collective to have a queen at all had some connection to femaleness in its origin, and some aspect of that femaleness survived assimilation.

In Star Trek: Destiny - the trilogy by David Mack - we learn that the Borg stem from a race known as Caeliar and come from a botched test to save human and Caeliar lives.

We are not informed whether any of these develop to become the Borg Queen.

However, we also learn that there is another Borg Queen that lords over a certain division of Borg.

This leads to speculation that there could be multiple Borg Queens for each hypothetical hive.

Question: As I just  answered , Borg don't have sexual reproduction.  The Borg Queen seems to have replaceable bodies.  So why does she even  have  a gender (e.g. Borg Queen vs. Borg Leader)? She does have one - aside from the name; She keeps trying to turn males into her consorts (Locutus/Picard, then  Data ).  One possible guess is that show creators trying to parallel her to an insect queen. But this seems inconsistent - she should have been genderless.

Why does the Borg Queen have a gender?

The Borg Queen was there to be a temptress and to draw parallels to insects. Another thoery is that this refers to the gender of the host body.

Though there is no in-universe answer the Borg queen was dubbed a queen so that the viewers could draw parallels between the Borg and a Bee Hive.

There is speculation that she has a gender i.e is dubbed a queen, to draw parallels between the Borg and Bee coloneys.


From the Batman Wiki Before Detective Comics #48, Batman's adventures were said to happen in New York City.

Gotham is known to be architecturally modeled after New York City, but with exaggerated elements of the styles and derives its name from a sobriquet for that real world city, first popularized by the author Washington Irving in his satirical work Salmagundi (1807).

Because it is a work of fiction, it can be wherever it is convenient for the writers.

Maps shown in various comics have depicted the city in different places.

Many of the maps directly use Manhattan, Vancouver, and other real coastlines as their basis, while others are completely original.

One map showing Gotham City in relation to Metropolis, the home of Superman, published in New Adventures of Superboy #22 (October 1981), placed Gotham City and Metropolis on opposite sides of a large bay.

In Swamp Thing vol.

#53 (October 1986)

the geography of Rhode Island was the basis of another map of Gotham City.

The current definitive maps of Gotham City are those based on the ones produced for the "No Man's Land" story arc.

Lots of references place Gotham City as being in New Jersey.

This map gives the Gotham City and Metropolis positions from across a bay.

Ref: Karridian.net

This is somewhat consistent with this quote:

Gruenwald suggested that Gotham City is located somewhere in the state of New Jersey while Metropolis is located in close vicinity to Washington, D.C.

There are several other comics which place Gotham City in New Jersey, with references to proxity to the Jersey Shore and Hudson County.

Based on the "No Man's Land" I believe it is now generally accepted that the city is located south of New York City in the state of New Jersey, situated on the coast.

Batman vs Superman:

In the film, Gotham and Metropolis are separated by Gotham Harbor (similar to the No Man's Land map, and the New Adventures of Superboy #22 comic).

Although it is not specifically stated which state either reside in.

In Batman Secret Files #1, released on 31 October 2018, a precise set of coordinates are given for a location within Gotham City: In the real world, these coordinates

fall within Perth Amboy, New Jersey , across the Arthur Kill from the New York City borough of Staten Island.

We know that Gotham is in New England(presence of 1600s-era English settlers most recently seen in "Return of Bruce Wayne), and it is on the coast(seen all the time).

Other than that, it's location is deliberately ambiguous.

There was a DC Roleplaying game that published a map.

Check it out over on iFanboy .

In southern New Jersey, in Gotham County, based geographically on the Bristol Township.

Source: (scroll down to geography)

I think Gotham is somewhere near Liverpool, NY because in the set of issues Batman:The Return of Bruce Wayne, he is sent back in time by Darkseid and in one of them, one of his ancestors talks about Gotham near Liverpool.

Look up Liverpool, NY on google maps and you'll see it's next to a body of water where in the end of The Dark Knight Rises he brings the bomb and drops it in the bay.

Although, I may be wrong because in the movie, Bane blew up bridges on all sides of Gotham meaning it was an island.

Question: Has there ever been a definitive location cited for Gotham City in the DC Universe United States? I remember hearing somewhere that it is close to New York (the DCU has a New York), but how close?

Where is Gotham City located?

Gruenwald suggested that Gotham City is located somewhere in the state of New Jersey while Metropolis is located in close vicinity to Washington, D.C.

