What are the similarities and differences between the ethics of Aristotle, Kant, and Levinas?

Kant and Aristotle are quite different in their ethical systems, although both are approachable to the non-philosopher, or average person. I will get to Levinas later, as his philosophical system is not as easy to comprehend. Beginning with the more "modern" philosopher, Kant has a concept of morality described in Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. In this treatise, Kant explains that individual morality should rest upon making every decision by considering that what one does would become a universal law. Wondering if you should speed on what looks like an empty street? Kant would say you should not because if everyone sped, what would the consequences be? We would live in a more dangerous world. Kant's morality is somewhat similar to the kinds of laws we make to reduce the possibility that individual action can affect the group.
Aristotle had a much more free-flowing approach to life, in line with basic ancient Greek philosophy that said the three most important attributes are health, beauty, and wealth (honestly acquired). The Greeks recognized that some people had better lives than others, but all should live according to their best self. People should strive to optimize their happiness and express the best that is in them. This is to say that if you live your ideal life, living up to your potential, then you live an ethical life, which doesn't provide much guidance for most of us.
Levinas is more modern than Kant, and as an existential philosopher, he wrestles with more abstract concepts. His account of ethics rests in understanding that while everyone we encounter is an Other, our relationship to them and our actions toward them constitute all of our morality. This has its limits, since his morality is grounded in how we treat others but falls short in examining different types of relationships or relationships with other beings (such as animals, or Earth itself). Levinas also assumes our treatment of the Other is subjective and instinctual, but Levinas does define morality as utterly human, an important distinction (and arguably improvement) when comparing Levinas to Aristotle or Kant. Levinas loosely defines ethics as, essentially, compassion because although we realize our encounters are with the Other, we also treat them gently.

The three philosophers you mention lived centuries apart and lived in different parts of the world; as one might expect, there are significant differences in their ethical views and this can, at least in part, be attributed to the vast differences in their surroundings. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher from the 4th century BCE; Kant was a German philosopher from the 18th century; Levinas was a 20th century French philosopher. 
Aristotle's ethics are often described as "eudaimonistic;" this refers to the idea that he regards the best possible human life as consisting in eudaimonia ("flourishing" or "fulfillment" or "happiness"). His focus was on the right kind of life, and here, we already have the first difference with respect to Kant.
Kant, as was common among modern philosophers, focused on good acts rather than good lives. He argued that ethical actions require us to act in a dutiful manner in accordance with the moral law. A good human being is one who acts in accordance with the categorical imperative. 
These two conflicting approaches are often called agent-centered (Aristotle) and action-centered (Kant) ethics. 
Levinas' ethics falls completely outside this dichotomy and, indeed, is not an ethics in any traditional sense. His manner of conducting ethics was to offer a phenomenological account of precognitive interpersonal interaction. His work is almost metaethical in nature, unlike that of Kant or Aristotle. 

College Algebra, Chapter 7, Review Exercises, Section Review Exercises, Problem 50

Determine the determinant of the matrix $\displaystyle A = \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 2 \\
1 & 2 & 1 & 2
\end{array}
\right]$ and if possible, the inverse of the matrix.

Using rows and columns transformation,

If we add $-1$ times column 1 to column 3, we get

$\displaystyle \left[
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 0 & 2 \\
1 & 2 & 0 & 2
\end{array}
\right]$

So,

$\displaystyle \det (A) = 1 \left|
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 2 \\
2 & 0 & 2
\end{array}
\right|$

Now, adding $-1$ times column 1 to column 3 in this determinant gives us


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\det (A) =& 1 \left| \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1 \\
2 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right| \qquad \text{Expand this by column 3}
\\
\\
\det (A) =& 1 (1) \left| \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
2 & 0
\end{array} \right|
\\
\\
\det (A) =& 1(1 \cdot 0 - 0 \cdot 2)
\\
\\
\det (A) =& 0

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$


Since the determinant of $A$ is zero, $A$ can't have an inverse, by the invertibility criterion.

What is Edward Said's book Orientalism about?

