In the play Twelve Angry Men, how is equality present within Juror 10?

Juror 10 is a man who does not believe in the equality of people of various races and ethnicities. At a few points during the drama, he makes it clear that he paints all people who live in the "slums" as being "all alike." When he first makes such a comment, Juror 5, who grew up in the slums, takes offense and says, "You can probably still smell it on me." Other jurors step in to calm things down. Later when Juror 10 brings up the testimony of the eyewitness, Juror 8 asks him pointedly, "How come you believe her? She's one of them, isn't she?" Eventually Juror 10 goes on a bigoted rant, saying that "these people" are always drinking and shooting one another; he says that life doesn't mean to them "what it means to us." In the 1957 film version, jurors get up one by one during his rant and turn their backs to him. When he realizes what they are doing, he says, "What's happening here? You know about them, don't you?" Finally everyone has turned his back or shown his displeasure in the man's bigoted speech. Juror 4 tells him to sit down and not speak again. Juror 8 then sums up the scene by saying that whenever prejudice gets in the way, it is ugly and perverts justice. 

Analyze the Battle of Granicus.

The Battle of Granicus was an important victory in Alexander's goal of crushing the Persian Empire. The Persians were not concerned about the approaching Macedonian forces. They were not concerned about upstart Alexander and did not necessarily respect his military acumen. They decided to take a defensive position along the banks of the River Granicus, located in the northeastern part of Asia Minor. The Persians placed their cavalry right on the river bank and were supported by infantry of Greek mercenaries behind them. They felt the river would be a considerable barrier. The battle between the two forces occurred in May of 334 BC and was over rather quickly with Alexander's forces winning the melee. Alexander concentrated his attack on the center and took heavy losses. The Persian weaponry was no match for the long lances that the Macedonians employed. Much of the Persian leadership was killed early and the troops were an unorganized mess almost from the start. Adding to the folly was the fact that the cavalry was trapped by the muddy river bank and the infantry behind them. Their chariots were rendered ineffective by the muddy conditions.

The Persians suffered heavy losses in the defeat and were in retreat after the loss. The battle was a turning point for Alexander because it almost assured a future defeat of the Persian Empire.

When in The Outsiders do Ponyboy and Johnny cut their hair?

In Chapter 5 on page 72, of the SPEAK Penguin Group edition, Ponyboy and Johnny cut their hair. After Johnny returns from the store with various items, Ponyboy spots a bottle of Peroxide and asks Johnny if he's thinking about bleaching their hair. Johnny explains to Ponyboy that it is imperative that they cut their hair, and Ponyboy bleaches his, in order to disguise their identity. He tells Ponyboy that the authorities have their descriptions, and if they want to remain unnoticed, they'll need to take this measure of precaution. Ponyboy laments about having to cut his hair. Ponyboy states that he has pride in his "tuff-looking" hair and says it is their greaser trademark. Johnny tells Ponyboy that they'll have to cut it anyway if they get caught, so they might as well go through with it. Johnny takes his razor and saws Ponyboy's long hair off, then bleaches it. Ponyboy is upset at his new haircut and believes his lighter, short hair makes him look like a pansy.

What was the impact of the introduction of money on ancient Babylon and its environs?

Economics as we know it.

Before the introduction of money, most of what we think of as economics was impossible. Goods were produced primarily by the families who used them, and when goods were exchanged between families it was based on individual relationships and social norms. People would give to the needy, support distant relatives, make deals with others in the village. They did not "buy" or "sell" in the modern sense, and in fact even bartering in the sense of a direct exchange of goods was quite rare. It would be much more common to give someone something with the tacit expectation of a favor, or to call in some other favor to get some goods. Economics was essentially based on promises and relationships; in order to sustain that, it was necessary to do almost all exchanges among people who knew each other well and could trust one another.

The invention of money allowed people to begin buying from and selling to people they barely knew; by exchanging a piece of gold or silver for the good, both parties could be ensured that they were getting a fair exchange. Money's central function was to obviate the need for trust in economic transactions. You did need to trust the government to maintain the value of the money---even under a classical gold standard it is possible to debase coins, and this happened quite often---but you didn't need to trust the individual vendor with whom you were trading.

This in turn allowed trade to occur over much longer distances, and encouraged more specialization and division of labor. These two effects in turn greatly increased the efficiency of production, allowing a larger quantity of goods to be sold, larger populations to be sustained and standards of living to rise. By separating economic transactions from personal relationships, money allowed individuals and even whole nations to specialize in the production of particular goods and thereby achieve greater efficiency.

In Babylon in particular, the establishment of money was associated with the establishment of complex legal codes and government institutions. Hammurabi's Code, one of the oldest and best-preserved legal codes, was created during this time, and it includes  sections on taxes, fines, debt, and even interest rates. We're not sure which came first---laws or money---but the two are clearly highly interdependent. The invention of money marked a major epoch in the rise of Mesopotamian civilization. Remember, Mesopotamia stood for thousands of years before it fell to Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC; part of how it was able to do that was by being one of the first civilizations in the world to have a well-developed monetary system.

Of course, there was a downside: The banks and governments who controlled the money system gained an enormous amount of power they previously did not have, because the money they controlled now had the power to lay claim on almost any sort of goods or services. While total wealth increased dramatically, so did the inequality of its distribution. In a time where most people could not read or do arithmetic, even a basic level of financial literacy provided a huge advantage in society.  Even today, people who understand and control money are a lot more powerful than people who don't!

What is an explanation of Planck's Constant in layman's terms?

Max Planck was a physicist who lived during the early 20th century. He concluded that the transfer of energy must work differently at the subatomic level. At the subatomic level, things are VERY small. This includes the particles that make up atoms such as electrons.

Planck suggested that energy at the subatomic level must be transferred as small “packets” instead of being transferred continuously. These packets of energy are called quanta. Quanta are said to be discrete which means that they are individual units and cannot be divided into smaller packets. When we are talking about light energy, quanta are called photons.

As the investigation into the structure of the atom continued, a constant was identified that was able to relate the energy of a photon of light to the frequency of its wave.

The frequency of a wave is equal to the number of wavelengths of the wave that pass a given point in one second. One wavelength is equal to the distance between two adjacent crests of the wave. This constant was named “Planck’s constant” in honor of Max Planck.

Planck’s constant is symbolized by the small letter “h” when it is used in equations. It is equal to 6.63 x 10-34 J•s. The letter “J” stands for the energy unit joule. The letter “s” stands for the time unit seconds. 

The equation that uses Planck’s constant to relate energy and frequency is: E = hf. In this equation, “E” stands for energy, “f” stands for frequency, and “h” stands for Planck’s constant. This means that you can calculate the energy of a photon of light by multiplying its frequency by Planck’s constant.

Person vs. Conflict

There are four basic types of conflict. Conflict is what drives the plot of any given piece of literature. 

One prevalent type of conflict is person vs. person, in which a protagonist goes against an antagonist. A good example of this type of conflict occurs in Richard Connel's short story "The Most Dangerous Game" where the evil General Zaroff hunts men and the protagonist Rainsford becomes his prey in the second half of the story. 

Another category of conflict is person vs. nature. This conflict involves the protagonist in a struggle against nature or the outdoors. An example of this conflict occurs in Jack London's short story "To Build a Fire" in which a man finds himself hiking in the Yukon wilderness in potentially lethal conditions. When temperatures reach dangerous levels the man accidentally gets wet and fails in building a fire, ultimately freezing to death.

Yet another type of conflict is person vs. society. This conflict puts the protagonist against some injustice in society. An example of this may be found in John Steinbeck's novel Of Mice and Men. Lennie is a mentally challenged character in a society that doesn't understand or sympathize with his disability. When he accidentally commits murder, his best friend George has to kill him in order to avoid a punishment by society which Lennie would not have understood.

While the first three conflicts involve external threats to the protagonist, the last type of conflict is internal, going on in the protagonist's psyche. In this conflict the protagonist struggles with his own feelings or conscience. An example of this occurs in James Hurst's short story "The Scarlet Ibis" in which the narrator struggles with the guilt he feels over causing his disabled brother's death when they were children. Several times in the story the narrator, who is flashing back to the events, comments on how prideful and mean he was to his brother.

In A Doll's House, how does Henrik Ibsen use characterization, plot, setting, and dialogue to highlight the need for mutual respect among all people?

Henrik Ibsen's play A Doll's House is set in a traditional middle-class home. We can tell the Helmers are middle class, soon to be upper-middle class, because Torvald works as a solicitor but has just been hired as manager of the bank. In addition, Ibsen describes the setting as a "comfortably and tastefully" furnished home, but not "extravagantly" furnished, meaning the furnishings did not cost a great deal of money. Since, at the start of the play, the Helmers do not have a great deal of money to spend on expensive furnishings, we know they are middle class. By creating a middle-class setting, Ibsen shows his audience that the issues of social injustice, such as those Nora faces when society does not pay her respect, apply to multiple social classes, not just the more frequently oppressed lower social class.

In addition to setting, Ibsen characterizes both Nora and Krogstad as being so oppressed by society that they are driven to commit acts of fraud just to survive. Nora is oppressed by her husband's efforts to control her, by the fact that her society does not permit women to legally take out loans without the permission of a man, and by the fact that her society does not permit married middle-class women to work, making it difficult for her to pay back the loan she obtained through forgery. Only single women were permitted to work. Similarly, Krogstad was so oppressed by society that he was driven to commit forgery to try to save his wife's life. In addition, according to Torvald, Krogstad managed to escape legal retribution through a "cunning trick," a trick that made it even more difficult for Krogstad to regain his reputation. Yet, what Torvald, as well as the rest of society, fails to realize is that, with Krogstad's wife dead, Krogstad needed to do everything in his power to keep himself out of jail so he can continue providing for his sons. Society's oppression drives Krogstad to commit fraud, and then continues its oppression by frowning upon his actions, preventing him from getting and keeping a decent job. Through his characterization of Nora and Krogstad, Ibsen shows that society needs to start showing mutual respect for all people, which would help to eliminate oppression.

