What questions about McCandless from Into the Wild remain to be answered?

A lot of questions about Chris McCandless remain unanswered.  Krakauer's account of Chris's final year of life is interesting and as accurate as he can make it based on Chris's letters and interviews with people that knew Chris, but it is by no means a 100% accurate retelling.  When writing Into the Wild, Krakauer was forced to make some logical jumps in order to piece together the random appearances of Chris.  For me, there are lots of questions that remain unanswered about Chris.  

One big question that I have is the same question that Jim Gallien had in the first chapter of the book.  Why on earth was Chris going into the Alaskan wilderness with such a small caliber rifle?  Along those same lines, why on earth was his gear choice so substandard?  Chris had been living on the road for a long time by this point in his life, so on one hand he is quite capable of being a minimalist.  But on the other hand he has to understand by now that a few pieces of the right kind of gear can make all the difference in the world.  

Another question that still remains unanswered is exactly what caused Chris's health to decline so rapidly in the Alaskan bush?  Chris had been living for quite some time on the meager stores he usually traveled with, so how did it all fall apart for him so quickly?  Krakauer offers a bunch of suggestions, but none are a definitive answer.  

In the poem Seven Ages (extract of As You Like It), why does the poet, Shakespeare, call life an eventful history?

It’s important to remember that when reading a play the ideas and thoughts of the characters aren’t necessarily the playwright’s own. In poetry, often the poet herself is narrating thoughts and feelings, but in drama that is rarely the case. So in this case, Shakespeare himself doesn’t call life an “eventful history”, Jaques does. It’s not clear that Shakespeare agrees with Jaques’s summary of life; in fact, the speech about the seven ages of man is extremely bleak in its articulation of all of life ultimately ending in decay and uselessness. Life seems pretty pointless to Jaques in that speech. Maybe Shakespeare felt that way too, but we don’t know. Jaques calls life an “eventful history” ironically: “eventful history” makes it sound like a true-life adventure story, when actually what he’s just described is a series of life stages, predictable and boring, adding up to nothing much and ending in hopeless nothingness. It’s as if he described this inevitable march to the grave as an “epic saga”, coldly funny in its overstatement.

Is it easier to remove a nail from a board using a hammer if the nail is closer to the hammer handle or farther away?

Hammers are commonly used to pound nails into a given material. A hammer claw is used to remove nails from a given material. The idea is to hold the nail in the hammer claw and pull it by either using a continuous sideways rocking motion (while simultaneously pulling it out), or using a support to pull it out directly. 

How far the nail should be from the handle end is an example of how we can use levers to maximize work with minimum effort. Think of a seesaw. A lighter person can balance a relatively heavy person by being as far away as possible from the fulcrum (the center pivotal point). The same is the principle here. The further the load end is from the effort end, the lesser effort is needed. Thus, we should ideally keep the nail as far away from the handle end as possible. One can also think of the different efforts needed to put a nail in when holding the hammer near the handle end or near the hammer end.

Hope this helps. 

An ac generator supplies an rms voltage of 5.00 V to an RC circuit. At the frequency of 20.0 kHz, the rms current in the circuit is 38.0 mA;...

The relationship between the voltage and current in AC circuit can be written in the form analogous to Ohm's Law:

`V=IZ`

, where I and V are effective, or rms, values of the current and voltage, and Z is the impedance. For the RC circuit, the impedance is

`Z=sqrt(R^2 + X_C^2)`

, where `X_C=1/(omegaC)` .

Since we don't know the values of R and C (and therefore ` ` ), we have to use the known values of V, I and ` ` and write the system of two equations with two variables. It is easier to use the Ohm's Law with the both sides squared:

`V^2=I^2(R^2 + X_c^2)`

For the frequency f = 20 kHz, the angular frequency is

`w=2pif = 126*10^3 (rad)/s`

and the current is `I = 38*10^(-3) A` .So the equation becomes

`5^2 = (38*10^(-3))^2(R^2 + 1/((126*10^3)^2*C^2))` 

Divide by the coefficient on the right side in order to isolate the parenthesis:

`0.017*10^6 = R^2 + 1/(15,876*10^6*C^2)`

Similarly, for the frequency f = 28 kHz, the angular frequency is

`w = 2pif = 176*10^3 (rad)/s` and the equation becomes, after plugging in the current of 50 mA:

`5^2 = (50*10^(-3))^2(R^2 + 1/((176*10^3)^2*C^2))`

This becomes, after dividing by the coefficient in front of the parenthesis

`0.01*10^6 = R^2 + 1/(30,976*10^6*C^2)` 

So we have two equations with two unknown variables, R and C. We can solve it by eliminating R. Subtract the second equation from the first one. `R^2` will cancel out and we will get

`0.007*10^6 = 1/C^2(1/15876-1/30976)*10^(-6)`

`7*10^3 = 1/C^2*3.07*10^(-5)*10^(-6)`

Finally, from here `C^2 = (3.07*10^(-11))/(7*10^3)`

and `C=0.66*10^(-7) = 6.6*10^(-8)` Farad.

The resistance then can be found from one of the equations. Using the second equation,

`R^2 = 0.01*10^6-1/(30,976*10^6*C^2)`

Plugging in C results in

`R^2=0.01*10^6-7.4*10^3 = 10*10^3-7.4*10^3=2.6*10^3``<br data-mce-bogus="1">`

`R=51` Ohm

So the values of R and C are 51 Ohm and 6.6*10^(-8) Farad, respectively.

In the book "The Giver", what is the significance of rules in Jonas' Community? Why is breaking some rules socially acceptable (like riding a bike...

Rules are used to maintain conformity in the community, but it is very hard to change a rule.

The reason there are so many rules in Jonas’s community is that they are used to maintain social order.  Sameness is a very important concept to the community.  It keeps everyone from ever feeling uncomfortable.  The rules not only enforce Sameness but ensure that people always know exactly what to do. 

However, it is very hard to change a rule because a committee of citizens has to study it and Elders have to approve it.  This is why even when the majority of the community wants the rule changed, it does not get changed.  So people just look the other way, such as teaching eight year olds to ride a bike so that they know how to use it when they get their bicycle at age nine.

There is a rule for almost everything in Jonas’s community.  There are rules for precision of language, enforcing apologies, and telling feelings.  People are not allowed outside of their dwellings at night, and can’t bring food home unless they will eat it immediately.  These are just some of the minor rules governing everyday life.  Parents are supposed to reinforce these rules, and they are considered to be letting their community down if they do not.

Some rules are so unpopular with community members that they have decided to basically ignore them.  An example of this the rule about bicycles.  Almost everyone in the community seems to agree that eight year olds should be taught to ride a bike so that they can take advantage of their new bike as soon as possible when they turn nine.  However, it is nearly impossible to get a rule changed, even when everyone wants to.

There was talk about changing the rule and giving the bicycles at an earlier age. A committee was studying the idea. When something went to a committee for study, the people always joked about it. They said that the committee members would become Elders by the time the rule change was made. (Ch. 2)

This is why everyone looks the other way when the eight year olds’ older siblings teach them how to ride their bikes.  The rule is considered a formality only, it is not a serious offense and is “almost always broken.”  Since the rule is not important, it is not considered worthy of the Receiver.

Rules were very hard to change. Sometimes, if it was a very important rule--unlike the one governing the age for bicycles—it would have to go, eventually, to The Receiver for a decision.  The Receiver was the most important Elder. …But the committee would never bother The Receiver with a question about bicycles … (Ch. 2)

What is a serious offense is breaking a rule that causes other community members to be uncomfortable or afraid.  This is why the jet pilot was severely punished for accidentally flying over the community, and Jonas risked release for being outside his dwelling at night, taking food, and stealing his father’s bicycle.  

Jonas’s community could not function as efficiently as it did without rules.  The rules ensured that no one in the community would ever have to feel very strong emotions.  It was considered inappropriate and dangerous to love, or fear.  This is why everyone in the community takes pills for Stirrings.  The idea is to ensure that everyone remains under control.

My answers are -33g of butane and -99 g of CO2. I'm looking at other answers and their numbers are positive. Why?

I've calculated the amounts and got positive numbers, but otherwise the same values that you arrived at:

-1500 kJ/-2658 kJ/mol of butane = 0.56 moles butane

(0.56 mol butane)(58.5 g/mol) = 33 grams butane

(0.56 mol butane)(4 moles CO2/1 mol butane)(44 grams/mol) = 99 grams CO2

Your error was most likely in not labeling the 1500 J of heat liberated as negative. The `Delta` H per mole of reaction is given as a negative value, -2658 kJ, because the reaction is exothermic. Similarly, the heat evolved for an amount of butane other than one mole will have a negative value. The negative signs cancel out in the first step when -1500 is divided by -2658. 

