Where do plants get the energy to make ATP and use it to power photosynthesis?

Plants use solar energy to make ATP to fuel photosynthesis.
There are two parts to photosynthesis: the Light Dependent reactions (AKA Light Reactions) and the Light Independent reactions (AKA Dark reactions or the Calvin Cycle.)
In the light dependent reactions, solar energy is captured by photosystem II, a collection of proteins and pigments (chlorophyll is the pigment that you've probably heard the most about) in the thylakoid membrane of the chloroplast. The solar energy excites electrons in reaction center of the photosystem to a higher energy level. Those excited electrons are passed through proteins, giving up energy a little bit at a time. That energy is used to pump H+ from the inside of the thylakoid to the outside, creating a higher concentration of H+ in the chloroplast stroma than in the thylakoid space. The H+ will then diffuse though ATP synthase, an enzyme in the thylakoid membrane that makes ATP when H+ move through it. The ATP (and NADPH made by photosystem I) will then be used in the Calvin cycle to "fix" CO2 into organic molecules such as glucose.
I've attached a diagram of photosynthesis from OpenStax, Biology. OpenStax. May 20,2013.

The short answer is the sun. Of course, it's a bit more complex than that!


Photosynthesis is the process plants use to convert unusable energy from the sun into usable chemical energy in the form of organic molecules. The overall chemical reaction for photosynthesis can be summarized as:

6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2

However, photosynthesis is actually a series of chemical reactions. During photosynthesis energy from the sun splits water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is released into the atmosphere. Since this part of photosynthesis requires light, these reactions are commonly called the light reactions.

Enzymes within plant cells then catalyze hydrogen and carbon dioxide to make a molecule called PGAL (phosphoglyceraldehyde). PGAL is then used to produce glucose, which the plant can use as food. This part of photosynthesis is commonly referred to as the dark reactions, simply to distinguish it from the reactions that require light.

The glucose created from photosynthesis can then be used in cellular respiration to produce ATP--the molecule used as "fuel" by all living things! While cellular respiration is actually a series of reactions, like photosynthesis, take a look at the overall reaction: C6H12O6+ 6O2 ----------> 6H2O + 6CO2 The overall reactions of the two processes are essentially the reverse of one another. Pretty neat!

Al living organisms use the process of respiration for generating ATP molecules (which serve as the energy currency in the living beings) and carrying out various operations.
Plants also use the same process. During respiration, plants consume the sugar molecules (generated during the process of photosynthesis) in the presence of oxygen, to generate energy molecules, carbon dioxide, and water. The chemical reaction that takes place during the process of respiration can be written as:
C_6H_12O_6 + 6O_2 -> 6CO_2 + 6H_2O + ATP
Respiration takes place continuously, unlike photosynthesis, which needs sunlight and hence can take place only during the daytime. In contrast, the respiration continues throughout the life of a plant.
Interestingly, photosynthesis and respiration consume the products of each other. The glucose molecules and oxygen produced from carbon dioxide and water during the photosynthesis process are the raw materials for the process of respiration.
Hope this helps.

Why was the United Kingdom not willing to be a member nation of the European Union?

This is a complicated issue, but generally, there were three factors, I think.  First, there was a belief in the United Kingdom (UK) that membership in the European Union (EU) was costing the UK money best spent at home, second, there was a misunderstanding about how the EU operated such that some people in the UK believed that they had no representation in the EU's functioning, and third, there has been a rising nationalism rooted in xenophobia in the UK (and other countries), which has been strongly exacerbated by all of the people who are fleeing their war-torn countries and heading for Europe. 
Last year, the UK gave the EU far more than it received back from the EU in benefits, approximately 8.5 billion pounds.  The UK could have used that money for many other government functions, for its national health service, for instance, or for its social safety net.  There was a great deal of resentment on the part of many people in the UK, particularly those who were not doing well financially, and the thought of "subsidizing" other peoples did not sit well with them, a kind of "Charity begins at home" mentality. This might not seem too unreasonable, but the stability and security of the UK is certainly dependent to a large degree on a stable Europe, so draining off that sum of money annually could create problems that would affect the UK. 
As evidenced by the fact that millions of UK people Googled to find out more about the EU (after they had already voted on "Brexit"), many people in the UK believed that the EU had some sort of ruling body that citizens from the UK had no say in choosing.  The fact is that representatives to the EU are elected by their respective countries, so this objection was based on a complete misunderstanding. Nevertheless, this misunderstanding seemed to resonate more strongly than the facts, so this formed another reason to want to leave. 
Immigration that many believe allows terrorists into the EU countries has played a significant role in the UK's wanting to leave, immigration that has nurtured an increase in nationalism and a dislike or even hatred of "foreigners." One of the whole points of an EU was that people could come and go across borders freely, such that in the long run, it would be one big happy family in that part of the world, with ancient enmities dissolving in the mix.  Right now, though, many European countries are overrun with fleeing immigrants, because of the war in Syria, because of ISIS, and because for many people in that part of the world, life is hell.  These people have cultures and religions usually significantly different from those of the western world.  Assimilation has not been smooth.  And the refugees need a great deal of help from the EU countries.  Add to that mix the fact that these people are coming from areas with a terrorist presence, and it is easy to see that anyone even slightly nationalistic and slightly xenophobic is unlikely to be feeling hospitable.  In the opinion of those people, the only way for the UK to really control this problem is to leave the EU. 
I do not want to imply that all of the reasons that people in the UK wanted to leave the EU were unreasonable, but it does seem to me that few people did enough investigation into the situation, to see if their reasons were based in fact or in rabble-roused opinions, and it seems fairly clear now that the vote has been taken, there is a great deal of buyer's remorse. 
 
