How do you put the copyright information in To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee into correct MLA format?

MLA format for To Kill a Mockingbird, and any other novel by a single author, follows the exact same formula.  These are the following things that need to be included, in the order they should appear.  NOTE: The MLA has made some changes in the 8th edition, so below I've listed the most recent way of citing a book, along with the changes.  1.  Author's name (the author's last name should be listed first, followed by a comma (,) and then the author's first name.  After the first name, you should include a period (.).  Example: Charles Dickens's name would be listed as Dickens, Charles.
2.  The title of the work, in italics, followed by a period.  Example: A Christmas Carol.NOTE: the following step has changed.  In the old edition, you had to include the city of publication, but that has been taken out and now you simply include the publisher.
3.  The publisher, followed by a comma (,)Bantam Classics,4.  The date of publication, followed by a period (.)2009.NOTE: Another recent change is the elimination of the format of the work.  Example: for a print source, you no longer include the word "print" at the end of the citation.
To recap: the entire citation is as follows:Dickens, Charles.  A Christmas Carol. Bantam Classics, 2009. That's it!  Just use this same format for To Kill a Mockingbird and you are all set.  Author.  Title of work.  Publisher, Year of Publication.  

How is "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" by Flannery O'Connor related to the idea of good versus evil?

O'Connor's no-holds-barred story inspires us to question how good and evil are defined. Perhaps, in that sense, how we relate good versus evil in the story will depend on how we judge or interpret the characters' actions.
In the story, the grandmother sets herself up in her family's eyes (and ours) as a paragon of virtue. So, we must decide whether we will accept this exemplary image she flaunts before us or whether we will reject it. We are told that she refuses to go to Florida because the Misfit (a criminal) happens to be heading that way; she thinks that going to Florida will potentially expose her family to the machinations of a felon. Interestingly however, she has no qualms about deceiving her son, Bailey.
In the story, we are told that Bailey doesn't like the idea of traveling with pets; the grandmother manages to bring Pitty Sing along anyway. She hides the feline in a basket and places it under her enormous, black valise. Interestingly, she rationalizes her deception readily and still thinks of herself as a lady. To the grandmother, a lady is someone who dresses the part and entertains certain preconceived notions about life. Her definition of "good" is largely superficial.
As the story continues, we begin to realize how self-deceived, self-centered, and hypocritical the grandmother really is. She consistently lectures her family about doing the right thing. However, she readily tells her grandchildren a story with racist undertones and later concocts a flashy story to goad Bailey into making a detour. Her earlier subterfuge about Pitty Sing tempts us to doubt her elaborate story about a secret panel at the plantation house. By the time she faces death before the Misfit's gun, we are challenged to rethink our own perception of good and evil.
Although the grandmother purports to be spiritually adept, she fails to recognize true evil when she sees it. Perhaps another interpretation would be that she refuses to recognize it because she harbors a predominantly sanitized conception of good and evil. She attempts to flatter the Misfit and to play on his sympathies for a "lady." However, the Misfit is impervious to her feminine wiles. He questions the reality of God and refuses to live anything other than a hedonistic lifestyle. When the grandmother dies, she does so with poignant last words: "Why you're one of my babies. You're one of my own children!" Her words indicate her final epiphany about the universal humanity in all of us.
The Misfit kills the grandmother presumably to avoid being exposed to law enforcement. Superficial assumptions of goodness have no place in his life; he's primarily focused on survival and self-preservation. The Misfit exemplifies unmitigated evil, while the grandmother epitomizes sterile religiosity. So, how we relate good versus evil in the story largely depends on how we define "good" and "evil" in regard to the characters. Will we define the grandmother as "good" because of the way she portrays herself? Or will we define her as "evil" because she is, in many ways, as self-absorbed as the Misfit?
On the other hand, is the Misfit "evil" because he chooses to kill the grandmother and her family in cold blood? In other words, are there degrees of "evil" that O'Connor inspires us to see through the characters in her story?