Ibsen further uses plot to develop his theme concerning respect by having Nora strike out on her own in the resolution. In believing her first duty is to herself and seeking to try to become a "reasonable human being," Nora is setting out to demand of society the respect that has been owed to her all her life.

In Gulliver's Travels, what is your opinion of the king of Laputa as an administrator and ruler?

The king's barbaric treatment of his subjects when they question or rebel against his judgment makes it difficult to respect him as an administrator and ruler.  He is unable to hear dissent or opposing ideas, and he uses his elitist floating island to punish his subjects on the mainland by pelting them with great stones from above (destroying their homes), or slowly killing them by blocking out the sun (destroying their crops), or quickly killing them by ordering that the island be brought down quickly on top of them.  This isn't really a monarchy, then, it is tyranny.  He is willing to destroy the homes, the crops, the livelihoods, and the lives of his subjects when they behave in some way that he dislikes.  He does not attempt to discuss or reason or compromise; he wields an almost absolute power and has little regard for the lives of his people.  This does not make a good ruler.

Why do you think the bear doesn't attack until Lyddie is up the ladder?

Although having a bear in their cabin was a terrifying experience for the Worthen family, the bear did not attack them. There are two reasons why the bear did not come after the people and everyone was able to make it safely up the ladder. First, the bear was not in defensive mode, so it was not likely to attack. The bear was hungry and curious; the smell of cooking oatmeal drew it to the cabin, and because Charlie had left the door ajar, the bear simply followed its nose into the cabin. Lyddie realizes that is the case, and she tells her family members, "It's all right as long as nobody gets upset. Just take it nice and gentle, ey?"

Second, Lyddie maintains eye contact with the bear and moves carefully so as not to startle it. Her fierce stare keeps it in check until she is up the ladder. The bear then rushes in toward the ladder, but still there is no indication it is hostile rather than curious. However, when Charlie hits the bear in the nose with the ladder as he is drawing it up into the loft, the bear roars in pain and rears up on its hind legs. This is the most aggressive posture it displays. Lyddie is able to lock eyes with it again, and it drops to all fours and begins nosing around the cabin in search of food. The clumsy bear bumbles about the cabin and finally discovers the oatmeal. Not realizing it is hot, the bear scalds its nose, then manages to get the kettle stuck on its head covering its eyes. It finds its way out of the cabin and into the bush. 

According to the website Bearsmart.com, Lyddie's reaction to the bear was similar to the way experts advise one to behave in the presence of a black bear. The site explains that those who find themselves face to face with a black bear should make and hold eye contact and speak firmly to it, telling it to leave. Although Lyddie did not yell at the bear, she "glared straight into the bear's eyes, daring him to step forward into the cabin." Her dominant posture and gaze were important parts of keeping the bear from becoming aggressive.

Write the partial fraction decomposition of the improper rational expression.

Since the rational expression is an improper expression, we have to express the fraction as a sum of simpler fractions with the degree of the polynomial in the numerator less than the degree of the polynomial in the denominator.

Let's expand the denominator of the rational expression,

  

Dividing using the long division method yields,

Since the polynomials do not completely divide, so we have to continue with the partial fractions of the remainder expression,

Let, 

equating the coefficients of the like terms,

                     ----- equation 1

    ------ equation 2

           ------ equation 3

From equation 1,

Plug the value of A in equation 2,

Plug the values of A and B in equation 3,

What are three important ways that Kit Tyler changes from the beginning to the end of Speare's The Witch of Blackbird Pond?

When the novel began, Kit was materialistic, carefree, and naive.  She was accustomed to a spacious home in an established town.  Kit wore fine clothes and shoes.  Part of the reason why she allowed William to court her was because he could provide a more comfortable life.  Kit was also carefree.  She jumped into the cold water to rescue Prudence's toy.  She did not think of the consequences of the cold water, the disapproving looks, or that someone might jump in after her.  She had lived a comfortable life in Barbados.  It was a shock for her to have to work day after day in Wethersfield.  At home, slaves had done all the work.  Kit was naive when she arrived in Wethersfield.  She did not realize that her aunt and uncle would live such a different life in Puritan Connecticut.  She did not know that her clothes would draw attention to herself.  She did not consider the dangers of befriending Hannah of or secretly teaching Prudence.  

By the end of the novel, Kit realized that she was willing to sell her clothes to gain passage on a ship.  She had gone all winter without even looking at them.  She broke off her courtship with William.  She chose her own freedom and happiness over a fine house.  Kit gave up her ideals of returning to a carefree life.  She knew that when she returned to Barbados, "she would go as a single woman who must work for her living" (The Witch of Blackbird Pond, Chapter 21).  Kit also became more aware of the world around her.  She had experienced the mob trying to hunt down Hannah.  She had been tried for witchcraft herself.  She knew how Puritan life was.

What are some examples of tales about Greek heroes?

There is also the tale of Hercules, the demi-god, son of Zeus and Alcmene, a mortal woman.  Zeus came to her, disguised as her husband, Amphitryon, and had sex with her, impregnating her with Hercules.

The story goes that Hera loathed Hercules (as she hated most of the women Zeus slept with and their children -- and Zeus's affairs always produced offspring).  One day, after he'd grown up, Hera put him into a sort of crazy rage trance and he killed his wife, Megara, and their sons.  He came to just after the killings, and found their bodies and himself covered in their blood.  Theseus actually took him in because he felt that Hercules should not be held responsible for the murders because he wasn't aware of what he was doing.  However, the oracle at Delphi said that Hercules needed to be purified, and she sent him to his cousin, the King of Mycenae, Eurystheus.  Encouraged by Hera, Eurystheus gave Hercules many tasks called the "Labors of Hercules."  Each one was believed to be impossible, and so Hera was clearly hoping that Hercules would die in the attempt to complete them.

First, he kills the lion of Nemea, who could not be wounded by weapons, so Hercules choked him.  Second, he killed the Hydra, a monster with nine heads.  Each time he struck one of its heads off, two grew in its place.  So Hercules cauterized the stump after he struck off the head, and this prevented regrowth.  Third, he brought back Artemis's sacred golden-horned stag, but he had to capture it alive.  This took a year of hunting.  Fourth, he captured a great boar, driving it into the snow and trapping it.  Fifth, he cleaned the Augean stables in a day by diverting the course of two rivers so that they would flow through the stables and carry away the refuse.  Sixth, he drove away the Stymphalian birds, with a little help from Athena.  Seventh, he stole a beautiful bull given to Minos by Poseidon.  Eighth, he drove away the man-eating mares of King Diomedes.  Ninth, he brought back the girdle of Hippolyta, Amazon Queen.  Hera made this one tough by making the Amazons believe that Hercules was actually going to steal their queen.  Tenth, he brought back the cattle belonging to Geryon, a three-bodied monster.  Eleventh, he brought back the Golden Apples of the Hesperides.  To do this, he had to trick Atlas.  Lastly, he had to go to the underworld and bring back Cerberus, the three-headed dog that guards the gates.

Hercules isn't known for his intelligence, but he is credited as being the "greatest hero in Greece" (except for in Athens, because Theseus is preferred there) due to his physical strength, bravery, and passionate nature.

You could also check out the story of Odysseus, the hero on whom The Odyssey is based, as well as Jason and the Argonauts who sailed the Argo on the Quest for the Golden Fleece.  What ties these heroes altogether, with the exception of Theseus, is their bravery (even bravado) and their brawn; Theseus is best known for his intelligence and diplomacy.  They all complete physically, and mentally, demanding tasks and are believed to have made Greece a safer place for all.

How did the battle at Gettysburg impact Robert E. Lee's army?

The Battle of Gettysburg, in July 1863, was a critical battle in the Civil War. Robert E. Lee moved his army into the North. He knew there was more food available in the North than in the war-torn regions of the South. General Lee also believed that if the South could win at Gettysburg, it might lead to a peace treaty ending the Civil War, allowing the Confederacy to continue to exist as an independent country.

The Battle of Gettysburg lasted three days. There were many casualties on both sides. After Pickett’s Charge failed, the South was forced to retreat. General Lee lost about 33% of his army in the Battle of Gettysburg. This battle crippled the South. General Lee offered his resignation, which was rejected. However, as a result of this defeat, coupled with the defeat at Vicksburg the next day, the South and its army had no real chance of winning the Civil War.

What was the Vikings' impact on world history? How did they shape developments in the Christian world?

The Vikings are often mistaken as unmerciful brutes that plundered and destroyed cultures in Europe and around the world. While Vikings were masters at raiding villages and plundering rations, they were equally skilled at establishing trade and forming strong economies. The Vikings were able to create an extensive trade network that extended to all parts of the known world. Their expertise at navigating the rivers of Europe and Asia opened trade in Eastern lands as far east as India and China. Norsemen established trade networks with the Byzantine Empire and further east that Europeans would utilize for their economic benefit for centuries to come.