An exothermic reaction has a negative  `Delta` H and an endothermic reaction has a positive  `Delta` H because the  `Delta` H describes the energy change of the substances reacting. When heat is released, the surroundings gain heat and warm up. That heat came from the reaction, and was released because the products have less chemical potential energy than the reactants. Since energy was lost by the reacting substances the  `Delta` H is negative.

What is a quote in To Kill a Mockingbird describing how Boo Radley is eccentric?

Boo Radley never leaves his house. He has a troubled past.  If you follow his story closely, you will see he is not actually a bad person, but he just had some differences of opinion with his parents and his brother and a difficult childhood. 

Boo Radley definitely had a history of violence. He was a juvenile delinquent who ran around with a gang who was up to no good. The other boys were sent to state industrial school, but Boo was released to his parents. He was later arrested for attacking his father. 

According to Miss Stephanie, Boo was sitting in the living-room cutting some items from The Maycomb Tribune to paste in his scrapbook. His father entered the room. As Mr. Radley passed by, Boo drove the scissors into his parent’s leg, pulled them out, wiped them on his pants, and resumed his activities (Chapter 1).

Those inicents explain from where some of the legends of Boo Radley developed. Boo's exact motivations are unclear. His parents were very religious, and Boo felt they were keeping him locked up. He seems to have snapped.

After his arrest and release, Boo never left the house. The children began interacting with him, and there are subtle indications of his eccentricity. The first is that you can hear laughter when they are trying to make Boo leave his house. Does he enjoy the children’s game? Then, the children find gifts in a tree hollow. These are small objects like pennies, gum, and twine, but the most unusual is the soap dolls. 

They were almost perfect miniatures of two children. The boy had on shorts, and a shock of soapy hair fell to his eyebrows. I looked up at Jem. A point of straight brown hair kicked downwards from his part. I had never noticed it before. Jem looked from the girl-doll to me. The girl-doll wore bangs. So did I. 

Boo Radley was trying to reach out to two children in his neighborhood without coming out of his house. This sounds very odd, and maybe even inappropriate. Given that the interactions are all childlike and innocent, though, we have to remember Boo Radley is really just quiet and shy. The Finch children and Dill are the only people who have ever taken any interest in him.  

By watching Scout, Jem, and Dill, Boo Radley is able to live vicariously through the children without exiting the house. That is to say, he rarely comes out of the house. The only times he comes out, Boo is trying to interact with them. He leaves them presents, sews Jem's pants, and puts a blanket on Scout's shoulder.

What are some character traits of Junior in The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian?

In The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian, the narrator and protagonist Junior is a 14-year-old boy living on the Spokane Indian Reservation.  He is a smart kid who loves school, and as the novel progresses, readers learn that he sees his education as a means of opportunity to get a better life for himself.  He is determined to succeed, so he decides to go off the reservation to a white school called Reardan to get a better education.  Junior's decision shows his bravery:  at home on the rez, he faces other Indians who feel that he has betrayed them by going to a white school, and at Reardan, Junior faces discrimination and taunting from white students.  Junior gets support from his parents, and this trait has trickled down to Junior as well--he is supportive of his family and his best friend Rowdy.  Later, Junior meets friends at Reardan like Penelope, and he is supportive of her efforts to beat her problem with bulimia.  So, these are some of Junior's character traits.

How much did Great Britain, Russia and France spend in 1890 and in 1914?

There are two questions you could be asking here, but it's simple enough to answer both.

The first is how much they spent in general, which is by definition their GDP.

I've used the work of Paul Bairoch, then converted his figures from 1960 dollars to 2015 dollars using the BLS CPI inflation calculator.

I couldn't find 1914 exactly, but if you use 1913 and assume the same average growth rate you can estimate 1914 fairly closely.

Great Britain, 1890: $235.5 billion
France, 1890: $158.1 billion
Russia, 1890: $169.4 billion

Great Britain, 1913: $352.6 billion
France, 1913: $219.2 billion
Russia, 1913: $419.4 billion

Great Britain, 1914 estimate: $359.8 billion
France, 1914 estimate: $222.3 billion
Russia, 1914 estimate: $427.5 billion

The general sense you can get is that while Britain started the biggest and they were all close together, by the end Russia was the biggest and France fell far behind.

But since you asked about specific years that seem to relate to important wars, the other question you might have meant to ask is how much each country spent on the military. I have those figures as well. They were given in 1934 dollars, which I converted to today's money as well.

Great Britain, 1890: $3.05 billion
France, 1890: $3.35 billion
Russia, 1890: $6.47 billion

Great Britain, 1914: $6.62 billion
France, 1914: $6.43 billion
Russia, 1914: $7.70 billion

As you can see, they all increased their military spending quite a bit, but Russia started with the highest by far and France and Great Britain caught up.

A word of caution: A lot of these figures come with considerable uncertainty. Different historians use different measures and different estimates of inflation; I've reported them to a couple of decimal places but that's probably not actually realistic. The general trend, however, is known: Both overall GDP and military spending increased substantially during this period, but contrary to popular belief of a long-term trend of "militarization", GDP actually increased a good deal faster than military spending. It was only in the immediate lead-up to World War 1, starting around 1910, that military spending really began to rise much faster than other spending.

What is the Narrabeen man?

The "Narrabeen Man" is the name given to a skeleton unearthed near the intersection of Ocean Street and Octavia Street in Narrabeen, Australia in January 2005 by workers digging a ditch to work on electricity cables. Radiocarbon dating shows the skeleton to be some 4,000 years old, dating it to approximately 2000 BC. 

The skeleton is of a man approximately 6 feet tall, which is substantially taller than most aboriginal men of his period. He was between 30 and 40 years old at the time of his death. His last meal consisted of fish. 

What makes this skeleton particularly interesting is the manner of his death. He was killed by being stabbed in the back as well as the front with several spears of a particular type with stone barbs, and he was not given a traditional burial. Some archaeologists have suggested that this might be evidence for this having been a ritual murder.

Why does the Little Prince cry when he sees the garden of roses? Does he have a reason to be unhappy?

The Little Prince cries when he sees the garden of roses because he thinks that his rose has lied to him. She had told him she was "the only one of her kind in the whole universe," but here was a whole garden filled with flowers that looked just like his rose! He also feels some pity for himself: "I thought I was rich because I had just one flower, but all I owned was an ordinary rose...That doesn't make me much of a prince." His tears are understandable, but misguided. He doesn't understand the nature of his love, or why she is unique. Of course, the prince will learn from the Fox that it doesn't matter whether there are other flowers that look like his rose -- what makes his rose unique are the shared experiences he has had with her. In fact, the prince can imagine exactly how his rose would react if she had seen the garden: he knows how she would cough and pretend to be ill to cover her embarrassment, and how he would work even harder to care for her. Far from being a reason for tears, the Prince will come to understand that such behavior is really a token of their love.

What led to the creation of the Mulford Act?

To add and challenge some of rrteacher's answer:

Yes, the Mulford Act was specifically designed to weaken and ultimately destroy the Black Panther Party. The NRA was in full support of this bill, which sought to ban California's open carry law.

I would not characterize the Panthers as “militant”. Militant, used in this context, connotes a sense of fear, aggression and power. The Black Panthers, in general, in principle and in nearly every instance, were not initiating violence; they were defending themselves from violence.  When you say, "It was especially aimed at what were called "patrols," where members of the militant Panthers would enter white neighborhoods, fully armed, and walk the streets.” the second half of the sentence is not exactly accurate. They patrolled their own neighborhoods for the purpose of self-defense from the state/police.

"Other times Panthers would follow police patrols, with weapons to protect, as they saw it, African-Americans from police brutality." Yes and no, their goal was to make sure the police followed the law and yes, to hopefully cut down on the very real and horrific violence police had been perpetrating on the African-American community.

The Black Panther Party was a direct threat to the state since their aim was to overturn systems of oppression, e.g. white supremacy, class and capitalism. At the heart of what led to the creation of the Mulford Act were white fear, panic and racism.

Are there or should there be qualified legislatures for good governance & democracy?

The United States Constitution sets forth the qualifications necessary for the legislative branch of the federal government, but any qualifications for state legislatures would be a matter of each state's own constitution. As it stands, for the House, one must be 25 years of age, a citizen of at least seven years, and a resident of the state one seeks to represent. For the Senate, one must be 30 years of age, a citizen for 9 years, and inhabit the state one seeks to represent. I assume that most states have similar requirements. This leads to the second inquiry, as to whether there should be some additional qualifications required. 

