What was the primary goal of Malcolm X's movement?

Malcolm X, born Malcolm Little and transformed into el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz after his pilgrimage to Mecca, began his career as an orator and civil rights leader within the Nation of Islam (NOI), a relationship that began during his years in prison.
Malcolm X remained within the NOI until 1963 when he exited. He was prompted by a public reprimand due to his "chickens coming home to roost" comment in response to the Kennedy assassination and then left after finding out about Elijah Muhammad's affairs and illegitimate children with numerous young women in the organization.
The Nation of Islam was a positive force in black communities in major cities, offering resources that community members might not otherwise have had. Their work was rooted in an idea of self-sufficiency which led to the development of businesses and faith centers. Malcolm X was the organization's most prominent speaker and used his role to draw national attention to the disease of American racism and its particular effects on poor black communities.
By the time he left the NOI to form his own organization in 1964, the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), he had abandoned his anti-white resentments—inspired by his pilgrimage when he drank from the same cup as white Muslims—while still remaining vocally critical of institutional racism.
In sum, he began his career working in the service of the Nation of Islam and its dual goals of separatism and black self-sufficiency. When he left the organization and formed his own movement, he kept the emphasis on self-sufficiency but decided that he would not eliminate the possibility of accepting offers of support from whites after the OAAU had been firmly established.

What is the connection between the form and the content in "The Prologue" by Anne Bradstreet?

Anne Bradstreet, one of the primary poets of the Puritan era, is being rather ironic in this poem. Notice that Bradstreet's content rejects the idea that men are "superior" to women (indeed, there is much irony in stanza seven as she defers to men!) and that men possess superior talents in writing to those of women. She seemingly plays down her own talents, expressing that she surely cannot write better than the Greeks with her "mean" pen (read "mere" in today's meaning). But then in stanza five, Bradstreet outwardly rebels against the traditional female role—a move that was rather brave for her day.
In terms of poetic form, Bradstreet further rebels against the idea that her verse is inferior by composing finely-crafted lines, each of which contains ten syllables. The predominant meter throughout is iambic pentameter. This is one of the most common meters in poetry, consisting of an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable so that each line has five stressed syllables. See the example below, wherein the words or letters in all caps receive the stress when the poem is spoken:

To SING of WARS, of CAP-tains AND of KINGS
Of CIT-ies FOUND-ed, COMM-on WEALTHS be-GUN

and so on. There might be a bit of variation in some lines, but the dominant pattern is iambic pentameter. Note also that the last two lines in each stanza consist of a rhyming couplet.
Thus, Bradstreet echoes her content arguing for the talents of women by composing a tightly crafted poem that proves her case.

Beginning Algebra With Applications, Chapter 6, 6.2, Section 6.2, Problem 2

Use this system of equations:
$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

(1) y =& x+4
\\
(2) 3x+y =& 12

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


To solve the system by substitution, substitute $\underline{x+4}$ for $y$ in equation (2): $3x+x+4 = 12$.

Solving the equation $3x+x+4 = 12$ for $x$ gives $x =$ $\underline{2}$

To find $y$, substitute this value of $x$ into equation (1): $y =$ $\underline{2}$ $+4 =$ $\underline{6}$.

The solution of the system of equations is $(\underline{2},$ $\underline{6})$.

Did populists believe that the government should have more control over Americans?

The Populists believed in more government regulation but not necessarily in more government control over people. The Populists believed that if an unfair situation arose that hurt one group of people while benefiting another group of people, the government should then get involved. For example, the Populists believed that the railroad industry was unfair to farmers. The railroad companies would give rebates to big business owners, but they would not give them to the farmers. Thus, the Populists wanted the government to control the railroad companies.
Another example was with the banks. The Populists believed that the banks charged farmers interest rates that were higher than what other groups, such as business owners, had to pay. This made it hard for the farmers to borrow money and repay their debts. The Populists wanted the government to control the banking industry.
Thus, the Populists favored increased government regulation in cases where one group was hurt by the actions of another group or when unfair policies hurt a group of people.
http://projects.vassar.edu/1896/populists.html

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4067

Finite Mathematics, Chapter 1, 1.1, Section 1.1, Problem 36

Determine $k$ so that the line through $(4,-1)$ and $(k,2)$ is
a.) parallel to $2x + 3y = 6$
b.) perpendicular t $5x - 2y = -1$

a.) If we transform the given line into point slope form, we have

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
2x + 3y &= 6 \\
\\
3y &= -2x + 6 \\
\\
y &= -\frac{2}{3}x + 2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Now that the line is in the slope intercept form $y = mx + b$. By observation, $\displaystyle m = -\frac{2}{3}$
And if the line is parallel to the line we are looking, then we can say that both lines have the same slope. Therefore,

