How can I better understand McCullough's book "1776"?

History books often portray the American Revolution as a simple fight between right and wrong. Colonists were "right," and the British were "wrong." Setting up the war in this way makes it easy to glorify the colonists and vilify the British. George Washington becomes a hero, almost god-like, and the colonial army a group of dedicated and honorable young men.
McCullough's book presents an image of the war and the war's principal players in a more open view. In reading this book, understand that he wants to show the most accurate picture of the first year of the war that he can—flaws and all. He sets out to show that war and independence was not a universal goal of all colonists. He paints George Washington as a snob and a dilettante who, although talented, often missteps in his military planning.
McCullough does not paint over the truths of the time period and writes about the slovenly and often drunken nature of the soldiers. He casts a shadow on the belief that all men were diligently fighting for their right to freedom—many deserted not believing in the cause or not eager to be soldiers.
This book should be read as one version of "truth" surrounding the start of the American Revolution and look for areas in each chapter where McCullough challenges the pretty picture painted by history books.

Perhaps the best way to understand David McCullough's book 1776 is to understand its division into three parts and to do some background reading on each of the battles that make up these parts. The book is told as a very compelling narrative, but it can be hard to understand the chronology of the historical events McCullough writes about. 
The first part covers the first battles of the Revolutionary War in New England--Lexington and Concord and the battle around Dorchester Heights--and introduces the reader to the leadership style of George Washington and his officers, such as the Quaker Nathanael Greene. Though the British thought they would quickly be victorious, the citizen-soldiers, as the author calls them, in the Continental Army forced the British to lose a surprising number of troops in the battle of Dorchester Heights.
The second section of the book shifts to the battle over New York and the fateful Battle of Brooklyn, also known as the Battle of Long Island, in which Washington's troops were forced to evacuate over the East River and eventually to New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The book's third section deals with the victory of Washington's troops at Trenton and Princeton, which rallied the Continental Army. If you read some brief background information on these major battles before reading the book, you will understand it better. 

To what degree does Owen share the concerns of Siegfried Sassoon? Select two of their poems to discuss, pointing out how they address a similar issue in their work. Which of the poets is more effective? Why? Analyze the poems to support your assertion.

Sassoon and Owen, by and large, write on similar themes and share similar concerns about the waste and horror of war. Sassoon's influence on Owen was significant; the two met at Craiglockhart Hospital in 1917, and Owen described himself as a "disciple" of Sassoon, welcoming Sassoon's edits to his work. His famous "Anthem for Doomed Youth" was called "Anthem for Dead Youth" before Sassoon supplied his edits to it.
In style, however, the two poets do differ somewhat. Owen was younger, his writing less mature, and there is greater use of dreamy lyricism and the hypothetical in his work, which can make it appear less immediate. One of his defining characteristics as a writer was the use of pararhyme, or half-rhyme; we can see this used heavily in his poem "Strange Meeting," which can be compared with Sassoon's "The Rear Guard," as both poems address the same idea in different ways.
In each of these poems, the speaker is making his way through underground tunnels in which the fallen soldiers of former battles have been left. In Owen's poem, the speaker has "escaped / down some profound dull tunnel . . . which titanic wars had groined," and in which "encumbered sleepers groaned, / Too fast in thought or death to be bestirred." Sassoon's poem, which is in the third person, describes "groping along the tunnel, step by step," and similarly the speaker attempts to wake "the sleeper" he encounters there, but with little success.
In both poems, the one "sleeper" identified among many is simply a symbol, indicative of the extent to which the fallen had become so numerous as to be almost indistinguishable from each other. Sassoon's soldier assumes the man to be a friend and struggles to wake him, his behavior irritable ("For days he'd had no sleep"). In Owen's poem, the speaker "sprang up and stared" and identifies itself as "the enemy you killed, my friend."
At the end of his poem, Sassoon's protagonist struggles his way out of the tunnel; we do not see what happens to Owen's. However, we understand that their feelings on the matter are the same: Sassoon's soldier, "with sweat and horror in his hair," is "unloading hell behind him step by step" as he ascends. Owen's observes the face of his "vision," and "by his smile I knew we stood in Hell."
It is a question of personal taste as to which poem is the more effective. Personally, however, I find the immediacy of Sassoon's poem more compelling than the lyricism of Owen's. Sassoon's poem, written in the third person, depicts the speaker as a sort of everyman; he paints details into the tunnel—"a mirror smashed, the mattress from a bed"; "the rosy glow of battle overhead"—which make the scene real. The behavior of the soldier, too, as he brusquely tries to wake the corpse—"God blast your neck!"—helps convey the state of mind of the soldier who "for days [had] had no sleep." Sensory details, such as the "sweat and horror" in the soldier's hair, help put the reader in mind of the very literal hell the soldier is moving through.
Owen's poem, by contrast, creates a different kind of atmosphere, one in which "Hell" is not the tunnel itself but the pocket of hallucinated space in which "the vision's face was grained," a place where "no guns thumped." "The pity of war" is embodied by this being who describes, in iambic pentameter heavy with sound-play—"I would have poured my spirit without stint"—how life has led him to this point. He prevails upon his interlocutor, "Let us sleep now. . . . " and the poem trails off: we may infer that the speaker, like the "vision," will eventually become one of the nameless sleepers beneath the earth, in a place untroubled by guns. The poem is atmospheric and leaves a sense of pity and horror in the reader's mind. On a personal level, however, I find it less evocative of the horrors of war than Sassoon's more visceral depiction.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47395/strange-meeting

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/57268/the-rear-guard

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 9, 9.2, Section 9.2, Problem 10

sum_(n=1)^oo n/(2n+3)
To verify if the series diverges, apply the nth-Term Test for Divergence.
It states that if the sequence a_n does not converge to zero, then the series diverges.

lim_(n->oo) a_n != 0 :. sum a_n diverges


Applying this, the limit of the term of the series as n approaches infinity is:
lim_(n->oo) n/(2n + 3)
=lim_(n->oo) n/(n(2+3/n))
= lim_(n->oo) 1/(2+3/n)
=(lim_(n->oo)1)/(lim_(n->oo) (2+3/n))
= 1/(2+0)
=1/2
The limit of the series is not zero. Therefore, by the nth-Term Test for Divergence, the series diverges.

College Algebra, Chapter 3, 3.6, Section 3.6, Problem 62

Suppose a spherical balloon.
a.) Fund a function $f$ that models the radius as a function of time.

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
r (t) &= (1)t\\
\\
r (t) &= t
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


b.) Find a function $g$ that models the volume as a function of the radius.
$\displaystyle V(r) = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3$

c.) Find $g \circ f$. What does this function represent?

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
g \circ f &= V(r(t))\\
\\
g \circ f &= V(t)\\
\\
g \circ f &= \frac{4}{3} \pi t^3
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


It represent the increasing rate of volume with respect to time.

In Life of Pi by Yann Martel, why are there thousands of meerkats on the floating carnivorous island?

The island (cook) is teeming with life. The thousands of meercats represent the life-giving flesh of the island.

Pi led an interesting life since childhood. At one point he simultaneously observed three religions (Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam). Unfortunately, he lost both his parents and his brother in a tragic accident at sea. He survived the ordeal and provided different accounts of his situation at sea. One of his accounts seemed factual. However, it was plain and uninteresting. His other account was exciting and presented with attention-grabbing myths. The meerkats and the carnivorous island appear in his exciting version. Thus, the existence of the meerkats can be explained as an aspect of symbolism.
In my opinion, the meerkats represented people, and the island represented the world. During the day, the meerkats fed on fish provided by the island and at night they sought the safety of the tree and avoided the base of the island, which turned toxic. The day symbolized life and the night symbolized death. The meerkats symbolized people/souls trapped between the two cycles. Pi refused to be trapped and decided to leave the island. Thus, the meerkats on the island were an attempt by Pi to express his view of the world and the people in it.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/general/essays/pi.asp

What is virtue?

After Virtue is a book written by philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, in which he argued that we no longer have a shared notion of virtue as a basis for argument. Because of this, he observed in the second edition of the book, "the culture of modernity lacks the resources to proceed further with its own moral enquiries." His definition of "virtue" is pretty similar Aristotle's concept of virtue. The best way to define this is that virtue is what contributes to living a good life. Like Aristotle, MacIntyre believes that virtue can really only be understood in social terms, in reference to "practices, traditions, and the narrative unity of human lives." The problem, which is beyond the scope of this answer to address, is that Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and some other philosophers who have shaped our understanding of virtue, thought that seeking virtue was a rational endeavor, in that people pursued some knowable end. MacIntyre claims that since the nineteenth century, philosophers have been unable to agree on the "standards of rational justification." This makes reasoned philosophical debate impossible until its participants are willing to recognize solutions to important questions in other philosophical traditions.

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 6, 6.4, Section 6.4, Problem 8

y'+2xy =10x
To solve, re-write the derivative as dy/dx .
dy/dx + 2xy = 10x
Then, bring together same variables on one side of the equation.
dy/dx = 10x - 2xy
dy/dx = 2x(5 - y)
dy/(5-y) = 2x dx
Next, take the integral of both sides.
int dy/(5-y) = int 2xdx
-ln |5-y| +C_1= (2x^2)/2 + C_2
Then, isolate the y.
-ln|5-y| = x^2+C_2-C_1
ln|5-y|=-x^2- C_2 +C_1
Since C1 and C2 represent any number, express it as a single constant C.
ln|5-y| = -x^2+ C
e^(ln|5-y|) = e^(-x^2+C)
|5-y| = e^(-x^2+C)
5-y = +-e^(-x^2+C)
Applying the exponent rule a^m*a^n = a^(m+n) ,
the right side becomes
5-y = +- e^(-x^2)*e^C
5-y = +-e^C*e^(-x^2)
-y = +-e^C*e^(-x^2) - 5
y = +-e^C*e^(-x^2)+5
Since+-e^C is a constant, it can be replaced by a constant C.
y = Ce^(-x^2) + 5

Therefore, the general solution is y = Ce^(-x^2) + 5 .