Since "Batman" is a work of fiction it makes sense that the exact location of Gotham City is not defined, however it has been popularly depicted as being located within New Jersey south of New York, though there areother maps that show different locations.

Gotham city has been depicted many times in different maps in New Jersey south of New York City.

There is no fixed location for Gotham Cty as it is a work of fiction and can be placed wherever is convenient.


They were initially all clones (of Jango Fett), but to them other clones and enlisted humans - soon considered largely inferior - were later added.

See more in the Wookieepedia article .

While the initial troopers were all clones of Jango Fett, after the installation of the Galactic Empire most of the men in the white armor were either enlisted or conscripted humans of normal birth.

This is evident by the varying heights, sizes, and voices of the Stormtroopers seen in the original trilogy.

In Allegiance , stormtrooper protagonists suggest that the Emperor conciously stops producing more clones, favoring regular humans.

I guess that while he would appreciate clones as useful tools, he would still consider them inferior to "pure" humans.

He is a hopeless racist, after all.

Also, he has no need of them anymore.

Jango Fett was a good template, but the main advantages of the clone army was short breeding and training cycles and absolute obedience.

Once the Empire is firmly in place, the Emperor can take all the time he needs to train and brainwash regular troops.

He has a vast pool of recruits, too, as opposed to when he was Chancellor.

Furthermore, I seem to remember that the clones did not fare too well when living longer.

They were made to fight hard and die quickly, not to serve for decades.

Given that Luke and Han could both wear stormtrooper uniforms, and they fit reasonably well

, I'd say that they can't all be clones by the time of episode IV -- there's about five inches of difference in their heights.

No, they are not all clones, if even some should be.

The sources that I know of are in the EU only, but there are several references in the books that points to both Han Solo and Kyle Katarn attending Imperial Academies for stormtrooper training.

The references are very "natural" with no mention of any clones, suggesting that such reqruitment/training facilities were quite common so that most (if not all) stormtroppers would be ordinary men who enlisted for various regions.

In the films, they are not all of same height and have different voices, suggesting again that they are not clones.

Clones were phased out of the Stormtrooper Corps shortly after the end of the Clone Wars, and were replaced with non-clone volunteers.

Out-of-universe, Pablo Hidalgo has confirmed that the stormtroopers are not clones as of the events in Star Wars Rebels (which occur 5 years before the events of Episode IV).

The explanation given is that the production of clones has been phased out, and since the clones age at twice the rate of normal humans they are too old to serve as stormtroopers.

They have been replaced with non-clone volunteers who are patriotic and loyal to the Empire.

Video evidence can be found on Youtube (starting at about 2:56 into the video) .

In-universe, the canon novel Tarkin confirms this fact since it includes an incident where a group of stormtroopers are seen by Moff Tarkin without their helmets.

The stormtroopers are led by a Kamino clone sergeant but all the other troopers are non-clone recruits.

Here is the relevant quote from p. 94

(the stormtroopers are loading Darth Vader's meditation chamber onto Tarkin's ship): When the stormtrooper operating the equipment accidentally allowed the flattened sphere to bang against the edge of the cargo hold’s retracted hatch, Vader stamped forward with his gloved hands clenched.

“I warned you to be careful!”

he shouted up at the trooper.

“My apologies, Lord Vader.

Wind shear from—”

“Excuses won’t suffice, Sergeant Crest,” Vader cut him off.

“Perhaps you are aging too quickly to remain on active duty.”

Tarkin couldn’t make sense of the remark until he realized that Crest’s was a face he had seen countless times during the war—the face of an original Kamino clone trooper.

The bare-headed others comprising Vader’s squad were human regulars who had enlisted after the war.

The novel takes place about 5 years after the end of the Clone Wars , so clone production evidently stopped at the end of the Clone Wars and within 5 years the clones were becoming too old to be useful as soldiers.

Hence, they were replaced by non-clone volunteers.

The answer is both yes and no.

By the time of the Galactic Empire there were still Clones as storm troopers, The age acceleration made them age twice the rate as a normal human.

Most of the clones died off.

The Emperor thought that clones of one genetic template were too easy to manipulate (hence why they in scripted Order 66 in the genes of the original clones.)

They enlisted many non clone Humans in the Imperial Army.

They also made different clones from hundreds of genetic templates.

Many years later they would enlist non human troops but in very few numbers.