Though the previous educator's analysis is correct, Said's analysis of "Orientalism" predates the Imperialist era of the nineteenth century. In fact, he writes that "Orientalism is considered to have commenced its formal existence with the decision of the Church Council of Vienne in 1312" (72). This decision resulted in the formation of language "chairs" for Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac in Paris, Oxford, Bologna, Avignon, and Salamanca. Scholars were devoted to the translation and interpretation of canonical texts, but they were not immune to the biases of their time.
In the introduction, Said defines Orientalism as "the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient—dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it settling it, ruling over it" (26). Thus, Orientalism becomes "a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient" (26).
Said discusses the rigidity of the Orientalist's view of the Middle East by noting that it is often imbued with "unshakable abstract maxims about the 'civilization' he had studied" (75). Their research was more committed to validating their positions than to understanding the intricacies and complexities of the respective regions they studied. As a result, "Orientalism produced not only a fair amount of exact positive knowledge about the Orient but also a kind of second-order knowledge . . . the mythology of the mysterious East, [and] notions of Asian inscrutability" (75). These notions persist even today and are evident in films, television shows, and news reports that stereotype Middle Eastern people as fanatical, violent, regressive, and apathetic.

Orientalism is about the culturally biased way in which the West, influenced by the philosophy of imperialism, regarded the East, including the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Asia. The term "Orientalism" referred to both a way of seeing and an academic discipline that falsely colored the way in which Westerners regarded the East.
In this view, the East was exotic, irrational, and inferior to the West, which was rational and superior. In studying the East, western academics were so tainted by imperial views that they were unable to separate their conception of the East from their imperialist ideology. The Westerner tended to see the people of the East as "the other," as irrational, feminine, and weak in a binary relationship with the West, which was seen as strong, rational, and masculine. This view was colored by geopolitical realities, as the West had tried to conquer the East since ancient times. The imperial presence of the West in the East also affected the fields of art, literature, sociology, and other academic fields that related to the Western study of the East.



In his book, Said writes that Orientalist studies shed little light on the East. As he writes, "I myself believe that Orientalism is more particularly valuable as a sign of European-Atlantic power over the Orient than it is as a veridic discourse about the Orient." In other words, Orientalism was merely a way of representing the East through the lens of political power rather than a true way to understand the East.

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 3, 3.1, Section 3.1, Problem 31

$\displaystyle \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{(1 + h)^{10} - 1}{h}$ represents the derivative of some function $f$ at some number $a$. State such an $f$ and $a$ in this case.

Using the limit equation for derivatives

$\lim\limits_{h \to 0} \displaystyle \frac{f(a + h) - f(a)}{h}$

We can see that $f(a + h) = (1 + h)^{10}$ so $f(x) = x^{10}$

and $a = 1$. To check value of $a$, we have


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

f(a) =& a^{10} && \\
\\
f(1) =& (1)^{10} && \\
\\
f(a) =& 1 \qquad \text{Just like the 1 on the right side of the numerator}\\
\\
\text{Therefore,}\\
\\
f(x) =& x^{10} \text{ and } a = 1


\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

What is Gregor's goal in life?

Gregor's goal is to finish paying off his parents' debt so that he can take charge of his own miserable life and try to find a way to be happy. He considers the other traveling salesmen who are, for some reason, able to enjoy a hearty breakfast when he's expected to be working all the time. He thinks that he'd love to sit and eat such a breakfast right in front of his boss. Gregor promises himself, "once I've got the money together to pay off my parents' debt to [my boss] -- another five or six years I suppose -- that's definitely what I'll do. That's when I'll make the big change.'" He vows to walk up to his boss and quit on the spot. He wants to take control of his life because, as it is now, he has no time for fun or relationships or anything that really seems to make life worth living. Even the picture he has framed in his bedroom is one of a beautiful woman that he cut out of a magazine. Gregor's goal, then, is to get a life, something he expects to do once he's paid off his folks' debt.

What are some quotes about ambition in Macbeth?