There is certainly bound to be a difference of opinion on this matter, but I do not think any additional qualifications would lead to good governance and democracy.  Let's look at a few reasons for this.  The kinds of qualifications we would require would have to be objective ones and very general ones, for example, a college degree, a minimum IQ, or a license to practice law.  A college degree does not automatically confer wisdom or intelligence upon a person, any more than the Wizard of Oz could provide the Scarecrow with a brain.  If we required a college degree, I cannot see that there would be any meaningful improvement in the makeup of any legislature.  There are plenty of non-degreed people who are hardworking, intelligent, and have common sense, people who could do the work ably.  The IQ test, most people agree, is culturally biased and is able to test just a few forms of intelligence, those valued by schools, but by no means able to identify qualities such as creativity or perseverance. I am acquainted with many people with IQs lower than my own whom I consider to be wonderfully intelligent, just in ways I am not.  We would not want to eliminate such people from the pool.  In a democracy, we do not want to make a certain sum of assets to be a requirement, since that would tip the scales even more toward the wealthy than they are right now. If someone were to find some sort of litmus test, an objective means of assessing what makes for a good legislator, I would be for it, but as it stands right now, I can see no such means of judging.  

How does "Harrison Bergeron" convey the conflict between the needs of ideals of society and the realities of individuals?

In Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," there is a contrast between society's needs and the individual's reality. This is the central conflict in the story. In this story, equality at any cost is the goal of society. everyone must be equal and if they have to wear handicaps to do so, then they must. For the society as a whole, the ideal of equality is appealing and deemed fair and right. So the fast are slowed down with weights, the beautiful are covered with masks, etc. In theory, for this society, the idea is just. However, in reality, individuals suffer by being forced to be equal, and this is Vonnegut's message. The individual's reality of beauty or talent being hidden for the greater good of society is frustrating and miserable. Harrison, as an example, wishes to and eventually does break free of his handicaps to have a moment of individual, self-expression that is separate from society. The results are disastrous, which is to show readers how often the needs of society and the reality of the individual are often in conflict.

Can two o+ parents have an a+ baby?

For humans, blood type is determined by three possible alleles which are A,B, and O. The child's blood type is dependent on which two alleles are inherited by the offspring from the parents' gametes. The Rh factor is another inherited trait associated with blood type and there are two alleles for this which are Rh positive (+) and Rh negative (-). 

The A and B allele are codominant and the O allele is recessive to both A and B. Also, Rh positive allele is dominant to Rh negative. If the two parents are both type O positive, they are homozygous for the O allele which is recessive. In terms of the Rh factor, their genotype can be two Rh + genes, or one Rh + and one Rh -  gene. Either of these combinations produces an Rh + individual.

Their gametes will contain an O and an Rh+ or an Rh - gene and once fertilization occurs, the offspring can only be homozygous for blood type O and may be Rh positive and homozygous, Rh positive and heterozygous, or even Rh- if each parent was a heterozygous carrier.

It is not possible for two parents of the genotype described in the question to have a type A+ offspring.

Is there any research-based evidence about how mindfulness affects our brains and reduces stress?

While people have reported personal experiences relating to the positive effects of mindfulness for thousands of year, it has only been recently that science has been able to use research to confirm and label its effects on the brain. Using a training technique called Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), which has been widely reported as an effective approach for promoting psychological wellness, a group of scientists lead by Britta K Hölzel was able to measure the effects of mindfulness on the brain. 

The findings of their research showed changes in the brain including increases in gray matter, where the majority of the processing in the brain takes place, in many areas. The areas most affected by these changes were areas responsible for emotional regulation, learning and memory, perspective and self-referential processing, or how you see yourself and events in reference to yourself. In addition to this, Hölzel cites two other studies (one conducted by Hölzel and one from another scientist) that shows growth in the hippocampus. This is important because it means that damage done to the hippocampus from prolonged stress and some related psychological problems may be reversible through mindfulness.

Mindfulness and related practices such as meditation and even prayer have long been reported to have a positive impact on practitioner's mental well being. Quantitative research has been and is currently being done in an attempt to see if the reported psychological effects have a physical basis. With the advances in science, especially in brain imaging, scientists are now able to confirm links when they exist and promote these practices for general use when the evidence supports it. 

What is the king's relationship with the subjects of his kingdom?

The king in Frank R. Stockton's short story "The Lady, or the Tiger?" is considered "semi-barbaric." Usually the king also represents the type of people who live in the kingdom. He's a typical dictator, though, so his subjects must play the game his way or they suffer the consequences. For example the king is described in the following way:

"When every member of his domestic and political systems moved smoothly in its appointed course, his nature was bland and genial; but whenever there was a little hitch, . . . he was blander and more genial still."

So it would seem that the king treats his subjects fairly well as long as they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. However, the "semi-barbaric" part surfaces when it's time to convict someone of a crime.

"Among the borrowed notions by which his barbarism had become semified was that of the public arena, in which, by exhibitions of manly and beastly valor, the minds of his subjects were refined and cultured."

Another way to say this is that his subjects were conditioned to accept the arena as the official judicial procedure for convictions. This is fine until one day a subject is publicly notified for his own appointment in the arena. The king chooses anyone he feels should be placed in the arena to go at a moment's notice. This part can't be very popular among the king's subjects. For the most part, though, a subject won't get called to the arena unless he has done something to offend the king, one might never know when or how he has offended the king. For the audience, who consists of the king's subjects, it seems like a big game for them, as follows:

"The moment that the case of the criminal was thus decided, doleful iron bells were clanged, great wails went up from the hired mourners posted on the outer rim of the arena, and the vast audience, with bowed heads downcast hearts, wended slowly their homeward way. . ."

Therefore, the king's relationship with his subjects seems to be good except for one little part of his administration which is extreme and "semi-barbaric." Since his subjects are made from the same cloth as the king, they accept him and his arena.

"While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping." Identify the effect of the alliteration in this passage from "The Raven." ...

Alliteration is the repetition of initial consonant sounds in words that are close to each other in the text. Here the words "nodded, nearly napping" all begin with the /n/ sound, and the three words occur in sequence. The alliteration ties the three words together by their first sound. The /n/ sound is a soft, smooth sound; it is a nasal consonant. To make the /n/ sound, air is stopped from coming out of the mouth because of where the tongue is placed and is forced to come out of the nose. Interestingly, this sound is the same sound that someone might make inadvertently while sleeping--a deep breathing sound that is not quite a snore. So using the repeated /n/ sound to describe someone who is about to fall asleep helps the reader experience that state simply through the sounds of the words. In addition, the fact that the three words have identical rhythm--a stressed syllable followed by an unstressed syllable--reinforces the effect. One can almost feel the sensation of the man's head starting to droop and the man catching it with each new stressed /n/ syllable. The use of alliteration and rhythm in this way helps the reader enter into the mood and action of the poem.

What does the mask symbolize in this poem?

The mask symbolizes how blacks must hide who they really are to navigate in white society.  Because they are viewed as stereotypes, blacks must pretend to be what white people expect them to be.  A mask hides one’s true identity. 

The first line, “We wear the mask that grins and lies, it hides our cheeks and shades our eyes” shows that they must “mask” how they really feel about their treatment in white society.  It is through one’s eyes and expression that someone can see how another person feels, but with a mask or the ability to effectively hide one’s feelings, a person survives.  W. E. B. Dubois called this “double consciousness” and wrote how in order to survive, blacks must play a role assigned to them by white society.  That role is one of subservience and submission.  Dubois and Dunbar suggest that blacks live two separate existences—one in their own communities and a different one in the white community. This dual role causes blacks to mask how they really feel, act differently than they really are, and give into ideals that oppress them. 

The poem suggests that blacks pay a price or “debt” for the color of their skin, and it is “with torn and bleeding hearts” that they live a life that doesn’t recognize their worth as a human being.

What is reflection of light?

When light is incident on a surface, such as a mirror or even water, some or all of it may bounce back. This portion of light, that bounces off the surface is known as the reflected light. If the surface is plain, we can determine the angle of reflection. If a hypothetical normal is drawn to the surface, the incident light makes an angle with it, known as the angle of incidence. The angle made by the reflected light with the normal is known as angle of reflection and is equal to the angle of incidence. Reflected light is the reason we are able to see the objects. When light falls on an object and is reflected, part of it may enter our eyes and this is what makes the object visible to us.

Hope this helps. 

In Homer's The Odyssey, what does Odysseus's failure to remember Circe's warning about the uselessness of weapons tell you about his self-image?