This is strictly from the EU, but in Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire series there was a mention that the clones were unstable; for example Joruus C'Boath was a clone of a dark Jedi that was protecting the Emperor's museum compound that housed the Spaarti cloning machines, and he was utterly mad.

After the Clone Wars the Empire moved to regular recruits to supplant and replace the clone army.

By the events of the original trilogy most of the Stormtrooper army consisted of regular human recruits.

Now in the Heir to the Empire series

Grand Admiral Thrawn discovers that using force resistant slugs, called Ysalimari, kept the clones from going insane when grown quickly in the Spaarti tubes.

So during Thrawn's reign there were once again clone troopers in the stormtrooper ranks.

But the destruction of the cloning facilities at the end of the Heir to the Empire trilogy meant the production of clones ceased.

Question: During the prequel trilogy, we learn that the predecessor to the Imperial stormtroopers are all clones. Are the stormtroopers of the original trilogy still clones? If not, where do they come from?

Are Imperial stormtroopers all clones?

They were initially all clones (of Jango Fett), but other clones and enlisted humans were later added, especially after the Clone Wars. It is said that the Emperor later favored humans.

During the Clone Wars all of the storm troopers were clones, however after the events of the clone wars the Emperor decided to stop the production of clones and allow nowmal humans to enter the storm troopers meaning that there was a mix of clones and humans in the storm troopers.


At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films.

Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed.

I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons

but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

As you can see from the original prop, the ITO interrogator droid 's syringe in ANH says "British Made - 200°C"

In the original A New Hope when Luke scans the desert with his binoculars the numbers are Arabic numbers.

Later when the film was re-released the numbers were changed to be numeric symbols in galactic basic.

In the second exchange between Luke and R2-D2

the text is longer, unfortunately the only source I have is the one on YouTube at 360p resolution.

The first letter on the third main line looks like an "A", unfortunately it is very hard to tell.

I think it would be likely that it was English, but since it was already unreadable there was no reason to change it.

(I see no difference between the original 1997 first dialogue of text and your example).

There is a tiny segment in that occurs across all the Stars Wars episodes.

Pretty insignificant

so I am sure that is why the OP and other answers have missed it.

The Opening Crawl has some written English in it.

Episodes 2 and 3 of

The Mandalorian show a similar heads up display as Luke's original with Arabic numerals: (image screenshot from Episode 3 "The Mandalorian")

Arabic numerals in The Force Awakens When General Hux and Captain Phasma discuss Finn 's desertion in The Force Awakens , they examine his service record.

Their screen shows Finn's stormtrooper identification number (his only official name) using the Aurebesh alphabet equivalents for "F" and "N" and the Arabic numerals "2187":

Question: In  Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs):   I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the  Star Wars  films we see written English instead?  (This sort of spun off from a discussion in  How do people understand astromech droids? .)

Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

At one point there was some English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films.  On the original prop, the  ITO interrogator droid 's syringe in ANH says "British Made - 200°C".

There are a few instances of English being within the Star Wars universe such as; when the  ITO interrogator droid 's syringe in ANH says "British Made - 200°C" .


Cross-referenced from that initial link is 1 Samuel 6:19 .

But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the LORD.

See also 1 Samuel 6:19 in the King James Bible .

And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had

looked into the ark of the LORD,

even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

Those versions are pretty much in agreement, though the number jumped from 70 to over 50 thousand.

It wasn't so much the Ark he wasn't looking at, but the everything.

The Ark, the angels, and the whole thing.

I remember seeing a special on TV, a "Making of" type show, and they had a shot of Spielberg working with Harrison Ford and Karen Allen and he said something to the effect of, "

And, according to the Gospel of Lucas, Indy and Marion are spared because of their goodness."

I thought that was interesting because his comment, as the director, indicated that in his mind it wasn't so much whether they looked at the Ark and angels (were they ark-angels?), but that the angels actually distinguished between good people and bad people.

This is a common idea in Judaism.

To paraphrase: It is impossible for a human to behold God, because He is too mind-boggling for a mortal to comprehend.

If you see God, you die.

This is what my Hebrew instructor taught me.

According to RaiderNet , this was addressed in a deleted scene.

In short, Indy was given specific advice by Amir (the Imam) not to touch the Ark or look at the Ark if it's opened.

The actual scene remains lost to history, but we can get some sense of the missing dialogue from the official novelisation

Indy started to laugh.

“Then Belloq’s staff is twelve inches too long!

They’re digging in the wrong spot!”