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
m &= \frac{y_2 - y_1}{x_2 - x_1}\\
\\
\frac{-2}{3} &= \frac{2-(-1)}{k - 4}\\
\\
\frac{-2}{3} &= \frac{2 + 1}{k - 4}\\
\\
-2(k - 4) &= 3(3)\\
\\
-2k + 8 &= 9 \\
\\
-2k &= 1\\
\\
-2k &= 1\\
\\
k &= -\frac{1}{2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


b.) If we transform the given line into point slope form, we have

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
5x - 2y &= -1\\
\\
-2y &= -5x - 1\\
\\
y &= \frac{-5x}{-2} - \frac{1}{-2}\\
\\
y &= \frac{5}{2} x + \frac{1}{2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Now that the line is in the slope intercept form $y = mx + b$. By observation, $\displaystyle m = \frac{5}{2}$. Therefore,
the slope of the perpendicular line is $\displaystyle m_{\perp} = -\frac{1}{\frac{5}{2}} = -\frac{2}{5}$. Hence, we have

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
-\frac{2}{5} &= \frac{2 - (-1)}{k - 4}\\
\\
-\frac{2}{5} &= \frac{2 + 1}{k - 4}\\
\\
-2 (k - 4) &= 5(3)\\
\\
-2k + 8 &= 15\\
\\
-2k &= 7 \\
\\
k &= - \frac{7}{2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Where did Gothic architecture originate?

According to Indiana University, Gothic architecture originated in the North of France. Specifically, this style of architecture began in Saint-Denis, a town to the north of Paris, when the local abbot, Suger, began a renovation of the eastern section of his abbey church. These renovations began in 1140 and, from its inception, it was clear that Suger's style was very different to what had gone before. This has led historians to credit Saint-Denis as being the first Gothic church in existence. (You can use the second reference link provided to see some examples of the Gothic style in France and across Europe.)
Once the renovations at Saint-Denis were complete (by 1144), lots of buildings across France were commissioned in a similar fashion and, soon after, across Medieval Europe. 
http://www.iub.edu/~paris10/ParisOSS/Day_2_Early_Paris/Medieval/Horne_Gothic.html

https://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/gothic

In the prologue of Guns, Germs, and Steel, what are the three considerations Diamond talks about as he ponders Yali's question?

In the prologue, Yali asks Diamond three questions:
1) He wanted to know about Diamond's work on guinea birds and how much he was compensated for it.
2)He wanted to know how his people came to populate Papua New Guinea.
3)He wanted to know how white Europeans came to colonize Papua New Guinea within the last 200 years.
From these three questions, Diamond hypothesizes that Yali is really asking a larger question: Why does inequality exist between different cultures? For example, why were Native American, Aboriginal Australian, and African societies colonized by European powers and not the reverse?
In pondering the answer to this question, Diamond discusses the three considerations or objections to studying the question:
1) First, Diamond maintains that, in trying to determine how some societies came to dominate others, some concerned parties conflate an "explanation of causes" with a "justification or acceptance of the results." He argues that this erroneous conclusion about the purposes of historical inquiry is counter-productive. Instead, Diamond insists that anything one learns about the past should be used towards altering disastrous events rather than in perpetuating or repeating genocide, conflict, and hegemony.
2) Second, Diamond insists that his historical treatise is not an "Eurocentric approach to history." Instead, he maintains that his book also discusses relationships between non-European peoples, "especially those that took place within sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and New Guinea." By exploring the impact of non-European cultures on European cultures, Diamond asserts that his readers can come to understand how the "basic elements" of Western civilization were imported from other cultures.
3) Third, Diamond argues that his research in no way epitomizes a biased approach towards "civilization." He maintains that he is simply interested in examining the causes for how European powers came to dominate non-European cultures. For his part, Diamond maintains that he doesn't "assume that industrialized states are 'better' than hunter-gatherer tribes, or that the abandonment of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle for iron-based statehood represents 'progress,' or that it has led to an increase in human happiness."
Effectively, in pondering Yali's question, Diamond is most concerned about uncovering pertinent facts rather than relying on preconceived notions about hegemony and civilization. Ultimately, he presents the basic hypothesis for his book:

History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples' environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.