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 2, 2.2, Section 2.2, Problem 37

(a) Evaluate the function $f(x) = x^2 - (2^x/1000)$ for $x = 1 $, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1 and 0.05. and guess the value of $\displaystyle \lim \limits_{x \to 0} \left( x^2 - \frac{2^x}{1000} \right)$


$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
x & f(x)\\
\hline
1 & 0.998\\
0.8 & 0.638\\
0.6 & 0.358\\
0.4 & 0.159\\
0.2 & 0.039\\
0.1 & 0.009\\
0.05 & 0.001\\
\hline
\end{array}
$


Based from the vlaues we obtain in the table; as $x$ approaches 0, the value of $f(x)$ approaches 0 as well. Therefore $\displaystyle \lim \limits_{x \to 0} \left( x^2 - \frac{2^x}{1000} \right) = 0$



(b) Evaluate $f(x)$ for $x = $ 0.04, 0.02, 0.01, 0.005, 0.003 and 0.001. Guess again


$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
x & f(x)\\
\hline
0.04 & 0.00057\\
0.02 & -0.00061\\
0.01 & -0.00091\\
0.005 & -0.00098\\
0.003 & -0.00099\\
0.001 & -0.001\\
\hline
\end{array}
$



Based from the values we obtain from the table; The $\lim\limits_{x \to 0} f(x)$ seems to have a value of -0.001.

How does pH affect fermentation?

Most of the biological components of a fermenting substance are microorganisms, mainly yeasts and molds, which are in turn made up of many smaller structural and metabolic proteins (the latter falling into the more specific protein category of the enzymes). These organisms evolved in acidic conditions; therefore, their proteins have evolved to conform to their optimal shapes and functions in slightly acidic conditions. Moreover, a slightly acidic pH deters the formation of competing bacterial colonies, helping fermentation to proceed unobstructed. However, as environmental pH increases into moderate and high acidity (generally in the range of pH 6.0 and higher), proteins start to denature. There are a few exceptions to this pattern, usually where a low (basic) pH generates essential ingredients for a specific fermentation process.

Fermentation is an anaerobic process in which sugar molecules are broken down into simpler molecules. Some of the commonly known products of the fermentation process are bread, beer, wine, etc.
The fermentation process is affected by a number of factors, including pH, temperature, nutrient concentration, and availability. Among the microorganisms, yeast and mold are acid-tolerant and prefer lower pH conditions for their growth. This means that fermentation by yeast and mold will be faster at lower pH values. In fact, the best pH range for yeast fermentation is 4.5-5.5.
One of the reasons, lower pH increases the fermentation rate is because the pH affects the shape of the enzymes (proteins) that help fermentation reactions. The amino acids that form the enzymes can be either acidic or basic depending on the functional group attached to them. It has been found that at lower pH, the acidic amino acids are present and that fermentation rate is faster as compared to higher pH conditions. In addition, it should be noted that most of the natural sugar from the fruits is generated in the acidic conditions. This means that yeast (and the associated enzymes for the fermentation process) have been naturally selected for working under the acidic conditions. And hence lower pH conditions are preferable for the fermentation process.

The author of a review calls the narrator, Art Croft, a "moral coward." Considering he listened to the words of Davies, heard of the memories that plague both Gil and Sparks, and is given much to consider by Gerald Tetley, does the description fit? Should Art Croft have done more to try to prevent the lynching of the suspects? Is his involvement made worse because he was privy to so much information? Is he the most guilty of everyone?

A coward, by dictionary definition, is someone who is not brave and who eagerly wishes to avoid danger or difficulty. If we add the word "moral" into the equation, we realize that there are ethical questions called into play.
Art Croft is a first-person narrator, so we are allowed more insight into his mind than we are with the other characters. He is an unreliable and very subjective narrator; he is insecure and scared to appear as an outsider.
Croft and his companion, Gil Carter, know almost everyone from Bridger's Wells, but they still perceive themselves as outsiders. They are therefore often preoccupied with the importance of behaving "properly." They are very sensitive to what others think of them.
For this reason, one of their main aims is to fit in with the community. Furthermore, as they are newcomers, they wish to avoid becoming suspects for the cattle rustling incident which has just occurred. Therefore, they join others in an attempt to find the culprits and restore justice through lynching.
Croft is approached by Davies. Davies represents the group's conscience and is often the voice of reason. He states that it is best to avoid illegal action and that one should follow the law. He is rational and makes a compelling argument. Croft is in fact swayed by Davies, especially since he was ambivalent in the first place. However, even though Croft is not completely convinced of the legality of the manhunt, his desire to fit in is stronger.
He argues with himself but finally comes to the conclusion that arguments must be judged according to the situation. It is not enough to be ethical if these arguments remain "indoors" and never measure up to reality. In this way, he is able to convince himself that the manhunt, while unethical, may be the only way to deal with the true situation. He chooses to believe this over Davies's argument because it is the most "comfortable" choice, the one that allows him to avoid dealing with difficult and uncomfortable situations. It is easier to simply go along with a group of people rather than be the only one opposed to everyone else. In this sense, Art Croft is indeed a moral coward; he chooses the easy way out as opposed to the one that he recognizes as morally correct (even though he never admits it). He needs to be trusted and accepted by the group, and this affects his moral compass and judgement.
Art Croft also knows about the memories of lynching that plague Sparks and Gil. Sparks's brother was lynched, and this greatly affected Sparks, whereas Gil was present at the lynching of three men and has been opposed to lynching since. Gil also talks about the dangers of remaining a passive spectator to injustice. Gil, however, also remains passive.
Despite knowing how the memories of lynching affect these characters, Croft makes excuses and superficially shakes these considerations off.
Gerald Tetley is another character who makes a compelling case against illegal punishment. Croft and Gerald Tetley have a long and significant conversation, which takes up many pages in the book. Gerald talks about how men lose their humanity when they hunt, justify their actions with hypothetical reasons, and use excuses such as love and compassion to avoid turning one against the other. Gerald also brings attention to the fact that society tends to weed out its best members, as well as the weak ones, in a crazy quest for power. Croft is very disturbed by Gerald's argument and becomes increasingly nervous. Still, he does not take a definitive stand. Once again, he convinces himself that Gerald is just a boy and that his theories stem from his young age and inexperience.
Despite his reservations and all the external influences on his conscience, Croft does not do anything. He never takes a stand; he has a gun but never uses it. However, being completely passive makes Art Croft just as guilty as the others. Croft succumbs to the pressure of the mob and is unable to resist.
We can consider Art Croft a moral coward whose personal concerns with behaving appropriately and being accepted outweigh his concerns for acting according to the ideals of justice and behaving ethically. Art Croft is a disappointing character. We know that he was not completely convinced about the hanging, and we know that, had he not been a coward, he could have fought for the lives of the three men who were unjustly hanged. He is not the most guilty character in the book, because there are too many guilty characters to count, and they are all just as guilty. More than one member of the mob has reservations about the illegal punishment, but most stand by and passively accept the actions of the mob. While it is true that he has a lot of information, he is completely incapable of processing this information and using it to take a stand. He makes excuses in order to convince himself of what he wants or needs to believe.
Ultimately, we have very little sympathy for Croft. We learn at the end of the novel that he does not really feel guilty and is even embarrassed by Davies's guilt and shame. Croft believes that all the men in the mob are equally guilty and therefore, in the end, no one is guilty.
Croft is weak and spineless. He is so unable to let go of his insecurities that he simply cannot do more to stop the lynching of the three men. We expect more from him. We expect courage and moral integrity, but these are qualities that Croft does not have. He is not intelligent enough to use the information he has acquired. For this reason, he should not be considered more guilty than others, but he does evoke a sense of repulsion and disgust for his weakness. He is certainly a moral coward.

Discuss in depth the expansion of power obtained by Congress, the presidency, and the judiciary paying close attention to the original outlines within the Constitution. What is the genesis of their additional powers, and is this expansion of power (outside of the framework of the formal amendment process) just?

The Founding Fathers of the United States established elasticity within the Constitution because they realized it would be dangerous not to allow for some expansion of power should the need arise. Different national leaders have used strict and loose interpretations of the Constitution in order to protect the country or to advance a certain agenda based on the mood and needs of the American public.
The Supreme Court's power has expanded as the courts have ruled in civil rights cases. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases for gay rights and whether or not corporations could give freely to political campaigns. While the courts cited precedents such as the Fourteenth Amendment and freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers would have never imagined these issues in 1787.
Congress has passed laws concerning income taxes and protections of public lands. The legislative branch's power has grown as people now expect the government to intervene in their personal lives in order to provide social safety nets and regulations concerning conservation. This direct governmental intervention would have shocked strict constructionists as they saw the federal government as a potential threat to liberty.
The executive branch has grown as well with military interventions throughout the world authorized by the president. This is a loose interpretation of the president's role as commander-in-chief. The president also intervenes heavily in order to push his/her own political programs through Congress. The president also serves as the head of his/her national political party. The Constitution does not mention political parties but these have become an accepted part of American politics.
In many circumstances, the growth of these branches' power is just. People expect more out of the government and the growth of the branches' power reflects this. In times when a branch grows too much, such as with Johnson's use of the War Powers Act in 1964, Congress or another branch of government can regain some of its former power.