The strong misconception about the Vikings is that they were uncivilized. Because of this misconception, people may find it remarkable that Vikings established strong city-states throughout Europe and Asia. Despite all the chaos and destruction that the Vikings brought with them, these city-states were some of the best-organized and most dynamic states on the continent. In the Tenth Century, the Vikings established Normandy in western France that operated as an independent state. Descendants of these Vikings are known as the Normans and their exploits in Europe are well documented. After establishing an efficient government in France, they looked towards the north and conquered England in 1066 which laid the foundations for that modern island nation. In the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, the Vikings conquered the southern part of Italy and the island of Sicily where they also established strong states in the Mediterranean. The Normans from this area would become Crusaders and joined the First Crusade in which they conquered Antioch in Syria. The Normans held control of Antioch for nearly two hundred years.

The political influence of the Vikings was not limited to Western Europe. Other Vikings that were known as the Rus moved eastward and founded the first state in the region at Kiev. Russia bears the name of these Viking raiders. Another trading outpost established by the Vikings would become modern-day Moscow. From Russia, the Vikings would make further contact with powerful empires in the Near East. The Rus would raid the Byzantine empire at least once every generation. Byzantine missionaries would eventually travel with the Vikings back to Russia where they introduced Christianity, Byzantine architecture, and the Cyrillic alphabet to Russia. These elements would become staples of Russian culture moving forward.

The case of Russia is not the only example of Viking culture being assimilated through contact. Norse culture had a tremendous impact on England and Ireland. This is particularly true of the language. There are over a thousand words in the English language that are derived from the Norse language because of the impact of the Vikings. These are common words that are used every day around the English-speaking world. By-law, club, slaughter, husband and wing are some common examples. The days of the week strike a resemblance to the Viking gods of Thor and Freya.

In addition to the synthesis of Norse and Germanic languages, the religious tradition of the Vikings has also been influential. The yule log and Christmas tree are both Christian adaptations to Norse traditional religious practices. It is important to note that the archeological record indicates that Vikings were open to worshipping the Christian God alongside their pagan gods. This is demonstrated in excavations of burial sites in France and include. With this in mind, elements of the Viking religion and culture have made their way into Christian tradition including the canonization of Scandinavian kings.

The Vikings also had a dramatic impact on government and economics in Europe. They established elected parliaments in most of the states that they created and established courts with juries. Their form of government was more democratic than the monarchies that they displaced. Economically, the Vikings introduced a coin system that they brought back with them from Arab lands. The coinage system allowed for easier trade and the creation of wealth in Europe. Vikings essentially laid the foundations for mercantilism and modern trade in Europe.

In addition to the socio-economic influence the Vikings had on Europe, they had a dramatic effect on Christianity in Europe. Because monasteries had vast sums of capital and were weakly defended, they were attractive targets for Viking raids. The churches would pay local governments large sums of money to defend the properties from Viking raids. This had a significant economic impact on the church. It also affected the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Western Europe. The Vikings abhorred the idea of a church thousands of miles away governing the beliefs of adherents locally. The Vikings embraced the idea of community beliefs and religious organization. This would impact the future of Christianity in Western Europe in that countries like Germany and England would break from the Catholic Church in the centuries that followed. It can be said that the Vikings weakened the position of the Roman church in Northern Europe.

What religious qualities or elements emerge in the story a good man is hard to find?

"A Good Man is Hard to Find" is a deeply religious story about grace and redemption, written by a devout Catholic. It demonstrates O'Connor's belief that the Holy Spirit can break into the worst of situations. 

The story begins as a completely ordinary tale of a 1950s family going on a vacation. Bailey, the father, travels with his mother, known as the Grandmother, along with his wife and two children. The Grandmother can be difficult, and she demands a detour along a deserted dirt road through the woods, where she believes she can show her grandchildren an old Southern mansion.

Instead of the mansion, the family meets a killer, called the Misfit, and his gang. They systematically murder the family, until only the Grandmother is left.  Disoriented, terrified and desperate, she tries to appeal to the Misfit to spare her by telling him "Jesus will help you." Her words trigger a response in the Misfit, who has thought about Jesus' life and teachings. "Jesus thrown everything off balance," he says, going on to explain that "if He did what he said, there's nothing for you to do but throw everything away and follow him." However, he continues, if Jesus didn't do what he said (raise people from death), there's "no pleasure but meanness." Clearly, the Misfit has chosen the second path. Like most secular people, he won't believe in Jesus because he didn't see Jesus with his own eyes:"If I had of been there I would have known and wouldn't be like I am now," he says.

As the Misfit expresses his doubts, the Grandmother, a completely ordinary person, experiences an extraordinary moment of grace. She suddenly sees the Misfit, the man who has just murdered her entire family, as a full human being, worthy of love:"Why you're one of my babies. You're one of my own children!" she says to him. She reaches out a hand and tries to touch him to complete the connection. The Misfit springs back and shoots her.  

The Misfit murders the Grandmother, but he can't erase the moment of grace and connection between them--or the fact that she dies in a state of grace and redemption due to the extraordinary act of loving him, a killer, if only for a second. He can't even find the ordinary pleasure he usually has in killing people: "it's no real pleasure in life," he says, the last words of the story. Will he also be touched by God's grace? We don't know, but in O'Connor's universe, miracles are possible.

What does Nick mean when, after sitting down at a table with a group of drunks who had amused him two weeks ago, he remarks, "I'd enjoyed these...

In this scene in The Great Gatsby (Fitzgerald), Nick is experiencing one of Gatsby's parties with Tom in attendance for the first time.  The beginning of this section reveals that the entire evening has a "peculiar quality of oppressiveness..." (Fitzgerald 110). He feels "an unpleasantness in the air, a pervading harshness" (110) he hadn't felt before.  So he speculates a bit about this, whether he is jaded from these parties, or whether he is somehow seeing them through Daisy's eyes. As the scene goes on, though, it is clear that there is ample reason for Tom, who is an unpleasant character on his good days, to be unhappy and be having some impact on the general mood.  Daisy dances with Gatsby.  Gatsby insists upon introducing Tom as a polo player, which he does not appreciate, and it seems that Daisy is not having a particularly good time, either, except for when she had been able to be alone briefly with Gatsby.  They sit at this drunken table, and the experience turns sour for Nick. He might also be more sober than the people at the table. If you have never experienced being sober in a room full of drunken people, I don't recommend it.  Everyone but you is obnoxious and having a wonderful time.  It does grate.  All in all, there is ample reason for Nick to not be having his usual good time, although in my opinion, it is Tom who is causing most of the oppressive atmosphere, which he does in most scenes in the book. 

Prospero is often viewed as similar in nature to a playwright in The Tempest. Can you give three ways that he exemplifies this role?

There are several ways in which the character of Prospero in The Tempest by William Shakespeare functions in a manner analogous to the playwright himself.

First, Prospero at some points functions as a narrator, telling the story of the play. In Act 1 Scene 2, Prospero narrates the back story of the play to Miranda. In Act 5, Prospero also serves as a narrator, in a sense telling the story of the play and making meaning for the characters. Shortly before the epilogue, Prospero says that before the human characters depart for Naples, he will recount:

... the story of my life

And the particular accidents gone by

Since I came to this isle

In other words, he explicitly is portraying himself as a story teller, precisely the role of the playwright. 

The next way in which Prospero acts in a fashion similar to the playwright is by possessing knowledge inaccessible to the other characters of the play. In a sense, an author or playwright is always omniscient with respect to the characters of an imaginative work, and only reveals such knowledge to individual characters or the audience for his own literary purposes. In the same way, Prospero is the only character in the story who has full knowledge of everyone's identity, the history behind the happenings of the play, and what goes on in his island kingdom, only gradually revealing this information to the audience and characters. 

Additionally, both Prospero and the author of a literary work have supernatural powers with respect to the universe within the work. Just as an author can control every aspect of a fictional universe, deciding when it will rain, whether the winds will rise and wreck a ship, or even manipulate time, so too Prospero states in Act V Scene 1:

... I have bedimm'd
The noontide sun, call'd forth the mutinous winds,
And 'twixt the green sea and the azured vault
Set roaring war:

Finally, just as an author controls the characters in a story, Prospero controls spirits through his magic, using these to manipulate the characters of the play, and move the plot to its resolution.

Where can we find elements of comedy in Pride and Prejudice?

Certainly Mrs. Bennet is a source of humor for many. Her sheer ridiculousness and complete lack of self-awareness often renders her an object of horror for her two eldest daughters, but she is a font of hilarity for readers. The narrator describes her as having a mind not so "difficult to develope. She was a woman of mean understanding, little information, and uncertain temper. When she was discontented she fancied herself nervous. The business of her life was to get her daughters married; its solace was visiting and news" (Volume I, Chapter I). She is often oblivious to the social errors she commits, and even when she is not, she doesn't care enough to stop. Mrs. Bennet is basically an older version of Lydia, past the dangers associated with Lydia's age. She is vapid and silly.

Mr. Collins is yet another source of humor. He "was not a sensible man," though he had "a very good opinion of himself [....]  [H]is authority as a clergyman, and his rights as a rector, made him altogether a mixture of pride and obsequiousness, self-importance and humility" (Volume I, Chapter XV). His combination of proud haughtiness with his desire to flatter his social superiors, his high opinion of himself mixed with his ability to lower himself when called for in society makes him as ridiculous as Mrs. Bennet. He is constantly comparing everything to Rosings Park, his patroness's home, discussing the fixtures in that home along with their size, price, and so on. He is eager to make peace with the Bennets by choosing a daughter to marry, and when Mrs. Bennet informs him that Jane is taken, he quickly switches his affections to Elizabeth. His proposal to her is both insulting and absurd, and it is -- in large part -- hilarious and cringeworthy because he doesn't realize it.

