I’m rewatching Thor, and I wondered if any reference is made in Ant-Man or another movie to the scientist that had all his stuff taken by SHIELD? This comment happens right after all Jane’s equipment is taken by  Coulson maybe 50 minutes into the first Thor movie.     SELVIG             No one knows much about them. But             I knew a scientist -- a pioneer in             gamma radiation. SHIELD showed up,             and he was never heard from again.   I was thinking it could have been Hank Pym, but I’m not that familiar with the timelines and when he started with SHIELD. Or like, how old Erik Selvig is supposed to be. It’s strange they never did anything with this, considering all the time ins between the movies, but maybe it was just a passing comment - or a plot line that never came together?
After S.H.I.E.L.D confiscates Jane's work in Thor, the researchers discuss what they'll do next.  Erik mentions two colleagues. The first is reasonably implied to be Bruce Banner, but who is the second colleague he mentions? Transcribed from the film:  Jane Who are these people? Erik I knew this scientist... a pioneer in gamma radiation. S.H.I.E.L.D showed up and... umm. He wasn't heard from again. Jane They're not going to do that to us. I'm going to get everything back. Erik mumbles Please. Let me contact one of my colleagues. He's had some dealings with these people before. I'll email him and maybe he can help. Darcy They took your laptop, too.
Propose Newbie-Overflow site or section Why is Tony Stark in the Iron Man suit unaffected by G-forces, inertia and blunt force trauma? Tony's suit is an engineering marvel, and they explain many facets of the technology to help give legitimacy to the special powers, abilities and weapons it has.  I never read the Iron Man comics, but in the movie they really don't have a technological explanation for how he miraculously seems to be unaffected by crushing G-forces of sudden acceleration, the inertia of sudden stops and hair-pin turns, and especially the blunt force trauma from getting smashed in the face with Thor's hammer.  Certainly it appears the suit takes punishment, but Tony always remains unscatched, never a collapsed lung, broken bone or even a bloody nose.  In my infantile understanding of theoretical physics, the same technology that would be used to counter G-forces and sudden blunt force trauma to the body inside would be the very same technology used for  which in my honest opinion would be a much more stunning technological achievement than his heralded Arc Reactor.  Was their ever an explanation proferred for this and if so was it indeed attributed to Anti-Gravity? How to drive multiple LEDs from a Li-ion battery (with varying voltage)? I want to supply constant voltage to my LED's but the supply varies from 3.7V to 4.2V (Li-ion battery). I cannot use 3.3V voltage regulator as it will need at least 4.3V voltage at the input but my battery can supply only 4.2V max. so is there any other way I can supply regulated 3.3V to my LED.   RGB LED = 3.3V, 60mA Battery = 3.7V - 4.2V, 3000mA Number of LEDs = 24 The LED's are connected in parallel What is this electronics symbol (four triangles?) Inserting a term into a custom taxonomy Labels disappear while zooming Suppose we have (some categories and some functors such that) $F_1$ is left adjoint to $G_1$, $G_1$ left adjoint to $F_2$, $F_2$ left adjoint to $G_2$. Will $F_1$ then be equal to $F_2$ (and $G_1$ to $G_2$)?  Or can there exist arbitrarily long 'chains' of adjoint functors that do not trivialize? What is the correct output of cat /etc/apt/sources.list? Which is correct: I'll be moving next month or I'll be shifting next month? For changing one's home from one place to another, I've heard people in western part of the world using the sentence:      I'll be moving next month.   In India, even in the English news channels, I've heard many people using the phrase:     I'll be shifting next month.   Which one is the correct usage? Or are both of them correct and the difference in usage is regional? Show that any monotone boolean function can be realize by the following connectives. How did the word "Bollywood" originate? As we know, American film industry is referred as Hollywood. The American film industry is called so because the film industry emerged at the place called (Correct me if I am wrong). The place adopted the name Hollywood which is informally known as Tinseltown.  But my question is not about Hollywood but the . This is widely referred as Bollywood.   From the  page of Bollywood:      Bollywood is the sobriquet for India's Hindi language film industry, based in the city of Mumbai, Maharashtra. It is more formally referred to as Hindi cinema. The term "Bollywood" is often used by non-Indians as a synecdoche to refer to the whole of Indian cinema; however, Bollywood proper is only a part of the larger Indian film industry, which includes other production centres producing films in many other Indian languages. There is no place in India called Bollywood like the Hollywood.    Many people prefer calling it as Hindi film industry and against naming film industries with wood. There are other film industries in India too in other languages. Eg: Telugu film industry is named as Tollywood, Tamil industry is named Kollywood etc.,   is the list of Hollywood inspired nicknames.  