Throughout the history of the United States, each branch of government has expanded its powers. The judicial branch began to expand its powers in the Marbury v Madison case. In this case, the Supreme Court said the courts have the power of judicial review. This allows the courts to determine if laws are constitutional. This power has been used many times by the judicial branch.
The executive branch has expanded its powers many times. When Thomas Jefferson agreed to the terms of the Louisiana Purchase, he was expanding the powers of the executive branch. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the President may purchase land. Many presidents have taken a loose view of the Constitution to increase the powers of the executive branch. Another example of increased executive branch power is the use of executive orders to do various things. The recent action of President Trump to ban travel to the United States for people from certain countries is an example.
The legislative branch has also expanded its powers by taking a loose view of the Constitution. Many laws have been passed even though it isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution that Congress may pass these laws. An example of this was the passage of the Affordable Care Act. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that Congress can require people to buy health insurance. The same is true with the Social Security Act. There is no provision in the Constitution that says the federal government can establish a pension for workers over the age of 65.
Each branch of government has expanded its powers over time.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/teaching-with-current-events/

https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/marbury-v-madison-video

The powers of the three branches have expanded dramatically since the ratification of the Constitution. These changes have been the result of a number of different factors (including the addition of formal amendments mentioned in the question,) but they generally have stemmed from the establishment of precedents. From the earliest actions of George Washington, for example, presidents have acted in ways that expanded the powers of the presidency. When Thomas Jefferson gave his approval to the Louisiana Purchase, for instance, he acted outside the formal boundaries of the Constitution, which does not give the executive the power to conclude such land purchases. Subsequent presidents, however, could draw on this example to do so. Jefferson also sent naval forces to the Mediterranean to combat pirates there, and subsequent presidents could cite this as a precedent for committing troops to combat without a congressional declaration of war. The Supreme Court has expanded the powers of the judiciary by asserting the power of judicial review, which claimed for the court the ability to rule acts of Congress unconstitutional. This power, not expressly granted in the Constitution, is nevertheless a major source of power for the Court. Congress expands its powers simply through making laws, each of which entails an expanded interpretation of the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, which banned segregation, was based in part on Congress's expressed power to regulate interstate commerce. The Framers could have envisioned no such intent for the law, and Congress thus expanded its powers by passing it. Future Congresses could look to this law to justify others.

cosh(x) + cosh(y) = 2cosh((x+y)/2)cosh((x-y)/2) Verify the identity.

cosh(x) + cosh(y) = 2cosh((x+y)/2)cosh((x-y)/2)
proof:
Taking RHS , let us solve the proof
 RHS=>2cosh((x+y)/2)cosh((x-y)/2)
=2(((e^((x+y)/2)+e^(-(x+y)/2))/2)* ((e^((x-y)/2)+e^(-(x-y)/2))/2))
its like 2((A+B)*(C+D))=2(AC+AD+BC+BD)
on multilication
=2[[(e^((x+y)/2)*(e^((x-y)/2)]+[(e^((x+y)/2)*(e^(-(x-y)/2)]+[(e^(-(x+y)/2)*(e^((x-y)/2)]+[(e^(-(x+y)/2)*(e^(-(x-y)/2)]]/4
=[[(e^((x+y)/2)*(e^((x-y)/2)))]+[(e^((x+y)/2)*(e^(-(x-y)/2))]+[(e^(-(x+y)/2)*(e^((x-y)/2))]+[(e^(-(x+y)/2)*(e^(-(x-y)/2))]]/2
As (e^((x+y)/2)*(e^((x-y)/2))) = e^((2x+y-y)/2)=e^x
similarly
(e^((x+y)/2)*(e^(-(x-y)/2)))=e^y
(e^(-(x+y)/2)*(e^((x-y)/2)))=e^-y
(e^(-(x+y)/2)*(e^(-(x-y)/2)))=e^-x
so,
[[(e^((x+y)/2)*(e^((x-y)/2))]+[(e^((x+y)/2)*(e^(-(x-y)/2)]+[(e^(-(x+y)/2)*(e^((x-y)/2)]+[(e^(-(x+y)/2)*(e^(-(x-y)/2)]]/2
=(e^x+e^y+e^-y+e^-x)/2
=(e^x+e^(-x)+e^y+e^(-y))/2
= (e^x+e^(-x))/2 +(e^y+e^(-y))/2
= cosh(x) + cosh(y)
 
And so , LHS=RHS
so ,
cosh(x) + cosh(y) = 2cosh((x+y)/2)cosh((x-y)/2)

What is the most important document in history?

I assume by "document" you also mean books. However, the first thing we need to do is define "important." Do you mean the most widely read document, the document that has been exported to the most countries, the oldest document that is still relevant, or the document that has sold the most copies?
As you can see, it is a very subjective question, and a person can make the case for many documents, but I will focus on a document's social impact. For example, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, also known as "Mao's Little Red Book," was distributed widely in China during the country's Cultural Revolution. Given China's huge population, we can estimate that hundreds of millions of copies have likely been distributed or sold since the 1970s. For Chinese citizens, not accepting the book was tantamount to rejecting the message of Chairman Mao.
The Christian Bible is the biggest-selling book in history, has been translated into the most languages of any book, and has been distributed or sold in every country on earth. But the Bible has also been distributed by missionaries to countless people who did not request it. So, it, too, has had a wide distribution, but not necessarily because people asked for it. However, I would say that, given its impact on every aspect of life in the West and throughout untold countries in the non-Western world, it is arguably the most important document in history. But, again, we are defining "important" in this instance as a document that has had the biggest social impact.

Discuss the similarities and differences in the way the British and French empires administered their colonies before 1763.

Both the French and British participated in the brutal Atlantic Slave Trade. The British enslaved millions of African people who were forced to work on plantations and in households across the South, the Mid-Atlantic, and New England. The French enslaved African people to toil on plantations in the Caribbean and on the plantations of French-held Louisiana. Both empires also directly warred against Indigenous people and participated in state-sanctioned massacres against them and forced removal from their homelands. Both empires also based their colonial wealth on the growing of raw materials and staple crops such as cotton, tobacco, indigo, and sugarcane.
The French and British empires differed in how the colonies were settled by citizens of the colonial empires. The British colonies were much more heavily settled by shiploads of settlers who built towns and homesteads (through the murder and forced displacement of Indigenous people). In addition to poorer settlers, wealthy aristocrats arrived, who built large plantations and brought slavery to the colonies. The French empire did not participate as much in building towns of settlers. In French-held Haiti, the population consisted mainly of thousands of enslaved Africans, overseers, plantation owners, and a handful of government officials. The Taino people of the island were virtually all wiped out through a targeted genocide. The French colonies of the far north were mostly very small trading posts.

Many colonial powers behaved in very similar ways when dealing with their colonial interests. Both France and Great Britain used a similar concept for establishing and governing their colonies throughout the world. Obviously, these colonies were seen as economic opportunities and a chance to expand their empire and power throughout the world. Both France and Great Britain would set up colonies and establish trade through that region, using the colonies as a base. Each colony established by these nations engaged in trade with the local communities, exporting goods and services that were common to the region and building up the nation's wealth.
The nations also established similar systems of rule—such as in the East India Companies of both nations. They established a relatively flexible government that was ruled primarily by the local individuals with little outside influence, though they still paid taxes to their motherlands.
The main differences in their ruling systems took place in the Americas. The establishment of the North American colonies for the British was still seen as an economic opportunity, and the colonists were treated less respectfully than those who lived in Great Britain itself, even though they were all descended from settlers from Europe. The French, however, treated their colonists in America as citizens who had more freedom and power than the British colonists did. This kept them in better control of their American interests and didn't lead to rebellion.

Before 1763, the French mainly founded trading posts in the New World. These posts were involved in trading for fur and other materials with the Native Americans, and French settlers often lived in close proximity to Native Americans and intermarried with them. The French government did not allow their colonies to set up their own governments, and the colonies were administered directly by the French crown.
The British colonies, on the other hand, were populated by settlers who set up their own forms of self-government and representative assemblies such as the House of Burgesses, established in Virginia in 1619. Colonists were also allowed to tax themselves. This degree of self-government meant that the British colonies were loathe to give up their independence in the years after 1763, when the British government ended years of "salutary neglect" and attempted to administer their colonies more directly and to enforce the Navigation Acts.

Depending on where they were located, there were similarities and differences between the French and British colonies up until the mid-eighteenth century.
The similarities could be seen in French and British colonial interests in India. Both nations handed over colonial development in India to corporations. There were both French and British East India companies, and both organizations functioned relatively free of direct state control. These colonies were essentially corporations, administered only loosely by their respective national governments.
Differences in French and British approaches to colonization were stark in North America. In this context, one sees important contrasts. The colony of New France was heavily influenced by state involvement, and colonization was pushed by the French crown. The success of the colony was a matter of national pride. These colonies were also motivated by a missionary impulse and saw major involvement on the part of the Catholic Church.
In contrast, the British colonies in North America were largely settled by those who were fleeing state influence, often for religious reasons. These dissenters, like the Pilgrims who settled the Massachusetts Bay colony in 1620, were motivated by a desire for independence and a separation from the British crown right from the beginning.
As a result of conflicts in the mid-eighteenth century between the French and British, especially in the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the French actually lost control of most of their colonial holdings in North America and the East.

There were many differences in how the French and the British administered their colonies before 1763. Both countries had colonies in North America, but there were significant differences between them.
The British established thirteen permanent colonies in North America. The French, on the other hand, had few permanent settlements. In the British colonies, people were able to own land. In the French colonies, only the nobles were able to own land. While both countries had dealings with the Native Americans, the French were much more friendly with them. They married Native American women, converted them to Christianity, and traded with them. Most Native American tribes were more comfortable with the French. There were differences in religious practices also. The French only allowed Catholics to settle in their colonies. There was more religious freedom in the British colonies. Because of these differences, the British colonies grew faster than the French colonies. There also was more self-government in the British colonies. The colonies had their own legislatures. In the French colonies, self-government did not exist.
https://www.ushistory.org/us/8a.asp

What appealed to northern voters about the Republican Party? How did this lead to Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 presidential election?

Northern voters warmed to the Republican Party, as it was implacably opposed to the extension of slavery. This issue had been a running sore in American politics for some time, and no white politicians seemed to have the political will or courage to tackle the problem head-on. Instead, a number of unworkable compromises had been cobbled together over time, which tried, but failed, to reconcile the competing interests of slave states and free states.
The Republican Party's platform in the 1860 election appealed directly to majority Northern sentiment concerning slavery. The platform pledged that it would not interfere with slavery in the individual states but would oppose its extension into the territories. This satisfied many who, while professing strong opposition to slavery in principle, nonetheless thought that it would be impossible to abolish it altogether.
Not surprisingly, abolitionists were deeply disappointed by the Republican platform and by the nomination of Lincoln as the party's presidential candidate. Yet it's fair to say that Lincoln's—and that of the Republican Party as a whole—position on slavery was much more in tune with public opinion in the North, which helps to explain why Lincoln won the 1860 election.