Even though the goddess Circe was right about Odysseus's need to go to the underworld to speak with Teiresias, the blind prophet, about how to get home to Ithaca as well as how to remain unaffected by the Sirens' fatal song, when Odysseus's ship approaches Scylla, he fails to heed Circe's warning that weapons would avail them nothing.  He admits that "[he] disregarded [...] the hard command of Circe, when she had said [he] must by no means arm."  He puts on his armor, takes up two spears, and goes on deck to search for the horrible six-headed monster, thinking that he might be able to slay her before she could kill six of his men (one for each head).  Odysseus's willingness to disregard Circe's advice, advice which has a pattern of soundness, provides evidence of his own arrogance.  He still thinks that he knows more than an immortal goddess who has been right about everything else so far.  Odysseus's pride is immense, and thus his self-image is not quite in line with who he really is.  He sees himself as infallible, and this is not the case. 

In Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, why doesn't Jane go to India with St. John?

Jane does care for her cousin St. John, but more like a brother. She considers his proposal of marriage very seriously because it was not uncommon back in the 19th century for a girl to marry a cousin or to marry without romantic feelings. Some marriages, in fact, were done for wealth, social status, or mere survival and without love. But Jane Eyre is not a common English girl. She is an intelligent and passionate woman who knows what she wants and won't settle for anything less. After being tricked by her true love, Mr. Rochester, considering St. John for marriage would be logical and safe for a woman in her circumstances. Jane always dreamed to have a safe and loving family because she didn't grow up with one. St. John could have provided that for her, but deep down she knows that he is emotionally and passionately unavailable for her.

For example, Jane knows that St. John deeply and passionately loves Rosamond, but he turns down a deep, passionate love with her because he values his ministry over living a life for himself. It's as if St. John feels he must suffer throughout life and deny himself joy in order to get to heaven; and this, in fact, is not how Jane feels at all. Jane is a good and pious woman, but she also seeks the best for herself. She knows she would not be happy with St. John down the road or immediately. Jane explains the situation as follows:

"Alas! If I join St. John, I abandon half myself: if I go to India, I go to premature death. And how will the interval between leaving England for India, and India for the grave, be filled? Oh, I know well! That, too, is very clear to my vision. . . He will never love me; but he shall approve me" (411-412).

Later, she tells him she will go as his sister but not as his wife, so she doesn't completely reject him. But she can't bring herself to live a lie. He rejects the sister idea because it would look bad and bring up suspicions among those he teaches and works with. So, it doesn't work out for Jane and St. John to marry.

What caused Bud to become so frightened that he locked Mr. Lewis out of his own car and tried to ride off?

In Chapter 10, Lefty Lewis pulls his car over after he sees Bud walking on the side of the road. Lefty gives Bud a drink of red pop and asks Bud where he lives. Bud lies and tells Mr. Lewis that he lives in Grand Rapids. Lefty tells Bud that he is also from Grand Rapids and walks Bud over to the passenger side of the car after Bud grabs his suitcase. Mr. Lewis moves a box that is sitting in the front seat so Bud can sit down. Bud notices that the box says, "URGENT: CONTAINS HUMAN BLOOD" (Curtis 106). Bud's wild imagination takes over, and he immediately believes that Lefty Lewis is a vampire. When Lefty lets go of Bud's arm, Bud slams and locks both doors so Lefty cannot get in. Bud attempts to drive away but is too short to reach the gas pedal and does not know how to operate a vehicle. Bud clumsily yanks down on the gear lever and the car takes off. Bud doesn't make it far before the car stops and turns off. Mr. Lewis then convinces Bud that he is not a vampire and Bud unlocks the door and rides back to Flint with him.

In "The Cask of Amontillado," why was it effective to explain about whether or not the narrator was part of the free masons?

The joke about the Masons demonstrates that Fortunato is from a more important family than Montresor.

We do not know much about Montresor, except that he is a madman and he wants revenge against Fortunato for some unknown, probably insignificant reason.  Montresor gets Fortunato into the catacombs by telling him that he has a rare and expensive wine that he needs his opinion on.  This may indicate that Fortunato is wealthier than Montresor, since he can be expected to know wine better.

Fortunato must not know Montresor well if he is trying to find out if he is a Mason.  The Masons are an ultra-secretive secret society of wealthy and influential individuals.  Montresor does not seem to have made the cut.

I broke and reached him a flagon of De Grave. He emptied it at a breath. His eyes flashed with a fierce light. He laughed and threw the bottle upwards with a gesticulation I did not understand.

I looked at him in surprise. He repeated the movement --a grotesque one.

Montresor likely describes the movement as grotesque because of his delusion.  He considers Fortunato evil, worthy of punishment enough that he is trying to kill him.  It makes sense that he would discount the movement Fortunato makes and read the wrong thing into it.

Fortunato presses the issue, and Montresor tries to backpedal.  He does not want Fortunato getting suspicious now.

"You do not comprehend?" he said.

"Not I," I replied.

"Then you are not of the brotherhood."

"How?"

"You are not of the masons."

"Yes, yes," I said; "yes, yes."

"You? Impossible! A mason?"

Fortunato’s contempt shows that he does not believe Montresor, and does not value Montresor’s family name.  Montresor tries to get out of the situation by holding up his trowel.  Fortunato is drunk enough to think it is part of a joke and not wonder what Montresor is doing with a trowel.

The Mason incident is effective in that it adds comic relief, foreshadowing, and characterization.  It is humorous, but it also foreshadows the danger to Fortunato.  Why does Montresor have that trowel?  It is also characterization, because it tells us that Fortunato's family is wealthier and more influential than Montresor's.

how is parallelism being used in the poem The Soldier by rupert brooke

Parallelism is defined as using elements in sentences that are grammatically similar or identical in structure, sound, meaning, or meter. For example, referring to Brooke’s poem:

“That there’s some corner of a foreign field/That is forever England. There shall be/In that rich earth a richer dust concealed”

Try reading this sentence out loud to hear what it sounds like. There is a cadence to “that” and “there” that is being repeated. Also, “rich” and “richer” are used to the same effect.

In another example:

“A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware/Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam”

Take a look at the verbs used in this line: “bore,” “shaped,” “made aware.” Each is in the same tense which is a good indicator of parallelism. To give an example that is NOT parallelism, the line would read:

“A dust whom England bore, shaping, making aware, gave, once, her flowers, to love, her ways to roam.”

See how the tense of the verbs changed? Some are present tense, while others are past tense. The poem doesn’t sound as musical formatted this way. But, in Brooke's poem, he is careful to use the past tense to maintain parallelism, and overall, give a more enjoyable reading experience.  However, “to love” and “to roam” is another example of parallelism. Here is a last example for you:

“Give somewhere back the thoughts by England Given/In hearts at peace, under an English heaven”

It is clear that “given” and “heaven” are rhymes. But, the meter in which this poem is written is what lends itself to parallelism. That means this stanza qualifies as parallelism because of how similar both words sound. The entire poem follows a similar pattern or structure which, essentially, makes this poem in and of itself, a parallelism.

Which current flows ceaselessly without ever encountering a landmass?

The Southern Ocean surrounds the continent of Antarctica. The major current of the Southern Ocean is the ACC--the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. It is the only current in the world's oceans that flows without ever encountering a land mass. It moves more water than any other current, and flows through parts of three other oceans--the Atlantic, Pacific and the Indian. Although the ACC does not directly encounter land, it is influenced by both the continent of Antarctica and the southern portions of South America. For example, the area between Cape Horn and the Antarctic Peninsula is much narrower compared to the area occupied by the ACC around the rest of Antarctica.

A great deal more information including average temperature, depth, and the history of early exploration and discovery of the ACC can be found in the first attached link. The second link is from the same source, and has information about all the ocean currents.

Are great poets restricted to imagery?

While great poets tend to rely on imagery, which is concrete description using the five senses, and are often considered great because they use images in ways that stick with us, they are not restricted to using imagery.

Great poets often use techniques such as rhyming to help us remember a poem. Alliteration, or using the same consonant more than once in a line of poetry, is another common technique. The poet Gerard Manley Hopkins uses this frequently, such as in his poem "God's Grandeur" in which the greatness of God is conveyed through lines such as "shining like shook foil," which stick in our minds because of the repeated "sh" sound.

Other great poets, such as TS Eliot, use more abstract images, which do not rely on the fives senses. In "Burnt Norton," for example, he writes of time present, time past and time future, depending on repetition of the abstract term time to build meaning. Likewise, poet James Emanuel calls jazz "a four letter word," saying it is sexy and cerebral. These are general, abstract terms that may evoke images but are not themselves specific, concrete images. 

Great poets tend to break rules and find new and creative ways to convey thoughts, and thus are not restricted to imagery. 

Compare how Macbeth and Ulysses can be seen as heroes and villains.

Both Shakespeare's lead character in the play Macbeth and Alfred, Lord Tennyson's lead character in the poem "Ulysses" have heroic and villainous sides to them.

