Does a chemical reaction change the number of atoms?

In a chemical reaction, the number of atoms of each individual element remains conserved and are unchanged. The atoms may be rearranged, but their number stays constant. In comparison, in a nuclear change, the atoms of one species may change into that of another. Thus conservation of mass is applicable in case of chemical reactions. This is the basis for writing balanced chemical equation, in which the number of atoms of each species are same on both sides of chemical reaction. 

For example:  `2H_2 + O_2 -> 2H_2O`

In this chemical reaction, oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water. This reaction represents rearrangement of atoms (combination of hydrogen and oxygen atoms in 2:1 ratio). The number of hydrogen atoms are 4 on both sides of the reaction and that of oxygen is 2.

Hope this helps. 

What is a summary of chapter 1?

Chapter 1: Shotgun Cheatham's Last Night Above Ground.

In the book, the narrator, Joey Dowdel, tells stories about his childhood, summer adventures at his grandmother's.

In the summer of 1929, Joey is nine, while his sister, Mary Alice, is seven. They lament that they have never seen a dead body before, which is unusual since they live in Chicago during the era of Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Instead, Joey remembers that they had to travel to St. Louis, where their grandmother lived, in order to see a 'stiff.' He relates that he felt happy to be traveling by train to their grandmother's house.

Mary Alice, on the other hand, isn't too enthusiastic about staying at their grandmother's. She frets that there is never anything interesting to do there. However, things change when a supposed Civil War hero by the name of Shotgun Cheatham dies in St. Louis. Joey and Mary Alice soon spread the rumor that a reporter has been asking around about Cheatham. When they tell their grandma about the reporter, their grandmother scoffs that the reporter just wants to write a sensational story about the supposedly backward people living in St. Louis. She says that Cheatham was just an 'old reprobate who lived poor and died broke.'

Not to be deterred, the children apprise Grandma Dowdel of all the stories people are telling about Cheatham at the Coffee Pot Cafe. Their grandmother counters that these stories are probably the work of Effie Wilcox and that they should never trust the words of an ugly, old woman. She argues that Cheatham came to be known as Shotgun when he indiscriminately shot off a round of bullets and killed off a cow when he was ten.

Soon, the reporter comes calling to ask about Shotgun. In response, Grandma Dowdel tells the reporter that Shotgun was a decorated Civil War veteran. The kids are astounded at the fantastic tales their grandmother seems to be spouting off. When she is done, Shotgun has evolved from being a disreputable gunslinger to a courageous war veteran with philanthropic tendencies. Grandma Dowdel even adds that Shotgun jilted Effie Wilcox and that she never got over it. Before the reporter leaves, Grandma Dowdel tells the reporter to let everyone in town know that Shotgun will be buried with full honors from her house.

Despite their curiosity about Grandma Dowdel's gesture, many people make their way to her house for the vigil. The reporter is also there, and he finds himself distressed when Effie Wilcox takes a seat next to him. The story is that Effie has just been dismissed from an insane asylum; her comment about the 'natural' look of the dead man doesn't help either.

As the night wears on, the gauze hanging from the coffin appears to move. Some unspecific and ambiguous movement appears to mimic the hand of the dead man reaching up out of the coffin. Meanwhile, Grandma Dowdel grabs her twelve-gauge Winchester and fires off both barrels. The reporter and Effie Wilcox exit the house in great alarm, not sure whether they are more troubled by an awakening dead man or Grandma's shotgun skills. Mary Alice says that the whole event gave her nightmares for years to come.

The reality is that Grandma's 'snaggletoothed tomcat' was actually the culprit batting at the gauze; Joey is pretty sure that his grandmother saw her cat jump out of the coffin. He thinks that's when she got the idea to have fun at the reporter and Effie Wilcox's expense. Joey relates that his grandmother probably wanted to chase off the nosy reporter, believing that he had no right to pry into the affairs of the town. Nevertheless, Joey asserts that Grandma Dowdel's actions gave the town much to talk about for the rest of the summer and that she also earned a reprieve from the machinations of nosy neighbors for long years to come.

Pencils, paper, tables and chairs are all made of tiny moving particles. What stops these objects from flying apart?

The items you listed are all made of mixtures of substances in the solid phase. The molecules of a solid aren't flying around, they're vibrating in place. The reason they're not flying around is that they're attracted to each other. A solid has a definite volume and shape because the molecules are close together, locked into position and can't move past each other. Of the three states of matter, gas molecules have the most kinetic energy and solids have the least. Gas molecules are in rapid motion, moving around and colliding with other molecules. There are no significant attractions between gas molecules at normal temperatures and pressures. 

The molecules of a liquid also move around, but they have less kinetic energy than gas molecules. They are much closer together and move more slowly than gas molecules as they move past each other. Attractions between molecules have a bigger effect in the liquid phase than in the gas phase because the molecules are closer together.

As liquid cools attractions between molecules take over and a solid forms, in which molecules are no longer able to move past each other.

I want to know how I can be specific and write a great book report about Paul Zindel's The Pigman.

When writing a book report, consult the teacher's requirements first. If the report is simply to summarize the reading, then focus on the main points of the story that move the plot forward. If, on the other hand, the assignment is to compare and contrast characters, show cause and effect, or argue a point, then your report will be structurally different.

For The Pigman, though, show how the interaction between John, Lorraine, and Mr. Pignati developed into a loving and respectful friendship. Then, consider what obstacles their friendship faces as the story progresses and identify the climax and resolution. Create a thesis statement that will drive your essay forward towards the main point of the essay. For example, a thesis statement could be: "John and Lorraine learn that not all adults are difficult to be with as Mr. Pignati laughs with them, gives them gifts, and creates a safe environment for them."

The next step after creating a thesis is to structure your paragraphs to explain and support it. In the above example, there are three items to address in your essay that could also be topics for three different paragraphs. Remember to provide quotes with citations for each topic addressed because this solidifies your main idea and thesis statement.

Don't forget to provide a strong conclusion that elaborates on why your topics and thesis are important to understanding the book. Discuss how the book can help to address social issues for teenagers based on the topics you mention.  The following are quotes that could go with the topics given in the above thesis statement example:

He laughs with them:

"We must have looked just like three monkeys. The Pigman, John, and me--three funny little monkeys" (97).

He gives them gifts:

"'I don't want you spending all that money, Mr. Pignati,' I said.

'Nonsense,' he insisted.

But I really didn't. And still it felt good. No one had ever bought me stuff like this before--something I just liked and didn't need and didn't even ask for" (90).

He provides safety:

"Lots of times I'd cry myself to sleep, but more and more I felt myself thinking of the Pigman whenever I felt sad. Sometimes just after I put the light out, I'd see his face smiling or his eyes gleaming as he offered me the snails--some little happy detail I thought I had forgotten--and I'd wish my mother were more like him. I'd wish she knew how to have a little fun for a change" (86).

During DNA replication,a DNA strand that has the bases CTAGGT will produce a strand with what bases?

During DNA replication, the original DNA strand "unzips" or splits where the two bases join together to form the rungs of the DNA ladder.  There are four nitrogenous bases, cytosine, thymine, adenine and guanine.  The sides of the unzipped DNA serve as a template for which other nitrogenous bases may be paired to make new strands of DNA.  The pairing goes like this:  adenine pairs to thymine, while guanine pairs to cytosine.  I teach my students to remember the word "AT", since adenine pairs to thymine.  That leaves guanine to pair to cytosine.  The correct pairing for this DNA sequence , then, would be GATCCA.  Guanine would pair to cytosine, adenine to thymine, thymine to adenine.  Cytosine would pair to guanine, cytosine to guanine, and adenine to thymine.

How do plant cell undergo mitosis in the absence of centrioles ?

Mitotic cell division is for the purpose of producing more of the same cells for growth and for repair or to replace old worn out cells. A parent cell's genetic material must first be replicated before it can be distributed to two daughter cells at the conclusion of mitosis.

Before mitotic division occurs, during interphase --specifically the S phase of interphase, the DNA of the organism is replicated. Now, chromosomes are in pairs called sister chromatids.

Centrioles are tiny organelles with the purpose in animal cells to separate and take up a position on opposite sides of the cell. These centrioles are found in the centrosome, an area of the cell where the spindle is organized. The spindle contains fibers that the replicated chromosomes attach to at their centromeres. The spindle fibers help to later pull apart sister chromatids to opposite poles so that later, two new daughter cells will each have a set of chromosomes. 

Plant cells lack centrioles, however, they are still able to form a mitotic spindle from the centrosome region of the cell just outside of the nuclear envelope. They go through the stages of mitotic division as do animal cells-prophase, metaphase, anaphase and telophase, followed by cytokinesis.