 
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

What are two examples from Chapter 8 in Lord of the Flies that suggest that Simon might have epilepsy?

OxfordDictionaries.com defines epilepsy as "a neurological disorder marked by sudden recurrent episodes of sensory disturbance, loss of consciousness, or convulsions, associated with abnormal electrical activity in the brain."
The first reference to Simon's condition is made in chapter one, with the arrival of Jack Merridew and the choirboys:

Then one of the boys flopped on his face in the sand and the line broke up. They heaved the fallen boy to the platform and let him lie. Merridew, his eyes staring, made the best of a bad job. “All right then. Sit down. Let him alone.” “But Merridew.” “He’s always throwing a faint,” said Merridew. “He did in Gib.; and Addis; and at matins over the precentor.”

We know that this refers to Simon because we later read:

... the choir boy who had fainted sat up against a palm trunk, smiled pallidly at Ralph and said that his name was Simon.

Simon's condition patently differentiates him from the others, and Ralph at one point remarks: ‘“He’s queer. He’s funny.” Jack nodded, as much for the sake of agreeing as anything ...’ Ralph also calls him 'batty.'
The second, and more significant, reference to Simon experiencing an epileptic episode is found in chapter eight, as per your question. In this instance, the text suggests a clear link between Simon's hallucinatory state and the onset of an attack. The heightened electrical activity in his brain may be what causes him to imagine that the sow's head on a stick (The Lord of the Flies) is conversing with him.

Simon’s head wobbled. His eyes were half closed as though he were imitating the obscene thing on the stick. He knew that one of his times was coming on. The Lord of the Flies was expanding like a balloon. “This is ridiculous. You know perfectly well you’ll only meet me down there—so don’t try to escape!” Simon’s body was arched and stiff. The Lord of the Flies spoke in the voice of a schoolmaster.  

Simon gradually loses consciousness.

Simon found he was looking into a vast mouth. There was blackness within, a blackness that spread. “—Or else,” said the Lord of the Flies, “we shall do you? See? Jack and Roger and Maurice and Robert and Bill and Piggy and Ralph. Do you. See?” Simon was inside the mouth. He fell down and lost consciousness.

This experience precedes Simon's discovery that what the boys believed to be the beast was actually a dead parachutist. He resolves to inform the others about his discovery.

The beast was harmless and horrible; and the news must reach the others as soon as possible. 

It is unfortunate and tragically ironic that he never gets the chance to deliver his message, for he is killed by the frenzied boys when he appears from the forest and is mistaken for the beast.
https://www.google.com/webhp

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 3, 3.5, Section 3.5, Problem 89

Show that $\displaystyle \frac{d^2 y}{dx^2} = \frac{d^2 y}{du^2} \left( \frac{du}{dx} \right) ^2 + \frac{dy}{du} \frac{d^2 u}{dx^2} $ having $y = f(u)$ and $u = g(x)$ where $f$ and $g$ are twice differentiable functions.

From the definition of Chain Rule,

$\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{dy}{du} \left( \frac{du}{dx} \right)$

Thus,



$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\frac{d^2y}{dx^2} =& \frac{d}{dx} \left( \frac{dy}{dx} \right) = \frac{d}{dx} \left( \frac{dy}{du} \frac{du}{dx} \right) = \frac{d}{dx} \left( \frac{dy}{du} \right) \frac{du}{dx} + \frac{dy}{du} \frac{d}{dx} \left( \frac{du}{dx} \right)
\\
\\
\frac{d^2y}{dx^2} =& \frac{d}{du} \left( \frac{dy}{du} \right) \left( \frac{du}{dx} \right) \frac{du}{dx} + \frac{dy}{du} \left( \frac{d^2 u}{dx^2} \right)
\\
\\
\frac{d^2y}{dx^2} =& \frac{d^2y}{du^2} \left( \frac{du}{dx} \right) ^2 + \frac{dy}{du} \left( \frac{d^2u}{dx^2} \right)



\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

What is the connection between pedagogy and education?