At the beginning of Macbeth, Macbeth has many heroic qualities: he is brave, he is noble (in station and deeds), and he is loyal to his kinsman Duncan, having just fought, very well in fact, to defend him. The play can certainly be read with Macbeth as the tragic hero, his misdeeds and the loss of these excellent heroic qualities the result of a sketchy prophecy and crazy-ambitious wife. After all, Macbeth's reaction to the three witches shows that he is perhaps not as in control as he could be. When they meet the witches and Macbeth hears the prophecy, Banquo describes him as "rapt," as if he is in a trance. After Lady Macbeth urges him to kill Duncan, Macbeth says in a soliloquy that he sees a "dagger of the mind" before him, leading him on to the deed. So the argument could be made that he is a hero undone by a heroic flaw.

However, many readers disagree with that casting and see Macbeth as an over-ambitious villain who allowed himself to be tempted into giving in to his basest nature. It's certainly not hard to find evidence of this. Even after Macbeth has killed Duncan and driven his heirs out of Scotland, even after Macbeth himself is king, he is still afraid. He kills Banquo and tries to kill his son. He has all of Macduff's family killed, including the children, justifying it by saying:

"For mine own good
All causes shall give way. I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er" (3.4.167-170).

I've already killed so many people a few more won't hurt is just about the most villainous excuse in the book. Whoever Macbeth was at the beginning of the play, he is showing a vastly different side of himself at this point.

Tennyson's Ulysses was originally hailed as a hero, based as he is off of the Greek hero of the Trojan War and mythic star of the Odyssey. That such a figure would go off on adventures and take risks is taken for granted in such readings; that's part of his charm, after all. He is the traditional hero who goes off in search of a noble quest and great deeds. Even though he and his men are old, they are:

"One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" (ln 68-70)

This human need to continue to search and strive for more is a common one in literature, and many see it as noble. Still, there are other aspects of the poem that show Ulysses as more selfish than heroic. He is proposing giving up his duties to his family and people—he is, after all, king. His call for a flight from responsibility includes such unflattering lines as:

"Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole

Unequal laws unto a savage race,

That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me" (ln 3-5).

Furthermore, his call for his comrades to join him on his adventure sounds eerily like a call to death, a glorious suicide that will give Ulysses the ego trip he isn't getting at home. After all, his purpose is:

"To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths

Of all the western stars, until I die" (ln 60-61).

Clearly, both Macbeth and Ulysses are complex characters who refuse to be forced into a single, simplistic label and instead present the varied, complex human experience.

In Lorraine Hansberry's play A Raisin in the Sun, what rift is indicated between Ruth and Walter when she says to him, “You mean graft?”, when...

Lorraine Hansberry play A Raisin in the Sun is not only about the state of race relations in the United States during the1950s. In fact, the efforts of the predominantly white community to which the Younger family hopes to relocate, efforts that Karl Lindner, the representative of that community who is dispatched to the Younger apartment to bribe the African American family to reconsider and stay away, constitutes an underlying theme of Hansberry’s play. The real drama in A Raisin in the Sun occurs within the Younger household, with the conflicting philosophies of Walter and Ruth Younger and the diametrically-opposed perspectives of Travis’s sister Beneatha’s two suitors, George Murchison and Joseph Asagai. Walter is determined to pursue the material trappings that represent “the American Dream,” towards which end he plans to use the proceeds from his deceased father’s life insurance to invest in a liquor store with two friends. As the play progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that those plans, dependent upon Willy and Bobo, Walter’s friends, is a little less than practical given the questionable nature of Willy’s character. Walter, however, is ready to move forward on this business proposal, while his long-suffering wife, Ruth, remains skeptical of get-rich-quick schemes, as she spends her days, when not tending to their small apartment, cleaning the homes of wealthy white families. Ruth believes that only through hard work and careful consideration can her family advance in the world, although she shares Walter’s dream of a bigger house in a better neighborhood. It is Ruth’s more cautious nature and physically- and emotionally-exhausted demeanor that causes her to question her husband’s ethics, evident in the following passage from Act I, Scene I:

WALTER: Yeah. You see, this little liquor store we got in mind cost seventy-five thousand and we figured the initial investment on the place be 'bout thirty thousand, see. That be ten thousand each. Course, there's a couple of hundred you got to pay so's you don't spend you life just waiting for them clowns to let your license get approved —

RUTH: You mean graft?

WALTER (frowning impatiently): Don't call it that. See there, that just goes to show you what women understand about the world. Baby, don't nothing happen for you in this world 'les you pay somebody off!

Walter and Ruth love each other, but Ruth’s later consideration of an abortion to terminate her pregnancy is an overwhelming indictment of her feelings regarding her husband’s character. Of the two, Ruth is the one with work ethic necessary to advance properly in the world. Walter, as is noted in Act II, Scene II, lacks his wife’s ethical approach to adult responsibility, failing to show up for work as a cab driver for three days in a row

RUTH: She said Mr. Arnold has had to take a cab for three days . . . Walter, you ain't been to work for three days! (This is a revelation to her.) Where you been, Walter Lee Younger? (WALTER looks at her and starts to laugh.) You're going to lose your job.

WALTER: That's right. . . (He turns on the radio.)

Walter believes the $10,000 insurance payment is his, and his family’s, ticket to success, but Ruth knows otherwise. Ruth, as noted, is a realist; she knows that, as an African American family in the inner-city, the Youngers are getting a raw deal in life, but she knows that no short-cut exists to a better life. She is tired, emotionally and physically, and is at the end of her rope. Walter, though, is also something of a realist. Hansberry’s play takes place in the south-side of Chicago, a city renown for its history of corruption. Ruth’s comment about Walter’s willingness to bribe city officials reflects both her superior moral outlook and Walter’s more hard-edged realism. Both are pragmatists, but in markedly different ways. Their marriage suffers under the strains of their socioeconomic condition, but it is resilient enough to endure.

Determine algebraically whether the graph of the equation 4x^2+y^2=36 has line symmetry or symmetry wrt the origin, both, or none of these.

Hello!

The equation is

`4x^2 + y^2 = 36.`

The central (point) symmetry with respect to the origin moves a point with the coordinates (x, y) to the point (-x, -y). If a point (x_1, y_1) satisfies the equation, i.e.

`4x_1^2 + y_1^2 = 36,`

then its image `(-x_1, -y_1)` satisfies it, too:

`4*(-x_1)^2+(-y_1)^2 = 4x_1^2 + y_1^2 = 36.`

This means that this graph has central symmetry and its center of symmetry is the point (0, 0).

The same idea works for the line (reflection) symmetry. Reflection over the x-axis moves (x, y) to (x, -y), and if

`4x_2^2 + y_2^2 = 36,`

then also

`4x_2^2+(-y_2)^2=4x_2^2+y_2^2=36.`

Similarly the reflection over the y-axis moves (x, y) to (-x, y) and it is also a symmetry of this graph.

The answer: yes, this graph has line symmetry with respect to the x-axis, and with respect to the y-axis, and it has point symmetry with respect to the origin.

This graph (ellipse, actually) has no more axes of symmetry.

How is Elizabeth characterized as a wife, a daughter, and a sister in Pride and Prejudice?

Daughter: Elizabeth Bennett, the protagonist of Jane Austen's novel Pride and Prejudice, is an unusually independent-minded young woman for her period. She clearly sees the faults of both her mother and father. She is frustrated by her mother's lack of culture and intellect and finds her public persona embarrassing. She is more tolerant of her father's faults and has more sympathy for him, perhaps because they are intellectual equals, with a tendency towards enjoying and mocking the foibles of their fellow creatures.

Sister: Elizabeth is seen as a loyal and loving towards her sister Jane, bravely undergoing considerable discomfort to nurse her when she falls ill. Jane is her friend and confidant as well as her sister, although despite their closeness, Elizabeth tends to consider herself smarter and more perceptive than her more trusting sibling. She is less close with her younger sisters and is often a bit embarrassed or frustrated by their behavior. 

Wife: As the marriage of Darcy and Elizabeth occurs at the end of the novel, we do not really see it in much detail; however, through their courtship Elizabeth expresses eloquently that she believes that marriage should be based on mutual respect and affection, and she and Darcy share many interests and beliefs in common.

How does Dante utilize the depiction of characters in The Inferno to express social satire and satirical commentary?

It's awesome that you're reading Dante's Inferno—it's a great and super important work! 

Satire is the use of irony, humor, and exaggeration to expose hypocrisy, stupidity, or evils. Social satire is when you do this in the context of your own society. 

If you are familiar with the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, this is a great way to think about satire. In the Daily Show, Jon Stewart directly makes fun of issues in our society. But in the Colbert Report (so sad it was cancelled!), Stephen Colbert would pretend to believe in the issues he was intending to mock, and would exaggerate them in a funny way to make his point. 