The end of mitosis is when cytokinesis occurs-- the division of the cytoplasm, which is accomplished in plants by the production of a cell plate, made from vesicles inside the cell. This step occurs during telophase and the materials inside vesicles collect together to form the growing cell plate, which eventually fuses with the cell membrane. Ultimately, it divides the cytoplasm into two daughter cells and later becomes part of the cell wall.

Animals form a cleavage furrow and eventually pinch apart to form two daughter cells. 

I hope this clarifies mitosis in plant vs. animal cells! I have attached a diagram of mitosis in plant cells.

`sec(v - u)` Find the exact value of the trigonometric expression given that sin(u) = 5/13 and cos(v) = -3/5 (both u and v are in quadrant II.)

There are a lot of ways to solve this problem. For instance, one can use the secant sum/difference identity. This identity, however, has a lot of terms. A more elegant solution would be to use the cosine sum/difference identity, and relating cosine to secant.

Note that `sec(x) = 1/(cos(x))` .Such that we only need to get the reciprocal of the value of cosine at our given angle to get the corresponding secant. Both u and v are in the second quadrant implying that the x-components are both negative and the y-components positive. 

The cosine sum/difference identity is: `cos(v-u) = cos(v)cos(u) + sin(v)sin(u)` .

We already know some of the terms here, namely: `sin(u) = 5/13` and `cos(v) = -3/5` .To get the remaining terms, we simply use the Pythegorean identity: `sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = 1` .

Hence:

`cos^2(u) = 1 - 25/169 = 144/169` , and `cos(u) = -12/13` . Note that we could have chosen the positive root, but since u is in the second quadrant, we get the negative one.

Similarly:

`sin^2(v) = 1 - 9/25 = 16/25` , and `sin(v) = 4/5` . We are getting the positive root since v is in the second quadrant.

Now, we can solve for the cosine:

 `cos(v-u) = (-3/5)(-12/13) + (4/5)(5/13) = 36/65 + 20/65 = 56/65.`

Which means:

`sec(v-u) = 65/56.`

What does the figurative language add to "The Highwayman"?

The figurative language and word choice are what make this such a famous, classic poem. Alfred Noyes uses fantastic, vivid visual imagery in "The Highwayman," and each phrase is infused with multiple literary devices. For example, by describing the moon as a "ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas," it provides a feeling of mystery, suspense, and general spookiness, which is fitting as the poem ends as a ghost story.

Noyes could have written, "It was a darky, windy night. The moon was out. There was a curved road through a field." Contrast that with the actual figurative language he used:

The wind was a torrent of darkness among the gusty trees.

The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas.

The road was a ribbon of moonlight over the purple moor.

Another example:

His pistol butts a-twinkle, his rapier hilt a-twinkle under the jeweled sky.

Noyes could have written that there were stars out that night. However, by referring to the sky as "jeweled," Noyes suggests that the stars are not only out, but are sparkling and twinkling like jewels in the sky. It is a much more powerful visual image. One can picture the clear night, the bright stars twinkling against a velvety, black backdrop.

What is the theme of chapter eight of Animal Farm?

There are two major themes in chapter eight. First, there is Napoleon's unquestionable dominance. His status has been manipulated to such an extent that he is treated with the type of reverence and respect that is reserved for a demi-god. Napoleon is now referred to as 'Our Leader, Comrade Napoleon.' He rarely appears in public, and if he does, he is attended by a retinue of guard dogs who are preceded by a cockerel marching in front who lets out a crow to announce that Napoleon is about to speak. He has also taken separate quarters in the farmhouse, eats alone from the best dinner service and has the gun fired each year on his birthday.

Added to that, Squealer, when speaking about him, always becomes overly emotional and Napoleon is, as a rule, given credit for every bit of luck which befalls the farm and given credit for every successful achievement. Minimus, the poet, composes a poem giving praise to him in glowing terms which are usually employed only when referring to deities or figures of royal stature. He uses terms such as 'thou' and 'thee' in reference to him.

Secondly, there is the question of deception. The animals are deceived into believing that the farm is doing much better than before by Squealer providing glowing statistics in the form of percentages which show great improvements. There is also the deception about Napoleon doing business with Pilkington to sell an unused pile of timber, at the same time declaring Frederick the enemy. It is also said that Snowball has been skulking around Pinchfield and plotting to kill Napoleon, a plot confessed to by three hens who are executed immediately.

It is given out that Frederick abuses his animals in a most horrific manner. The news of his ill-treatment angers the animals so much that they wish to attack his farm, but are calmed down by Squealer, who tells them to trust in Napoleon's strategy.

However, it is later discovered that the timber was sold to Frederick and that Pilkington is the enemy, all because of a so-called clever strategy that Napoleon was using to get a better price. Frederick then pays for the timber with counterfeit notes (another deceitful act) and Napoleon declares a death sentence on him, promising to boil him alive if he should be caught. Frederick then unsuccessfully attempts to overthrow the animals but manages to blow the windmill to smithereens.

The pigs later discover a crate of whisky which they drink to celebrate their victory in defeating Frederick and his men. Napoleon gets so drunk that it is believed that he is close to death. He, however, recovers fully. The animals are again deceived when yet another commandment is altered. After the pigs have drunk whisky, the commandment "No animal shall drink alcohol" is altered to read, "No animal shall drink alcohol to excess."  

These two themes indicate the level of corruption and superciliousness the pigs have devolved into. Animal Farm has ceased to be a democracy and has become a place where manipulation, arrogance, violence, and deceit have become the new tenets. The general animal population, because of their poor intelligence, have become mere pawns in the trotters of a bunch of no-good and selfish pigs.

Explain what Hurston means in the second sentence of "How It Feels to Be Colored Me" when she says,"I remember the very day I became colored." What...

In the second sentence of "How It Feels to Be Colored Me," Hurston says that she remembers the day when she became "colored."  By this statement, Hurston refers to her sense of identity as a person of color.  She goes on in the opening paragraph to explain that as a young girl, she did not feel like her identity was defined by her race because no one made her feel a sense of difference.  However, when Hurston's family sent her to Jacksonville when she was 13-years-old to attend school, she experienced discrimination, which made her feel "colored."  She began to realize that the nature of race relations in America "required" her to see her race in the hierarchy of racial stratification.  Hurston wants the reader to understand that outside socio-political influences imposed on her sense of identity development.

Write a 3000 word essay on a period in British poetry, a literary group related to British poetry, or a British poet.

In order to write this essay, you will have to decide on a topic that falls within the parameters of the prompts. British poetry obviously has many interesting potential topics. Before choosing what to write about it might be helpful to do some free writing in order to discover what most interests you within the general subject matter. Then you can narrow your focus a bit and choose a specific topic.

In addition to choosing a topic, you will want to formulate a thesis for your essay. This is a way of summarizing your main idea and explaining briefly the primary purpose of your essay. This can take the form of presenting a question you want answered or a particular issue you want to explore more closely. Having a thoughtful thesis will make your essay stand out and also help guide you through the process of thinking and writing.

Think about the British poetry you're read or studied recently; which poems stood out that you found particularly enjoyable or thought-provoking? Perhaps you are  fan of Elizabethan sonnets, and want to write about Shakespeare. Maybe you enjoy the poems of the Romantic poets, such as Shelley or Keats. Many British poets from across the centuries have written about nature in some way, and this theme might also help you construct an interesting thesis for your essay.

How does George Orwell present war in chapter 4 of Animal Farm? Please support your answer with relevant quotes.

War is presented as a conflict between Mr Jones and his men against the animals of the farm when the humans launch an attack with the purpose of recapturing the farm. The entire battle is presented as a skirmish during a war. The text is quite dramatic in its depiction:

Early in October, when the corn was cut and stacked and some of it was already threshed, a flight of pigeons came whirling through the air and alighted in the yard of Animal Farm in the wildest excitement. Jones and all his men, with half a dozen others from Foxwood and Pinchfield, had entered the five barred gate and were coming up the cart-track that led to the farm. They were all carrying sticks, except Jones, who was marching ahead with a gun in his hands. Obviously they were going to attempt the recapture of the farm.

The men were armoured, albeit with unconventional weapons. These, however, were suited for the purpose since they did not expect much resistance from the animals. They could not be more wrong in this assumption, for the animals had long expected such an attack and had planned ahead. Snowball, like a military general, had already planned a defensive campaign which was based on his studies of Julius Caesar's military operations. When the incursion began, he quickly gave his orders and the animals were deployed to their positions.

True to the nature of a carefully formulated military strategy, Snowball launched a systematic attack, based on different forms of attack. The first strike was from the air, much as in a war when planes are used to bomb the enemy and weaken their resolve.

All the pigeons, to the number of thirty-five, flew to and fro over the men’s heads and muted upon them from mid-air

The second part was a ground attack in the form of the ducks pecking at the men's heels - a perfect manoeuvre to 'create a little disorder' since it was easy for the men to drive the ducks off with their sticks. Snowball then started his second line of attack.