Ambition is a central theme in Macbeth, and, consequently, it can be traced throughout the play. Nevertheless, the encounter with the witches in Act I triggers Macbeth's desires. He is aware that ambition is driving his own actions, as he says that: 

I have no spurTo prick the sides of my intent, but onlyVaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself And falls on the other (Act I, scene 7)

As the play advances, Macbeth's ambition will grow as he will act leaving his morals aside. Notice that, later in the play, Macbeth says that he is doing everything for himself ("For mine own good"):

For mine own good All causes shall give way. I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,Returning were as tedious as go o'er

Moreover, Macbeth says that he has "Stepped in so far", meaning that he has exceeded his ambition with blood and murder. Until the last scene, Macbeth is a play that portrays an uncontrolled aspiration that can ruin individuals and entire nations.  

For a quote about ambition in Macbeth, take a look at Act I, Scene III. After meeting with the witches and hearing their prophecies, Macbeth is consumed by ambition. In fact, he is so consumed by ambition that he begins thinking about killing Duncan so that he can take the crown for himself:

My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical, Shakes so my single state of manThat function is smother'd in surmise, and nothing is but what is not. 

Later, in Act I, Scene IV, Macbeth makes it very clear that he will stop at nothing to become the king of Scotland. When Duncan names his son Malcolm as his heir, for example, Macbeth's naked ambition comes to the fore:

The Prince of Cumberland! That is a stepOn which I must fall down, or else o'erleap,For in my way it lies. 

Immediately following this, Macbeth asks nature to disguise his ambition so that his true motives will go undetected:

Stars, hide your fires;Let not light see my black and deep desires.

In Act I, Scene V, you can also find an example of Lady Macbeth's ambition. When she hears about the prophecies, for instance, she, too, begins thinking of murdering Duncan. In this quote, we not only see the extent of her ambition but also of her ruthlessness, a trait which she plans on using to ensure her husband's success:

Hie thee hither,
That I may pour my spirits in thine ear
And chastise with the valor of my tongue
All that impedes thee from the golden round.

How did Helen take her examination at Radcliffe?

To enter Radcliffe, then the sister college of Harvard, a student had 16 hours of exams. The papers, handed out at Harvard, were sent to Radcliffe by messenger, and Keller was given a number. As she had to type her exams, her identity was not secret. She took the exams in a room by herself, and a guard stood at the door to prevent anyone from entering.
Mr. Gilman read the German papers aloud to Keller, and she repeated the words to make sure she had understood them. She then typed out the answers, and Mr. Gilman spelled to her what she had written. She made corrections that he inserted. However, in the final exams, no one read her work back to her. Then, Mr. Gilman sent her work to the examiners with a note certifying that she had written them.
During her final exams for Radcliffe, one of the teachers at the Perkins Institution for the Blind copied the papers for her into American braille. She was proctored by someone she did not know. Right before the exam, she received an old copy of the algebra exam papers and realized that she did not understand the notation. She asked for a copy of the notations, and she had to study them. She also found the geometry exams confusing, as she was used to reading the problems in print or having them spelled into her hand. She found the braille perplexing, and she could not see what she had written on her typewriter. She was also used to solving these types of problems mentally. She found it hard to read over all the signs correctly. In spite of these difficulties, she passed all her exams.

Helen Keller attended Radcliffe College, an all-female institution of higher education in Massachusetts. Though highly intelligent, Helen was worried that her serious disabilities would hold back her educational progress. Disabled students were incredibly rare at that time, not least because of a prevailing prejudice that they simply lacked the ability to learn properly. Helen Keller was a trailblazer in that regard, showing that disability is no barrier to academic success.
Nevertheless, she still had to encounter practical problems. For instance, during her preliminary examination, Helen had to use a specially-designed typewriter in order to complete her paper. In those days, typewriters were large, clunky machines which made a lot of noise when the keys were pressed. As this would disturb other students taking their exams, the decision was made that Helen should sit separately.
When she finally sat down to write her paper, the questions had to be given to her by way of manual alphabet, sentence by sentence. She would then repeat the sentences to make sure that she fully understood the question before writing her answers. Not surprisingly, Helen's preliminary examination took an incredibly long time for her to complete—sixteen hours in all, to be precise. Despite all the various practical obstacles she had to overcome, however, Helen passed all her entrance examinations, receiving honors in German and English.