College Algebra, Chapter 1, 1.6, Section 1.6, Problem 24

Solve the linear inequality $\displaystyle \frac{2}{3} - \frac{1}{2} x \geq \frac{1}{6} + x$. Express the solution using interval notation and graph the solution set.


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

& \frac{2}{3} - \frac{1}{2} x \geq \frac{1}{6} + x
&& \text{Given}
\\
\\
& \frac{2}{3} - \frac{1}{6} \geq x + \frac{1}{2} x
&& \text{Add } \frac{1}{2} x \text{ and subtract } \frac{1}{6}
\\
\\
& \frac{4 - 1}{6} \geq \frac{3}{2} x
&& \text{Common denominator}
\\
\\
& \frac{3}{6} \geq \frac{3}{2} x
&& \text{Simplify}
\\
\\
& \frac{3}{6} \left( \frac{2}{3} \right) \geq x
&& \text{Multiply both sides by } \frac{2}{3}
\\
\\
& \frac{1}{3} \geq x
&& \text{Simplify}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

What is the relationship between disease and art or aesthetics in Thomas Mann's Death in Venice and Tristan? How does this relationship reflect upon society as a whole or social issues in these two works?

Thomas Mann's Death In Venice is, at its heart, entirely concerned with the relationship with disease and art, as symbolised by the setting of Venice itself. As the disease progresses through the story and towards Venice, so does Aschenbach's moral and personal decay and his obsession with the symbol of the aesthetic in the story: the boy, Tadzio. Mann's message is fairly overt. Aschenbach has been in a state of repression for much of his life, incubating, as it were, the "disease" of his naturally artistic nature. Having been restrained for so long, when Aschenbach finally allows his inclinations to break free, they overtake him completely, like a fever pushing him towards insanity. The appearance of Tadzio is only a carrier for Aschenbach's metaphorical disease, rather than the contagion itself. Meanwhile Venice, the city of culture and art, is shown to be sinking deeper daily into its own decay. Venice represents not only the lie that is art—a beautiful front that deceives us into believing there is not something ugly beneath—but also the lie that was Aschenbach's life before he fell into his final two illnesses: the literal sickness that killed him and the passion for aesthetics that drove him mad. 
A similar attitude of distaste towards the so-called "artist" can be seen in the short story "Tristan", in which the artist, Spinell, is described similarly to Aschenbach in his period of decay: as effeminate, affected, and staying in a sanatorium because he "likes the décor". The implication here is evident: an "artist" without morals will wander into the most unhealthy place because of an appreciation for its appearance, without any concern about how it might negatively affect him. Spinell, in the story, is in love with a dying woman who also lives in the sanatorium, the wife of another man. He accuses the other man, Kloterjahn, of having only interest in his wife's body, while Spinell has a deeper appreciation for her soul. This is shown by the narrative to be a falsehood, however, as the two men end up arguing with each other while their supposed beloved, Gabriele, dies in the garden. Thus, a fixation upon art for art's sake in this story is shown to be, as in Death in Venice, a mere cover for moral decay. What is interesting, however, is that "Tristan" also suggests that the opposite extreme--brutish men obsessed with the physical--are also morally corrupt. He seems to indicate that an appreciation for art is important, as is an appreciation for the physically, but that one must include a balance in order to approach to world in a moral way. 

Beginning Algebra With Applications, Chapter 2, Test, Section Test, Problem 2

Simplify $7x + 5y - 3x - 8y$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&= 7x - 3x + 5y - 8y && \text{Use the Commutative Property of Addition}\\
\\
&= (7-3)x + (5-8) y && \text{Use the Distributive Property } ba+ca= (b+c)a\\
\\
&= 4x - 3y && \text{Subtract coefficient}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

What are the differences between the book Great Expectations and the movie?