Dante does the same thing in the Inferno. He exposes the hypocrisy and malice in Florentine society by showing how the people atone for their sins in hell—it's pretty extreme. He does this for groups in general, like in the third circle where the gluttons are punished. He also does it to specific people, like Filippo Argenti, in the fifth circle, where anger is punished. 

Argenti was someone who had wronged Dante, and rather than just talk about that directly, Dante goes to an extreme and shows Argenti paying for that sin in hell. 

Look for more examples like this—there are a lot of them! 

Is T. knowledgeable about architecture in "The Destructors" by Graham Greene?

Yes, Trevor is knowledgeable about architecture, which is probably why he is so jealous of Old Misery and his surviving house. The exposition makes it clear that Trevor's father was an architect, so some of that knowledge trickled down to Trevor.

First of all, Trevor knows of the builder of the house, Wren, and knows that he is the same builder who built St. Paul's. None of the other boys has any idea what he is talking about. Next Trevor asks Old Misery to tour his home. This request would be odd for a teenage boy if he had no interest in or knowledge of architecture.  

Trevor devises the plan to destroy the house, assigns the tools to bring, and assembles a plan that will gut the inside of the house without affecting the appearance of the outside.

"...By six the superficial damage was completed. The doors were all off, all the skirtings raised, the furniture pillaged and ripped and smashed—no one could have slept in the house except on a bed of broken plaster."

Destroying the inside without giving a clue to that destruction on the outside is quite a feat.

This job seems way out of the league of a typical teenage boy with no knowledge of architecture.

According to Thoreau, what's the benefit of simplifying our lives?

Thoreau was a transcendentalist and strongly influenced by Buddhism, notably The Lotus Sutra, a chapter of which he published in The Dial magazine in 1844. A recurring theme in The Lotus Sutra is that enlightened beings aim to free themselves from the attachments of the world. Attachments in this sense means excessive reliance on the "stuff" of the world - money, material possessions, social status, etc. for one's identity and self esteem.

The benefits to Thoreau of not having so many things, simplifying one's life, were several. One benefit was the purely practical one of not having to spend the time it takes to care for your many things - if you have an extensive wardrobe, it must be continuously laundered, if you have a large, fine house, it must be continuously kept in tip-top shape. Simplicity, in other words, creates time to pursue more meaningful things.

The other benefits were of a spiritual nature - with simplicity comes a greater degree of quiet and stillness, which allows for reflection and connection with oneself and the greater whole, the universe, God. Thoreau saw this as the best reason for simplifying our lives.

How do you start and write a short summary on a long chapter?

To write a chapter summary in a novel, begin by making a list of main events. For this list, you are looking for actions that move the plot line forward. You should pay most attention to the main characters and who they interact with. When considering main events, you have to learn to distinguish between the minor details and the significant occurrences. For example, descriptions of the setting or characters are not main events; pages of dialogue can often be summed up in just one sentence. Think in terms of what the author is trying to accomplish related to furthering the conflict--in this case, solving the mystery. In a book like The Hound of the Baskervilles that has chapter titles, you can use the title to give you hints as to what is important in the chapter. For example, chapter 5 is entitled "Three Broken Threads," so you would want to identify those threads in your summary. At the beginning of the chapter, Sir Henry loses another boot at the hotel, this time an old one. Holmes offers Watson's services to go down to Baskerville Hall with Sir Henry. They discuss the terms of Sir Henry's inheritance. Then they find out that the three clues or leads Holmes has been pursuing all come up as dead ends. To summarize the chapter, you would just write a sentence about each of those main events, including one sentence for each of the "broken threads." Thinking about main events will help you keep track of the plot of the story as it develops. 

What is Rainsford's primary trait in "The Most Dangerous Game"?

Rainsford has a lot of traits.  He's confident, intelligent, brave, masculine, honest, physically fit, and he has a good moral compass.  I can't pick a primary trait because he is equally all of those things at the same time.  Those traits are what make Rainsford.  

However, if you were to ask a slightly different question, I think I can pick one trait.  "What trait do you think keeps Rainsford alive more than any other trait?"  

I think Rainsford's ability to stay cool, calm, and collected is the primary trait that keeps him alive.  Rainsford is in an incredibly dangerous situation.  He is being hunted, and if he loses, he dies.  That's a high stress environment, yet Rainsford never goes into full panic mode.  Even at the end of the story when Zaroff is closing in with the dogs, Rainsford's mind is still working on plans to escape.  He may be running for his life, but he's not running recklessly.  

They would be on him any minute now. His mind worked frantically. He thought of a native trick he had learned in Uganda. He slid down the tree. He caught hold of a springy young sapling and to it he fastened his hunting knife, with the blade pointing down the trail; with a bit of wild grapevine he tied back the sapling. Then he ran for his life. The hounds raised their voices as they hit the fresh scent. Rainsford knew now how an animal at bay feels.

A reader could argue that Rainsford jumped into the sea in a panic, but I disagree.  I think the jump was just another clear, calculated risk that Rainsford was willing to take.  And it paid off.  

What is the importance of the Sixth Amendment?

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution is important because it guarantees some crucial aspects of due process, that is, the legal procedures that the state must observe when bringing a criminal action against a person. To understand what is important about it, look at the text of the Amendment itself:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

To put this in more basic terms, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that a person accused of a crime cannot be tucked away in a jail cell somewhere, or tried before a secret court. The guilt or innocence of an individual in a criminal case is determined by a juries drawn from one's peers (who cannot be biased for or against the defendant), and the person must be informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation" so that they might contest it. Similarly, the witnesses against the accused can be cross-examined, or challenged by the accused, and the right of the accused to an attorney is guaranteed. Essentially, this amendment ensures that the criminal legal process will be adversarial, that the innocence of the accused is presumed, and that the prosecution cannot establish guilt without being challenged. In other words, the Sixth Amendment is important because it guarantees a fair trial.

How would I write the reasoning for these pieces of evidence from "The Veldt" for a claim that states " The kids have a closer relationship with...

In the short story "The Veldt" by Ray Bradbury, George and Lydia Hadley build their two children, Peter and Wendy, an automated nursery that carries out all the functions that parents would perform for their children. In addition, the nursery can replicate reality, and the children have set it to resemble an African veldt, a grassland where lions live. The parents believe they will live a life of ease with well-functioning and loving children, but they don't realize that by allowing the house to do everything for their children, they permit the house to become the children's parents. 

Here is an explanation of the evidence:

Evidence A: "You've let this room and this house replace you and your wife in your children's affections" is a quote from David McClean, the psychologist the Hadleys call in to consult with them after they realize that their children are fixated on the veldt. The parents also hear strange screams coming from the veldt. In this quote, David McClean tells the parents that the nursery is carrying out all the functions a parent should perform for his or her children. Therefore, the children have come to love the room more than their parents, from whom the children feel distanced, as they have little normal interaction with their parents.

Evidence B: "Don't let them do it!" wailed Peter at the ceiling, as if he was talking to the house, the nursery. "Don't let Father kill everything." He turned to his father. "Oh, I hate you!" Peter says this after George Hadley turns off the nursery at the advice of David McClean, the psychologist. Peter and Wendy are filled with rage when their parents turn off their nursery because, to Peter, the nursery represents "everything." In fact, Peter addresses the house rather than speaking to his parents because the house is more real to him than his parents are. The nursery means more to him than his parents do, and he will gladly see them dead if it means he can return to the nursery he loves. 

As George and Lydia Hadley have spoiled their children so greatly, they find it impossible to then have their children to pull the plug on their automated room. Instead, it is clear that the children have become so close to the nursery that it has replaced their parents in their minds. 

Who took more the liberal approach, President Hoover or President Roosevelt?

If we are using "liberal" in the modern sense, which generally is taken to mean someone who believes that the government should play an active role in economic matters, then Franklin Roosevelt took by far the more liberal approach. Indeed, his New Deal is often understood as the foundation of modern liberalism. Roosevelt's approach to the Great Depression included many relief efforts, including the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and recovery programs like the National Industrial Recovery Act. Both of these marked direct interventions on the part of the federal government to boost the economy and ameliorate the effects of the depression on American businesses and individuals. Perhaps the most important aspects of the New Deal were attempts to establish structural reforms that would regulate the economy in such a way as to stabilize the economy. These included the Social Security Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. These measures, and the philosophy behind them--namely, that the federal government should, to a limited extent, manage the extremes of a capitalist economy--are at the heart of modern liberalism. So FDR's approach was far more liberal than that of Hoover, who generally advocated very limited intervention in the economy.

How was the father described physically in Cheaper by the Dozen?