Put the two together at the Netherfield ball, add Mary Bennet (with her eager desire to showcase her small talents) and Mr. Bennet (with his inability or unwillingness to abide by social convention), and we have the recipe for a horrifyingly hilarious scene. First, Mrs. Bennet speaks loudly about "her expectation that Jane would be soon married to Bingley" and how that "must throw [the other daughters] in the way of other rich men"  (Volume I, Chapter XVII). Then Mary leaps up "after very little entreaty" to play the piano for the company: "her voice was weak, and her manner affected. -- Elizabeth was in agonies." She sings a second song (which she ought not to have done), and Mr. Bennet jumps in and insists that she give "the other young ladies" an opportunity "to exhibit." His unfortunate word choice is likewise humiliating. Then, in the awkward silence which ensues, Mr. Collins stands up and begins an elaborate speech on the pleasures of music. "Many stared. -- Many smiled." This was neither the time nor the place for this conceited little man to wax philosophic about the subject of music; it was the time to actually have music. "To Elizabeth it appeared, that had her family made an agreement to expose themselves as much as they could during the evening, it would have been impossible for them to play their parts with more spirit, or finer success."

Through characters and scenes like this, we can find a great deal of humor. As Mr. Bennet says, "'For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?'"

How does Yolanda struggle to be a successful novelist and loyal family member?

There are many reasons that people struggle, and quite often, those reasons are unbeknown to the person actually experiencing the struggle.  

Yolanda loves her job and also loves her family.  However, at times, the balance of her work-life as a novelist interferes with her contributions at home. It seems one always suffers, and no one is happy!

While it is easy to change a habit here or there, and have a good day here and there, the struggle remains for Yolanda, because the issue is much deeper than she perceives it to be. That issue is pride. 

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary,

pride is a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired. (Merriam Webster Dictionary)

In Yolanda's pursuit of becoming a successful novelist, she struggles with overworking. Due to the great amount of guilt Yolanda feels after overworking, she then further struggles with overcompensating with her family.

King Solomon, one of the wisest men on earth, stated:

Better one handful with tranquility than two handfuls with toil and chasing after the wind. (Ecclesiastes 4:6)

This statement expresses that Yolanda is likely to have peace by doing less, and that this is better than trying to do it all which is as difficult as chasing unpredictable wind.

Once pride is out of the way, Yolanda is sure to be back to happier days!

I need to write an essay explaining the following excerpt from Thoreau: Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we...

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offence never contemplated by government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate, penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who placed him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth- certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not bear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is an change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body.

I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already."

Which two elements are the most common in the universe?

The two most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen and helium with hydrogen making up about 75% and helium about 23% of the matter in the universe.

Chemical elements are created in the stars through a process called thermonuclear fusion. The nuclei of two hydrogen atoms, under extreme heat and pressure,  fuse to form helium. This process releases a great deal of energy. The energy produced by the sun comes from thermonuclear fusion.

Larger elements are formed by fusion, for example a hydrogen nucleus which has one proton and a helium nucleus which has two protons can fuse to form a lithium nucleus which has three protons. Successively larger atoms are formed in this way. Stars start as hydrogen and their compositions change as larger elements are produced. One tool that scientists use to estimate the age of a star is the comparison of the relative amounts of hydrogen and helium. Younger stars contain a greater proportion of hydrogen. Elements in a star are detected by analyzing the spectrum of light it produces.

What are the reasons why I should advice a producer to reduce the price of his product in relation to price elasticity in demand?

There are two ways to make more money selling things: Sell more things, or sell the things at a higher price. You'd like to be able to do both, but by the Law of Demand, raising the price means reducing the quantity demanded; so you must choose which strategy to adopt.

How do you choose? That's where the price elasticity of demand comes in. If demand is highly elastic, you should lower the price and try to sell more things, because a small reduction in price will produce a large increase in the quantity you can sell. But if demand is highly inelastic, you should raise the price, because a large increase in price will only produce a small decrease in the quantity you can sell.

That's the basic intuition; I can also formalize this a bit.

Your revenue is price P times quantity Q, P*Q. Ignoring costs for the time being, you want to maximize revenue. Therefore set the derivative equal to zero.

d[P*Q]/dP = 0 = P dQ/dP + Q

Rearranging this slightly, we have:

P dQ/dP = -Q

dQ/dP P/Q = -1

And this is simply the price elasticity of demand, sometimes written this way (a slight abuse of calculus):

(dQ/Q)/(dP/P) = -1

Thus, an elasticity of -1 (sometimes just said "1", but it's really -1) is the point of maximum revenue.

If elasticity is bigger than -1, you're in a zone where you could increase revenue by reducing price.

If elasticity is smaller than -1, you're in a zone where you could increase revenue by increasing price.

Only when those two paths converge at exactly -1 have you set the revenue-maximizing price.

You have an opportunity to invest $1,000,000 today in a business that will pay $200,000 in the first year, $400,000 in second year, $600,000 in the...

The question abstracts away from what the project actually involves, so basically we are really only asking one question: Which choice makes more money?

If you just add up the amounts of cash that you get from doing the project, it obviously looks like more than $1,000,000. But be careful: You don't get those cashflows right away. Time is money, and the delayed cashflows are not worth as much in real terms as they would be if you got them immediately.

How much less? For that, we need a discount rate. It could depend on a lot of things---what the inflation rate is, what else you could do with the money, how patient you are. But for this problem we really only have one thing to go on: the rate of return. We are only concerned about whether we'll have more actual dollars in the bank at the end, and our dollars grow each year by a 12% annual rate of return.

Using that 12% annual return (which is huge, by the way---a typical return is about 5-7%) as our discount rate, $1 today is worth the same as (1+0.12)*$1 a year from now, and (1+0.12)^2*$1 two years from now, etc.

Thus, this means that we have as our two options:

1. Don't invest:
Start with $1,000,000
After 4 years, we have $1,000,000*(1.12)^4 = $1,573,519.36

2. Invest:
Start with $0
After 1 year, get $200,000; this will grow for 3 years and become $200,000*(1.12)^3 = $280,985.60
After 2 years, get $400,000; this will grow for 2 years and become $400,000*(1.12)^2 = $501,760.00
After 3 years, get $600,000; this will grow for 1 year and become $600,000*(1.12) = $672,000
After 4 years, get $800,000; this will not grow at all, so it's just $800,000.
Total value after 4 years: $2,254,745.60

So, we definitely should invest.

You can also compute a slightly different way as a net present value, the amount of money you'd have to have right now in order to end up with the same amount at the end simply from leaving it in the bank.

The net present value of not investing and keeping the $1,000,000 we already have is simply $1,000,000.

The net present value of investing is not that $2,254,745.60; instead we must divide it by the amount it could grow if it had been there for 4 years, which is (1.12)^4. So the actual amount we'd need to have right now to end up with the same is $1,432,931.59. This is the net present value. (Sometimes you'll also see net present value computed a bit differently, dividing the first year's cashflow by 1.12, the second by 1.12^2, etc.; it's a good exercise to think for a little while about how those two methods are actually equivalent.)

Since the net present value is higher for investing, we should invest.

How does Della get the money to pay for Jim's watch chain?

O. Henry's short story "The Gift of the Magi" is about a young couple, Jim and Della, living in New York City at the turn of the twentieth century. O. Henry's stories featured ironic, surprise endings and this story is no exception.

At the opening of the story it is Christmas time and Della is counting her money. She is distraught because she only has one dollar and eighty seven cents and even though things were much cheaper in those days it is not nearly enough to buy a suitable gift for her husband.

O. Henry tells us the couple has "two possessions...in which they took mighty pride." One was Jim's gold watch and the other Della's beautiful hair, which is described as "rippling and shining like a cascade of brown waters." Della takes immense pride in her hair and it is one of the couple's treasures. In an exhibition of true love, Della sells her prized possession to a wig maker for $20 so she can buy an expensive "platinum fob chain" for Jim's watch.

In the story's ironic ending the reader finds out that Jim has sold his watch to purchase beautiful tortoise shell combs for Della's hair. The two have sacrificed their most important material possessions to show their love. 

Do you think the benefits of the Columbian Exchange outweigh the drawbacks?

I think it is very difficult to argue that the benefits of the Columbian Exchange outweigh the drawbacks. To do so, one would essentially be arguing that the lives of millions of Native American people lost to European diseases were an acceptable cost for the introduction of crops and other commodities to Europe. Ultimately, the introduction of such New World crops as potatoes, corn, turnips, and others led to a massive population increase in Europe, but it coincided with the loss of millions of Native people to diseases such as smallpox and typhus. Additionally, animals introduced by Europeans, including swine and (inadvertently) rats wreaked havoc on Native crops, which had never previously needed to be protected by fences. The introduction of disease essentially made it possible for Europeans to settle and ultimately to exploit the Americas, both in terms of clearing lands to settle (as happened at Plymouth, where the Pilgrims settled near lands already cleared by Natives that had died off) and in terms of destabilizing the political situation in the New World. So the Columbian Exchange was undoubtedly a process that shaped the world we live in today, but it did so at an extraordinarily human cost.

At what point in To Kill a Mockingbird, after Aunt Alexandra tries to make Scout behave in a more feminine way, does Scout think that maybe she...

Scout does not explicitly say or think that she will change her behavior when in different company, but she does learn to do just that. Scout seems to evolve into that way of thinking throughout the book. At first, she learns that she must wear different clothing at different times. For example, she learns that she must wear a dress to school, but she is allowed to wear pants with family and at home. If Atticus would have forced her to wear a dress at all times, then she may have gotten the message to be a little lady earlier. This fact is exactly where Aunt Alexandra disagrees with Atticus. Aunt Alexandra believes that Scout would behave more like a little girl if she were forced to wear dresses all of the time rather than allowed to wear pants at home. One discussion about clothing and behavior takes place at Christmas time as in the following passage:

"Aunt Alexandra was fanatical on the subject of my attire. I could not possibly hope to be a lady if I wore breeches; when I said I could do nothing in a dress, she said I wasn't supposed to be doing things that required pants. . . furthermore, I should be a ray of sunshine in my father's lonely life. I suggested that one could be a ray of sunshine in pants just as well, but Aunty said that one had to behave like a sunbeam, that I was born good but had grown progressively worse every year" (81).