Northern voters wanted a political party that was against the existence of slavery. They were frustrated by the idea of popular sovereignty that Stephen A. Douglas from the Northern Democrats supported, because it still allowed the potential for slavery to occur. For those northerners who were opposed to slavery, the Republican Party offered the best hope that slavery might end.
This desire to end slavery opened the door to Abraham Lincoln receiving the nomination of the Republican Party in 1860. Abraham Lincoln became famous in the Lincoln-Douglas debates for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 1858. Abraham Lincoln made it clear that he was against slavery, and especially the spread of it, in these debates. While Lincoln stated in the campaign for the presidency in 1860 that he wouldn’t end slavery where it already existed, he did reinforce the idea that he was opposed to the spread of slavery. Abraham Lincoln defeated the other candidates in the northern states. The Democrats had split their votes between two candidates. Thus, by winning so many northern states, Abraham Lincoln won the election without winning one southern state.
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1860

https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/lincoln-douglas-debates

What are the few hints the author gives about the tragic twist in the story "The Necklace"?

In the beginning of "The Necklace," the reader is left with little doubt as to how Madame Loisel feels about her social status. For example, the narrator states that "She had no clothes, no jewels, nothing. And these were the only things she loved." She even refuses to visit a wealthy friend because she is miserable upon her return home to her surroundings, which she feels are less than adequate. This information serves as foreshadowing to events that will soon affect Madame Loisel.
Once Madame Loisel has her dress, she becomes unhappy because she doesn't have suitable jewels. As her husband encourages her to wear flowers, she replies, "No . . . there's nothing so humiliating as looking poor in the middle of a lot of rich women." This again foreshadows what will become of her. She ends the story with less money than she has in the beginning.
Finally, at the party, Madame Loisel "danced madly, ecstatically, drunk with pleasure, with no thought for anything." This statement provides another hint of her future. In her state of happiness at being given an opportunity to become what she covets, she has "no thought for anything," and somehow loses the necklace. She and her husband are forced to borrow money to pay for a necklace they believe is authentic.

How does the theme of madness connect between hamlet and a streetcar named desire?

There could be a few ways that the theme of madness is woven in Hamlet and A Streetcar Named Desire.
First of all, in Hamlet, Hamlet pretends to be mad in order to try to decide how to act upon what the Ghost has told him. That is, that Claudius murdered his father. As well, in pretending to be mad, Hamlet becomes privy to conversations that would not have taken place while he is present. His act of madness is in contrast to Ophelia's real madness which results in her death. Of course, her father's untimely death provides a reason for her decline; however, it could be surmised that Hamlet's rejection of her was another reason for her insanity. She sings, “You promised me to wed, / So would I ‘a’ done, by yonder sun, / An thou hadst not come to my bed” (4.5.62-64). Ophelia's songs and rhymes illustrate that Hamlet's abandonment of her, breaking his promise to marry her, has been the final blow to her sanity.
In Streetcar, the theme of madness is illustrated in the character of Blanche DuBois. Like Ophelia, Blanche descends into madness by the end of the play. At first, she appears as merely self-delusional and attempts to act as an innocent, Southern belle. However, it is revealed that Blanche has had quite a few men in her life, and her affairs ended badly. Similar to Ophelia, Blanche also has music that plays in her head, the Varsouviana, the polka that played as her husband killed himself. By the end of the play, Blanche cannot distinguish reality from fantasy just as Ophelia. However, instead of dying, she is taken to a mental institution. Both female characters suffer at the hands of men and both end up going mad.

How did the Reformation contribute to the Europeans' relocation to the Americas?

The main source of European relocation to the Americas as a result of the Reformation was the Puritans. While the Reformation in England began with Anglicanism and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church, for many this was not enough of a radical separation. The radical reformers in England were known as the Puritans, similar in their desire for religious austerity and dissent from the ostentatious Catholic traditions to the Calvinists in Europe.
One group of Puritans led perhaps the most famous migration to the Americas, arriving at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and establishing the colony of Massachusetts. This began a pattern of religious radicals in England fleeing to the American colonies to find new lives and practice their faith free from persecution.
Other groups also played a role. The Huguenots, Protestant dissenters originally hailing from France, also found their way to some of the early American colonies.

What are two examples of faulty reasoning/logic seen in the videos "Bill Nye Battles with CNN Host" and "Fox Host 'We Had to Give Up Our Freedom' During Snow Storm Because Climate Change is a Hoax"?

In the video "Billy Nye Battles with CNN Host," the female host uses a great deal of faulty reasoning. She references a March 6-9 Gallup Poll that states that 36% of polled people (who she referred to as "Americans") believe that global warming poses a serious threat to our way of life, while 64% of polled people do not believe that it poses such a threat. She uses this poll to suggest that the "scare tactics haven't worked" and that public consensus is necessary to move along legislation that would limit greenhouse emissions and attempt to modify the human impact on the environment. The claim that is also implicit here (and is later "supported" by the flawed arguing of her guest, Nicolas Loris, a conservative economist) is that Americans should not be required to make conservation efforts since global warming isn't really hurting us.
So, what's the problem with this? First, the host is overgeneralizing the issue by referring to a poll on public opinion without any sense of the scope of that poll. How many people were polled? From predominantly what areas of the United States? How old were they? Etc. Polls are often used as a tool to make sweeping generalizations, and this video is no exception! The host implies that the results of the poll entirely represents the public opinion of Americans, when in reality it just represents a sliver of American thoughts on the issue. To use this poll as substantive "evidence" is highly problematic. She then goes on to reach a huge conclusion out of this continued overgeneralization and circular reasoning: the impact of global warming on our lives does not exist because we, as Americans, do not believe that the impact of global warming on our lives exists! See how this is essentially the restatement of the same claim? 
In the video "Fox Host 'We Had to Give Up Our Freedom' During Snow Storm Because Climate Change is a Hoax," the talking heads on Fox suggest that President Obama's claim that global warming is one of the largest issues at hand is false because terrorism is a larger threat. They try to make this point through absurd statements of over-simplification: "Have there been beheadings by the climate?," "Climate change can not dress up, cross continent borders, look like a neighbor, plan plots, sit in the cut, and then blow something up," etc. The male guest/host on the show finally steps in to stop this rampant over-simplification, stating: "He's just saying it affects more people in terms of numbers." Unfortunately, the other guests continue to derail the conversation into arguments of assumption (with one host self-importantly stating that because she felt personally affected by the death of a young woman at the hands of a terrorist organization, terrorism must be the bigger issue!) and another host tearing down scientific models that predicted the impact of a snowstorm in New York (ignoring the fact that those projections were ultimately correct in Boston) via false causality and, as you may have guessed, more over-generalization! 
Ultimately, the arguments against global warming deniers in both videos ignore the greater issue at hand, which is to say that global warming is just that: global. Just because wealthy Americans--who are, indeed, the people leveled into positions of enough power and privilege to be able to speak on these news programs--are not the first or most radically impacted demographic does not mean that others around the world--especially those living in rural areas, struggling through poverty, or existing within third-world countries--are not already suffering the consequences of a changing global environment.

How does the story show the Little Prince is different?

The opening of the story highlights the Little Prince's difference from typical adults. When the pilot shows him the picture he has drawn of the elephant inside the boa constrictor, the Little Prince immediately knows what it is. This contrasts sharply to the other people the pilot knows, who all think he has simply drawn a hat.
The Little Prince is different because he has both a capacity to see to the heart of what is important and an innocence which most other adults have lost. For example, when the Little Prince visits nearby planets, the adults on those planets are interested in things that make no sense to him, such as rigidly defining their careers, power, and ownership. On one planet, he meets the geographer who can't explore even though he wants to, because he defines himself as a geographer and not an explorer. The Little Prince also meets the king who claims that he rules the entire universe but in fact has no real power, and he meets the accountant who has counted all the stars and thus claims ownership of them, even though that ownership is meaningless.
The Little Prince has lived most of his life on a tiny planet and that has kept him more innocent than other people. For instance, he thinks his beloved rose is the only rose in the universe and is shocked when he sees thousands of roses. Yet, because of his capacity to penetrate to what matters the most, he easily understands that his rose is all important to him because he loves it.
Through the Little Prince, we can all learn lessons about living more innocently and focusing on what is important.

(15-2/x)/(x/5+4) Simplify the complex fraction.

To simplify the given complex fraction (15-2/x)/(x/5+4) , we may look for the LCD or least common denominator.
The denominators are x and 5 . Both are distinct factors.
Thus, we get the LCD by getting the product of the distinct factors from denominator side of each term.
LCD =5*x=5x
Multiply each term by the LCD=5x .
(15*5x-2/x*5x)/(x/5*5x+4*5x)
(75x-10)/(x^2+20x)
Another method is to simplify top and bottom as single fraction.
Let 15= (15x)/x and 4 =20/5 .
(15-2/x)/(x/5+4)
((15x)/x-2/x)/(x/5+20/5)
((15x-2)/x)/((x+20)/5)
Flip the fraction at the bottom to proceed to multiplication.
((15x-2)/x)* (5/(x+20))
Multiply across fractions.
((15x-2)*5)/(x*(x+20x))
(75x-10)/(x^2+20x)
 The complex fraction (15-2/x)/(x/5+4)  simplifies to (75x-10)/(x^2+20x) .

How are Della and Jim the wisest "of all that give and receive presents"?

Jim and Della are very poor, and they live in a run-down, shabby apartment. But their marriage is incredibly strong, based as it is on a deep mutual love. Christmas is coming, and so Jim and Della decide to buy each other a gift. But since they're both so poor they will need to make sacrifices. On Christmas Eve, Della sells some of her beautiful hair to a hairdresser by the name of Madame Sofronie. With the money she earns, she buys Jim a platinum chain to go with his pocket watch.
But when Jim returns home, he notices that Della's hair is short all of a sudden. She has no choice but to own up and tell him about selling some of her hair to buy him a gift. Jim also has a confession to make: he sold his pocket watch to buy Della a new set of combs, now completely useless just like the watch chain that Della bought.
Jim and Della, though they both make sacrifices to pay for what turn out to be useless gifts, are still wise because they have realized that the love they have displayed is a much more precious gift than anything that money can buy.