Muriel, Benjamin, and all the sheep, with Snowball at the head of them, rushed forward and prodded and butted the men from every side, while Benjamin turned around and lashed at them with his small hoofs. But once again the men, with their sticks and their hobnailed boots, were too strong for them; and suddenly, at a squeal from Snowball, which was the signal for retreat, all the animals turned and fled through the gateway into the yard.

The men were encouraged by their little triumph and rushed after the animals in disarray, believing that victory was at hand. They had not contended with the crafty Snowball's military expertise since this was exactly what he wanted.

As soon as they were well inside the yard, the three horses, the three cows, and the rest of the pigs, who had been lying in ambush in the cowshed, suddenly emerged in their rear, cutting them off. Snowball now gave the signal for the charge.

Just as in a war, Snowball had carefully planned his main offensive and had drawn the unsuspecting enemy into a trap. He used the larger animals for this attack and personally charged at Mr Jones who fired his gun. Shotgun pellets grazed Snowball and left a bloody trail on his back. A sheep was hit directly and died on the spot. Boxer displayed great courage and presented a terrifying image as he reared up on his hind legs and struck out at the humans, laying a stable lad out cold. When the men saw this, they dropped their sticks and started to run. They were petrified.

... the next moment all the animals together were chasing them round and round the yard. They were gored, kicked, bitten, trampled on. There was not an animal on the farm that did not take vengeance on them after his own fashion. Even the cat suddenly leapt off a roof onto a cowman’s shoulders and sank her claws in his neck, at which he yelled horribly.

As soon as the men saw an opening, they fled towards the main road with a flock of geese pecking at their calves the entire distance. Their attack had lasted only five minutes and they were in humiliating retreat. The animals, through Snowball's clever military tactics, had driven them off.

After the battle, it was decided unanimously to create a military decoration, 'Animal Hero, First Class', the first recipients of which were Snowball and Boxer. A second decoration, 'Animal Hero, Second Class' was posthumously awarded to the dead sheep. It was also decided to name the battle 'The Battle of the Cowshed' and its memory would be celebrated every year. All these actions are true to the spirit of military tradition.

In J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, why does Holden not like the Jesus's disciples?

Holden's biggest gripe in The Catcher in the Rye is "phony" (fake) people. Holden criticizes and judges everyone with whom he comes in contact, and that includes characters in books such as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, and even the disciples from The Holy Bible. He recounts a discussion that he had about the disciples with a classmate from Whooton School named Arthur Childs who was a Quaker. Childs tells Holden that he should like the disciples simply because Jesus chose them to help him out. Holden must have found something fake or phoney with the disciples, because that is what he usually finds annoying in people. Holden never says that in particular, but he does say the following:

"Take the Disciples for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth. They were all right after Jesus was dead and all, but while He was alive, they were about as much use to Him as a hole in the head. All they did was keep letting Him down" (99).

One can infer that if Holden thinks that the disciples let Jesus down all of the time that they were flaky, flighty, or phony in his eyes. It would seem that Holden identifies with Jesus and the feeling of having people let him down all of the time; then, he projects this onto the disciples and that's why he doesn't like them.

Does "The Ransom of Red Chief" qualify as a trickster tale? A tall tale? Both? Neither? Give reasons for your opinion.

A trickster tale would ordinarily end with the trickster succeeding in pulling off his trick. Examples would be "Dusk" by Saki and "The Umbrella Man" by Roald Dahl. "The Ransom of Red Chief" is not a trickster tale. Sam and Bill are pretty straightforward. They aren't trying to trick anybody, at least in this particular instance, although they appear to specialize in conning or tricking people as their customary professions.

"The Ransom of Red Chief" is a funny story but not a "tall tale." A tall tale is based on exaggeration, but O. Henry does not rely on exaggeration in his story. Red Chief is a pretty high-spirited boy, but he has a lot of the typical boy's characteristics.

In Hollywood parlance, "The Ransom of Red Chief" would be called a "busted-caper story." Some crooks plan a crime to make money, but things start going wrong because they didn't plan carefully enough, or else they are incompetent to pull the job off as planned. The movie Fargo is an excellent example of a busted-caper story. John Collier's story "Home for Christmas" is another good example of how one unforeseen detail ruins a murderer's perfect crime.

One of the reasons that criminal behavior is risky is that it is impossible to foresee everything that could go wrong. For example, a man might decide to rob a liquor store because he is desperate for money. He thinks it is just a matter of showing a gun and walking off with a bag of cash. But what if the clerk or store owner resists? If the robber has a gun he is either going to have to use it or else probably get overpowered or arrested. But he was only thinking of committing a robbery. If he pulls the trigger he is committing a murder. Things like this happen all the time.

Sam and Bill call themselves "desperate men." This is to suggest to the boy's father that they might kill his son if he doesn't meet their ransom demand. But if they kill the boy they have become murderers without even collecting any money. These two men run into all sorts of problems they hadn't foreseen because they had no previous experience. The father doesn't much care whether he gets his son back. The boy enjoys the adventure of being kidnapped. He is a wildcat and threatens them with bodily injury or worse. They can't control the boy without using violence, but if they use violence they make their crime even worse. They have no moral authority with the boy as adults because they have lost it by becoming kidnappers. The boy has thereby acquired the upper hand, and so has his father. If they don't kill Red Chief, he can always be a witness against them if and when they get caught. But they are not the kind of men who would kill a child. A kidnapper should be prepared to kill his victim, just as a robber should be prepared to pull the trigger if his intended victim offers resistance.

O. Henry's tale is a comedy, but it contains a serious message. Crime does not pay. Honesty is the best policy. 

How does contemporary English differ from the English in the play in Romeo and Juliet?

Many people, upon being told they’ll have to read a Shakespeare play, fear they won’t understand it because it’s in Old English. In fact, though, Shakespeare didn’t write in Old English, he wrote in modern English – that’s right, the English you use every day is the same English used four hundred years ago. Some words from that time have fallen out of use, and sometimes he’ll make a reference to a historical event or an old legend that isn’t familiar to us today, which is why we sometimes need to check footnotes. But the language is the same. Shakespeare enjoyed using language in weird ways; he had a reputation even while he was alive of writing stuff that was sometimes hard to understand. It’s not because the writing is old-fashioned, but because no one, before or since, has used words in quite that way. So really, the language of “Romeo and Juliet” is the same language we speak, it’s Shakespeare’s particular style that sometimes makes it challenging. But a good actor in a good production can make it clear as a bell.

Why might Gilead have shipped most of its older women to the colonies in The Handmaid's Tale?

In The Handmaid's Tale, most of the older women would have been shipped to the Colonies because these older women would no longer be fertile. In the novel's Republic of Gilead, handmaids are women of child-bearing age who are tasked with birthing the next generation. Besides nuns and lesbians, older women who are sterile or who find themselves politically opposed to the new order of government are usually shipped off to the colonies. So, you can see that a woman's worth in the Republic of Gilead is defined by her ability to bear children for the commander she has been assigned to. Without this ability, she is considered an Unwoman, fit only for hard labor in the colonies until she dies. 

The only way an older woman can preserve her place in the new society would be to become Aunts of the handmaids. Aunts are the overseers of the Handmaid class. They police the actions and sometimes, even the thoughts of the handmaids. Their job is to keep the handmaid class under tight control so that the handmaids can perform their jobs to the satisfaction of the republic.

How does Juliet lose her innocence in Act II of Romeo and Juliet?

In Act II, Scene 2 of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet the two young lovers meet on the girl's balcony. They have fallen instantly in love with each other only an hour or two earlier when they met at Capulet's party. Before she knows Romeo is below her balcony Juliet professes her love for him and wishes they were not from feuding families. She says,

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name,
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

When Romeo appears, Juliet is at first reticent but soon warms to his affectionate words and they confirm their love for each other. Juliet still wants to wait because she fears the relationship may be moving too fast. She advises Romeo to go home and let a little time pass for them to consider these sudden emotions. She says,

Well, do not swear. Although I joy in thee,
I have no joy of this contract tonight.
It is too rash, too unadvised, too sudden,
Too like the lightning, which doth cease to be
Ere one can say “It lightens.” Sweet, good night.
This bud of love, by summer’s ripening breath,
May prove a beauteous flower when next we meet.

Of course, Romeo is not to be put off. He talks of marriage and, in a decision which the reader might view as her loss of innocence, she agrees to Romeo's request. In that instant she goes from being a young girl, obedient to her parents, to a woman able to make her own decisions. She must know that her parents would never approve of her love for a Montague, their sworn enemy. Her life is forever changed by this loss of innocence. At the end of Act II Friar Lawrence marries Romeo and Juliet. And, in Act III the two consummate the marriage. In literal terms, this honeymoon in Juliet's room could also be seen as a loss of innocence.

How can "Thank You, M'am" be shortly summarized?