This passage shows that Aunt Alexandra believes that Scout's behavior is associated mostly with her way of dress. She doesn't necessarily argue with Scout that she couldn't be a ray of sunshine in pants, but avidly points out that her behavior must change. It's almost as if Alexandra agrees that it's not all about the pants, but that's the place to start. Scout also demonstrates the fact that she does not want to change her pants for a dress, but she does start to think about her behavior more after this point.

The biggest revelation for Scout as far as behavior around different company is concerned, however, is expressed when she is at a missionary tea party with Aunt Alexandra, Miss Maudie and other women of the community. The boys are out playing so Scout puts on a dress and joins the women. It is here that she practices being a lady by watching and learning from the other women. This is also the scene when Atticus comes home to get Calpurnia to go tell Helen that Tom Robinson had died. Alexandra almost breaks down with anxiety and Scout can't stop shaking. It is Miss Maudie who snaps both of them back into proper behavior so they can properly face their company. Scout learns that she must pull herself together when in social situations and go on with dignity, no matter what. Scout says something profound about her behavior at this point, as follows:

"Aunt Alexandra looked across the room at me and smiled. She looked at a tray of cookies on the table and nodded at them. I carefully picked up the tray and watched myself walk to Mrs. Merriweather. With my best company manners, I asked her if she would have some. After all, if Aunty could be a lady at a time like this, so could I" (237).

This has got to be the turning point when Scout understands that she can behave like a lady when she's with formal company and then go play with the boys outside. She's seen her father demonstrate dignity in front of different types of people in the community; she's seen Maudie and Alexandra pull it together for dignity's sake; and she is learning about how she wants to behave when different situations call for different behavior.

What causes Mitty to lapse into each day dream, and what decadently unheroic event snaps him out of each episode in "The Secret Life of Walter...

With his own brand of wit, irony, and humorous distortions of speech, James Thurber creates a comic Everyman in Walter Mitty. Mild and submissive, Mitty dreams of being heroic and non-conforming, but he cannot quite pull his character up to the necessary level and is frustrated in his society and is berated by his wife. So, he compensates for his meek nature by means of his imagination.

Thurber's narrative begins with

• Mitty's imagines that he is the commander of a Navy hydroplane, a SN202, that fights its way through an approaching hurricane, but Mrs. Mitty interrupts, scolding him, "Not so fast! You're driving too fast!" 
  


• As Mitty drops off his wife at the shop where she gets her hair done, she orders him to buy overshoes and to wear his gloves. Walter Mitty puts on his gloves, but after she is gone, he defiantly removes them. However, when a policeman yells at him, "Pick it up, brother!" as the green light comes on at the intersection where he has stopped, Mitty quickly puts his gloves back on his hands, and steps so hard on the accelerator that the car lurches forward.


• After driving aimlessly around for a while, Mitty drives past a hospital, and another daydream takes hold of him:  In this dream, Mitty is a top surgeon who must operate on a millionaire banker and close friend of President Roosevelt. The heroic Dr. Mitty is able to repair a malfunctioning machine by removing the faulty piston and replacing it with a fountain pen.
  Just as he is ready to operate, Dr. Mitty is pulled from this daydream and reduced to his meek self by a parking lot attendant: "Back it up. Mac! Look out for that Buick!" Shaken by the scolding, Mitty becomes nervous and forgets to leave the key in the ignition, only to be scolded again by the insolent attendant.


• Then, as he tries to remember what the other item is that he is supposed to purchase besides the overshoes, Mitty hears a newsboy calling out a headline about a Waterbury trial. Now Mitty is the defendant on the witness stand who is handed a gun by the District Attorney. "This is my Webley-Vickers 50.80," Mitty says quietly. When it is insinuated that he has shot someone, Mitty fearlessly states that although his left arm is in a sling, he could have shot Gregory Fitzhurst with his left hand. When the District Attorney strikes a pretty young woman, Mitty defends her, calling the attorney, "You miserable cur." Suddenly, he is shaken from his reverie by remembering--"Puppy biscuit" that it was dog biscuits that he is supposed to also purchase. Then he walks into the grocery store to make a purchase.


• Mitty leaves the store and goes to the hotel where he is to wait for his wife. He picks up an old copy of a World War I magazine, Liberty, and regards it. Another daydream begins in which he is Capt. Mitty, a pilot whose mission is to fly near a squadron of German planes. As he waves goodbye to a sergeant, Mitty hears the voice of his wife asking if he bought the shoes and remembered the puppy biscuits. She complains that she has looked all over the hotel lobby for him.


• Mitty tells her in brief defiance, "I was thinking....Does it ever occur to you that I am sometimes thinking?" But, his wife merely answers that she is going to take his temperature when they arrive home. As they leave the hotel and pass a drugstore, Mrs. Mitty tells Walter to wait there as she buys something. Mitty leans against the wall of the drugstore, imagining that he is before a firing squad.
  

"To hell with the handkerchief"....He faced the firing squad; erect and motionless, proud and disdainful, Walter Mitty the Undefeated, inscrutable to the last.

This is the end of the story, so Mitty has no real experience after this action.

In The Way to Rainy Mountain, what age did Momaday's grandmother live to be?

Although we are never given an exact age, we know that Momaday's grandmother lived to be very old. The reader knows this by the following quotation:

Now that I can have her only in memory, I see my grandmother in the several postures that were peculiar to her: standing at the wood stove on a winter morning . . . sitting at the south window, bent above her beadwork . . . going out upon a cane, very slowly as she did when the weight of age came upon her; praying. I remember her most often at prayer.

There are many important words here that lend themselves to the idea of old age. Momaday's grandmother, Aho, is "bent" over her beadwork. This shows that her spine is no longer straight (which often accompanies old age). Next, she always goes "out upon a cane, very slowly." Using a cane and moving "very slowly" are also usual aspects of an elderly person. Finally, Momaday gives the direct description that the "weight of age came upon her." This is a literal way of telling readers that Aho is truly old. 

Further, Aho's age is extremely important in that it is her age that allows her to have experienced some of the most important events in Kiowa culture. Most importantly, Aho experienced the last two Sun Dances of the Kiowa tribe of Native Americans. Aho describes both for her grandson, Momaday, who eventually writes this book. In a sense, it is The Way to Rainy Mountain that immortalizes the Kiowa tribe in regards to myth, history, and personal experience.

How is Macbeth seen after his death? Meaning, is he seen as a tyrant, as a noble soldier, as a deranged human?

The audience and reader does not see Macbeth die. We learn of his death when Macduff enters the stage to show Malcolm, Ross, and Siward what he calls "the usurper's cursed head," which he has severed after their battle. Malcolm's speech in response demonstrates that the title character is viewed as a wicked tyrant that everyone seems relieved to be rid of. He refers to "the dead butcher and his fiend-like queen," and looks forward to bringing home the ministers and officials who fled Scotland upon Macbeth's ascent to power. Throughout Macbeth, the reader or audience is invited to consider profound questions involving fate and free will and the corrosive nature of unlawful ambition. Some have argued that Macbeth is a more nuanced character than he appears on the surface, even that he was to some extent the victim of the machinations of others. But the characters do not view him this way at the end of the play. To them he was simply evil incarnate, and Malcolm is grateful to Macduff for killing him.

In Ender's Game is Ender born a hero or made a hero? Give three examples why.

I would argue that Ender is made a hero. Here are three simple examples of why.

1:  His decision to defend himself from bullies in school

Graff and the others force Ender to be bullied so that he can learn to isolate and defend himself. The first example of this comes when they trick him into believing he has failed the selection process by removing his monitor. When an older kid bullies him he not only defends himself but savagely beats the other boy with the understanding that if he doesn't do so now the boy will continue to come back for him again and again. While his genetic traits might give him tactical aptitude, it is a lifetime of bullying from this boy and Peter that has taught him the reality of bullies. 

2: His deception in playing 'the game'

In the final battle where Ender's army defeats the Buggers, he is unaware that he is commanding a real battle. This is because if he knew these were real people he was controlling he would be too afraid or sympathetic to do what he does. This is because on his own Ender does not have personality to be the brutal hero humanity needs. He can defend himself, but sacrificing others so easily is beyond his ability. He has to be made to do it through deception.

3: His decision to save the Bugger species by rescuing a queen

Up to this point, most of Ender's decisions have been a result of people above him pulling strings. This is the first courageous and risky decision he makes on his own accord. After destroying an entire civilization, he risk his own life to save his enemy. This act of mercy and redemption shows that the trials of the novel have made Ender into a more compassionate person than the weapon the they wanted him to be. No one is born with this kind of courage. He has learned it from experience. His victories in battle are only victories of skill. This is a victory of character and it is the moment that makes him a true hero. 

How does Chaucer portray himself in The Canterbury Tales?

Geoffrey Chaucer inserts himself into his masterpiece, The Canterbury Tales, as the narrator. In general, Chaucer doesn't have much of an active function in the poem itself, and his primary purpose is to observe and describe the other characters and report their tales (Chaucer does tell a few tales of his own, but the first is interrupted and criticized heavily, so it's clear the author isn't afraid of making fun of his status as a poet).