Explain how the supernatural appears in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and "Goblin Market."

Although "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and "Goblin Market" contain supernatural elements, they represent different literary genres. Coleridge's poem is Gothic, while Rossetti's poem is a fantastical allegory.
"Rime" includes polar spirits who wreak judgment on the sailors for the death of the albatross and require penance of the ancient mariner. Coleridge's glosses, added for later versions of the poem, explain that the sailors "become accomplices of the crime." When the ship gets stuck in the doldrums, the "Albatross begins to be avenged," presumably by the polar spirits mentioned in line 132. The next evidence of supernatural influence on the ship occurs when the Death Ship arrives, containing Death and "the Night-mare Life-in-Death." Death takes the mariner's shipmates while "Life-in-Death begins her work on the ancient mariner." In Part 5, after the mariner has partially redeemed himself by blessing the water-snakes, the dead men are inhabited by "a troop of spirits blest" that sail the ship. In Part 6, the Voices, presumably of the polar spirits, converse. After the "seraph-band" departs, the ship sinks supernaturally at line 546. Thereafter the mariner falls into a supernatural "agony" when he needs to tell his story, and the listener is held in a supernatural spell that forces him to listen.
In "Goblin Market," the goblins are supernatural creatures in that they cannot necessarily be heard or seen by people. After Laura eats of their fruits, which have supernatural powers, she finds she can no longer hear or see the goblin men. Lizzie, however, in her undefiled state, is still able to "hear the fruit-call." The fruit's supernatural effect is to gradually drain the life and passion from the one who eats it until the person dies, as happened to Jeanie. Laura begins to supernaturally waste away, and Lizzie goes on her mission to save her. She comes back with the juice on her face without having consumed any fruit herself. Lizzie implores Laura to "suck my juices," and when she does so, Laura makes a supernatural recovery overnight; in the morning she "laughed in the innocent old way." Laura and Lizzie, when they become mothers, warn their children of the "haunted glen" and of the power of self-sacrificing sisterhood. 
In both "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and "Goblin Market," supernatural beings seek to do harm to the human protagonists. In each case the humans learn an important lesson, and in each case they become evangelists of sorts, although only in "Rime" does the evangelism retain a supernatural component. Both poems incorporate supernatural elements, although Coleridge uses a Gothic approach while Rossetti uses fantasy and allegory.

Big mammals became extinct on the continent of Australia. According to Guns, Germs, and Steel, how did this impact the history of the people on that continent?

To cobble together an answer to this question, we have to look in a couple different places in Guns, Germs, and Steel.  When we do, we will find that the extinction of large marsupials in Australia meant that the Australian people would have a harder time developing agriculture and would, therefore, have less of a chance to develop a wealthy and powerful civilization.
The first part of the answer can be found on p. 308 in the book.  There, Diamond tells us that there were many large animals in Australia during the Ice Ages.  However, these large animals either died off or were exterminated by hunters when humans arrived in Australia.  What this meant, Diamond says, was that Australia had no large animals that could be domesticated.  The largest animal that could be was the dingo, which is a species of dog.
This brings us to the other part of our answer.  That is, we need to talk about why it was important that there were no large domesticable animals in Australia.  For this, we can look at p. 88.  Beginning on that page, Diamond tells us why large domesticated animals can do so much to help people develop agriculture.  He says that, first of all, domesticated animals give people a source of protein in their diet. People can eat the animals and can get dairy products from some large animals as well.  Next, domesticated animals produce manure, which can be used to fertilize fields, thus making agriculture more productive.  Finally, large animals can also pull plows.  This, too, makes it much easier for farmers to grow more food on a given amount of land.  Without large domesticable mammals, Australians would have had a much harder time developing agriculture.
Throughout his book, Diamond tells us that agriculture is the key to developing a strong and wealthy society.  People who could not develop agriculture were not likely to develop as rapidly or as effectively.  Thus, the extinction of the large animals in Australia meant that humans in Australia would not be able to develop a rich and powerful society.

What are some contrasts between the way Daisy Buchanan and Hester Prynne are portrayed as women in their time periods?

Hester Prynne, of The Scarlet Letter, is ostracized by her community after bearing a child as a result of an extramarital affair. Her punishment, which includes her public exposure on the town scaffold and the requirement of wearing a Scarlet "A" on her chest to tell everyone she is an adulterer, are typical consequences in the early American colonial period in a Puritan society. She takes all of the blame upon herself, and her accomplice Reverend Dimmesdale is able to maintain his reputation, though he does secretly suffer from intense guilt. As a woman of her time period, Hester is definitely not typical, but she is punished for that.
Daisy Buchanan, on the other hand, is a woman who seems to be rewarded for her beauty and high social status. She has a wealthy husband and a child. In terms of money and resources, she wants for nothing. She is not ostracized like Hester was. However, Daisy is dissatisfied with the life set before her. For one, she still regrets not being able to marry Gatsby when they were younger and he was not yet wealthy. Secondly, she seems to recognize that women are second-class citizens in early-twentieth-century America. Of her aspirations for her daughter, Daisy says, "'I hope she'll be a fool . . . that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.'" This quote does not show that Daisy has very high expectations for a woman's place in society. It's great if she's beautiful because she can benefit from that, but it's also best that she be "a fool," possibly so she is unaware of the way she is limited due to her gender.
Both women are oppressed in their societies, though Hester's punishment is much more obvious and overt. Both of these characters show the ways women in their times and societies were considered lesser or were subject to double standards based on their gender.

How did Bryon feel about the girls he dated in That Was Then, This Is Now? What did this reveal about him?

Throughout the novel, Bryon portrays himself as a ladies man who enjoys flirting and hooking up with various girls. In Chapter 1, Bryon mentions that he's not afraid to lie to girls if he can get away with it. He then admits to telling girls he was in love with them insincerely. As the novel progresses, Bryon begins to fall in love with Cathy. He says the only thing about Cathy that bothers him is that she is not obsessed with him like most girls. After Cathy meets Bryon's ex-girlfriend, he is pleasantly surprised to find out she is not jealous of Angela. He says Cathy was the first girl he dated who wasn't scared of other women. Bryon decides Cathy has more sense than the other girls he's dated. Bryon's confessions about his past relationships and feelings towards females reveal he is a rather shallow individual. Bryon's attitude towards women suggests he also has self-esteem issues because he was attracted to jealous girls who lacked confidence. His nonchalant attitude toward authentic relationships also depicts his immature personality.

How were the first hundred days of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency?

Franklin Roosevelt came into office in March 1933 with the United State mired in the Great Depression. He was determined to make a mark in his first 100 days in office and help pull the country out of the Depression. He believed that only government intervention would start the country on the road to recovery, and he did not want to waste any time putting his plan into action.
During these 100 days, Roosevelt pushed 15 major pieces of legislation through Congress that had a profound effect on the relationship between the federal government and the American people. The legislation fell into three major categories—jobs and relief, rural reforms, and financial regulations—as well as passing the Beer-Wine Revenue Act, a precursor to the end of Prohibition later that year.
The creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps was the first major jobs program passed during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 100 days. He also pushed through the Federal Emergency Relief Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act.
The major piece of rural reform legislation passed during the first 100 days was the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, which created a series of dams that provided power to much of the rural South. Also passed during this time period were the Agricultural Adjustment Act (which for the first time paid farmers not to plant certain crops), the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act, and the Farm Credit Act.
Finally, Roosevelt pushed for financial reforms that reshaped the American economy, such as taking the US off the gold standard and stopping the enforcement of gold payment clauses in contracts. The Emergency Banking Act legalized many of the steps taken after Roosevelt declared a bank holiday to stave off a banking crisis, while the Glass-Steagall Act separated investment banking from savings banking.
Not all of Roosevelt's 100 Days initiatives were well-received, and several laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. However, the fighting spirit that Roosevelt showed coupled with his attitude that he would do anything to fight for Americans as they suffered during the Depression provided comfort to countless citizens who felt abandoned by the government under the Hoover administration.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1906802_1906838_1906979-2,00.html

http://www.fdrlibraryvirtualtour.org/page05-01.asp

How did Sir Simon come to rest?

There is a prophecy written on the library window which, Sir Simon believes, is a reference to Virginia and the manner in which she will help him cross over to the other side. According to the prophecy, "peace [will] come to Canterville" when that "golden girl" intercedes for Sir Simon and enables him to cross over, despite his lack of faith. Simon tells Virginia that she needs to weep with him and then pray for his soul so that the angel of death will take pity on Sir Simon, despite the fact that he himself has no faith. He is sure that the "purity of a little child" will be sufficient to sway the powers that be and allow him finally to sleep. Simon is extremely tired and has been unable to sleep for over three hundred years, longing for the Garden of Death, in which he would be at peace.
In answer to Simon's plea, Virginia tells him that she is not frightened of him and that she will certainly pray for him and his soul. When she begins to do so, the embroidered men on the tapestry in the room implore her to retreat, but she only clings more tightly to Simon's hand, and she is rewarded for her bravery. When she and Simon reach the other side of the room, he is subsumed by a "great black cavern," which leaves the room empty. Virginia then recognizes that Simon has passed over and is finally at peace due to her bravery, purity, and faith.

Sir Simon has been haunting Canterville Hall for centuries as the punishment for murdering his wife. He is tired of being a ghost, but since he has no faith, he can't pray to be delivered. He needs someone pure and faithful to do this for him. However, people have been afraid of him because he is a ghost, so he hasn't been able to communicate his need. The Otises are not fearful of him but so far have mostly tormented him.
One day, Virginia Otis, who is pure and compassionate, comes across Sir Simon and realizes he is unhappy. He confides to her that he would like to go to his final rest in the grave but can't without her help. She agrees to pray and intercede on his behalf. She does so, and finally, his body dies for good and can be buried. He has achieved his final rest through her kindness.