In the biographic novel Cheaper By The Dozen by Frank Bunker Gilbreth Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey, the father, also names Frank Bunker Gilbreth, is described physically as being a very heavy and very tall man who has an outward appearance of great confidence. His appearance is a representation of his character, that of a successful businessman, a trained engineer, and a masterful manager of time. The description of Mr. Gilbreth is somewhat akin to what could be expected of a somewhat buttoned-down foreman of the early twentieth century, which is very much appropriate for a man who feels that it is possible to run and manage a family in much the same way that one would run a factory.

How do the respective views of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau on liberty relate to the policies of modern governments? Discuss one or more examples.

Hobbes argued that despite the natural equality and liberty amongst individuals, the anarchy of pursuing survival made life "nasty, brutish, and short." Therefore, he suggests the establishment of a supreme sovereign power (e.g. King) would be the only way to create order and peace as well as secure the natural rights of equality and freedom. This supposedly rational decision, by the people, to acquiesce power (freedoms) to an absolute sovereign in exchange for laws and enforcement that make life possible, is an understood by Hobbes as an implied agreement he called the "social contract." 

Locke agreed with Hobbes in respect to the brutish state of nature and the ability for a social contract to transcend the violent affairs of nature. However, they diverged because Locke did not view the people as acquiescing any freedom to the sovereign ruler in this agreement -- given the natural rights of life, liberty, and property were inalienable -- impossible to be taken or given away. Thus the sovereign ruler can never hold absolute power, as the natural rights of individuals checked an unrestrained reign. Whereas Hobbes argued that once the agreement was made to establish a sovereign ruler one must obey without the liberty to revolt, Locke argued that if the sovereign violated any natural right, the individual, or the people had the liberty to depose the ruler. This differing view on the liberties of individuals were also predicated on with whom the social contract was supposedly made between. For Hobbes the contract was only amongst the people themselves -- hence once the agreement was reached the sovereign was held to no limits. Yet, for Locke, the social contract was between the people and the ruler. However, it is important to note, that despite Locke's insistence that liberty (along with life) were inalienable natural rights, his primary commitment was to the natural right of property -- and therefore protecting property was the way government could promote the "public good". The implications of Locke's view on liberty for modern government concerns a preference for representative government -- since neither men nor property owners have any rights. 

Rousseau argued, like Hobbes and Locke, that the nature of individuals was freedom and equality, yet in contrast, he also believed they were peaceful and happy! For Rousseau it was the emergence of property (ownership claims) that introduced violence and injustice. Therefore, the (Hobbesian) social contract was not a contract or agreement at all, but a trick by the rich to consolidate power over the masses. The solution to protecting life, liberty, and property, without surrendering freedom, still required a social contract for Rousseau just not between the people and a sovereign ruler, but between people individually and the whole community -- as a collective society with a "general will." The implications of Rousseau's views on liberty for modern governments concern a preference for direct democracy over elected representatives. 

What is the lesson that Scout learns from Calpurnia at lunchtime?

Walter Cunningham comes over for lunch. Scout watches him eat and is appalled by his manners and eating habits:

Walter interrupted to ask if there was any molasses in the house. Atticus summoned Calpurnia, who returned bearing the syrup pitcher. She stood waiting for Walter to help himself. Walter poured syrup on his vegetables and meat with a generous hand. He would probably have poured it into his milk glass had I not asked what the sam hill he was doing (Chapter 3).

Scout starts to protest. She cannot believe someone would want sweet syrup all over their savory food. Calpurnia interrupts Scout and calls her to come in the kitchen.

Once in the kitchen, Calpurnia scolds Scout.  She is very mad at Scout for calling attention to a guest's manners. She reminds Scout several times that Walter Cunningham is a guest in their house and should be treated with respect. Scout tells Calpurnia that Walter is not really a guest, but Calpurnia is firm. She tells Scout that anyone who comes into their house is considered a guest. Lastly, she tells Scout that she will have to eat in the kitchen instead of at the dinner table unless she behaves herself.

What is an idiom?

An idiom is a form of speech (or writing) where a word or phrase is used to express meaning that is not literal. Many colloquialisms or "turns of phrase" are idioms. The idiom is distinctive because its meaning is implied rather than drawn directly from the word or phrase. Idioms may vary from language to language and culture to culture based on the implied or associated meanings of words. 

For example, where I live, we use an idiom to describe especially heavy rain — "it's raining cats and dogs." At face value, this phrase makes it sound like cats and dogs are falling from the sky, but it really means the weather is unusually severe.

Another idiom you might be familiar with is to say someone does or doesn't "get it," meaning they do or do not understand something.

In Romeo and Juliet, what is meant by the phrase "from forth the fatal loins of these two foes"?

The phrase, mentioned in line five of the Prologue, sets the stage for the action yet to come.  The "loins" refer to the sexual organs of both sets of parents; even in modern society, we sometimes refer to children as the "fruits of our loins."  Thus, those who came "from the loins" would be Romeo and Juliet.  Calling the loins "fatal" helps the audience to understand that things will not end well for Romeo and Juliet; both will perish by the end of the story.  The "foes" referred to within the line are the Montagues and the Capulets, two families that have been at war for a considerable amount of time.

In general, this line fits into a prologue that details the full action of the play before the action even begins.  Some might question giving away the ending during the prologue, but doing so provides its own method of suspense.

In your own opinion, what biological, psychological, and/or sociological elements account for a serial killer's behavior or actions across cultures?

There is enough research on the topic of serial killers to establish a very informed opinion about the issue. It is the question of nature vs. nurture. Does the killer's action reflect a biological factor at play or is it the social environment in which the subject is raised that makes them behave the way the do.

The study of serial killers has netted a number of biological issues at play. First, the brain of psychopaths and sociopaths does not function properly. Through brain scans, a malfunction of the low orbital cortex has been identified in killers. This is the area of the brain that it responsible for impulse control and the ability to regulate morality and ethics. Killers have brains that show low or no levels of activity in that part of the brain. Dr. Helen Morrison has also discovered a chromosome abnormality in serial killers that may act as a trigger. There has been evidence of killers having an extra x or y chromosome, but the study of this area is in its infancy. Most experts feel that these factors are only predispositions and do not guarantee that somebody will end up killing.

A number of psychological disorders are identified in serial killers as well. Their failure to develop a sense of attachment to the world as an adolescent is one trait. The most common psychological disorder associated with serial killers is antisocial personality disorder, which is a developmental disorder. People with this disorder lack empathy and are plagued with illusions of grandeur. Borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder are also quite common. All three of these disorders can be brought on by social conditions, so it is important to look at the "nurture" part of the equation.

An important similarity of serial killers is they had a tough time in their early childhood. Many were adopted, which points to potential neglect. Nearly 70% of serial killers report some kind of abuse, with over half reporting psychological abuse. When you consider that abuse can cause a number of psychological disorders, it should be considered an important social factor of psychopaths. Also, new research suggests that abuse and neglect can alter the brain's chemistry and function. Having said this, child abuse seems to be a very important factor in the development of serial killer.

Achebe's attempt to weave oral heritage into the written tradition, in Things Fall Apart, has received positive recommendation from various critics...

I believe that you are asking about the validity of critics pointing out that Chinua Achebe incorporates elements of Nigeria's rich oral storytelling tradition into his seminal debut novel Things Fall Apart. If that's the case, critics are absolutely justified in noting the importance of oral traditions in Achebe's canon as a whole. Achebe himself consciously presents components of oral tradition in order to better convey the juxtaposition of tradition-driven Okonkwo and his inability to reconcile the rapid changes associated with Western colonialism.

As far as a concrete example, the most striking aspect of an oral heritage present in Things Fall Apart is the importance of snakes in the Igbo tradition. The snakes are revered in the Igbo tradition, and Achebe consciously uses this image in order to faithfully write an English language novel that remains distinctly Nigerian.  

Why do you think Robert Walton is so eager to visit a hostile environment?

Captain Walton is eager to visit such a hostile environment because he is desirous of making some great discovery that will benefit the human race and win him fame and glory. He says in his first letter,

What may not be expected in a country of eternal light? I may there discover the wondrous power which attracts the needle; and may regulate a thousand celestial observations, that require only this voyage to render their seeming eccentricities consistent for ever. I shall satiate my ardent curiosity with the sight of a part of the world never before visited, and may tread a land never before imprinted by the foot of man.

Walton believes that he will be the first to set foot in this place -- probably because it is so hostile -- and says that he has high hopes for the things he might discover there. It could be this voyage, he says, that explains so many current mysteries. Further, he takes a great deal of pride in being courageous enough to attempt this journey, as he reiterates the fact that no one has attempted it before him. Finally, he longs to satisfy his curiosity.