“Thank You M’am” is a heartwarming story by Langston Hughes about a big, strong woman named Luella Bates Washington Jones and a young boy named Roger who tries to steal her purse.  Her purse is as big and heavy as its owner, and instead of getting away he gets tripped up and caught by Mrs. Jones, who takes him to her house in a headlock and makes him wash his face and comb his hair.  She reprimands him with maternal care and asks him to eat dinner with her, seeing as he has no one at home to make him anything.  It comes out that he wanted to steal her purse so he could get money to buy some blue suede shoes, and so Mrs. Jones gives him ten dollars for that purpose, with the warning not to go stealing anymore, “because shoes come by devilish like that will burn your feet.”  Roger feels immensely sorry and grateful, but before he can fully articulate the words “Thank you Ma’am,” Mrs. Jones has closed her front door and he is left on his own.

This is of course just an example of the sort of thing you could write on your own – the story is short and easy to read, and a summary would take no time at all.  It’s always a good idea to tailor these sorts of things to your own judgment and what you find noteworthy in a story.   After all, there are other important elements that I haven’t mentioned in the five sentences above, such as Mrs. Jones’s past struggles and the boy’s active decision not to run away once his “captor” has released him.

Which three people go on a secret expedition to the center of the earth?

Two of the three main characters of Journey to the Center of the Earth have different names, depending on the edition. In the original version there are Professor Otto Lidenbrock, Alex (his nephew), and Hans. In the 1871 English version, the names are changed to Professor Hardwigg and Harry Lawson. Hans is the same in both editions.

Professor Lidenbrock is a middle-aged professor in Hamburg, Germany. He is intelligent, short-tempered, and focused to the point of obsession. He gives little thought to the opinion (or well-being) of others on the expedition to the center of the earth. He refuses to give up.

His nephew, Alex, is a young adult living with his uncle Lidenbrock. He also is a student of geology and functions as his uncle’s assistant. He is more reasonable than his uncle, but he can be seen as cowardly in that he often tries to find a way out of what his uncle wants him to do. He changes partway into the expedition, once he sees that his uncle’s beliefs about the construction of the earth might be valid after all.

Hans is their servant, hired in Iceland. He does not speak German, so he communicates very little, and then only with Professor Lidenbrock. He is calm, strong, and incapable of being sidetracked. He does whatever the Professor asks of him and becomes a valuable member of the team.

In chapter 16 of The Bronze Bow, why does Daniel feel misgivings about sending Joel into town? Is he being consistent? That is, does he expect more...

In Chapter 16, Daniel has been sent to Joel with a message from Rosh. The message is an assignment to gain information Rosh wants that presumably will help in Rosh's campaign to overthrow Roman rule. Daniel has misgivings on two levels. The first reason is that he fears the assignment could get Joel into trouble. While Joel is as committed to overthrowing the Romans as Daniel is--all three friends, Daniel, Joel, and Thracia, have taken a vow to do so--Daniel realizes that now that it has come to taking outright action, Joel has a lot more to lose than Daniel does. Joel belongs to an influential family, and he could be putting his own welfare as well as his family's in jeopardy. As Daniel explains, "I'm a nobody. You have your future to think of, and your father and mother--and Thacia." So far, this is not inconsistent on Daniel's part because a definite difference exists between Joel and Daniel with respect to the worst that could happen if the mission went wrong. Later in the chapter, though, Daniel has another misgiving. He wonders whether the intelligence that Rosh has sent Joel to gather really has a purpose in the cause of overthrowing Rome. Rosh wants names of wealthy Jews who will be attending a certain banquet. Daniel "could not see why Rosh wanted the names," and here he begins to doubt Rosh. This is an inconsistency on Daniel's part--one that he does not want to admit to Thacia--or even to himself.

Despite their shared culture and history, why is there conflict between Russia and Ukraine?

There are a few items about your question that need to be addressed. The first question is about Ukraine and Russia's "ongoing conflict." The answer to that is a simple question of sovereignty. In March of 2014, Russia invaded an autonomous region of Ukraine that is known as the Crimea. Traditionally, since independence, Russia has interfered with the politics and government of the Ukraine. They annexed the region of Crimea on March 18, 2014.

The second part that needs to be addressed is the history of Ukraine in the Soviet Union. While Ukraine was one of the original members of the Soviet Union with Russia, that was mostly because of communist party members in Ukraine in the early 20th Century. It is unlikely that Ukraine would have had a choice in the matter anyway because of its strategic location, proximity to Russia, and the strength of the Russian military at that time. The people of Ukraine suffered greatly under Soviet rule, especially in the early period. Russian policy in the 1930's focused on a policy of russification. In 1932 and 1933, millions of people, mostly peasants, in Ukraine starved to death in a politically induced famine (Holodomor) in an effort at ethnic cleansing in Ukraine. It is estimated that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.

The third part of your question that needs addressed is the notion of culturally similar people and warfare. Just because two countries share a culture in terms of language, religion, or customs does not mean they will not have different economic and political goals that may lead to warfare. The American colonists were not culturally different than the English when they conducted war for independence. Many a civil war has been fought by combatants that are culturally similar. The bottom line is that the Ukraine has been an independent country since the early 1990's, has struggled to become a world capitalist power with some degree of success, and does not want its sovereignty challenged by its neighbors, regardless of shared ethnic similarities.

What are some similarities and differences between glucose and amylase?

We have a Science tutor online right now to help you!

To chat with a tutor, please set up a tutoring profile by creating an account and setting up a payment method. If you initiate a chat, please note you will be charged $0.50 a minute for tutoring time.

`-105^@` Find the exact values of the sine, cosine, and tangent of the angle.

`-105^@=30^@-135^` 

`sin(u-v)=sin(u)cos(v)-cos(u)sin(v)`

`sin(30-135)=sin(30)cos(135)-cos(30)sin(135)`

`sin(30-135)=(1/2)(-sqrt2/2)-(sqrt3/2)(sqrt2/2)=-sqrt2/4(1+sqrt3)`

`cos(u-v)=cos(u)cos(v)+sin(u)sin(v)`

`cos(30-135)=cos(30)cos(135)+sin(30)sin(135)`

`cos(30-135)=(sqrt3/2)(-sqrt2/2)+(1/2)(sqrt2/2)=sqrt2/4(-sqrt3+1)`

`tan(u-v)=(tan(u)-tan(v))/(1+tan(u)tan(v))`

`tan(30-135)=(tan(30)-tan(135))/(1+tan(30)tan(135))`

`tan(30-135)=((sqrt3/3)-(-1))/(1+(sqrt3/3)(-1))=((sqrt3+3)/3)/((3-sqrt3)/3)=(sqrt3+3)/(3-sqrt3)`

After the denominator is rationalized the answer is `2+sqrt3.`

Is Okonkwo a victim of a bad chi, or does he cause his own difficulties?

While it could be argued that Chinua Achebe depicts some events in a manner that suggests that Okonkwo is a victim of the Igbo gods, I argue that Okonkwo has brought about many of his own hardships through his stubborn nature. Okonkwo is staunch and inflexible in the face of the great change that sweeps over Umuofia, and this, in part, leads to his eventual downfall. Early in Things Fall Apart, Okonkwo is described as a man driven by fear:

"Perhaps down in his heart Okonkwo was not a cruel man. But his whole life was dominated by fear, the fear of failure and of weakness" (13)

This sets up the fact that Okonkwo is determined to be a "manly" warrior, and his bellicose personality serves as the main source of friction in the novel.

Moreover, nearly every single event that afflicts Okonkwo and his family is the direct result of Okonkwo's actions. It is not a "bad chi" that forces Okonkwo to accidentally kill a young clansman. Indeed, his wife mocks his handling of guns earlier in the novel (38-39). He is not talented with guns: "He was not a hunter. In fact, he had not killed a rat with his gun" (38). Thus, Achebe foreshadows the events that eventually push Oknokwo and his family into exile, and this event--alongside many other happenings in the novel--cannot be blamed on bad chi or malevolent gods. The blame falls largely on Okonkwo and the fact that he is afraid of change.

Based on what we learn in Stave Two about his boyhood, describe Scrooge’s life as a child. Use textual evidence to support your response.

The Ghost of Christmas Past takes Scrooge back to his childhood.  They enter a small village and a school there.  A young Ebenezer Scrooge is alone at school at Christmastime, surrounded by books.  He lives at the school, possibly due to a difficult home life.  Then the spirit takes Scrooge to a different time in the same place.  Again, young Ebenezer is alone at school.  All of his schoolmates are home for the Christmastime holidays.  His younger sister, Fran, enters the schoolroom.  She hugs him excitedly.  She explains that things have changed in their home.  Their father has become a more kind person and wants his son to come home to live permanently.  Their home has become a happy place and Fran is there to take him there.  Scrooge leaves under the watchful eye of his stern schoolmaster.