What was Operation Wetback? Explain why Mexicans had conflicted feelings about it? Why is this being discussed now? http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/11/455613993/it-came-up-in-the-debate-here-are-3-things-to-know-about-operation-wetback

Operation Wetback was a program implemented in 1954 in the United States, with the help of the Mexican government, to deport undocumented immigrants. Approximately a million immigrants were rounded up and deported within a few months.
The history of this actually dates back to the Bracero Program of 1942 which facilitated migrant manual laborers from Mexico finding employment in the United States. Along with documented workers also came undocumented ones who because of their lack of legal status were subject to extremely low wages and bad working conditions. Many of the Mexican immigrants who were in the United States legally and the Mexican government initially supported or at least were partially favorable to Operation Wetback as a way of improving the life of documented workers.
The motives behind Operation Wetback were fueled by nativism and racial prejudice. The actual implementation was inhumane, with many of the deported laborers suffering or even dying in transit and families being spit apart and uprooted. 
The reason it is relevant now is that Donald Trump and the Republican party are advocating similar measures. 
 

What message did the traveler leave in the poem "The Listeners" by Walter de la Mare?

There is a great deal of ambiguity in Walter de la Mare's poem, "The Listeners." However, a close reading of the poem, and the ending in particular, can provide some insight into the messages that the Traveller leaves.The first message arrives in the form of a question: "Is there anybody there?" The Traveller asks this question in lines 1 and 8. While this is a question, the underlying message is one of concern. The persistence of the Traveller shows that he wishes to make contact with those who may or may not be inside; despite feeling the strangeness of the phantom listeners, he continues try to get someone's attention because it is important to make a connection with them.
Finally, upon receiving no answer, the strangeness of the place gets to the Traveller and he states "Tell them I came, and no one answered, / That I kept my word." While his literal message is that he was in this place, and that he kept his word, it is unclear as to what "word" he is referring. Did he promise to come to this place, or did he promise to do something else, and he has come to tell those inside that he kept his word and his duty has been fulfilled? Regardless of the possibility, the message is that the Traveller is man of integrity. He has kept his word, whatever that word was.In addition to the few verbal messages that the Traveller brings, he also brings with him a few unsaid messages: that those inside are worthy of attention, and that he is an honorable man.

The traveler has no apparent audience other than himself for his message, that he came to the home, and that he "kept his word".
From the traveler's perspective, there appears to be no listeners. His nighttime arrival is not greeted with the sound or sight of other people. He knocks several times, but no one comes to the door. When he speaks, he speaks into the silence, and he is the only listener that he can guarantee receives his message of fidelity.

The message that the traveler leaves to "the listeners" of the house is that he came to the house exactly like he said he would.  
The answer to this question can be found within the final third of the poem.  The traveler has arrived at a lone house.  It is nighttime, and the moon bathes the house in light.  It's definitely an eerie setting and circumstance.  It is made even more eerie by the fact that nobody seems to be in the house.  It is empty for some unknown reason.  If it isn't empty, then the occupants are intentionally staying completely silent while the traveler repeatedly knocks on the door.   Eventually, the traveler gives up on waiting for someone to answer the door.  Before he leaves though, he says to nobody in particular the following lines.  

‘Tell them I came, and no one answered,   
   That I kept my word,’ he said. 

 

What is an example of foreshadowing in The Shakespeare Stealer?

One interesting example of foreshadowing is when Widge is leaving the Globe after his second attempt to copy out a verbatim record of Hamlet. He is trying to catch up with Falconer but is distracted by the fire and jostled by a scraggly "fellow" who smiles and politely apologizes. When Widge catches sight of Falconer, waiting for Widge to hand over to him the table-book with the charactery writing transcription of Hamlet, Widge finds that his leather wallet is empty. He has his wallet, but the table-book is missing from it: "The pouch seemed flat and empty. My heart suddenly felt the same."
Because of the foreshadowing effect of a sudden mystery, we suspect that the scraggly-bearded man had something to do with the loss, but Widge does not; he instinctively blames himself. Since we don't know for sure if the man acted as a pickpocket (or if he knew Widge had written down a transcript of Hamlet), Widge's encounter with the man foreshadows Widge's future understanding of that event (will Widge make the connection and was the table-book lifted by the man?) and foreshadows the resolution of the deeper mystery contained in the encounter: Who was that bearded man?

Then someone jostled me from behind, bringing me to my senses. ... [It] was only a thin fellow with a red nose and a scraggly beard, smiling apologetically. "Begging your pardon, my young friend," he said and moved off through the crowd.

We might suspect it was Shakespeare in disguise (like Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, Shakespeare would have been an expert at disguises), but was it perhaps Burbage in disguise? Was it merely a street pickpocket who got lucky (or unlucky, depending upon his perspective)? Who was it? The event foreshadows the answers to these questions and the solutions to their mysterious hints. (Another instance of foreshadowing occurs just before this one when Widge narrates seeing Julian present in the fire bucket line.)

How is language used to shape meaning in John F. Kennedy's 'Inaugural speech'

A number of rhetorical devices are used in John F. Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural speech, making it one of the most memorable speeches in American history. Kennedy creates a speech that calms a nation in the middle of the Cold War but also stirs them to take peaceful and powerful action.
He alludes to the country’s beginnings when he urges all Americans ("heirs of that first revolution") to remember those values that America was founded on, while at the same time showing his understanding of the difficult times they are living in at the present moment.

The torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage.

The metaphor of the torch connects the past to the present, burning since the founding of our country and continuing to shine as a beacon to all, even during difficult times. There is a proud tone in that parallel structure of “born in this century, tempered by war…,” showing the strength and endurance of this toughened and yet not bitter generation.
Kennedy uses parallel structure again to develop this patriotic theme, shifting to show that despite the difficulties we have gone through, our commitment to liberty is just as strong as it was in the past.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

The parallel structure of “pay any price, bear any burden…” creates a sense of the enormity of this commitment, and yet, it’s a price we are willing to pay as Americans.
Kennedy is aware that his audience extends beyond the borders of the United States to the entire world. He directly addresses other countries, broadening his audience, speaking to people around the world. Kennedy uses anaphora heavily here, repeating “To those…” at the beginning of every line to name and unite all of those allies who share in our values of freedom and liberty.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share…
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free…
To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe…
To our sister republics south of our border…
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations…

And in a powerful twist, he addresses not only our allies, but also our enemies:

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary…

Kennedy uses this anaphora in order to create a rhythmic momentum that brings more and more people in to his message, tying us all together, even those who most oppose us.
The speech then shifts to address these adversaries directly, acknowledging the situation of the Cold War at the time, consisting of two sides racing to create deadlier and deadlier weapons, a race doomed to fail. He wants to fix the relationship between the two, calling on each side to begin anew. Again, he relies on anaphora, repeating “let both sides.”

Let both sides explore what problems unite us…
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals…
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors…
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah…

There is no call to war. It is a call to peace. He is holding out his hand, offering it to the adversary, imploring the other side to join him, and together they can change the past and begin anew.
Kennedy uses the pronoun “I” only four times in this speech. He uses “I” early in the speech and then does not use it again until near the end, when he piles up repetitions of "I," using it three times in a row in order to emphasize his personal responsibility in taking up this challenge.

I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people.

The powerful repetition suddenly introduces Kennedy’s own personal convictions, not just as a “we,” but as an “I.” And once he has made that personal commitment to us, to our allies, and to our adversaries, he then asks us each to do the same—make our own personal commitment to our country and to our world. He directly addresses his countrymen, “my fellow citizens,” using apostrophe,

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course.

He calls on Americans to take responsibility for making these goals become reality. And in the final, most famous lines of the speech, he uses chiasmus, a device in which elements are repeated, but in reverse, in order to make the power of his call even more forceful:

Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

Kennedy’s call trumpets loud and clear, rousing generations to heed this call to sacrifice and to serve. The call sounds across the decades to us today every time we read these words.

When analyzing a public speech or address, one must look for the theme of the message and the use of rhetoric.

In JFK's message, it seems his theme is one of inclusivity, as well as, remembering our past, not to rest on our laurels but recalling who we are, where we are from, and vowing to rise above to be better. Towards the middle of his speech, he addresses not only national inclusivity but a global inclusivity that America must uphold as an ideal due to their free nature. He states, "To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." He harkens the that we are "heirs of the first revolution" bring the audience to recall the nation's beginnings and values, and then calling attention to our desire to stand by our beginnings and forge our future through "that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

JFK also utilizes Aristotle's forms of rhetoric in his message: ethos, pathos, and logos. JFK is a well spoken man, who understands the need to build a message in such a way that speaks to his credibility, sparks a passion in his audience, and builds confidence in logical reason. He paints a picture of his credibility by painting himself just the same as the American population who is listening to his speech. He is one of them, and because he is one of them, he creates a reciprocal conclusion where he speaks not only to them, but unto himself. "Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you." He also uses repetition to build pathos among the listeners. This repetitive use of "let both sides unite" is supposed to dwell within the listener and generate a sense of pride and desire to do "something" more than is being done now. It is like when we watch commercials with the sad puppy dogs; it is a rhetorical tactic to make the audience feel and then use those feelings to do something. Finally, he speaks to the logical side of human's brains by reminding them that progress takes times. He does not promise some unfeasible timeline to his message or even that he can create some gigantic feat that really cannot be met during his time in office. This is logic rather than propaganda. He states, "All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Both the theme and the use of rhetoric (as well as some other persuasive tools) come together to craft an argumentative speech during JFK's inaugural address. His message then was audience appropriate, time appropriate, and profession appropriate.

To get to a full copy of the transcript of the speech, please visit: https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations/Inaugural-Address.aspx

John F. Kennedy's speeches are famous for their use of antithesis, and this inaugural speech begins with its use when he juxtaposes the opposing ideas of an end and a beginning to characterize how he foresees his presidency's impact on human rights.
Kennedy quickly recognizes the sacred responsibility of leading a world power in a nuclear age and uses expressions such as "solemn oath" and "hand of God" to characterize how he will lead our historic nation.
Kennedy makes effective use of parallelism and antithesis ("united there is little we cannot do...divided there is little we can do...") to convey his intent to strengthen bonds with U.S allies and to promise support to countries emerging from colonial rule to independence.
Kennedy tenders a conciliatory note to adversaries, offering a "request" that they work together for peace in an age when the destruction of all of humankind has become possible.
Kennedy concedes the limits of his presidency, but urges his listeners, "let us begin."
The President also invites every American to consider what they can do for the country and every citizen of the world to consider what they can do for mankind.
The tone of JFK's speech is established through diction that bespeaks humility and inclusiveness.

