question about time(lines) in SPN
Oct. 17th, 2011 02:25 amThis is pretty much a loaded question anyway, but. Okay. (Oh! Do y'all see my absolutely GORGEOUS new icon?
cha made it -- SAM'S SIDEBURNS FTW \o/ *eyes
mollyamory and
britomart_is *koff*)
Anyway. So. Dean spent four of (our) months in Hell, which translated down there to 40 years. John spent a year, about, so about 120 years.
And then there's Sam. I've seen varying opinions here and there in people's journals; I've seen some say six months and others say a year. But--we were roughly halfway through the season when Sam got his soul back... and he told Dean at the beginning of that season that he'd been back "about a year". To me that sounds like about 18 months, so, 180 years, right? Because he was still soulless for all the time from 6.01 up through 6.11, and they did the magic fast-forward thing for us.
Anyone? Concur, disagree, anything?
I still have database admin homework to do, so someone come entertain me :)
And finally, is he not the most gorgeous man ever? Seriously.

Anyway. So. Dean spent four of (our) months in Hell, which translated down there to 40 years. John spent a year, about, so about 120 years.
And then there's Sam. I've seen varying opinions here and there in people's journals; I've seen some say six months and others say a year. But--we were roughly halfway through the season when Sam got his soul back... and he told Dean at the beginning of that season that he'd been back "about a year". To me that sounds like about 18 months, so, 180 years, right? Because he was still soulless for all the time from 6.01 up through 6.11, and they did the magic fast-forward thing for us.
Anyone? Concur, disagree, anything?
I still have database admin homework to do, so someone come entertain me :)
And finally, is he not the most gorgeous man ever? Seriously.

no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 08:32 am (UTC)Ugh.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 08:32 am (UTC)You can do it, bb! Please not to make your brain explode, that would be sad for all concerned.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 08:36 am (UTC)Should we then make a Zip Code relation and normalize the City and State out of all our addresses? Or would that be considered overdesign? The question can be answered by going back to the anomalies, because removal of the insert, update, and delete anomalies is the entire reason we normalize data in the first place:
(Not helped by the fact that every time I see 'anomalies', I think "ooh, Dark Angel ref!" *headdesk*)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 08:38 am (UTC)I'm a medievalist, I cannot be expected to deal with this shit. What is brain? You poor thing.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 08:46 am (UTC)Here, have a little more. The better to scramble everyone's brains!
In this example, we must concatenate the Customer and Product Line attributes to form a primary key. However, because a given support specialist only supports one product line, it is also true that the Support Specialist attribute determines the Product Line attribute. If we had chosen a surrogate primary key instead of combining Customer and Product Line for the primary key, the third normal form violation—a non-key attribute determining another non-key attribute (Support Specialist determining Product Line in this case)—would be obvious. However, we masked the normalization error by making Product Line part of the primary key. This is why BCNF is considered a stronger version of third normal form.
Medievalist, huh? Literature? History? A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... I was a history major. I enjoyed the Middle Ages -- but remember having to very patiently explain to my husband why I, who is an agnostic on the best of days, was taking Intro to the Old Testament and History of Christianity, because in order to understand what made the Middles Ages tick you had to have a good grasp on the religious stuff. (I love your icon, btw -- it's gorgeous!)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 08:49 am (UTC)I'm doing a PhD technically between two departments, English Language and History. ;) It's on dialectal variation in the Scots Borders area in the early medieval period. I am a linguistic archaeologist. People are always disappointed when they get to my half-done thesis and it lacks the Indiana Jones flair that title suggests. ;)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 08:56 am (UTC)...none of which has anything to do with archaeology, but the language stuff, I love that. I love words, and foreign languages, and dialects, and all of that. And 'dialectal variation in the Scots Borders area, whee!. Seriously. My grandfather's family is from Scotland -- quite a few generations ago, obvs. -- his family name on his mother's side is 'Kelso'. I was very surprised and pleased to learn there is a not-far-from-the-border town by the name of Kelso (discovered when I spent a couple weeks in England in 2005, visiting with a friend of mine, and her husband).
Um. I typically ramble a lot less when I've, y'know, actually had sleep. o_O
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 09:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 09:22 am (UTC)We drove around through the town circle (cobblestones! and no sheep, I was kind of surprised...), and drove past Floors Castle, but we ended up going up to, oh, hell. There's a dig site, excavation site, of an old Roman settlement near there. We ended up going there.
Vindolanda. It was going to drive me nuts until I remembered it :)
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 09:30 am (UTC)Hee, it makes me so happy that you've been to my part of the world! Not very many people have!
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 09:48 am (UTC)And now I have to go create a database. Feel my joy? Heh.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-17 09:49 am (UTC)Good luck with your database!