What are the four sections of the Declaration of Independence?

The four sections of the Declaration of Independence are as follows. I have included a brief summary of each section.

The first section, or the Preamble, states the purpose of the document. It says, in short, that the American colonies are about to assume their "separate and equal station" among the nations of the world and that this is such a drastic and significant action that they owe it to the rest of the world to explain themselves. 

The second section consists of a statement of principles. This is perhaps the most famous section of the document, in which Jefferson proclaims such "self-evident truths" as the fundamental equality of all men and the "unalienable rights" to which they are all entitled, which include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They further assert that the purpose of government is to secure these rights, and that when government "becomes destructive of these ends," the people have the right to rid themselves of it and establish another government that will be more attentive to their rights.

The third section is a list of grievances, a "history of repeated injuries and usurpations" which the colonists lay squarely at the feet of King George III. These grievances include refusing to approve laws which would benefit the colonies, dissolving colonial assemblies (through his representatives, the royal governors), keeping standing armies in the colonies in time of peace, and "imposing taxes on us without our consent." Moreover, the colonists charged, he had incited the "merciless Indian savages" to make war on them. Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson wanted to include a passage that blamed King George for instituting slavery, or at least the slave trade, in the colonies, but delegates from South Carolina and Georgia struck out this passage when it went before the Congress. 

Finally, there is the actual declaration of independence itself. At the end of the document, the signers declared that all "political connection" between the colonies and Great Britain was "dissolved," and declared their intent to proceed as free and independent states.

Why do you think Saki avoided giving Georg and Ulrich distinct personalities? ("The Interlopers")

The feud between Ulrich and Georg initially stemmed from a land dispute. But that feud became more of a personal conflict. Ulrich is the legal, wealthy landowner and Georg is the illegal poacher. However, the narrator does not suggest that Georg is more wrong in any sense. The narrator simply presents the feud as it is. Refusing to give particular personality traits to either man, the narrator/author puts the focus on the absurdity of the ongoing feud. 

With no other characteristics, the reader is left with two bitter rivals. Ulrich is hunting Georg and Georg is hunting on his land. Both men are hunters. This sets up the ironic twist at the end when they both become hunted by the wolves. The narrator thus simply focuses on roles. These men are bitter rivals and hunters. These roles will switch in the end. This shows how the author focuses on roles as well as the conflict. The role one chooses to play determines the relationship and the outcome of the story. 

With no indications, there is nothing to suggest which man will make the first move to ending the feud. Even though Ulrich makes the first gesture, ending the feud can not be complete without Georg's agreement. So, the truce is only completed when both men put the rivalry to rest. Here, the focus shifts from the feud to the truce. The feud and the truce require the participation of both men. The point is that both men are to blame for perpetuating the conflict. It is not necessary to suggest that one man is more wrong than the other. 

Perhaps Saki did not want the reader to take a side. He therefore emphasizes that both men are to blame. Therefore, he did not position one man as protagonist and the other as antagonist. So, he left out details about personalities to underscore this idea. In this way, the story is about the futility of the feud: not about who is right, who is wrong, or who started it. 

How closely does a toy car's motion approximate uniform motion?

Uniform motion is the motion in which an object travels equal distances over equal time intervals. An easy way to determine if the motion of an object resembles the uniform motion or not is by a simple experiment in which the distance traveled by an object is measured over equal time intervals. If the experiment was carried out using a toy car and a recording timer (with a ticker tape), one can calculate the distance traveled over given time intervals. A plot of distance vs time will give us an idea of the uniformity of motion. A straight line (irrespective of its slope) will indicate uniform motion. 

In general, if study the motion of toy car from start to stop over smaller time intervals, we will see that the motion is not uniform. This is due to minor acceleration or deceleration or change in direction (even if it is minor), which may cause non-uniformity. The car starts and picks up pace, its motion is somewhat steady and then it decelerates to stop; all of these phases may not be very uniform. 

An easier example of uniform motion is your car traveling in cruise mode.

Hope this helps. 

What does Montag ask Mildred? What was Mildred's attitude? What is Montag's reaction?

When Montag returns home from work after an eventual, psychologically challenging day, in which he witnessed a woman commit suicide, he stumbles to bed and lays there in silence. As he lays in bed, he faces Mildred, who is zoned out, listening to her Seashell headset on full blast. He begins to view her as a stranger and asks her if she can remember the first time they met, when and where. Mildred says she can't remember, and laughs it off. She says, "Funny, how funny, not to remember where or when you met your husband or wife." (Bradbury 40) Mildred dismisses Montag's question and casually walks to the bathroom to take more sleeping pills. Montag feels a myriad of emotions when confronted with the reality that he can't remember where and when he met his wife. At first, he panics because he can't remember, and then, Montag begins to feel numb to the idea that he has no feelings toward Mildred. Montag contemplates his relationship and begins to feel confused because he doesn't know how he became so empty. Amidst Montag's confusion, he becomes angry at the situation and yells at Mildred. Mildred, the entire time, is detached and oblivious to Montag's thoughts and feelings. 

According to Gillian, why is one thousand dollars an awkward amount in "One Thousand Dollars"?

Young Gillian finds one thousand dollars "a confoundedly awkward amount" because it is not enough for him to "do himself credit," and it is too much to unburden himself of it facilely (superficially).

After the death of his wealthy uncle who has supported Gillian, he is called in to Lawyer Tolman. The attorney explains to the young man that according to his uncle's will, Gillian is required to spend $1000 and then to provide an accounting of this spending. It is then that Gillian expresses his disinclination to comply with the terms of the will.

When Gillian goes to the men's club to which he belongs, and asks the cynical Old Bryson what he should do with $1000, Bryson "moralizes" as Gillian terms his suggestions. Again, he asks for what he can do with this money. Then Bryson snidely tells the young man who has spent his life spending his uncle's money frivolously to buy an actress that he dallies with a diamond pendant. But, when he goes to the Columbine Theatre, Miss Lauriere is disinterested because another actress has a necklace that cost much more. So, Robert Gillian talks to some people about how he could spend the money; finally, he asks Tolman if Miss Hayden, a ward of the deceased uncle has received anything other than a ring and $10 and is told that she has not.

Gillian returns to his uncle's mansion and declares his love to Miss Hayden, who rejects him. So, he puts the money into an envelope and pretends that his uncle willed her another thousand and Tolman asked him to deliver it. He leaves the money with her. Then, he writes out his accounting as required.

However, he later is told by the lawyers that if he has spent the $1000 wisely, he will receive $50,000 from a codicil to the will; otherwise, the money goes to Miss Hayden. Quickly, Gillian tears his accounting and says that it was merely an account of bets he lost at the races. He departs whistling as the lawyers shake their heads. Ironically, then, Gillian has actually done himself credit, and has dispensed of the money rather easily since he gives it to the woman he loves. 

Why is the narrator upset with Fortunato?

The narrator, Montresor, is angry with Fortunato because he feels that Fortunato has injured and insulted him.  He says, "The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could; but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge."  It sounds as though Fortunato has wounded Montresor many times, but something has changed now, and it is perhaps that Fortunato has wounded Montresor's pride; this new insult was the straw that broke the camel's back. 

It isn't hard to believe that Fortunato would be willing to insult Montresor, as we see him all too willing to do so during the story.  He doesn't believe that the wine Montresor purchased without consulting him could actually be Amontillado, and he says, "'You have been imposed upon.  And as for Luchesi, he cannot distinguish Sherry from Amontillado.'"  Thus, Fortunato insults the discernment and taste of both Montresor and Luchesi, another locally-respected wine connoisseur.  Then, as he and Montresor walk further into the catacombs, Fortunato seems to take pleasure in pointing out that Montresor is not a member of the brotherhood of Freemasons.  When Montresor says that he is a mason, Fortunato doesn't believe him, and says, "'You?  Impossible!  A mason?'" He clearly wishes to lord over Montresor the fact that he belongs to this ancient brotherhood and Montresor does not, and his only motivation can be to insult Montresor again.

Explain this quote from Act 4, Scene 3 of Macbeth: "...but I must also feel it as a man: I cannot but remember things were, That were...

In this passage, Macduff is reacting to the horrible news, brought by Ross, that Macbeth, fearing the witches' prophecy to beware of Macduff, has had his family killed in his absence (hoping, of course, to kill him as well). He is struck with grief, and Malcolm, while sympathetic, tells him to "dispute it like a man," meaning that he should take revenge on Macbeth. Macduff replies that he will gain revenge in a manly way, but that he could not help but grieve as a man who has lost his family. All of the things that meant the most to him, he says, were taken from him, and he realizes, talking to himself, that they were "struck for thee," meaning that they were killed because Macbeth was after him. The fact that, as a warrior, a husband, and a father, he was in hiding and was unable to protect his family devastates him all the more. It is at this point that Macbeth has an implacable enemy in Macduff, thus, in an ironic way, helping to fulfill the witches' prophecy.