Intermediate Algebra, Chapter 2, 2.1, Section 2.1, Problem 58

Evaluate the equation $\displaystyle \frac{2x - 3}{7} + \frac{3}{7} = - \frac{x}{3}$ and check your solution.


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\frac{2x - 3}{7} + \frac{3}{7} =& - \frac{x}{3}
&& \text{Given equation}
\\
3 (2x - 3 + 3) =& -7x
&& \text{Multiply each side by the LCD } 21
\\
3(2x) =& -7x
&& \text{Combine like terms}
\\
6x =& -7x
&& \text{Distributive property}
\\
6x + 7x =& 0
&& \text{Add $7x$ from each side}
\\
13x =& 0
&& \text{Combine like terms}
\\
\frac{13x}{13} =& \frac{0}{13}
&& \text{Divide both sides by $13$}
\\
x =& 0
&&

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Checking:


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\frac{2(0) - 3}{7} + \frac{3}{7} =& - \frac{0}{3}
&& \text{Let } x = 0
\\
\\
- \frac{3}{7} + \frac{3}{7} =& - \frac{0}{3}
&& \text{Multiply}
\\
\\
0 =& 0
&& \text{True}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

What lessons does Lazarillo learn about life and human behavior? Do you think he would be classified as a pessimist or an optimist?

Born to impoverished parents and bereaved of his father at a tender age, Lazarillo learns that life is a hard taskmaster. However, he also learns that he can thrive by manipulating human frailties to his own advantage.
In the novel, Lazarillo is apprenticed to a blind beggar after his stepfather's violent demise. It is during his apprenticeship that Lazarillo begins to learn the tools of survival. Even though the beggar is cruelly abusive to Lazarillo (both physically and mentally), he is an extremely resourceful man; he is able to thrive by leveraging his knowledge of herbal medicine and natural remedies to solve "toothaches, fainting spells, and female illnesses." So, despite his disability, the blind beggar is able to earn more "in a month than a hundred ordinary blind men earn in a year."
From him, Lazarillo learns how to transcend cruelty and to thrive; when his master deprives him of food, Lazarillo uses artifice and subterfuge to outwit the older man. Lazarillo stays with his cruel master for a short time and learns useful skills; he endures terrible abuse but learns how to leverage duplicity to gain the advantage in hopeless circumstances. When he eventually decides to leave his master, Lazarillo does so with a diabolical flourish. He tricks his master into running towards a stone pillar in his efforts to avoid the widest part of a ditch.
Because he cannot see the pillar, the blind beggar crashes headlong into it and fatally splits his skull. Immediately after the beggar falls, Lazarillo makes his getaway. Lazarillo's future masters are members of the clergy: a squire, a pardoner, a priest, a friar, a chaplain, and an arch-priest. Although some of the clergymen equal in hypocrisy and corruption to Lazarillo's first master, others like the chaplain and the arch-priest of San Salvador are benevolent mentors. For example, Lazarillo suffers under the priest's rule: he only gets to eat during funerals. At all other times, he must endure debilitating hunger. Lazarillo continues in this vein until he manages to steal bread from the priest's locked chest. Hunger becomes an impetus for action.

And I think that hunger lit up my path to these black solutions: they say that hunger sharpens your wits and that stuffing yourself dulls them, and that's just the way it worked with me.

Yet, it is through the arch-priest's kindness that Lazarillo begins to experience some semblance of happiness in life. Although that happiness is implied to be a dubious one (Lazarillo's wife is rumored to have had a past, sexually intimate relationship with the arch-priest), Lazarillo benefits greatly from his ability to compartmentalize his life and to ignore unpleasant realities. His coping skills help him endure existing dysfunction in his life.
As for whether Lazarillo is a pessimist or an optimist, I would argue that Lazarillo is an optimist of sorts. Although he has endured great cruelty in life, he chooses to survive and to transcend past miseries. When rumors of his wife's past dalliances with the arch-priest of San Salvador accost him, he chooses to believe the best of his wife. Lazarillo decides to be thankful for his blessings, however unpleasant the rumors are.

What is an example of Macbeth's charisma?

Charisma is an interesting thing because it is essentially something that can't be learned. It's an innate quality about a person. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has a great definition of charisma:

a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure (such as a political leader)

What I like most about that particular definition is the use of the word "magic." Even the dictionary recognizes that there is something mysterious about charisma. A person that has it somehow draws people in. He or she inspires them and gives them confidence. People want to do well by a charismatic figure. Macbeth is indeed a man with charisma, but it is easier to find evidence of it in the beginning of the play.
In Act 1, Scene 2, Shakespeare has a captain telling the king how awesome Macbeth was in the previous battle.

For brave Macbeth—well he deserves that name—
Disdaining fortune, with his brandished steel,
Which smoked with bloody execution,
Like valor’s minion carved out his passage
Till he faced the slave;

Macbeth is a man who well deserves to be called brave. He has valor, and he leads from the front. He's not an officer who tells men to fight while watching from the safety of the strategy tent. Macbeth is in the thick of it. People want to follow those who lead by example, and Macbeth is established as a brave man of action. Even Duncan vocally supports this notion.

O valiant cousin! Worthy gentleman!

Next, Ross tells Duncan all about Macbeth; however, Ross ups the ante. He doesn't just call Macbeth brave for standing up against the traitor. Instead, Ross tells Duncan that Macbeth behaved as if he were the husband of Bellona, the goddess of war. Macbeth practically has mythic qualities about him at this point.


Till that Bellona’s bridegroom, lapped in proof,
Confronted him with self-comparisons,
Point against point, rebellious arm 'gainst arm,
Curbing his lavish spirit; and to conclude,
The victory fell on us.



Act 1, Scene 4 also has a good line that shows Macbeth's charismatic magnetism. At this point in the play, Duncan and Macbeth have been speaking about the battle and offering congratulations to each other. Near the end of the scene, Duncan invites himself and others over to Macbeth's castle, and Duncan says the following line.


From hence to Inverness,
And bind us further to you.



Notice that Duncan wants to bind himself ("us") to Macbeth. He doesn't say that he wants Macbeth to further bind himself to Duncan. The line shows that even kings want to be near and around Macbeth. There is something that he has that others want to bask in and follow.

Why does Jerry say that Peter will get cancer of the mouth?

Jerry has only just sat next to Peter on a park bench before he starts talking to him without being prompted. The men are complete strangers and yet Jerry has no compunction whatsoever in addressing Peter in a somewhat brusque, presumptuous manner. When Peter prepares to light up his pipe, Jerry proceeds to give him a little lecture about the dangers of mouth cancer, which he thinks Peter will get from smoking.
Immediately, we're put on our guard by Jerry. His opening gambits in the conversation indicate what kind of person we're dealing with. Jerry is a rather peculiar individual, one of society's outcasts with a slightly weird outlook on life. A gay loner who lives in a run-down apartment, it's no wonder that Jerry appears a little strange, especially when we consider the era in which the play is set (the 1950s). In a decade of often stultifying conformity, Jerry's about as nonconformist as you can get.

What should have been the role of the United States in the world in the early twentieth century?

The answer to this question depends on what is meant by "early twentieth century." If we mean before World War One, the question would likely reference American involvement in Latin America, imperialism in the Philippines, and involvements in attempts to expand economic influence to China. Each of these, it should be fairly clear, was at odds with professions of democracy and human rights, especially the brutal suppression of a rebellion in the Philippines following the Spanish-American War. Frequent interference in the affairs of sovereign nations, it could certainly be argued, was not consistent with American ideals, nor those of any nation born in an anti-colonial struggle.
However, if "early" encompasses the entire period before the First World War, the answer becomes more complex. In the wake of this conflict, the United States attempted to isolate itself from the affairs of European nations in particular, a rejection of the internationalist values expressed in the Fourteen Points of President Woodrow Wilson. This new stance was embodied by the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles by isolationists in the Senate. They refused to ratify it on the grounds that it would have led to American membership in the League of Nations.
The fact that the United States was not involved in the League, and that the nation generally refused to openly support China, France, and Great Britain in the face of aggression by militaristic and fascist dictators, contributed to the outbreak of the Second World War. Many would argue, then, that American foreign policy in this early twentieth century crisis should have been more international in outlook.
https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/development

Some historians might argue that the United States should have been a more progressive country in the early twentieth century, as domestically, many Presidents were moving towards a more progressive agenda. For example, Theodore Roosevelt used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break apart monopolies and instituted federal legislation such as the Hepburn Railroad Act and Pure Food and Drug Act to make railroad rates fairer and to regulate the quality of food and drugs, respectively.
However, internationally, Roosevelt's agenda was one of enforcing American imperialism on other countries. In 1898 (slightly before the period in the question), Roosevelt, then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, ordered Admiral Dewey to attack the Philippines if war broke out between Spain the United States (which happened after the explosion of the U.S. battleship the Maine in Havana harbor). This was the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, which led the U.S. to institute the Platt Amendment in Cuba. This legislation restricted Cuba's ability to make agreements with other countries and allowed the U.S. to intervene in Cuba's domestic affairs. Later, Teddy Roosevelt fomented a revolution in Colombia so that Panama would break away from Colombia. This revolution facilitated Roosevelt's building of the Panama Canal. His idea was to facilitate shipping from one coast of the U.S. to the other.
During the Taft administration, the U.S. pursued a policy of "dollar diplomacy" that promoted American investment abroad, particularly in Latin America and the Far East. It was not until Wilson's entry into World War I in 1917 that the U.S. supported a policy that, at least on the surface, was aimed at promoting international diplomacy and world peace. Until that time, the U.S. pursued an imperialist agenda that was aimed at aiding the American economy and facilitating American conquests abroad.
The U.S. should have taken a more progressive moral stance that provided assistance in the form of financial aid and technical knowledge to countries that were struggling to feed themselves, such as Cuba. This type of humanitarian aid would have provided greater stability than the constant military interventions conducted by the U.S. If the U.S. choose to intervene in a country such as Panama to build infrastructure that would benefit Americans, the American government could have also provided local assistance, such as setting up healthcare clinics or working to eradicate disease-carrying insects. The U.S. should have been a moral example rather than an unfettered interventionist. 