Sallah laughed too.

The men hugged one another as Imam watched them, unsmiling.

The old man said, “I do not understand who Belloq is.

I can only tell you that the warning about the Ark is a serious one.

I can also tell you that it is written … those who would open the Ark and release its force will die if they look upon it.

If they bring themselves face to face with it.

I would heed these warnings, my friends.”

It should have been a solemn moment, but Indy was suddenly too elated at the realization of the Frenchman’s error to absorb the old man’s words.

A triumph!

he thought.

Wonderful.

He wished he could see the look on Belloq’s face when he couldn’t find the Well of the Souls.

He tossed a date in the air, opening his mouth.

In the bible-it is discussed that the Ark was very special.

Indy had read the bible

so he knows that the Ark was not be looked upon, or touched.

While the Ark was being carried across a river, the handlers started to drop it.

A high priest grabbed the ark to steady it, and was immediately "struck down".

There are also passages that talk about the temple being built, and that the Ark would be in the "most holy", only a few high-priests were allowed to view the sacred artifact.

In the movie, you'll notice Indy avoids contact with the Ark when possible.

He knew something was going to happen at the end, though probably not sure of what was to come.

Question: My grasp of Scripture is poor, but the only thing I can recall in the Bible along these lines is  Uzzah being struck down because he TOUCHED the Ark . How did Indy know that they should close their eyes and escape being fried by the Ark?

How did Indy know to not look at the Ark?

Indy must have been familiar with the mention in the bible, where is discussed that the Ark was very special. This passage is in 1 Samuel 6:19  in the King James Bible.

It is believed that indy cross referenced the ark with the bible and knew not to look at it, however it is also believed that there was a deleted scene in the movie where Amir told Indy not to look at the ark if it opened.

It is believed that indy cross referenced the ark with the bible.

There is a deleted scene where indy is given specific advice by Amir to not look at the ark if it opened.


There are no universities, but there is some evidence of "Trade Schools", for lack a better term.

The most mentioned of these is the extensive training that Aurors undergo in order to become Aurors.

The training to become an Auror lasts for 3 years after normal education is complete.

I believe it is reasonable to assume there are other specialty programs like that in existence.

No there are no Wizarding universities or post-Hogwarts (or Durmstrang, Beauxbatons, Salem Institute, etc) higher eduction.

SOURCE: Harry Potter Lexicon

Percy goes straight from school (NEWTs - good grades) to working at the Ministry.

This suggests some sort of apprenticeship situation.

His title in book 5 is 'Junior Assistant to the Minister' which he hopes will impress his father - instead his dad says Fudge is probably trying to use him to spy on the family (which is probably true), and this enrages Percy.

Fred and George are mentioned as having mostly good grades 'even though they mess around a lot'

(this is a line in book one, towards the beginning - ron is talking to harry), and they stay in school long enough to do OWLs but not NEWTs.

At 17 they open a joke shop.

Presumably, they did not need an apprenticeship situation, because they are already fairly well-educated and can learn more from working in the shop than from continuing education.

It seems to me that some form of apprenticeship would be the norm, however.

Tonks is mentioned as being mentored by Mad Eye Moody, at the Ministry.

Rowling doesn't mention any formal Wizarding higher education, which I've always found strange.

But then again these are novels directed at children and centre their coming-of-age from adolescence into early adulthood, so indicating a realistically developed adult society up ahead might detract from their appeal.

(After all, that's Muggle business.)

Hogwarts is clearly based on the UK education system: O.W.L.s are equivalent to GCSEs and N.E.W.T.s are A-Levels, not university degrees.

However, schoolteachers have the title of 'Professor' which gives them the status of real-world academic professionals with advanced degrees...whether they've earned it or not!

("Professor" Lockhart?

Really?)

This makes Hogwarts appear extra special and prestigious to readers, especially as it's one of only three named schools for magic in Europe.

It seems like after school, people can go on to apprenticeship training contracts if they have the right N.E.W.T.s, like what you have to do to become an Auror / Healer / work in particular departments at the Ministry / hang out with dragons in Romania etc.

These are all very practical and hands-on career options.

It makes me wonder what the more cerebral and artistic types do.

It's noticeable that the kids in the novels get married and have children of their own at a really young age after leaving school - considering how long Wizard lifespans are (unless murdered by Voldemort)

it strikes me as odd that they're considered fully grown-up by 18.

(Do they get divorced?

