As a police commissioner, what would you do to enhance your department's murder investigations?

Homicide investigations, as with all criminal investigations, have to be conducted with two thoughts constantly in mind. The first involves identification of the guilty party or parties. That, of course, is the purpose of most investigations: identification of the individual(s) responsible for the criminal act. There is a reason for the use of the word "most" in the above sentence, however. Investigating agencies may have great confidence in the identity of the guilty party, but still not feel comfortable making an arrest, which brings us to the second part of the equation: the requirement to amass a body of evidence sufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the suspect's guilt. And it is here where there may be room for improvement in how the police department in question conducts homicide investigations.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees American citizens certain rights, such as the right to not be subjected to unwarranted searches and seizures of property. Additionally, under the landmark Miranda v. State of Arizona case of 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that suspects do not have to answer questions posed to them by law enforcement officials, the Court having determined that compulsory interrogations violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. All of this is highly relevant to the question posed by the student. Homicide investigators, as with investigators focused on other types of criminal activity, such as armed robbery, cannot cavalierly carry out their investigation without regard to constitutionally protected rights. Also, investigations must be able to withstand the scrutiny of very skilled defense attorneys practiced at finding weaknesses in the prosecution's case, such as whether physical evidence was properly handled at the crime scene. Even a minor error in the handling of evidence can result in a successful motion by the attorney for the defendant in a trial to have that "tainted" evidence thrown out.
A police commissioner seeking to improve the way in which homicide investigations are conducted would, therefore, coordinate carefully with the prosecuting attorney's office to ensure that law enforcement officials, from patrol officers to detectives, are properly trained in the way to secure crime scenes and handle evidence so that there can be no question as to the constitutionality of the investigation. Police officers are not expected to be experts on the law, but the level of knowledge they require to perform their jobs can come awful close. It is the commissioner's responsibility to ensure that precinct commanders are adequately preparing their subordinates for the rigors of carrying out investigations, especially those involving murder.

Where does Hoot take place?

The story takes place in the fictitious town of Coconut Cove, Florida (though there's actually a resort by that name). To many people, Florida conjures up images of palm trees and golden sun-kissed beaches. But to Roy Eberhardt, it's anything but a paradise. The protagonist of Hoot is going through some major problems in his life. For one thing, he's the new kid at Trace Middle School and soon finds himself being constantly bullied by the thuggish Dana Matherson.
But in a funny way, Roy's experiences of bullying turn out to be a blessing in disguise. They set in train a series of unusual events that culminate in Roy discovering an endangered species of owl nesting on the proposed site of Mother Paula's All-American Pancake House on East Oriole Avenue. Roy's encounter with the owls makes him realize just how beautiful the natural environment of Florida really is and how important it is to protect it.

How does theoretical communism relate to Animal Farm?

Theoretical communism relates to Animal Farm in two ways. First, it appears in Old Major's vision of a farm run by the animals before they chase Mr. Jones off. He tells the animals that their troubles are caused by mankind exploiting them and taking the fruits of their labor while doing little or no hard work themselves. If the animals could get rid of man, they could enjoy the profits of their labors themselves and live freer and more prosperous lives. This parallels the writings of communism in the nineteenth century, before there had been a successful communist revolution, telling working class people that if they got rid of the bourgeoisie (what we would call the one percenters today), they could have freer and more prosperous lives.
Old Major also tells the animals never to compromise with mankind, which parallels the communists saying never to compromise with the bourgeoisie:

Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself.

Second, after the rebellion, when the animals expel Mr. Jones and his men, for a short time, they experience giddy happiness and they (with a few exceptions, like Molly) work hard together, each according to his ability, to bring in the harvest. This is similar to the early years after the Russian Revolution, before the communist project was corrupted into totalitarianism, when some of the people whole-heartedly worked to implement communist principles.

How does Tom feel toward Jordan Baker?

Jordan Baker despises Tom Buchanan and works relentlessly to get Daisy away from him, at least temporarily, by encouraging Daisy's affair with Gatsby. Tom, although unaware that Jordan is working against him behind his back, does not like Jordan but thinks he can use her. He understands that she epitomizes the unattached, independent modern woman, but he is both too complacent within his own machismo to perceive her as a threat and too self-absorbed in his own affair to pay much attention to what his wife and her friends are doing.
On the first occasion Nick is with the Buchanans and Jordan, she tries to interrupt Tom's pompous endorsement of a racist book, and he simply ignores her. Later it becomes clear that he has no idea Jordan knows about Myrtle and another fling he had years earlier. He vaguely thinks she needs restraining, saying "they oughtn't to let her run around the country this way," meaning travel to play in golf tournaments. It seems that Tom is happy to have Jordan staying in their home and keeping Daisy occupied because it will facilitate his carrying on with Myrtle.