By inserting himself into his own poem, Chaucer subtly asserts that he directly observed everything he reports, a claim that lends extra credence to his narrative. Additionally, by separating himself from the characters during most of the tale-telling, Chaucer is also able to separate himself from their lewd and inappropriate stories. Many of the tales are bawdy even by contemporary standards, and so they likely would have offended audiences in the Middle Ages. By positioning himself as a passive observer of the action, Chaucer skillfully avoids blame or criticism for the inappropriate aspects of his poetry. We can almost imagine Chaucer speaking in his own defense, saying, "I didn't come up with this stuff! I'm just telling you what I heard!"  

What are pKa and pKb values? How is the pK value of any compound calculated?

The pKa and pKb values are measurements of the strengths of acids and bases respectively. The smaller the pKa value, the stronger the acid. Likewise, the smaller the pKb, the stronger the base.

The pKa value of an acid is the negative base-ten logarithm of the acid dissociation constant of a solution. Or,

 pKa = -log10 Ka

When an acid is dissolved in water, it undergoes an equilibrium reaction. This reaction can be represented as follows:

 HA + H2O ↔ H3O+ + A-

 The value of the equilibrium constant, Ka, can be calculated using the following equation:

Ka = [H3O+] [A-] / HA

Likewise, when a base dissolves in water, the following equilibrium equation results:

B + H2O  ↔ BH+ + OH-

The equilibrium constant of a base, Kb, is found using the following equation:

Kb = [BH+] [OH-] / B

Thus, the following equation is used to find the pKb of a base:

 pKb = -log Kb

How is a short story, such as "Thank You, M'am," different from an informational passage?

If I asked you why Langston Hughes wrote the short story "Thank you M'am," what would you guess? Your question deals with the purpose of texts and the reasons that writers create those texts. When you read the short story, did you pick up a lot of facts, statistics, or other information? Do you think that was Hughes's goal was to provide readers with information?

While it is true that readers can pick up information (like a moral lesson in the case of "Thank You, M'am"), the primary purpose of stories is to entertain readers with a plot. We follow along with a sequence of events in order to find out what happens, and then we think about the significance of those events. So, we can definitely learn a lot from a short story (from thinking about them and discussing them and how they related to our lives and the world), but we don't usually read them to pick out specific facts and information.

By contrast, the purpose of an informational text is to provide specific information. A news article, for example, answers the journalistic questions of Who, What, Why, Where, and When (and sometimes How), so there might be the elements of a story, but the article is not primarily meant to entertain us (like a short story), but instead to give us "just the facts" (as a TV detective used to say).

So, there are two clear and simple differences between "Thank You M'am" and an informational piece. The first is purpose: "Thank You M'am" is written to entertain and provide a lesson through plot while the informational piece is written to provide specific information to readers. The second difference is in organization: the short story is arranged as a narrative plot (a sequence of events), and the informational piece is organized by what the reader needs to know first, second, third, etc. in order to understand the information. Examples of informational passages include news articles, encyclopedia entries, and informational websites.

In the book, The Giver, what does The Giver mean when he says they know nothing?

What The Giver means when he says this (in Lois Lowry’s The Giver) is that the people of the community do not know what it really means to be human.  They do not have the feelings and experiences that are associated with true humanity.  They are more like robots who know many facts, but who do not know what it really means to be alive.

There are two times in this book when The Giver tells Jonas that “they know nothing.”  The first time is in Chapter 13 (I have this book on Kindle and therefore do not have page numbers).  At that point, Jonas has started to explain what his instructors have told him about the human brain.  The Giver cuts him off and tells him that “they know nothing.”  He goes on to explain that the instructors and others know many facts, but "it's just that . . . without the memories it's all meaningless.”

What The Giver is saying is that the average person in the community lives a meaningless existence.  All of the members of the community other than The Giver do not know anything about love or about any other emotion.  They do not know what it is like to be truly human.  Without the kinds of memories that The Giver has (and that he shares with Jonas), the people in the community are just existing rather than truly living.  This is why “they know nothing” about being human beings.

In Night by Elie Wiesel, why does Eli say,"I found the soup excellent that evening," after the first hanging?

In Elie Wiesel's book Night, he says, "I found the soup excellent," after he witnesses the Nazis hang a prisoner. He says this to show us how numb he has become to death and suffering. By this point in the book, Elie has witnessed so much horror that it has become normal for him.

He saw babies burned in a fire pit. He watched his father beaten by guards. He saw men shot for no reason, women and children sent to the gas chambers, and more. He has become immune to all of it. All he cares about now is his next bowl of soup or his next piece of bread. When one witnesses such terrible acts day after day, one begins to lose his/her own humanity, and this is where Elie was when he said those words. 

In the book Night by Elie Wiesel, what are some things that caused Elie to change into a "monster" by the end of the book?

Though I would argue that Elie Wiesel, author of Night, never truly became a "monster," there were times that he felt like he had. When people are constantly exposed to horrific acts of violence and death, those acts become part of their everyday lives, making them somewhat immune to them. The Nazis were professional torturers, and the prisoners knew that if they tried to defend other prisoners, they would receive the same treatment or worse. Elie watched his father beat by a guard and did nothing. He felt terrible about it, but he also knew that he could die for interfering, and then what would happen to his father? Elie saw a child hanged on the gallows--something that probably continues to haunt him to this day. He saw men beaten daily. He saw babies thrown into a burning pit. All of these things changed him. After that, what else is there? What could be more horrible than the things Elie Wiesel witnessed? Death would have been easier than living with the fear of what might happen at any time. At first Wiesel just couldn't believe it, but by the end of the book, he knew that men were not only capable of horrible acts, but many also took great pleasure in doing them.

Explain why the reply from Red Chief’s father is an example of irony. From "The Ransom of Red Chief" by O. Henry.

The reply from Red Chief's father to the ransom demand is doubly ironic. First, it is ironic because the two kidnappers were expecting to be paid to release Johnny to his father and instead his father demanded payment of $250 to take the little hellcat back. What is also ironic in this situation is that the father's reply comes after Sam and Bill have had all kinds of trouble dealing with Red Chief and so they are not particularly surprised or indignant when they receive the father's letter. Instead, they both consider the father's counter-proposition pretty reasonable, considering the problems they have been having with his son.

The father's letter is interesting in its formal tone and its understatement.

Gentlemen: I received your letter to-day by post, in regard to the ransom you ask for the return of my son. I think you are a little high in your demands, and I hereby make you a counter-proposition, which I am inclined to believe you will accept. You bring Johnny home and pay me two hundred and fifty dollars in cash, and I agree to take him off your hands. You had better come at night, for the neighbours believe he is lost, and I couldn't be responsible for what they would do to anybody they saw bringing him back.

Very respectfully,
EBENEZER DORSET.

Mr. Dorset does not say anything about his son's typically wild behavior. But he suggests that the neighbors might react with violence against anyone who brought little Johnny back. He does not seem the least bit anxious to have the boy returned. 

The father's letter is ironic, both because of his counter-proposition and because the two kidnappers immediately take it seriously. They regard the polite letter as fair and reasonable. Their own letter demanding $1500 in ransom suddenly seems wildly unreasonable. They return the boy without considering attempting any further negotiation. 

The story is a good example of situational irony, which is defined as an incongruity between what is expected and what actually occurs. As Sam says at the beginning of the story:

It looked like a good thing: but wait till I tell you.

In the book Lyddie, what does Diana want Lyddie to do? Explain the movement. Explain Lyddie's feelings about participating.

I think the movement that you are referring to is the movement toward demanding better working conditions in the factories.  The girls are worked hard. Long days, few breaks, noise that can cause deafness, fibers in the air that cause lung issues, etc.  Some of the girls even start to compare themselves to slaves.  Diana wants Lyddie to publicly be a part of this movement for better working conditions by signing the petition that is circulating; however, Lyddie does not want to sign the petition.  Lyddie thrives on the tough working environment, and consequently is making really good money.  If she were to sign the petition, Lyddie risks being black listed from the factories completely.  If that were to happen to Lyddie, she wouldn't be able to get hired anywhere.  No work means no paycheck, and Lyddie desperately needs that money to get her family out of the financial debt that they are in. 

What does the "JS" refer to ?

W.H. Auden's poem, The Unknown Citizen, begins with an interesting epigraph:

To JS/07 M 378
This Marble Monument
Is Erected by the State)

The meaning of the alphanumeric inscription on the marble monument of the unknown citizen has been a matter of great discussion. Some argue that the inscription mirrors our social security number scheme and that it contains identifying personal information. Others argue that the alphanumeric inscription means nothing more than a symbol of the power of a totalitarian state. Either way, the JS/07 M 378 inscription is interesting.

'JS' itself may stand for the initials of the unknown citizen's first and last name. The numbers '07' and '378' may well have been randomly allocated, while the letter 'M' may classify the unknown citizen as male. Yet, this is all a matter of conjecture. If you look at how the United States social security numbers were historically assigned, the first three numbers held geographical significance and were known as Area Numbers. The middle two were known as the Group Numbers, and the last four digits were the Serial Numbers. However, since 2011, the Social Security Administration has changed to a randomized system. You can read about it below:

The SSN Numbering Scheme.

The new SSN Randomization Scheme.

Myths about the SSN Numbering Scheme.

Yet, the numbers on the social security cards (past and present) never held identifying information about someone's date of birth, age, or even race. Likewise, the numbers used by the Nazis or other totalitarian regimes throughout history never did so either. Rather, the practice of using numbers and letters in place of names was a means of dehumanizing and marginalizing the populace the regimes were persecuting. So, when you look at JS/07 M 378, you are looking at Auden's commentary about totalitarian regimes; interestingly, he wrote this poem in 1939, at a time when the Nazis were preparing to unleash a full scale implementation of their ethnic cleansing program on an unsuspecting Jewish populace.