Have casual relationships?

Affairs?

Surely not everyone who survives Voldemort lives monogamously ever after.)

But I suppose it's war, and their society is in crisis and struggling to move beyond its outdated institutions - this is what sets up the plot.

Some of the adult characters are shown to have made huge mistakes when in their late teens and early twenties (e.g. Dumbledore, Snape, the Marauders).

Perhaps a university education could've delayed their terrible decisions and kept them out of trouble for a bit longer :)

It does make me wonder though, just how small or large the Wizarding world really is, and what do the intellectual ones do?

A world without higher education seems limited.

Clearly there are lots of books, but no formal higher academic institutions, and only a handful of magical schools.

Severus Snape in the novels strikes me as a researcher with extensive knowledge.

He doesn't accept less than 'Outstanding' for entry into his N.E.W.T. classes, is clearly an intellectual (very articulate, loner, sneers at 'dunderheads', values subtlety), has a passion for Potions as well as the Dark Arts, and he develops his own spells while still in school.

By his 30s he could probably write a book or two on magic if he chose - and so could Dumbledore (perhaps he did?)

and McGonagall.

I wonder if these Hogwarts experts could have done more for magical education than teach 11-18 year olds, if they weren't also so busy trying to save their society from Voldemort and his 'pureblood' ideology.

There seems to be apprenticeships and outside study mentioned for many.

In The Philosophers Stone it mentions Dumbledore worked on Alchemy with Nicholas Flamel, presumably before joining Hogwarts.

Hagrid was apprenticed to the previous gamekeeper.

There are mentions of trainee healers in The Order of The Phoenix .

There are certainly gaps in the storylines of the middle aged parents and their education, presumably because the wizarding world was at war in their early 20s and 30s and many families went into hiding.

As in real history it’s not unusual for formal education to take a backseat in times of war or turmoil.

Many people however dont seem to work.

Purebloods seem to just be living off thier inheritances, Sirius, James and Lily Potter, Molly and sadly most of the other mother characters are never mentioned as having a profession.

It ties back to questions about schooling before age 10, do wizard children go to Muggle primary school or are parents busy homeschooling?

They come to Hogwarts at 11 knowing how to read, write, count etc.

Question: Or is it just 'further education' i.e. Hogwarts, Durmstrung, Beaux-batons? Are there wizarding universities?

Does higher education exist in Harry Potter?

In  The Philosophers Stone, Dumbledore  is said to have worked on Alchemy with Nicholas Flamel, presumably before joining Hogwarts. There are trainee healers in The Order of The Phoenix and apprenticeships and outside study are mentioned for many.

There are no universities though there is evidence of insititutes that can be considered as similar to trade schools. Aside from this, many wizards become apprentices under a more knowledgeable wizzard in their field i.e. Hagrid becoming the apprentice of the previous Games Keeper.

There are a lot of mentions towards apprentice ships and references to go with it i.e. Dumbledore working on alchemy with Nicholas Flamel, Hagrid was apprenticed by the previous gamekeeper etc.

There are no wizarding universities though there is evidence of "Trade Schools" for lack of a better term.


First, Vader didn't even know he had a son, so there was no reason for him to even look.

Second, Anakin couldn't wait to get off Tatooine, and there was no reason for him to return.

While it was a time with his Mother, it was also where she died and a place where he was a slave, with someone telling him what to do all the time, which is not something a Sith Lord will want to remember.

So Tatooine is probably

the one planet Vader would never want to return to.

Third, Obi-Wan was close to Anakin and good friends with him, so he likely wanted to let Anakin's name pass on to another generation.

Fourth, he's staying with his aunt and uncle.

While they don't have the Skywalker name, as relatives (it's never given exactly how close, since uncle and aunt are sometimes vague terms), it wouldn't be too out of place for them to be raising a Skywalker child.

Fifth, sometimes the best place to hide something is in plain sight.

It clearly worked, since Vader was not aware of him until after Luke blew up the Deathstar and Vader became obsessed with finding "Young Skywalker."

This answer is pretty much conjecture, and dips out of G-Canon, but: The Emperor had the power to foretell the future (although, whether entirely accurately or not is up for debate).

The Sith have a tradition where, either the apprentice kills the master and takes on a new apprentice, or the master engineers the failure and death of the apprentice and replaces them.

It is entirely possible that the Emperor did know about the Skywalker children, but kept them a secret from Vader as some long-term gambit to force a Sith succession (which the scenes in the Death Star Throne Room can be interpreted as).