When Tish refers to "crossing the Sahara" in James Baldwin's If Beale Street Could Talk, what does this symbolize for her?

In Chapter One of James Baldwin’s novel If Beale Street Could Talk, his 19-year-old African American female protagonist and narrator, Clementine, or Tish, as she is called, is describing her visit to the jail in which her boyfriend, the father of her unborn child, is imprisoned. Alonzo, or Fonny, as he is called, is in jail because he was accused of raping a Puerto Rican girl, seemingly framed for the crime by a white police officer described by Fonny’s lawyer, Hayward, as “a racist and a liar.” Baldwin’s narrative, published in 1974, could have been written today, at least from the perspective of an African American community mentally exhausted by repeated instances of violent confrontations with police officers. In the Harlem, New York, in which Baldwin’s story takes place, however, endemic poverty and cynicism is as rampant as at any time and at any place in U.S. history. In short, the life of a lower-income African American in the early-1970s would be defined by anger and bitterness at the racism and absence of opportunity that characterized inner-city life. For Baldwin’s young but intelligent protagonist, Tish, that gulf between hope and despair would be vast and seemingly insurmountable. It would be, to borrow from Tish’s narrative, like crossing a vast, empty, forbidding desert. Additionally, the propensity of young African American men like Fonny to be imprisoned would be symptomatic of that metaphorical gulf. Lacking opportunity, subject to systemic racism, unable to envision a brighter future, many African American men sought solace instead in activities that invariably end in jail or death. Baldwin, through his narrator, who has arrived at the jail to visit her boyfriend, describes the formidable obstacles as follows:

“I walked out, to cross these big, wide corridors I've come to hate, corridors wider than all the Sahara desert. The Sahara is never empty; these corridors are never empty. If you cross the Sahara, and you fall, by and by vultures circle around you, smelling, sensing, your death. They circle lower and lower: they wait. They know. They know exactly when the flesh is ready, when the spirit cannot fight back. The poor are always crossing the Sahara. And the lawyers and bondsmen and all that crowd circle around the poor, exactly like vultures.”

“Crossing the Sahara,” then, is a metaphor for traversing that enormous gap between being poor and victimized and being part of the establishment that sets and enforces the rules, and between despair and hope. Fonny is forever ‘turning into the inferno,’ and Tish is forever walking towards the Sahara, because that is the world they know, a world with little or no hope, although If Beale Street Could Talk will end on a note of cautious optimism.

How might happiness be used as a dependent and independent variable in a study? Give examples for each.

If happiness is your dependent variable, it means that you are measuring your subject group’s happiness based on the alteration of a different variable. For instance, you might be looking at the effects of looking at silly cat pictures on happiness, or whether divorcees report more or less happiness than married people.

If happiness were to be your independent variable, it would mean that you are looking at the effect of happiness on some other measurable attribute--for example, the effect of happiness on creative productivity among artists, or the effect of happiness on lifespan among women. 

If happiness is your dependent variable you are measuring the effect of another variable on happiness, while if happiness is your independent variable, you are measuring happiness’s effect on something else.

An important consideration is that whether happiness is your independent or dependent variable, you will need to find some way of measuring happiness, a difficult state to quantify. You could consider using some type of self-reported survey or interview to measure happiness, or using the subjective reports of others, or even looking at the brain states of your subjects!

Why did the United States refuse to join the League of Nations?

The United States refused to join the League of Nations because, according to a group of U.S. Senators, the League infringed on the sovereignty of the United States. Some even argued that it might force the United States to send military forces overseas against its interests. Under the Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by the Senate, and the opponents of the League, who disagreed with it for the reasons mentioned above, also had a contentious relationship with President Woodrow Wilson, who had led negotiations that led to the League at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. The opponents were led by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and their positions ranged from "irreconcilables" who dug in their heels for outright rejection to a more moderate faction that demanded changes in the language of the Treaty as a condition of ratification. Wilson refused to compromise with the moderates, and the Treaty with the League of Nations included was defeated in the Senate. So the opponents of the League placed American sovereignty over internationalism in the wake of World War I, and Wilson's intransigence in the face of their opposition doomed any notion of American participation in the League.

How do the workers work in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl?

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl tells of a boy who wins a tour of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, which ultimately leads him to inherit the factory from its eccentric owner, Willy Wonka. The factory is manned by employees known as Oompa-Loompas. Oompa-Loompas are mysterious, but the book does provide some details about how they work.

The Oompa-Loompas are obviously hard workers. A large business that produces as much candy as Wonka Candy does must have dedicated employees who are committed to their work, but that's not to say the Oompa-Loompas didn't also like to have fun while on the job. 

Willy Wonka says the following about his workers:

They're wonderful workers. They all speak English now. They love dancing and music. They are always making up songs.

It seems part of the Oompa-Loompa's love for fun on the job comes out through their mischievous behavior, including mocking disobedient kids and their parent through song. Willy Wonka warns those in the tour about the Oompa-Loompa's love for mischief, saying "I must warn you, though, that they are rather mischievous. They like jokes."

A car applies the brakes and slows down from 15.0 m/s east to 5.00 m/s east in 4.00 s. What is the car's acceleration?

The acceleration of an object is simply the rate of change of velocity. It can also be written as,

a = dv/dt = (v2 - v1)/(t2 - t1)

here, a is the acceleration of the object, v1 and v2 are its velocities at time instants t1 and t2. 

In the given case, the object is traveling towards the east direction at 15 m/s initially. That is v1 is 15 m/s. The object's new velocity is 5 m/s, still due east, after 4 seconds. Thus, v2 is 5 m/s and the total time elapsed is 4 sec (= t2 - t1).

Hence, the acceleration of the object is given as:

a = (v2 - v1)/(t2 - t1) = (5 m/s - 15 m/s)/4 sec = (-10 m/s) / 4 sec

= - 2.50 m/s^2

Thus, the car is accelerating at -2.50 m/s^2 or, in other words, it is decelerating (negative acceleration) at 2.50 m/s^2.

Hope this helps. 

Did George Washington succeed with his task to get the country off on the start to democracy?

George Washington was successful in getting the country off to a good start with its system of democracy. Upon being elected, President Washington appointed very capable people to his cabinet. These advisors were very helpful to him. Alexander Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury. He developed a plan to deal with the nation’s debt. Thomas Jefferson was our Secretary of State. He helped Washington in dealing with issues we faced with other countries.

One order of business that needed to be handled was our financial system. Relying on Alexander Hamilton, we established a system to pay our debts. We also created a banking system and had only the federal government issuing money. This helped to restore our credit and to establish faith in our financial system.

Another order of business was dealing with internal conflict. When farmers in western Pennsylvania rebelled against the whisky tax, in what was known as the Whiskey Rebellion, President Washington sent the military to restore order. There wasn’t going to be any doubt about how the federal government would handle challenges to its authority.

We also had to show other countries we could handle challenges that developed because of the actions of these countries. When Spain and Great Britain interfered with our trade and helped encourage attacks by Native Americans, President Washington used diplomacy to resolve these issues. Both Jay’s Treaty with Great Britain and Pinckney’s treaty with Spain are examples of how President Washington responded to challenges by other countries without having to go to war.

Finally, when President Washington announced he wasn’t going to run for a third term, political power changed hands peacefully when John Adams became President. There was no fighting when President Washington gave up the power of the presidency. It was done exactly as outlined in the Constitution, which was orderly and peacefully.

What is an analysis of Walt Whitman's "Out of the Rolling Ocean the Crowd?

"Out of the Rolling Ocean the Crowd" appears in the "Children of Adam" cluster in Leaves of Grass. It made its first appearance in the 1860 revision of Leaves of Grass. 

"Children of Adam" is remarkable for its focus on male sexuality. The poems got Whitman into a great deal of trouble and caused his relationship with fellow poet and Transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson to become strained, due to Whitman's refusal to drop the poems from the new collection. 

According to the late scholar James E. Miller, Jr., Whitman expresses, in these poems, the same passion for heterosexual love that he demonstrates for love between men. Moreover, he identifies himself explicitly with Adam, walking with Eve and reveling in the beauty of his masculine form.

In "Out of the Rolling Ocean the Crowd," the narrator has communion with the masses. Whitman was fascinated with the mundane fact of how human beings, particularly in crowded cities, continually brushed up against one another, glanced at one another, smelled one another, and then passed on, unlikely to see one another again. These moments of brief contact helped to connect us, he thought, in ways we hardly bothered to contemplate. The first line of the poem reflects this notion:

Out of the rolling ocean the crowd came a drop gently to me...

The first line echoes the title which compares "the crowd" to "the rolling ocean," something continuous and full of life. Like a drop of water from an ocean, he experiences "a drop" from the crowd, perhaps a glance or a brief touch.