In essence, education is the result of pedagogy. 
Pedagogy is the art and science of teaching. It involves not just knowledge of subject matter, but the specialized knowledge of how to communicate that subject matter to learners. Sometimes a concept needs to be broken down into parts and then put back together for and with students. Sometimes students need to approach a skill through trying it with the teacher and then trying it by themselves. Sometimes students need multiple, different explanations of a single concept. A good pedagogue discerns what students need in order to be able to learn and then figures out how to provide that. 
While the word "education" can be used in ways that appear to cover "pedagogy," a main focus of education is to change people. A person begins school unable to read or do arithmetic and ends high school with all kinds of skills, knowledge, and abilities. This is education. People who are an important part of making education happen, teachers, often called "educators," are essentially pedagogues. 

How does Scout's innocent perspective bring light into a dark situation in chapter 15 of To Kill a Mockingbird?

In Chapter 15 a large, threatening mob descends upon the jailhouse, intent on lynching Tom Robinson. Such lynchings were all too common in the South in the first half of the 20th century, so sadly there's nothing unusual about this scene. Atticus does his best to hold the men back, but they're determined to have their way.
Scout is in the midst of all the enveloping disorder. She looks at the men and doesn't recognize any of them. Then she notices Mr. Cunningham, father of Walter, a boy she goes to school with. Scout knows about some of the legal work that Atticus has done for him, so she starts talking about it. Mr. Cunningham is completely taken aback by all of this, and doesn't seem sure how to respond. The mood soon changes. Scout's innocence has diffused a potentially lethal situation, and soon Mr. Cunningham gives a signal to the rest of the men to go back to their cars and drive off.

What is the plot summary of "Kew Gardens" by Virginia Woolf?

There really is not much plot to speak of in "Kew Gardens." However, there is a lot of drama, little human dramas played out against a luscious landscape one hazy summer's afternoon. The epicenter of the story is a flowerbed, which Woolf describes in lush detail. This is the still point of a rapidly turning world, round which various groups of people revolve. The characters of the story are likened to butterflies, aimlessly fluttering around the flower bed, utterly absorbed in their own little worlds.
First, we are introduced to a married couple, Simon and Eleanor. Despite the passage of time, Simon cannot get Lily, a former lover who rejected his proposal of marriage, out of his mind. This immediately alerts us to the fact that all is not well with his marriage to Eleanor, a suspicion confirmed as Simon noticeably walks ahead of his wife and his children, rather than beside them. The beauty and simplicity of the natural world around them is reflected in Eleanor's childhood memories when she came to Kew Gardens to paint. The well-worn symbol of the garden as a paradise of lost innocence is suggested here,and forms a contrast to the complexity of the adult world, a world of lost loves and marital unhappiness that Simon and Eleanor now grimly inhabit.
Then we see two men, a young man and an older gentleman. The older man's movements are jerky and erratic, suggesting some sort of mental abnormality. Our initial impression is confirmed when he starts shouting random, seemingly unrelated words. Nevertheless, they are revealing in that they hint at his service in the recently concluded War. Just like Simon and Eleanor, he cannot let go. Simon is still haunted by Lily's rejection of his proposal in Kew Gardens fifteen years earlier; Eleanor yearns for the blissful moments she spent at Kew as a little girl; the older man's shattered mind harks back to the conflict that destroyed his sanity.
Still, life goes on, in the figure of two ordinary lower middle-class women. Their normal, everyday conversation introduces an element of much needed stability into this maelstrom of conflict. Their very banality is their strength. Unlike the people we have been introduced to so far, they are not irredeemably stuck in the past; the gardens do not symbolize anything of note for them; they are simply at a nice place in which to chat and have a nice sit down.
As a result, there is hope amidst the human conflict. Our sense of hope is heightened still further by a loving couple who appear toward the end of the story. In their obvious happiness, they represent the antithesis of Simon and Eleanor, providing a tantalizing glimpse of what they might have been. Their hands touch as the young lady pushes her parasol into the ground, firmly establishing a connection not just with each other, but also with the natural world around them. For the first and last time in the story, we are introduced to people with a genuine connection to the world around them, hinting at a stable happiness for their future together and acting as an example to us all.