At one point, when Tom is curious about where Gatsby would have met Daisy, he says,

By God, I may be old-fashioned in my ideas, but women run around too much these days to suit me.

Here, he must be talking about women of his own class, the upper class. Otherwise, he would be referring to women like Myrtle Wilson and all the others with whom he has had affairs that were made possible precisely because these lower-class women were happy to "run around," as he puts it, with him. The main person Daisy "runs around" with is Jordan Baker, her best friend, and so I imagine that he finds Jordan a little too progressive for his taste too: she is always going to parties and into town, playing in tournaments, and so forth. If he believes that Daisy has strayed from his "old-fashioned" values, then it stands to reason that he feels the same way about her friend.

Tom and Jordan interact directly with each other very rarely throughout the novel. Jordan and Daisy are good friends and have been since they were young. (The reader even meets them at the same time, when Nick walks into the Buchanans' living room to see them lounging in the heat.) But Tom and Jordan are connected through Daisy alone. Though Tom never directly states his opinion on Jordan, we can infer from their personalities that Tom at least respects Jordan, because they are in fact very similar.
Jordan, Tom, and Daisy all grew up wealthy and remain wealthy. Nick calls Tom and Daisy "careless people," people who use their money and influence to avoid responsibility and do whatever they like without consequence. Jordan lives her life in a similar way, though she is not responsible for something as gruesome as two deaths, like Tom and Daisy are (Myrtle Wilson's death after Daisy hits her with the car and Gatsby's death when George Wilson believes he killed his wife and shoots Gatsby in his pool). Toward the end of the novel, Nick describes Jordan:

Jordan Baker instinctively avoided clever, shrewd men, and now I saw that this was because she felt safer on a plane where any divergence from a code would be thought impossible. She was incurably dishonest. She wasn't able to endure being at a disadvantage and, given this unwillingness, I suppose she had begun dealing in subterfuges when she was very young in order to keep that cool, insolent smile turned to the world and yet satisfy the demands of her hard, jaunty body.

Nick grows close to Jordan over the course of the novel, but his overwhelming sense of her is of someone who is cold, cynical, superficial, and prone to dishonesty. These are traits Fitzgerald largely assigns to wealthy people in the novel (namely Tom, Daisy, and Jordan), and these similarities make it likely that Tom thinks of Jordan Baker as at least a peer.

Intermediate Algebra, Chapter 2, 2.1, Section 2.1, Problem 62

Evaluate the equation $\displaystyle \frac{2x + 5}{5} = \frac{3x + 1}{2} + \frac{-x + 7}{2}$ and check your solution.


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\frac{2x + 5}{5} =& \frac{3x + 1}{2} + \frac{-x + 7}{2}
&& \text{Given equation}
\\
\\
10 \left( \frac{2x + 5}{5} \right) =& 10 \left( \frac{3x + 1}{2} + \frac{-x + 7}{2} \right)
&& \text{Multiply each side by the LCD, } 10
\\
\\
4x + 10 =& 15x + 5 + (-5x) + 35
&& \text{Distributive property}
\\
\\
4x + 10 =& 10x + 40
&& \text{Combine like terms}
\\
\\
4x - 10x =& 40 - 10
&& \text{Subtract $(10x+10)$ from each side}
\\
\\
-6x =& 30
&& \text{Combine like terms}
\\
\\
\frac{-6x}{-6} =& \frac{30}{-6}
&& \text{Divide both sides by $-6$}
\\
\\
x =& -5
&&

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Checking:


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\frac{2(-5) + 5}{5} =& \frac{3(-5) + 1}{2} + \frac{-(-5) + 7}{2}
&& \text{Let } x = -5
\\
\\
\frac{-10 + 5}{5} =& \frac{-15 + 1}{2} + \frac{5 + 7}{2}
&& \text{Multiply}
\\
\\
\frac{-5}{5} =& \frac{-14}{2} + \frac{12}{2}
&& \text{Add the numerators}
\\
\\
-1 =& -7 + 6
&& \text{Simplify}
\\
\\
-1 =& -1
&& \text{True}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

How could I compare 1984 with Gattaca?