That brief contact "speaks" to him, as though the person against whom he brushed speaks for the whole crowd:

Whispering I love you, before long I die,

I have travel'd a long way merely to look on you to touch you,

For I could not die till I once look'd on you,

For I fear'd I might afterward lose you.

This may seem hyperbolic, or exaggerated. The purpose here is to emphasize our mortality ("before long I die") and the circumstances, occurring over a lifetime, that briefly bring us into contact with one another ("I have travel'd a long way merely to look on you to touch you"), affirming our lives. 

After this communion occurs, we pass along, or move forward with our lives:

Now we have met, we have look'd, we are safe,

Return in peace to the ocean my love,

I too am part of that ocean my love, we are not so much separated...

The feeling of safety is what occurs when we experience connection -- when we realize that we are not apart from the crowd but instead a part of it. It is likened, in the next line, to a "great rondure," or curvature. Its "cohesion" is "perfect," like a veritable circle of love.

There is a break in this unity in the next line, signaled by the contrast transition "but":

But as for me, for you, the irresistible sea is to separate us,

As for an hour carrying us diverse, yet cannot carry us diverse forever...

The sea is a contrary current, another force in nature, that "[carries] us diverse," though not "forever." Diversity, or difference, is powerful, yet not as powerful as what unifies us. Thus, diversity here takes the form of the sea -- a smaller body -- while our "cohesion" is likened to the ocean, a more massive life-giving force. Our unity, or "cohesion," is inevitable, despite the forces of the "irresistible sea":

Be not impatient -- a little space -- know you I salute the air, the ocean and the land,

Every day at sundown for your dear sake my love.

Every element ("the air, the ocean and the land") that brings us together, if only momentarily, is worthy of appreciation. At the close of day ("sundown"), we are better off for it.

Why is Act 4, scene 5 important in The Taming of the Shrew?

This is the scene where Katharina finally gives into Petruchio. Since he heard of her, he planned to marry her for her money and in the process “tame” her. He refuses to give up, humiliating her at her wedding and manhandling her, all in the name of love. Petruchio even interrupts her sleep and refuses to let her eat. He also treats his servants abominably, prompting even her to come to their defense.

On the road, Petruchio asserts, “how bright and goodly shines the moon!” Katharina points out that it is the sun that shines in the middle of the day. He insists that she agree with him: “It shall be moon, or star, or what I list.” He threatens to return home, and for the first time, she relents: “What you will have it named, even that it is; / And so it shall be so for Katharina.”

Petruchio then plays a game, getting Katharina to greet an old man as “Young budding virgin, fair and fresh and sweet.” The moment can be interpreted as a joke that both Petruchio and Katharina enjoy or as a humiliation of Katharina by her controlling husband.

I have to graph trig functions, but when I graph it, it is always wrong. I know how to find the period and the altitude, but where do I start, and...

We will use a sine function as an example, but the method is general:

Suppose you are asked to graph `y=-2sin(1/3*pi(x+2))-2 `

This is of the form `y=asin(b(x-h))+k `

a: a is the amplitude. This is the maximum distance the graph takes from the midline. Note if a<0 the graph is reflected over the midline.

b: b yields the period; the period p is found by `p=(2pi)/b ` . (If you were graphing tangent or cotangent the numerator is pi.) This gives the horizontal distance required for the graph to begin repeating. (If b<0 the graph is reflected over a vertical line. It is often easier to rewrite the original function since sin(-x)=-sin(x) and cos(-x)=cos(x).)

h: h is the horizontal translation or phase shift. If h>0 shift to the right, if h<0 shift to the left h units.

k: y=k is the midline.

So for our example a=-2, b=1/3pi, h=-2 and k=-2

The graph is a transformed sine wave: the amplitude is 2, the graph is reflected over the horizontal, the period is 6, the graph is shifted left 2 units, and the midline is y=-2.

Here is a graph of each of the transformations with the final answer in green:

Red is the original sine, orange has amplitude 2 and has been reflected, blue has the change in period, purple has the phase shift, and green shifts vertically (moved the midline.)

What sources of job applicants would a company use to gain skilled workers?

The question -- what sources would be used in recruiting skills workers -- is very vague, as "skilled workers" could refer to any category of prospective employee, from construction to accounting to health care to restaurant service. This is important because the field of prospective workers is directly related to the nature of the work for which a company is seeking applicants. A hospital seeking applicants for the position of health unit coordinator, head nurse, or surgeon would solicit applicants nationally, advertising through newspapers in major urban areas across the country and contacting human resource agencies in all regions of the country. A construction company seeking to add to its workforce -- most of which would be "skilled" -- might limit its search to newspaper want-ads in surrounding communities or neighboring states. It all depends upon the type of company and the nature of the work. Major law firms in large metropolitan areas might limit their search for "skilled workers," which in a law firm could include lawyers, paralegals, or administrative assistants, the solicitation of applications for which would expand geographically according to the level of skill. In other words, the search for a respected attorney could involve a national search utilizing human resource agencies that specialize in highly-paid "white collar" professionals. 

Again depending upon the nature of the work involved, "skilled workers" can be located in any number of venues. A "skill" can involve the unique expertise needed to repair an automobile's transmission or emission control system, or it can refer to a physician who specializes in certain categories of diseases or ailments. Employment agencies are contacted for many "white collar" positions, while newspaper want-ads are utilized for many "blue collar" jobs, such as those in construction or assisted-living facility service positions. Basically, it all depends upon the priority the company places on the position to be filled. A search for a new principal for a school can be national, while a search for a new teacher for fourth-grade students might be limited to the specific state in which the school in question resides, state certifications being important in such professions. There is no one answer. Human resource departments solicit applications in a manner that correlates directly to the type of position to be filled, skilled or not.

How can you modify Milgram's experiment so that it is ethical and has no potential to harm the participant's mental, emotional and social state?

Despite its horrific (and often misunderstood) outcome, the Milgram experiment really was not that unethical to begin with. I think many people want to think that it was more unethical than it was, simply so that they can place some emotional distance between them and the result. But in fact, Milgram's only unethical actions (by current standards---at the time standards were much looser) were in not getting sufficiently informed consent, overly pressuring experimental participants, and not providing sufficient debriefing. The core structure of the experiment was sound, and the deception itself was not ethically problematic.

It would be quite easy to re-do the experiment in an ethical fashion by fixing these problems.

Actually, this has more or less already been done.

An experiment led by Molly Crockett with Oxford and University College London conducted an experiment very similar to Milgram's, but with much more rigorous informed consent, much weaker pressure on the participants, and much better debriefing. Crockett has also called it the "honest Milgram experiment", because it involves no deception. The participants knew that they were delivering shocks to actual people, and they were. These shocks were much milder and carried very little health risk, but were enough to be painful. Of course, it's impossible to do anything that has zero risk, but the standard used by Institutional Review Boards (IRB) is that it must pose no more risk than daily life, which this study satisfies. (After all, you could be hit by a car on the way to the lab; but that's not an ethical flaw in the experiment.)

What Crockett's team was actually looking for was whether people would really behave according to their own self-interest as standard neoclassical economics predicts. Participants had a series of choices to make, in which they would be paid money either to shock other people or to receive shocks themselves.

The neoclassical prediction is that people would shock others in essentially unlimited amounts for any amount of money, while they would only accept small shocks to themselves for relatively large amounts of money.

What Crockett found was the exact opposite of the neoclassical prediction: People were much more willing to accept shocks themselves than they were to shock other people. Not only were people not selfish, they were highly altruistic---in Crockett's terminology hyperaltruistic, meaning that they seemed to value other people more than they valued themselves.

A lot of subsequent work has been involved in figuring out why this would be true, or what exactly is going on there, because clearly people are not actually hyperaltruistic in general---or we'd all sell all of our possessions and donate the money to UNICEF. A number of new hypotheses have emerged about how human beings make moral value judgments, and this is now an exciting field of research (that I hope to be directly involved in soon, once I start my PhD this fall).

In The House on Mango Street, what are the folks in the chapter "And Some More" doing or talking about?

 In the chapter "And Some More" of Sandra Cisneros' The House on Mango Street, Esperanza and her sister Nenny are having a conversation with their neighbor girls, Rachel and Lucy. The conversation begins with Esperanza trying to show off a little bit by mentioning that she read in a book about how the Eskimos have thirty different names for snow. The conversation is quickly distracted from names for snow to talking about names for a variety of things.

Esperanza seems to be talking about the concept of naming things based on different characteristics they have. Her initial comment about the thirty names for snow implies that those names all have slightly different meanings or at least bring our attention to different qualities of the snow. The same is true of the names for clouds, cumulus and nimbus being specific types of cloud formations. 

This is contrasted with the comments of the other three girls, who are merely naming things for the sake of calling them something. Nenny spends the majority of the chapter simply listing different human names and attributing them to various clouds she sees in the sky. 