My question:   Who is the creator of the word Bollywood? Since when did the word become popular? I've heard that in the study of finite fields, and other concepts related to finite fields, mathematicians have found a sort of gap: there are various results and things that seem like they correspond to a field with one element, $\mathbf{F}_1$, even though there is no such field. Of course, there is an object which seems similar to a field with one element: the zero ring, $\mathbf{Z}_1$, defined as having one element, $0$, obeying the equations $$0 + 0 = 0 - 0 = 0 \cdot 0 = 1 = 0.$$ The zero ring seems to behave like a field in every respect, except for the fact that it fails to satisfy $0 \ne 1$. (But the importance of the axiom $0 \ne 1$ isn't clear to me.) However, in any case, there seems to be consensus that the zero ring is not the field with one element. People say that the zero ring &quot;does not behave like a finite field&quot; () or that it &quot;does not have the features that mathematicians need&quot; (). I'm not familiar enough with algebraic geometry to understand the properties that $\mathbf{F}_1$ is expected to have. Is there an elementary, undergraduate-level explanation of  why it seems like a field with one element &quot;ought to exist&quot; in the first place, what properties we expect it to have and why, and how the zero ring fails to satisfy these properties?  Or do I need to study algebraic geometry if I want to have an understanding of any of this? (A side question: do we have a good answer to the question of whether the single element of $\mathbf{F}_1$ ought to be $0$, $1$, both, or neither?) It's common in C++ to name member variables with some kind of prefix to denote the fact that they're member variables, rather than local variables or parameters. If you've come from an MFC background, you'll probably use m_foo. I've also seen myFoo occasionally.  C# (or possibly just .NET) seems to recommend using just an underscore, as in _foo. Is this allowed by the C++ standard? Elastic IP address on EC2 instance interface without 1:1 NAT How can I prove that $n^7 - n$ is divisible by $42$ for any integer $n$? I can see that this works for any integer $n$, but I can't figure out why this works, or why the number $42$ has this property. Is there a way to transfer thousand of small files faster on Windows 7? I noticed that if I transfer a few large files between two hard drives, it's pretty speedy, at around at least 30&nbsp;MB per second, but if I transfer thousands of files less than 5&nbsp;KB, it is pretty damn too slow.. around 1 to 2&nbsp;MB per second.   Is there a way to speed up the copy/paste process with thousands of small files on Windows 7? Recommendation for mobile prepaid SIM card for smartphone + home calls in Germany What SIM card would you recommend for a smartphone user for travel in Germany?  It would be probably the only or the most important connection to the Internet, so large amounts of data and relatively fast transfer is an issue.  I need to stay in touch with friends and family, so the calls to other EU countries should be as cheap as possible.   For to the first criteria, I found the T-Mobile offer interesting. The internet costs 10 Euros/month and after reaching the transfer limit it stays relatively fast. According to tests (Galileo from Pro7, AFAIR) it has also the best coverage. However, calls to other countries are very expensive.  For to second criteria, Lebara and Mobilka are interesting. The calls are very cheap, but there are problems with signal strength in many locations, where T-Mobile has no problem. The voice quality, at least in Lebara, is also limited. They both have mobile internet with unlimited transfer, but after reaching the high speed limit, the transfer is reduced to 64 kbps, which is too slow.  I've found out that O2 has foreign calls at moderate prices, but I haven't yet checked for details. There are so many other options, making it is hard to compare them all without spending the whole weekend on it. So, if someone has found a better option than having 2 SIM cards and constantly switching them, this answer would be greatly appreciated. Argument in "thebibliography" I was reading the explanation about  and was totally confused:     The thebibliography environment has an argument which should be a string at least the length of the widest entry label in the source list. Instead of using the numbers generated by the environment as entry labels, you can specify your own by using an optional argument to \bibitem, but remember to increase the length of the argument to the thebibliography command.    What does "widest entry label" mean? Practically, what should I put as the argument in   \begin{thebibliography}{?}   or is the argument not necessary? Execute a command once per line of piped input? I want to run a java command once for every match of ls | grep pattern -. In this case, I think I could do find pattern -exec java MyProg '{}' \; but I'm curious about the general case - is there an easy way to say "run a command once for every line of standard input"? (In fish or bash.) Make a momentary switch control a toggle What are the simplest, cheapest, smallest ways to make a momentary switch produce a 2-state toggling output (latching momentary switch)?  In other words, the output is continuously low, and when you momentarily press the button/tact switch, the output changes to continuously high, and then when you press it again, it switches back to low.