Gattaca, as a dystopian story, has more in common with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World than it does with 1984. George Orwell's novel is a projection into the future about the kind of absolute dictatorships that existed in his own time in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The population is under constant surveillance, there is no freedom of expression or thought, and the general condition of life is one of privation—food is poor and scanty, and the whole of London seems to have turned into a vast slum. By contrast, in Gattaca, as in Brave New World, we see a wealthy and technologically advanced society based on eugenics and genetic planning in which people's characteristics and abilities are designed from the point of conception. Unlike in 1984, there is apparently no restriction on free speech. But one could judge the society of Gattaca to lack just as much freedom because one's DNA (which is constantly checked through instant tests of blood, urine, hair, and body tissue) determines one's job and the entire trajectory of one's life. The only way Vincent (Ethan Hawke), who is genetically "defective" ("invalid" in the dystopia's parlance), can fulfill his dream of going on a space mission is through essentially "buying" the genetic identity of another man named Jerome (Jude Law). Vincent is thus, like Winston in 1984, a heretic and a rebel against the dystopia, but unlike Winston, he gets away with it. Even if Vincent's ruse were detected, there is no indication that he would suffer the kind of fate Winston does in being tortured and brainwashed. The world of Gattaca, though lacking freedom, does not appear to be based on the kind of physical cruelty we see in Orwell's story.

What are some questions that I could ask in an interview with someone [not white], regarding the Separate Amenities Act during apartheid?

The previously suggested questions are wonderful ideas that you may wish to include when interviewing someone who experienced the indignities of apartheid. If you have not experienced systemic oppression firsthand, one suggestion I will add is to focus on questions regarding how injustice affects a person's spirit, as well as how past injustices can impact one's future. Historical facts about apartheid can be obtained from a variety of sources, but if you are given the opportunity to discuss this chilling topic with someone who has lived through the indignity, targeting its personal effects with likely result in wisdom and insight that cannot be gained from textbooks. Here are some suggestions for possible questions:
Looking back on this period of time, what are your clearest memories regarding injustice brought about by the Separate Amenities Act?
How did the Separate Amenities Act affect your everyday life, your spirit, and your plans for the future?
How do you think your life might be different now if apartheid had never been present? How has the injustice of that time period affected your life since then?
Do you think the repeal of the Separate Amenities Act righted the wrongs that were made during those decades, or do you think there is still work to be done? How can we do better?
How do you think the past history of apartheid has affected the present social and political climate in South Africa?
What wisdom did you gain while undergoing the oppression created by the Separate Amenities Act? What advice do you have for those who are currently experiencing systemic injustice?

The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, passed in South Africa in 1953, legalized segregation based on race in public spaces, vehicles, and services. The facilities for non-whites did not have to equal to those enjoyed by whites. The law was appealed in 1990. 
When interviewing someone who lived during this period of apartheid in South Africa, you might want to ask the person the following:
How did the act affect you? Was it different than the situation that came beforehand?
What were the most dangerous ways this act affected you (for example, hospitals and ambulances were reserved for whites)?
What were the facilities like that you could use? Were medical facilities, for example, inferior to those that whites used?
What were your interactions like with white people in public?
Did anyone ever break the laws among both white and non-white people? If so, were they discovered, and what were the consequences for doing so?
What do you think the long-term effects of this act were regarding education, etc.?
How do you think this act helped catalyze the movement to end apartheid?

Here are some questions that you could ask in such an interview.  Of course, the specific questions that you ask might vary depending on the person you are interviewing and, perhaps, your own particular interests.
What were things like before this law was passed?  Were things really any different?  (Since this law was passed in 1953, you may have a hard time finding people who remember the time before it, but this is a question that would be interesting if you could interview an older person.)
What kinds of public amenities do you remember that were separate for the different races?
Did they have separate facilities for blacks, coloreds, and Asians, or was it just white and non-white?
Do you remember if there were amenities that were white only, with no segregated facilities for other races?  (In other words, were there things like beaches where there was a white only beach but no beaches where non-whites could go?)
Were there any places where whites and non-whites mixed?
Did you ever get to go inside a white-only area or facility (perhaps as someone who was caring for a white child)?
If so, what were they like compared to the facilities for your race?
How did this law make you feel?  How did it feel to be kept separate from the white people?
What things in your life changed after this law was repealed and what things did not? 
Do you think that there was anything positive about the Separate Amenities Act?
Hopefully this gives you some ideas of what questions you could ask.  Perhaps these examples will help you to think of additional questions that are of interest to you.