cinema history - How were zombies first depicted in film?

The silent film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari from 1920 is thought to be the first depiction of zombies in film. While it doesn't feature the walking dead. The story is about the fantasies of an insane man who has dreams of murdering people. His walk, body motion and make up are the bases of modern day zombies.

The first appearance of the popular North American version of zombies was in the 1932 film White Zombie.

The original zombie was more of a Frankenstein creation. A dead person brought back to life by intervention of either evil or science. Today's modern zombie are more born from the infection of a virus. Often the zombie was infected as a living person, and not directly brought back to life while in the grave.

Another thing that has change is the gap between death and zombie. The original zombie was often a long since dead cadaver re-animated, and today's zombie often come from the freshly dead.

The most significant change since they first appeared is the introduction of the zombie horde. The idea of zombies attacking in mass numbers was first introduced in the film Night of the Living Dead. This simple change had a dramatic impact on the effectiveness of scaring the audience. No longer were zombies just the fear of the dead coming back to life. It was the idea that a horde could swarm a house, town or city and eat everyone just by pure numbers.

So from re-animated Frankenstein zombie, to the living being turned into zombies and then the development of the zombie horde. That would be your progression in their history.

Movie about a guy who receives a mysterious list of all his girlfriends, past and future

I watched a movie a few years ago, and now can't remember the title.

The main character received a mysterious email at work containing a list of every woman he had, or would have sex with--past and future.

I can provide more details if necessary, but I'm sure this will be enough for anyone who's seen the movie (and remembers the title) to identify it.

Name of an old movie that ends with the main characters traveling "North, always North"

I'm pretty sure it's The Land That Time Forgot (1975). The movie has a WWI German U-Boat with the survivors of a sunken British ship which

happen across an uncharted sub-continent called Caprona, a fantastical
land of lush vegetation where dinosaurs still roam, co-existing with
primitive man.

I remember the scene with the U-Boat firing on the Styracosaurs (not Triceratops actually). Also from Wikipedia, the movie ends with

Bowen Tyler and Miss Lisa are stranded, and forced to move northwards.

grammar - Not only.... but also

Yes, there is something wrong with this sentence, and it does have to do with omitting the subject in the second clause. "But" is a coordinate conjunction which (like "and" and "or") connects phrases of the same type. It can connect two sentences, two verb phrases, or two of various other things. In your example, since the subject of the second clause is omitted, "but" must be connecting two verb phrases.

Now, coordinate constructions have a peculiar property, discovered and investigated by John Ross, which he called the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC). As McCawley phrases it, it requires both parts of a coordinate structure to be treated equally by any grammatical process. I think that is what has gone wrong in your example: the first verb phrase of the two that are connected with "but" is not treated the same way as the second one.

The "s" at the end of "likes" expresses the present tense of the verb, of course, and although in the second verb phrase, it appears at the end of the verb where it belongs, in the first verb phrase it is missing. The "s" present ending in the first verb phrase had to be moved to the left, because of the "not", and the auxiliary verb "do" was added to carry the tense.

The CSC does not allow this, because the "s" was moved away from the verb of the first verb phrase, but the same thing did not happen to the corresponding verb of the second verb phrase.

This was a difficult example, and I hope I got it right.

What did Sgt. Bilko & co. have against oats?

In one episode of The Phil Silvers Show (aka Sgt. Bilko), Bilko buys a racehorse and wants to get rich by sponsoring him at the races. Of course, they had to feed the horse, and a fair amount of the comedy of the episode was based on the premise that all the men thought that oats were disgusting and only fit for horse food.

Today that seems very strange; they're a well-loved staple in America and elsewhere. And that's hardly a new cultural phenomenon, since oats have been grown as food for both man and livestock for thousands of years.

So why, on a TV show from the 1950s, was the contemporary audience expected to find the characters' discomfort at having to eat oats funny?

Is there a word for some kind of incorrect empathy?

You might be looking for the term pseudo-empathy that is usually seen in narcissistic people :

The narcissist (especially high-level narcissists who are very successful in the world) is very adept at fake empathy or what can be called pseudo empathy. The socially gifted narcissist is an expert at convincing others that he/she cares deeply about them. "Pseudo empathy is exquisitely designed by the narcissist to manipulate others so they will fulfill his narcissistic needs."

---

Another perspective from the book "Empathy: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives"
edited by Amy Coplan, Peter Goldie:

Rationally and theoretically, most of us understand that most people are very different from us, and yet we make these mistakes a lot. We don't just fail to understand others' subjective experiences; we often assume that we do understand them; which leads to a new set of problems. I contend that self-oriented perspective-taking leads to a type of pseudo-empathy since people often mistakenly believe that it provides them with access to the other's point of view when it does not.

Most of us have had the experience of disclosing something to a friend, having her respond, 'I know just how you're feeling,' and then realizing within moments that she does not. It's not that she hasn't been perspective-taking; she has. But the perspective has been her own; only the circumstances are ours. Thus our friend's perspective-taking has focused on her, not on us. While this can be useful for many reasons, it does not yield empathy.

According to the same book, your example goes a bit more deeper than empathy and is associated with assumption of similarity and false consensus effect:

---

It is also mentioned that empathy and connivance is related to each other regarding to a psychoanalytic technique:

From the book "Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique: A Lacanian Approach for Practitioners" By Bruce Fink:

---

Connivance is the act of conniving or conspiring, especially with the knowledge of and active or passive consent to wrongdoing or a twist in truth, to make something appear as something that it is not.

grammar - Choice of tense to describe continuing status of an object

Part of your confusion here, I suspect, has to do with the fact that tickets are sometimes spoken of as things that get closed by people ("the ticket was closed" or "the ticket has been closed") and sometimes as things that close of their own accord ("The ticket has closed").

Ticket #123 opened on 01/01/2014 is closed on 02/02/2014

"narrative style|historical present". Two people are looking through data forensically, following the trail of information, and speaking of the past using the present tense, as if they were there, "reenacting" the events as they happen.

Ticket #123 opened on 01/01/2014 was closed on 02/02/2014

Simple past. A discrete action in the past.

Ticket #123 opened on 01/01/2014 has closed on 02/02/2014

Ungrammatical, IMO. It should be either
"was closed on 2/2/2014" OR "has (been) closed" (without the date).

Ticket #123 opened on 01/01/2014 has been closed on 02/02/2014

Ungrammatical. "on 02/02/2014" should not be present.

Ticket #123 opened on 01/01/2014 had closed on 02/02/2014

Makes sense only if the ticket was reopened.

Ticket #123 opened on 01/01/2014 had been closed on 02/02/2014

Makes sense only if the ticket had been reopened.

ADDENDUM:

Why is this statement ungrammatical?
Ticket #123 opened on 01/01/2014 has closed on 02/02/2014

The time-element in a present perfect statement (e.g. "has closed") must be indefinite, that is, it must be a form (implicit or explicit) that is analogous to either "recently" or "occasionally|on occasion".

Are you hungry?

CORRECT: --No, thanks, I've eaten (I have eaten).

INCORRECT: No, thanks, I've eaten this morning. (I ate this morning).

In the US, we have these shops where you can order coffee prepared in many different ways.

CORRECT: -- Do you think I'm from Mars? I know what a coffee-shop is! I've been to coffee shops before.

INCORRECT: I have been to a coffee shop on 02/02/2014.