Lucy is mostly just chattering in a mindless but insulting sort of way, and says rather off-handedly that Esperanza's mama is ugly. Esperanza becomes very offended by this, and starts to escalate the conversation into an argument in an effort to make the other girls see what they've said. The chapter ends with saying that all four girls are stupid.

This chapter underscores the vast difference between the childish behavior of Nenny, Lucy and Rachel, and the very serious mind that Esperanza has. She interprets a casual and silly comment as a severe insult and is sufficiently wounded by it to choose not to be friends with Lucy and Rachel anymore.

In the beginning of the story, "the children pressed to each other like so many roses, so many weeds, intermixed, peering out for a look at the...

The author uses these words to build anticipation because the importance of the event they are about to witness makes the fact that Margot misses it more calamitous. By setting up the high level of anticipation that the children feel from the beginning, the author allows the reader to engage with the emotions of the children and feel the impact of their cruel prank more profoundly. 

By crowding the descriptive phrases and adjective together like he does, Bradbury gives the feeling of a jumble of pushing children simply by the sentence structure. It is a relatively common technique to string three modifiers together in a sentence. But when Bradbury increases that number to four, the reader feels the excess, as if there is not quite room in the sentence for all the descriptors, just as there is not quite room at the window for all the children to see out.

How do you solve linear equations with 3 variables? x+y=4, 2y+z=6, 3x-z=4.

Hello!

The most straightforward method for solving linear system is the substitution method. We express one variable in terms of others from one equation and substitute this expression into all other equations. This way we reduce the number of variables until one remains. Then we go in reverse direction and found the previous variables.

In this specific problem, express `x` from the first equation: `x=4-y.` Then substitute it into the second and third equations:

`2y+z=6` and `3(4-y)-z=4,` or `3y+z=8.`

Now express `z=6-2y` and substitute, `3y+(6-2y)=8,` or `y=2.`

No go back, recall that `z=6-2y=2,` and back, `x=4-y=2.`

So the answer is x=2, y=2, z=2.

What are some ways in which Jem loses his innocence in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, one way in which Jem loses his innocence is by witnessing Tom Robinson's jury deliver a very unfair verdict. The unfairness of the verdict brought Jem to tears while frequently saying, "It ain't right," walking with Atticus on the way home from the trial. Not only does the verdict enable Jem to see for the first time that evil exists in the world, such as injustice, it also enables him to see just how much people have a tendency to hate each other. Jem grapples with understanding why people hate each other as a result of his loss of innocence.

We see Jem grapple with people's hatred in Chapter 23, the day after the trial. In Chapter 23, Aunt Alexandra angers Scout by calling Walter Cunningham "trash" and forbidding her to play with him after school, and Jem leads the sobbing Scout out of the room. While in Jem's room, Scout and Jem converse about differences between people. Scout protests against the idea that there are different "kinds of folks in the world" and that those differences are marked by differences in levels of education. Instead, Scout insists that "there's just one kind of folks. Folks." Jem argues that he used to think the same way as Scout but has since needed to understand why so many people in the world hate each other, as we see in his following speech:

That's what I thought, too, ... when I was your age. If there's just one kind of folks, why can't they get along with each other? If they're all alike, why do they go out of their way to despise each other? (Ch. 23)

While Scout is correct in asserting that all people are the same, Jem is also correct in asserting that people see differences in each other, and those differences widely have to do with differences in education level. Scout's perspective shows how naive and optimistic she still is, whereas Jem's perspective shows he is developing a deeper understanding of the ways in which people treat each other. His need to come to terms with people's hatred and to find an explanation for it shows that he is no longer naively optimistic like Scout; he has instead lost his innocence due to witnessing people's hatred and its consequences.

Explain the economic importance of the production possibility frontier (PPF).

The production possibility frontier, usually abbreviated PPF, is used to describe the production capacity of a country, or in some cases an individual business.

Usually we draw it in two dimensions for convenience, though in reality it should have many dimensions, one for each product that could be produced.

Along the PPF, production capacity is fully utilized; it is not possible with current resources and technology to produce any more. We can move along the PPF in each direction, producing more of one good and less of another good.

We can also move inside the PPF, producing less of both goods; but this would mean wasting our productive capacity, because we are capable of producing more than we are actually producing.

The one thing we cannot do is move outside the PPF, producing more of both goods; outside the PPF is a level of production we simply can't achieve. We'd like to if we could, but right now we can't.

The PPF is extremely important in describing a range of economic phenomena.

The PPF can be used to explain the concept of opportunity cost: Rather than measuring costs in dollars which are rather arbitrary (and change with inflation), we can measure the cost of producing one good in terms of not producing other goods. As you move along the PPF to produce more X at the expense of less Y, the opportunity cost of X in terms of Y is the slope dY/dX.

The PPF is often applied to international trade: Because different countries have PPFs of different shapes, they can trade with one another to produce more efficiently than either country could do alone, thus effectively expanding their consumption beyond their individual PPF. (Put another way, the combined PPF of both countries is larger than the PPF of each country alone.)

The PPF can also be used to describe inefficiency in production, unemployment, and the business cycle. During a recession, the economy is producing below potential GDP because people are unemployed. This means that we are below the PPF and could have more economic output if we employed everyone and produced at full capacity.

Finally, the PPF can also describe changes in technology and overall economic growth. If technology makes production of one good more efficient, the PPF will expand in the direction of that good. If there is growth in the economy as a whole, the entire PPF will expand outward.

Describe Mercedes and Mondego including their relationship in The Count of Monte Cristo

Both Catalans, Mercedes and Ferdinand Mondego are cousins. Ferdinand is desirous of Mercedes and jealous of Edmund Dantes.

Mercedes and Ferdinand are descended from Spanish and Moorish sailors who settled in the promontory on the Mediterranean Sea, but they did not mix with the French residents of Marseilles. In Chapter III, Ferdinand sits watching Mercedes with vexation and discomfiture. Finally, he speaks to her:

"Tell me for the hundredth time that you refuse my love, which had your mother's sanction. Make me understand once for all that you are trifling with my happiness, that my life or death are nothing to you. Ah, to have dreamed for ten years of being your husband, Mercedes, and to lose that hope, which was the only stay of my existence!"

Mercedes tries to reason with Ferdinand, explaining that a woman cannot be a good wife to anyone if she loves someone else. She urges her cousin to accept the love of her friendship as this relationship is the only thing she can promise him. As a result, Ferdinand feels hatred toward Edmund Dantes, and for this reason, he enters the conspiracy against Edmund which leads to his imprisonment.

Years later, Ferdinand convinces the grieving Mercedes to marry him, and they have a son, Albert. Ferdinand has become an officer and then a count, the Count de Morcerf. He had the letter delivered that implicated Edmund as a Bonapartist, a damning letter which sent Dantes to the Chateau d'If. Many years later, Dantes, as the Count of Monte Cristo, wreaks his revenge upon Ferdinand, exposing his treachery while he was a officer as he betrayed the Pasha of Janina, causing his death. Ferdinand also sold the pasha's wife and daughter into slavery. Disgraced in court and before his contemporaries, Ferdinand commits suicide.

How does Atticus trick Jem into confessing to playing the Radley game in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Atticus used the "the oldest lawyer’s trick on
record" to trick Jem into admitting he played the Radley game.

Atticus uses a lawyer's cross-examination trick on Jem. First, he asks Jem innocently enough why he wants Boo Radley to come out. From there, he manipulates the conversation so Jem eventually admits to playing the Radley game. 

Atticus tells Scout and Jem to leave the Radleys alone. The Radleys, Atticus says, are not peculiar and should be left alone. They deserve privacy.

Lastly, we were to stay away from that house until we were invited there, we were not to play an asinine game he had seen us playing or make fun of anybody on this street or in this town—

“We weren’t makin‘ fun of him, we weren’t laughin’ at him,” said Jem, “we were just—” (Chapter 5) 

At this point, Atticus jumps in and twists Jem’s words, pointing out that he admitted he was playing the Boo Radley game when he protested that he was not making fun of Boo Radley. If he wasn’t playing the game, then who was he not making fun of? This is why Atticus is a good lawyer. 

“So that was what you were doing, wasn’t it?”

“Makin‘ fun of him?”

“No,” said Atticus, “putting his life’s history on display for the edification of the neighborhood.”

Jem seemed to swell a little. “I didn’t say we were doin‘ that, I didn’t say it!”

Atticus grinned dryly. “You just told me,” he said. “You stop this nonsense right now, every one of you” (Chapter 5).

Jem is upset at Atticus for tricking him, but Atticus reminds him that he said he wanted to be a lawyer. Jem calls after Atticus that he is not so sure. He does not appreciate being manipulated by his father. It must not be easy to have a dad who is a lawyer after all!