Auden's poem is also a satire criticizing the loss of individuality in a world focused on standardization and efficiency. Today's world, so focused on technology and mechanization, further erodes the identity of the individual. The unknown citizen in Auden's poem is praised because he never made waves when he was alive; in other words, he conformed in all things to the government-sanctioned image of a model citizen. We don't know his name, his personal goals, or anything specific about him; we only know him by letters and numbers. Likewise, our social security numbers contain no pertinent information about us; however, our ability to apply for certain work and travel documents and to collect social security benefits hinges on possession of these numbers. In other words, we have to conform to a standardized system in order to function in our world, the kind of system Auden criticized.

What is Twain's attitude toward religion in Huckleberry Finn ?

Twain criticizes Christianity in Huckleberry Finn for its advocacy of slavery. Huck, for example, has learned through the church that slavery is a moral and beneficial institution. The novel satirizes, or pokes fun at, a church theology that approves a social order in which one person can own another. We can see this satire played out most clearly in Huck himself, who continuously battles a sense of guilt for his perceived wrongdoing in helping Jim escape. In one instance, after he protects Jim from capture, he says he is  "feeling bad and low, because I knowed very well I had done wrong." 

Eventually, Huck has such a crisis of conscience over his part in aiding someone else's "property" to flee that he writes a letter exposing Jim's location. However, he doesn't send it, valuing his relationship with Jim more than the morality the church has taught him. However, in this inverted moral universe, humor emerges from Huck's deeply held beleive that he has, in protecting Jim, committed a sin that will send him to hell.

Twain wrote the novel after the Civil War, when it was easy to see the moral confusion in a church that had supported an evil institution. However, Huckleberry Finn and Twain raise deeper questions about religious morality, criticizing religion and making a strong case for individuals to follow their hearts rather than the dictates of organized faith groups. 

Explain the point of Owl-Eyes's admiration for Gatsby's library.

In Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, the owl-eyed man marvels at Gatsby's library because he expected the books to be, like Gatsby himself, fraudulent and full of blank pages. This scene suggests two things: 1. It foreshadows Gatsby's lies about his past and how he came from "some wealthy people in the Middle West"; 2. It also shows that, while Gatsby might not be honest about his background and where his money comes from, he is genuine.

This scene with the "stout, middle-aged man, with enormous owl-eyed spectacles" occurs before Nick meets Gatsby. Nick and Jordan wander through Gatsby's house and stumble into the library, where the aforementioned owl-eyed man says he "ascertained" and found that the books were, in fact, real. However, the real books do nothing to change this man's opinion of Gatsby as someone who is a fraud. He marvels at Gatsby's "thoroughness" and "realism." He calls Gatsby a "regular Belasco," in reference to a famous Broadway producer and playwright. Also, the placement of an "owl-eyed man" as a source of knowledge is obvious symbolism. Fitzgerald, very early on in the novel, suggests that this man is wise and is correct about Gatsby's fraudulent story about his past.

However, it's impossible not to mention that the books are, in fact, real. While it does turn out that Gatsby lies about his past, his genuineness is hard to deny. In fact, this scene supports Nick's argument that "there was something gorgeous about [Gatsby], some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life." 

Overall, the owl-eyed man's admiration for Gatsby's books is important because it foreshadows two things to the reader: while Gatsby's story about his past might be fraudulent, his character is real.

Is Goodman Brown a heroic character?

I would not describe Goodman Brown as a heroic character, and I don't think Hawthorne wants us to think of him this way either, because Goodman Brown is a hypocrite. As a Puritan, a position indicated by his title, time period, and location, Brown ought to be fully committed to living a godly life, a life as close to sinless as he can muster. Instead, however, he chooses to privilege his desire to commit sin ahead of his faith, represented by his wife, Faith, whom he leaves behind when he goes into the woods. He claims that "'after this one night, [he'll] cling to her skirts and follow her to Heaven.'" In other words, he purposely plans to be bad, so to speak, for just one more night, and then he'll let her (standing in for his faith in God) do the work for him; he doesn't plan to be good, really, he just plans to be faithful. He relies on faith to simply be there whenever he has decided to return to it, and this is not how faith is supposed to work: either one has faith and acts on it, or one doesn't. Christians are not supposed to pick and choose to have faith whenever it suits them. Therefore, due to his hypocrisy, I would not classify Brown as a heroic character.

A red blood cell is placed into an aqueous solution. The red blood cell has a lower concentration of protein and sugar than the aqueous solution,...

In this situation, two solutions are present on either side of a semipermeable membrane. The two solutions are the cell interior and the liquid the cell is placed in. The semipermeable membrane is the cell membrane. The concentrations of sugar and protein in the two solutions are different.

In this situation, osmosis will occur. Osmosis is the movement of water in response to a concentration gradient (difference). Osmosis will occur through a membrane as long as the concentrations are not equal. Water will move from a region of high water (low solute) concentration to a region of low water (high solute) concentration.

In this example, the interior of the cell is high water (low solute) compared to the external environment. So water will move by osmosis through the cell membrane and into the outer environment. The red blood cell will thus shrink in volume. 

Is the invisible hand theory relevant in the 21st century?

I think that the theory of the invisible hand is very relevant in the 21st Century.

The globalized world is where goods are produced under a free market.  Nations and their economies are geared towards a freedom of economic expansion.  Adam Smith's philosophies of wealth accumulation and the free market are relevant now because more nations embrace it through liberal economic growth.  

A significant part of capitalist theory is the invisible hand.  Classical liberals, like Adam Smith, believe that the invisible hand is the mechanism through which all problems of the marketplace can be remedied.  As Milton Friedman writes, the invisible hand represents "the possibility of cooperation without coercion." Thinkers like Smith and his followers like Friedman use the invisible hand to explain why external control of the marketplace is not needed.  As a result of the invisible hand, government intervention is unnatural because the invisible hand can remedy any potential disruption.  This allows the marketplace to operate in a free manner and represents freedom of choice.  The invisible hand is an essential idea behind capitalism, free market entrepreneurship, and expansion of economic freedom.

[Adam Smith] made it clear in his writings that quite considerable structure was required in society before the invisible hand mechanism could work efficiently. For example, property rights must be strong, and there must be widespread adherence to moral norms,... (Helen Joyce, "Adam Smith and the invisible hand," plus.maths.org)

As the globalized economy embraces capitalism in the 21st Century, the invisible hand will become more relevant.  Free market advocates will turn to it as a way to counter external control in the form of government intervention.

Who is to blame for the second world war?

There are many factors to blame for the start of World War II. Individuals and governments are responsible for some of the blame while various events are responsible for the rest of the blame.

Some of the Allied leaders at the end of World War I deserve some of the blame for World War II. The leaders of France, Great Britain, and Italy were told by President Wilson not to have a harsh peace treaty on the Central Powers. Wilson believed that a harsh peace treaty would come back to haunt us, and he was right. The Versailles Treaty was very harsh. This led to many problems in Germany that ultimately brought Adolf Hitler to power looking for revenge.

The Allied nations during the 1930s ignored violations of the Versailles Treaty by Germany. German built up its military and moved its military into the Rhineland. Germany invaded Austria. Nothing was done about this. Other actions also occurred. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937. Again, nothing was done about these invasions. Italy invaded Ethiopia and Albania with no responses from the Allies. The lack of action by the Allies encouraged the leaders of these countries to continue to be aggressive. While the Allied leaders were dealing with the worst economic crisis ever, they still had an obligation to be aware of what was happening in the world and how those events could cause many problems for their countries if nothing was done about them.

Certainly much of the blame must go to Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and the Emperor as well as the military dictatorship that controlled Japan. These leaders broke agreements, invaded countries, and formed an alliance in order to pursue their aggressive military, economic, and political goals. The Allies were left little choice but to draw a line in the sand after Hitler broke the Munich Pact and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in 1939. They had no choice but to say that any more aggression would lead to war. The United States had no choice but to declare war on Japan after Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. Therefore, the largest share of the blame for World War II must go to the leaders of Germany, Japan, and Italy.

Can average speed ever be equal to instantaneous speed?

Hello!

Yes, instantaneous speed and average speed can be equal (and can be different).

The simplest case is when a body has a constant speed. In this case, its instantaneous speed is the same at any moment and the average speed over any time interval has the same value.

If the instantaneous speed was changed over some time interval, then the average speed over this interval is equal to the instantaneous speed at at least at one moment, maybe many. The reason for this is that speed is continuous and the average speed is between the least and greatest values of the instantaneous speed. This is an application of the intermediate value theorem.

If, for example, a body moves with a constant nonzero acceleration, then the average speed over any interval will have one and only one coincidence with the instantaneous speed on this interval.

What was the Trail of Tears?

The Trail of Tears is the name given to the forced removal of the Cherokee people from their rightful lands in the Southeastern United States to new territory in what is now Oklahoma, west of the Mississippi River.  The march was ordered by President Andrew Jackson and occurred in the years 1838 and 1839 as per both the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the Treaty of New Echota in 1835.