In fact, this worked very well, as Luke remained hidden from Vader and the Emperor until his protector decided to reveal him.

Even after that, It took time for them to realize Luke's lineage.

As I explain here , they where not searching for him because they thought Amidala died before giving birth.

Even after the first death star's destruction, the emperor didn't realize Luke was Anakin's son before he started his training with Yoda.

According to Leland Chee in Star Wars Insider Issue 115, it was Owen and Beru's decision to keep his last name in order to honor Shmi Skywalker.

He suggests that either Skywalker was a fairly common name, or that no one made the connection between the Luke and Anakin.

At best I'd say this is a plot hole and any attempts to explain it are just good tries at ret-conning what we know about how the OT turns out (i.e. Luke and Kenobi were never found) into the story.

Worse, the blame seems to be placed squarely on the prequels.

Luke's dad is discussed in the OT--and they may mention his first name--but I'm pretty sure Anakin Skywalker made its debut in the prequels.

Meaning Skywalker could have been Luke's ingognito name until Lucas ruined it.

(Vader says Skywalker, but only after he knows Luke's real parentage, so any name he went by would have been said with gravity.)

Same with Tatooine.

We don't know Anakin is from there until TPM.

Lars and Veru could have been moved there in hiding and ANH the first time we ever hear about it.

Lastly, even Obi-Wan could have been explained by a better plot for the prequels.

Obviously Vader knows him by that name, based on their chat before the duel on the Death Star, but if RoTS would have ended with Vader thinking Obi-Wan was dead, then him going by Old Ben on some random planet on the Rim would have been plenty low key.

From what I have heard originally while the original movie was filmed it was not Lucas' intent to have Darth Vader be Anakin Skywalker so that explains why Luke would have gone by his true last name...

It was a perfect ruse if you think about it.

As the accepted answer already mentioned the bad memories meant that vader would not go voluntarily to tatooine and if he did he would not stay for long.

And with so many planets in the galaxy a similar name would not be that much out of order.

Now in the new canon (the comics)

Vader even had met luke personally fighting the young yedi after the death stars destruction and cleaning the floor with him.

He still was intrigued enough by him to send a bounty hunter after him.

And only when the puzzle parts fell into place......ben kenobi training luke, giving him anakins old light saber AND luke being from Tatooine and a jedi AND having the Skywalker name.....

only then vader understood the ruse that happened and that he had a son.

Thus hiding luke right in the open was the most sure way for people to overlook him (especially as nobody had searched for him or was aware that he was force sensitive).

Seems no one thought of perhaps the obvious possibility, that Skywalker may not be so unique of a name?

We are talking about a populations the size of a galaxy after all.

To add to the best answer above, Skywalker may very well have been a slave name or a bastard name on Tatooine or even in that part of the Galaxy.

I personally like this because it concludes that twice a Skywalker (slave/bastard) goes on to become the most powerful individual in the Galaxy.

For me the only plot hole is that Vader never once noticed in 20 years that his "family" Mr. and Mrs. Lars were raising a Skywalker.

Question: Obi-Wan and Yoda didn't really make a good effort at hiding him, especially considering they let Vader's family adopt him.

If Obi-Wan and Yoda were trying to keep Luke safe from Vader, why would they let him keep the Skywalker name?

Vader didn't even know he had a son, so there was no reason for him to even look for Luke.  Also, Anakin couldn't wait to leave Tatooine, and there was no reason for him to return.  Obi-Wan was close to Anakin, so he probably wanted to let Anakin's name pass on to another generation.

There are a few fan based specualtions as to why Yoda and Obi-Wan didn't change Luke's name such as; Vader was unaware he had a son, they wanted to honour Aanikins name etc. Real world information states that Aanikin was not originally intended to be vader and in Issue 115, it was Owen and Beru's decision to keep his last name in order to honor Shmi Skywalker.

Vader had no reason to return to tatooine and he also had no idea he had a son. Finally Obi-Wan was close to Anakin and likely wanted to let his name pass on to the next generation.

There are external sources that give off two difinitive reasons. 1. According to Leland Chee in  Star Wars Insider  Issue 115, it was Owen and Beru's decision to keep his last name in order to honor Shmi Skywalker and 2. while the original movie was filmed it was not Lucas' intent to have Darth Vader be Anakin Skywalker so that explains why Luke would have gone by his true last name.