While there have been various movies made, two that most closely follow the narrative and characterization of Charles Dickens are the original production of 1946 (black and white) and the 2012 British film adaptation.
The 1946 version follows most closely the narrative of Great Expectations as, unlike other productions, it adheres to the characterizations made by Dickens; there is more development of these characters, and there are more minor characters in this film. For example, Mr. Wemmick is an actual presence and his father, Aged One, is in this film, providing comic relief. In the 2012 version, which is well done, but always somber, Wemmick makes only an appearance at Jaggers' office, and the humorous scenes at his home are omitted. No comic relief is provided by Joe Gargery, either, as is done in the 1946 version in which Joe awkwardly tries to act the gentleman when he unexpectedly visits Pip in London. He tries to balance his upturned hat on the fireplace, but instead juggles it for a minute or so, amusing Herbert. In addition, Bentley Drummle, Pip's rival and eventually Estella's husband, is only briefly in the film, in the dinner scene at Mr. Jaggers' house. The character of Jaggers is less developed and certainly less volatile in the modern version. The same is true for Uncle Pumblechook, who plays no real role in the newer film, when he was a source of comedy and ridicule in the 1946 film.
On the other hand, the 2012 production develops Estella well and has her analyze young Pip as she tells him in a created line before she goes away to school:

You imagine yourself a young knight from a child's story, tearing away the cobwebs . . . marrying the princess.

Another character who is more developed than in the novel and the 1946 version is Biddy. Yet, this character development in the 2012 film has authenticity because Biddy remains the same type of person as in the novel. Screenwriter David Nicholls effectively makes use of Biddy's character to assist in the development of Pip's character and the setting of his youth.
Miss Havisham is not as fully developed in the newer films as she is in the 1946 version, either, and she does not seem as human and contrite in the end as the Miss Havisham of the older film in her final scenes. However, the relationship that develops between Pip and his benefactor Magwitch is very well done in the modern version and there is great suspense with their actions near the end.
Since modern audiences are not accustomed to lengthy dialogues, newer films do not contain as many scenes that rely strongly on such dialogues.  So, whenever a film is made on a classic novel with a myriad of characters, there is usually a substitution of action for much of the dialogue. This substitution can mitigate the power of the film. This seemed to be the result for the 2012, which also suffered from being a rather maudlin.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1836808/

There are several different movie versions of Great Expectations. The 1946 version follows the book fairly closely, except some characters are left out, such as Orlick (the worker at the smith who probably attacks Pip's sister). In addition, in the movie, Estella gives Pip reason to think that she might eventually love him, while in the novel, Estella's last words to Pip are, "And we will continue friends apart" (page 484). In the novel, Estella never promises to love Pip, so the movie version made a large alteration in the story by suggesting that she did. 
There was also a 1998 movie with Ethan Hawke and Gwyneth Paltrow (set in contemporary times, which was very different from the book) and a 2012 movie of the book. The 2012 version featured Ralph Fiennes as Magwitch. This version restored several of the omissions of the 1946 version, including the complexity of characters such as Biddy and Joe. However, it didn't emphasize Pip's snobbery to the extent that the book did, particularly towards Joe, though it provided a more classic version of the book in film form. 

What is the "worn path"? Why is the story named after it?

The metaphoric path that elderly Phoenix Jackson treads is long established. She is a woman who has toiled throughout her long life, and the journey she takes in the story is common to many women: she is looking after a child—in this case, her grandson.
The path has deeper symbolism because Phoenix is African American, elderly, and remembers the end of the Civil War. She is first patronized, then menaced, by a white man with dogs, a familiar narrative in a country with a history of slavery. He pulls a gun on her, but she is unmoved, clearly having endured this type of affront in the past. When he drops a nickel, she patiently waits for an opportunity to retrieve it, saying nothing, because she has learned guile as a survival technique.
Near the story's end, Phoenix is patronized again when she is called "Grandma" and subjected to humiliation by being called a charity case in the clinic. She accepts not only the medicine for her grandson, but also a nickel offered patronizingly.
The ritual humiliations and hardships that Phoenix suffers symbolize the deeply-entrenched path that other women and African Americans have suffered before her.