In 1830, Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law, which allowed him to exchange lands occupied by Native American tribes in existing states for unsettled lands west of the Mississippi River.  This meant relocating entire tribes thousands of miles away from their native lands, and few were willing to undergo the change.  Many, such as the Seminoles in Florida, attempted to resist with military action; these uprising were violently quelled, and noting the ineffectiveness of such a strategy the Cherokees instead approached the problem administratively.  The Cherokee tribe of the Southeastern United States were highly organized and had their own elected government representatives, and they took the issue to federal court.  The Supreme Court ruled the forced extradition of the Cherokee people was unconstitutional, and yet Jackson refused to adhere to this ruling; amid an environment in which other tribes were being removed from their homes and shown no mercy along the way, some Cherokee citizens agreed to the Treaty of New Echota, accepting payment and new lands as compensation for the relocation.  This treaty gave Jackson the leverage he needed to force the entirety of the Cherokee nation – some fifteen thousand individuals – to undertake the long, hard road from Georgia to an area in present-day Oklahoma.  The Native Americans suffered immensely during the journey, almost a quarter of them losing their lives along the way.  The devastation and sorrow this relocation caused led the Cherokees to give the journey the name “The Trail of Tears,” a moniker embraced by history as testament to the injustice faced by these individuals.

How can one compare Beowulf to Sir Gawain and the Green Knight?

When we read Beowulf, we see a ideal heroic character. He slays the evil creatures, he overcomes every obstacle in his life, he respects the community he lives in, also look for 'comitatus'. From the beginning to the end, Beowulf reflects the good side, aiding the people who need help (against Grendel especially) and receiving praise after every deed. 

But in Sir Gawain and Green Knight, everything is not so bright about Sir Gawain, he does not prevail any deed unlike Beowulf. He actually 'fails' in his journey to Green Chapel. He betrays Lord Bertilak by not giving the girdle to him when they're exchanging items. Also, he loses faith by accepting the girdle, trying to elude his fate whereas Beowulf is deeply bounded with his religion. Sir Gawain is afraid of Green Knight all the time while Beowulf never scares of dying. In fact, dying is depicted as a 'resolution' in Beowulf, even Beowulf himself is aware of that every man has to die, so the goal of his life is to make best of it, this theme is also important in Homer's Iliad.

One last point, when Green Knight enters the Camelot court, and offers a challenge, nobody attempts to accept it even Sir Gawain. If he was a real true hero, he'd accept it before King Arthur unwillingly accepts it.

Still these are my comments, they could be wrong or not well explained.

What are differences between the Aztecs and the Roman Empire?

There are obvious differences between the Roman Empire and the Aztecs. Rome controlled a much larger area than the Aztecs. Rome at its height had authority over one and a half million square miles compared to the Aztecs which ruled over less than one hundred thousand miles. This is probably due to the fact that agricultural production was much more difficult in Mexico than it was on the Italian peninsula. The Aztecs chose their land in an area that was swampy. They had to overcome this limitation by constructing islands called chinampas. The preparation of the land would have required a great deal of effort before crops could even be cultivated. Rome was located in a very fertile area and farming was much easier.

The political system of Rome, even during the period of emperors, afforded citizens more participation in government. The Roman emperors were never as powerful as the kings of the Aztec empires. Much of the power of the Aztec king derived from religion being such a central part of the Aztec culture. Religion dominated every facet of Aztec life and was so extreme that it called for human sacrifice. In Ancient Rome, religion was tolerated but did not dictate the politics of the state. There was a greater variety of religions in Rome while the Aztecs were united under one religion.

One final difference was found in the militaries of the two empires. While both relied on their military for expansion, the weapons of the Romans were stronger and more sophisticated than that of the Aztecs. The Romans also had a full-time professional army.  While the Aztecs considered all men soldiers they did not use them on a full-time basis.

How does numerology appear in The Old Man and the Sea? What do the numbers 3, 7, and 84 symbolize?

Great question. The two types of ideas you will be seeing here come respectively from Christianity/Biblical thought and from major-league baseball. The numbers 84, 7, and 3 are each significant in the numerology debate around The Old Man and the Sea. 3 and 7 are both powerful numbers in Biblical numerology. 3 is the number of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Issac, and Jacob), and is also the number of days until Jesus rose from the dead. 7 is the number of days within which the world was created, and symbolizes perfect spirituality. 

Santiago begins fishing on the first day without any catches (not knowing it is going to last that long, obviously) and our story starts on the 84th day without any luck. Some say that Hemingway constructed this time period as if it had occurred starting on Christmas in the year he had written the book, 1951, and with the 84th day being 3 days before Good Friday, with his struggle with the marlin culminating on Good Friday. 84 days at sea with no fish + 3 days struggling with the marlin = 87. However, there is a one-day variation in the numbers, and Good Friday lands on the 88th day.

Regarding the struggle with the marlin, it took 3 days and Santiago struggled to land the fish and fight off sharks 7 times. Hemingway was a devout Catholic, and he often incorporated Christian references into his writing. Another example of numerology here is the number 40. It is used to divide the days that Santiago still fished with Manolin counting from the first day of no fish, until day 40 when Manolin is forced to leave him. 40 was the number of years that Moses and the Jews were exiled to the wilderness, and 40 was also the number of days that Jesus was exiled to the wilderness. It is easy to draw a parallel between God (in the case of Moses and the Jews) and the test of Satan (in the case of Jesus) keeping one in the wilderness, to Santiago being trapped alone at sea at the mercy of a huge marlin.

Another opinion is that the 87 days correspond to several baseball games played during 1951. Santiago often parallels his experience at the time with DiMaggio, and it could be Hemingway decided to create a parallel with the entire timeline. This timeline (84 days at sea with no fish + 3 days struggling with the marlin = 87) only works with the year 1951 to correspond to several baseball games.

Define resting membrane potential and its physiological function in cells.

All cells are contained within a membrane. The resting membrane potential refers to the difference in voltage between the fluids inside of a cell and the fluids outside of a cell when a cell is in its 'resting' state. The resting membrane potential is generally -70 to -80 millivolts (mV). This is because the inside of the cell contains more electrically charged ions with a negative charge. The inside of the cell contains a high concentration of negatively charged particles, as well as a low concentration of positively charged sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) ions. Outside of the cell there is a higher concentration of Na+. Particles in a fluid flow from high concentration to low concentration so that they are evenly distributed. K+ naturally wants to flow out of the cell and Na+ wants to flow into the cell to even out this concentration gradient. The membrane keeps most of the the channels through which Na+ flows into the cell closed when it is at rest. Additionally there are channels that pump extra Na+ ions out of the cell. In this way the cell actively maintains the resting membrane potential.

The electrical potential is physiologically important because it allows cells to transmit electrical signals. If an excitable cell, such as a nerve, muscle, or endocrine cell, receives a stimulus that raises its charge to -55mv, the Na+ channels open up allowing Na+ ions to rush into the cell. This causes a further increase in charge up to +30mv. This rapid change in membrane potential allows nerve cells to transmit signals, causing muscle cells to contract or endocrine cells to release hormones, among other things.

What is the meaning of "the skies are painted with unnumbered sparks. They are fire, and every one doth shine; but there's but one in all doth hold...

CAESAR: I could be well moved, if I were as you;
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me;
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumber'd sparks;
They are all fire and every one doth shine;
But there's but one in all doth hold his place.
Act 3. Scene 1

Julius Caesar has behaved modestly and even humbly up to this scene, but Shakespeare evidently wanted to reveal the man as supremely egotistical and arrogant just before he was killed. This would seem intended to justify Cassius, Brutus, and all the other conspirators in the assassination. Caesar is every bit as ambitious as Cassius and Brutus believe, perhaps even more so. Caesar finds no man who can compare with him. He has to look up into the skies as if he is comparing himself with the gods and demigods. 

In Caesar's time it was believed that the earth was stationary and all the stars and planets revolved around it. Even the sun revolved around the earth rather than the other way around. Caesar is saying that all the stars in the heavens, which are all sparks and all fire, are in constant motion except one. That would be Polaris, the Northern Star, which is directly above the North Pole and therefore does not appear to move as the earth rotates. All the other stars appear to move with the earth's diurnal rotation and annual revolution around the sun. Caesar compares himself with the Northern Star in being immovable. He is superior to all other men in begin steadfast, determined, unshakable, strong, self-confident, and always correct in his judgments. He has never spoken this way before. He is becoming intoxicated with the prospect of being crowned king. Ironically, he is just a few steps away from being stabbed to death by the men he so despises.

He obviously has a very high opinion of himself. If he had lived he would not have been satisfied with becoming king. The next step would be to become emperor, and after that he would want to become a god. He would easily become declared a god by the senate because he owns the senate already and would solidify his ownership if he became ruler. His successor Octavius became a god and most of the emperors who followed Octavius also became gods by senate decree and had to be worshiped in Roman temples.

Shakespeare has waited to illustrate Julius Caesar's hubris until just before he is stabbed to death. This is dramatically effective and validates the conspirators' violence. Caesar would have become a tyrant if he had been allowed to live. That is what Brutus is afraid of and what he foresaw. In Act 2, Scene 1, Brutus thinks long and hard about leading the assassination attempt. If he had not agreed to participate, Caesar would probably have lived.

He would be crown'd:
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder
And that craves wary walking. Crown him? that;
And then, I grant, we put a sting in him
That at his will he may do danger with.
The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins
Remorse from power, and, to speak truth of Caesar,
I have not known when his affections sway'd
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. So Caesar may;
Then, lest he may, prevent. And, since the quarrel
Will bear no color for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus, that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities;
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg
Which hatch'd would as his kind grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.

It is significant that Brutus says the climber-upward "Looks in the clouds," because that is more or less what Caesar has been doing. He uses the stars as analogies with men in his speech in Act 3, Scene 1--but this is certainly not the first time that he has stood on his balcony at night and gazed up at the stars, planning to be there among them someday--and not just one of them but the principal one, the North Star.

Nicolaus Copernicus, who lived some 1400 years after Julius Caesar, established that the movements of the sun and stars were illusory. They appeared to move as they did because of the earth's rotation on its axis every twenty-four hours and its revolution around the sun every 365 days.