What happens at the three addresses in I Am the Messenger?

First, I will mention what happens at the three addresses and then provide a little more detail on each.
The first address is 45 Edgar Street. Ed has to go to this address at midnight. There, he sees a man yell at his wife and then rape her. Their daughter, helpless to intervene, cries on the porch.
The second address is 13 Harrison Avenue. Ed has to go to this address at 6 p.m. There, he meets Milla Johnson. She is a harmless old lady, but it is quite obvious that she is senile. Milla keeps referring to Ed as "Jimmy."
The third address is 6 Macedoni Street at 5:30 am. There, he meets a fifteen-year-old girl named Sophie. Sophie is a runner, and that is her passion in life. Ed isn't sure what to do with her except to watch her run.
Now, I'll provide a little more detail about the addresses.
First, Ed is a nineteen-year-old under-aged cab driver. He has three main friends. They are Marv, Ritchie, and Audrey. Ed has a crush on Audrey, but she doesn't seem to be remotely interested in him.
One day, he comes home from work to find an unfamiliar-looking piece of mail waiting for him. Inside is an Ace of Diamonds with three addresses and corresponding times. Ed is unsure about how he should proceed. He gets cold feet and tries to put off his assignments. Eventually, he does make his way to the first address on the list: 45 Edgar Street. He gets there and waits for midnight. When the time comes, a huge, mean-looking man enters the house at 45 Edgar Street. He is obviously drunk.
The man yells for his wife, who soon makes her appearance in her nightgown. Immediately, the man wrenches the nightgown off her and proceeds to rape her. Her screams ring out into the night, but none of the neighbors hear. Finally, Ed sees a little girl cry on the porch, as her mother is being raped. Later, her own mother comes out and weeps on the same porch. Ed suddenly realizes that he's been sent to save the mother and her daughter. However, he is afraid: the man is heavily-built and intimidating. Ed decides to leave it alone for now.
Next, he makes his way to 13 Harrison Avenue. He's quite relieved when he gets there because nothing eventful happens. An old lady lives at the address. Ed sits in his cab and watches her make dinner. She eats alone; Ed thinks that she looks like a gentle and kind old lady. He is comforted just by watching her. Ed returns the next day at about the same time: 6 pm. This time, he knocks on the door. The old lady answers and addresses him as "Jimmy." Ed decides to get into the act and have dinner with her. Before he leaves, Ed comes to realize that he has been sent to comfort a lonely old lady. Eventually, Ed discovers that the old lady is Milla Johnson, whose husband (Jimmy) died serving his country in World War Two.
The third (and last) address Ed visits is 6 Macedoni Street. He gets there at 5:30 am one day. Macedoni Street is quite hilly, and a two-story house sits at the top of the hill. At about 5:30 am, a young girl leaves the house. She is dressed in red, sporty shorts and a hooded sweatshirt. Ed notices that she has no shoes on. She is quite obviously a runner. As he watches her, he realizes that the girl is beautiful. She is about fifteen and is five-foot-nine. Ed feels ashamed as he experiences feelings of lust for the girl.
At this point, he isn't sure what he should do for the girl. After all, she doesn't seem to need him. He finally decides that her problem has something to do with running.

Intermediate Algebra, Chapter 3, 3.4, Section 3.4, Problem 20

Illustrate the linear inequality $x - 5y \leq 0 $ in two variables.
To graph $x - 5y \leq 0$ we must graph the boundary line $x - 5y = 0$ first. To do this, we need to find the
intercepts of the line

$x$-intercept (set $y = 0$):

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
x -5(0) &= 0\\
\\
x &= 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


$y$-intercept (set $x = 0$):

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
(0) - 5y &= 0 \\
\\
-5y &= 0 \\
\\
y &= 0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


The $x$ and $y$-intercepts are the origin or at point $(0,0)$

Now, by using test point, let's say point $(-6,1)$ for the left of the boundary line,

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
x - 5y &\leq 0 \\
\\
-6 - 5 (1) &\leq 0 \\
\\
-6 - 5 &\leq 0 \\
\\
-11 &\leq0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Since the inequality symbol is $\leq$, then the boundary line must be solid.
Moreover, since the test point satisfy the inequality, then we must shade the left
portion of the boundary line. So the graph is,

What will happen if New York stays loyal to England in the story Chains?

New York City was a vital, military location during the revolutionary war.  It is a defensible location, it has ample space to house troops, it has land access, and it has a harbor for water access.  In addition to being a strategic location, it would be demoralizing to the Patriots if New York stayed in British control.  It's pure conjecture, but it's possible that the Patriots might never have won the war if New York had remained under British control.  
Perhaps the question is asking about what specifically might happen to characters within the novel Chains if New York remains under Loyalist control.  If New York stays under British control, then the Loyalists can safely remain in the city.  That means the Locktons can continue to live in the city and covertly work to undermine the Patriot army.  Isabel does manage to escape from the Locktons, but as long as the Locktons are able to stay in New York, she knows that her chances of freedom are very low.  Isabel can continue to spy on the Loyalists, but her risks go up the longer that she does that.  

Calculus: Early Transcendentals, Chapter 7, 7.3, Section 7.3, Problem 18

intdx/[(ax)^2-b^2]^(3/2)
Let's use the integral substitution,
Let u=ax
du=adx
=>dx=(du)/a
=int(du)/(a(u^2-b^2)^(3/2))
=1/aint(du)/(u^2-b^2)^(3/2)
Now let's use the trigonometric substitution,
Let u=bsec(theta)
so du=bsec(theta)tan(theta)d theta
Plug these in the integrand,
=1/aint(bsec(theta)tan(theta))/(b^2sec^2(theta)-b^2)^(3/2)d theta
=1/aint(bsec(theta)tan(theta))/(b^2(sec^2(theta)-1))^(3/2)d theta
=1/aint(bsec(theta)tan(theta))/((b^2)^(3/2)(sec^2(theta)-1)^(3/2))d theta
Now use the identity:tan^2(theta)=sec^2(theta)-1
=1/aint(bsec(theta)tan(theta))/(b^3(tan^2(theta))^(3/2))d theta
=1/aint(sec(theta)tan(theta))/(b^2tan^3(theta))d theta
=1/(ab^2)intsec(theta)/(tan^2(theta))d theta
=1/(ab^2)int(1/cos(theta))/((sin^2(theta))/(cos^2(theta)))d theta
=1/(ab^2)int(1/cos(theta))*(cos^2(theta))/(sin^2(theta))d theta
=1/(ab^2)intcos(theta)/(sin^2(theta))d theta
Now let v=sin(theta)
=>dv=cos(theta)d theta
=1/(ab^2)int1/v^2dv
=1/(ab^2)(v^(-2+1)/(-2+1))
=1/(ab^2)(-1/v)
substitute back v=sin(theta)
=-1/(ab^2sin(theta))
We have used the substitution u=bsec(theta)
So,cos(theta)=b/u
using pythagorean identity,
sin^2(theta)+cos^2(theta)=1
sin^2(theta)+(b/u)^2=1
sin^2(theta)=1-b^2/u^2
sin^2(theta)=(u^2-b^2)/u^2
sin(theta)=sqrt(u^2-b^2)/u
Also recall we have used u=ax,
:.sin(theta)=sqrt((ax)^2-b^2)/(ax)
=-1/(ab^2sqrt((ax)^2-b^2)/(ax))
=(-1/(b^2))(x/sqrt((ax)^2-b^2))
Add a constant C to the solution,
=(-1/b^2)(x/sqrt((ax)^2-b^2))+C

What are the poetic and literary devices used in the poem "Crazy Kate" by William Cowper?

In "Crazy Kate," Cowper uses personification to express the vicissitudes of fate to which Kate has been subjected. For example, in the beginning of the poem, he writes of a person who "better days / saw better clad, in cloak of satin trimmed / With lace." He makes "better days" the observer of Kate (and he also repeats the word "better" to emphasize Kate's decline). Later, he writes, "Her fancy followed him through foaming waves / To distant shores." In these lines, another example of personification, Cowper makes Kate's "fancy," or imagination, the subject of the action in which she is following her lost love, a sailor, to his destination. Cowper's use of personification stresses that Kate herself is hapless and can't follow her lost love, though she wants to. Instead, only her imagination can follow him. "Fancy" also "would oft anticipate his glad return," meaning that her imagination also believes falsely that he will come back. The poet's use of personification expresses the idea that her emotions and delusions are coming to take over her mind.
Later in the poem, Kate must spend her days alongside the shore and, "unless when Charity forbids, / The livelong night." In another use of personification, only "Charity" (meaning people's good will) can prevent Kate from being homeless day and night. The poet's use of personification to express charity also expresses that Kate is subject to the vicissitudes of fate and the whims of her fellow man to live. 
Cowper uses symbols, such as the "cloak of satin trimmed / With lace, and hat with splendid ribbon bound," to stand for Kate's sanity and better luck in earlier days. After her love is lost, her attire is described: "A tattered apron hides, / Worn as a cloak, and hardly hides a gown / More tattered still." Her clothes symbolize her decline, her inner pain, and her mental disintegration. As her clothes decline, so does she, mentally. Her clothes are the outward manifestation of her inner state. The "idle pin" that Kate begs from others is also a symbol of her mental decline, as she hordes the pins as if they were gold, but they serve no purpose. 
At the end of the poem, Cowper uses anaphora, or repetition of words at the beginning of clauses, in the lines: "Though pressed with hunger oft, or comelier clothes, / Though pinched with cold, asks never. Kate is crazed." The poet's repetition of the word "though" expresses that Kate is really oppressed by cold and hunger, but she never asks for food. Her extreme want, compared with what she asks for, shows her mental distress.