Moreover, still in the first letter, he writes that

you cannot contest the inestimable benefit which I shall confer on all mankind to the last generation, by discovering a passage near the pole to those countries, to reach which at present so many months are requisite; or by ascertaining the secret of the magnet, which, if at all possible, can only be effected by an undertaking such as mine.

Here, again, we see how much Walton yearns to benefit humanity by discovering a northwest passage that would improve life dramatically by making travel and trade with one part of the world so much more accessible.  Likewise, he believes that only a journey such as this one can help to explain certain secrets of the world.  

His eagerness to visit such an inhospitable place springs from both his earnest desire to know and learn and understand more as well as his desire to be credited with these discoveries forevermore.

How does RUR (Rossum's Universal Robots) by Karel Capek, a gifted and inventive Czechoslovakian storyteller, show his inventiveness?

You are certainly referring to RUR (Rossum's Universal Robots), a play by Karel Capek. It introduced the common concept of the robot, and he is credited with inventing the word (although it actually existed as a description of anybody who performs a repetitive task). Written in 1920, the play features robots that really don't resemble the steel automatons of popular science fiction. Capek's robots resembled flesh-and-blood humans, and possibly the clay Golem (also first written by a Czech writer). Most early fictional robots were alluring females that unwitting human males fell in love with, and Capek's robots were certainly in this vein.

The play is a little dense for modern audiences, but it broke ground for a lot of subsequent science fiction stories.

Four sentences involving the compare and contrast of the differences in respiration and photosynthesis.

Through the process of photosynthesis, producers like green plants, algae and certain bacteria can convert energy from sunlight into the chemical energy bonds of the organic compound glucose--  a monosaccharide, or simple sugar. This is an anabolic or energy storing process. Producers use the pigment chlorophyll to absorb the sunlight for this process to occur.

Since cells require energy to carry out life processes, they can utilize the chemical energy stored in organic molecules like glucose and use it to regenerate ATP, an energy currency molecule that cells use to carry out cellular work like growth, repair and reproduction. Through cellular respiration, the stored energy in glucose is released in controlled steps in what is known as a catabolic pathway. There is a great deal of potential energy stored in the bonds of glucose, due to the arrangement of the electrons that are located in the chemical bonds of the atoms inside glucose.

As respiration occurs, enzymes help to break down the glucose, thereby releasing energy to do work as well as some which is released as heat. In aerobic respiration which is a very efficient process, oxygen is used as a reactant to completely break down glucose into carbon dioxide and water as products, along with ATP. However, in photosynthesis, carbon dioxide and water are used as reactants along with sunlight to produce glucose and oxygen as products. In a sense, the two processes are opposite--photosynthesis stores energy and respiration releases it for cells to use.  A less efficient type of respiration known as anaerobic respiration or fermentation, doesn't completely break down the sugar and the reaction occurs in the absence of oxygen. Far less ATP is produced by this process which occurs in certain bacteria and yeast.

When photosynthesis occurs, energy from the sun is used to split water into H+ ions and oxygen. The electrons are transferred with the hydrogen ions to carbon dioxide to reduce it to sugar. As these electrons move from the water, to the sugar, they gain energy provided by sunlight which is the opposite of what occurs in cellular respiration. In cellular respiration, energy is released from sugar because electrons from the H atoms are transported by carrier molecules to oxygen which forms water as a product at the end of photosynthesis. 

In a simplified equation of photosynthesis which just shows water that is consumed, it

reads--6 C02 +6H20 +  energy---> C6H1206+602

In words, six molecules of carbon dioxide plus 6 molecules of water plus energy from sunlight forms 1 molecule of glucose plus 6 molecules of oxygen. And, if you read it from right to left, it is actually the equation of cellular respiration where oxygen and glucose react together to produce the waste products carbon dioxide and water along with energy in the form of ATP.

I hope this clarifies how these two processes are different.

In chapter 11 of the book Lyddie, why is it different for her in the summer?

Summer is different in two ways for Lyddie.  First, there are fewer people around her.  Many of the the girls that work with Lyddie in the factory use the summer time to take time off and visit their families.  Lyddie has two feelings about this.  One, Lyddie is saddened by the fact that she cannot do the same thing.   I'm sure it had to be a bit lonely for her too.  I went to college a long way from home, and the dorm would clear out for certain holidays.  I didn't have family that lived close, so sometimes I would spend that holiday in the dorms.  There were always a few other people around, but the place felt lonely nonetheless.  Lyddie feels the same way.  The second feeling that Lyddie has about the lack of people around is determination.  With fewer girls working in the mills, Lyddie has the potential to earn extra money.  

The second main summer difference for Lyddie is an emotional/mental difference.  Lyddie is discovering that she has a hunger for reading and learning.  She spends much of the summer improving her literary skills so that she can buy and read her own copy of Oliver Twist.  

What would happen if the cell membrane were fully permeable to all substances in the cell's environment?

The cell membrane is selectively permeable, that is, it allows the entry to only a few molecules, while barring all the others. If the cell membrane was completely permeable, all the molecules will gain access to the cell interior. These molecules may include toxins and will be able to harm the cell or kill it. Thus, the semi-permeable or selectively permeable nature of cell membrane is necessary for cell survival and routine operation.

The transport of molecules across the membrane is necessary, since the cell cannot produce all the molecules it needs for routine operation and also to dispose off (or excrete) the molecules that are not useful to the cell. Thus, selectivity in terms of transport of molecules (between the cell interior and exterior environment) is necessary.

Hope this helps. 

What is the shredding of Harrison's handicaps symbolic of?

Harrison's shredding of the handicaps in Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" is symbolic of his removal of society's limits on human achievement.

Throughout the story, the positive idea of equality has been defined as making citizens equally bad at everything. The citizens in this society, illustrated by George Bergeron, are more than willing to wear handicaps to make themselves equally bad at all things. Early in the story, George's wife, Hazel, suggests he take off his handicaps to "rest the bag for a little while." However, George, who has been innundated by loud noises in his ears to prevent him from thinking and had to carry around 47 pounds of birdshot in a bag to bring his strength down to the average person's, vehemently defends the handicaps saying that if he tried to get away with it "then other people'd get away with it-and pretty soon we'd be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else."

However, Harrison does not believe in these restrictions. Already, at 14 years old, Harrison has forced the handicappers to come up with new handicaps because he keeps improving in all categories. Among the things Harrison had to wear were a pair of eyeglasses with "thick wavy lenses" that would "give him whanging headaches," three hundred pounds of physical handicaps, and a "tremendous pair of earphones" instead of the small transmitters George wears. But again, these handicaps aren't enough to keep Harrison from growing. When he escaps and enters the studio, he shouts, "[W]atch me become what I can become!" That's when he ripped off the padlock, which "snapped like celery," and then "tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds." 

Harrison's removal of these handicaps allowed him to leap "like deer on the moon" and kiss the 30-foot-high studio ceiling. Symbolically, Vonnegut is suggesting that once people rip off their self-installed or socially installed handicaps, they can leap like Harrison "neutraling gravity with love and pure will."

What is the situational irony in the story "The Gift of the Magi"?

It is ironic when Della sells her hair to buy Jim a gift for his watch, but he can’t use the gift because he sold his watch.

Situational irony occurs in a story when the opposite of what you expect to happens is what happens.  In this story, both Della and Jim’s gifts are ironic.  Since the story follows Della’s point of view first, hers is a good example.

Della feels inadequate because the couple is poor and she has barely scraped together enough for a Christmas present.  She wants to do something nice for her husband, because she loves him.  She decides to make the ultimate sacrifice and sells her hair to get money to buy him a watch band for his most prized possession.

It was a platinum fob chain simple and chaste in design, properly proclaiming its value by substance alone and not bymeretricious ornamentation—as all good things should do. It was even worthy of The Watch. As soon as she saw it she knew that it must be Jim's.   

At this point, we would expect Jim to come home and be thrilled at the gift.  After all, he loves his watch and the gift shows how much Della cares.  She sacrificed her beauty and her pride to get him the watch band.  The situation gets ironic when Della sees Jim’s unexpected reaction to her cutting her hair.  She thinks he is angry.

It was not anger, nor surprise, nor disapproval, nor horror, nor any of the sentiments that she had been prepared for. He simply stared at her fixedly with that peculiar expression on his face.

It turns out, Jim is just stunned.  He sold his watch to get her the gift of her dreams, or so he thought.  He bought her combs for her long, beautiful hair.  He is baffled by her haircut because he realizes the stunning irony before she does.  They each sold what seemed to be most important to them, thus proving that what is most important to each one is the other one.

The beauty of this story is in the situational irony.  The reader realizes that the two silly young lovers are actually very wise.  They each gave up a superficial possession in order to show their love.  In doing so, even though neither could use the gift, they each gave the other the best gift of all.  They proved their love.  This is why they are called the magi.