It is known that `(cosh)' = sinhx,` so `int sinhx dx = coshx + C.` To reduce the given integral to the known one, make the substitution `u = 1 - 2x.` Then `du = -2 dx,` `dx = -1/2 du,` and the integral becomes
`int sinh(u)*(-1/2) du = -1/2 int sinh(u) du =`
`= -1/2 cosh(u) + C = -1/2 cosh(1 - 2x) + C,`
where `C` is an arbitrary constant.
Patrick Henry gave his famous speech in 1775. The years leading up to this speech had been a time of unrest in the Thirteen English Colonies. There were boycotts due to new taxes and a stronger military presence, among other things. Henry was specifically concerned about the increasing military presence in the Colonies. King George III had been sending more British troops to supposedly keep order in the Colonies. Henry thought that the colonists should be prepared to defend themselves from the British soldiers. He asked his fellow Virginia delegates to consider the situation at hand. He warned them to not be fooled:
Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? (Speech to the Virginia Convention)
He warned the men that the King had no intention of reconciling. Instead, he thought that the King had intended to wage war against the rebellious colonists. He told the men that he thought military force would be used to bring forth a sort of reconciliation.
After he murders Duncan, Macbeth arranges for the murders of Banquo and Fleance, although Fleance escapes. Macbeth is angry that the Weird Sisters told Banquo he would father a line of kings because Macbeth has already defiled his own mind and burdened his conscience with the murder of Duncan, and now feels he must kill Banquo and his son. Macbeth says that he has done all this "To make them kings, the seeds of Banquo kings," and this is unacceptable to him (III.1.75). Macbeth hires three murderers to accost Banquo and Fleance on the road, and they murder Banquo there.
After the murder of Fleance, the next people Macbeth murders are the wife, children, and servants of Macduff, the Thane of Fife. Macbeth learns Macduff has fled to England in order to appeal to Duncan's son Malcolm. To punish this disloyal thane, Macbeth says that he will "Seize upon Fife, give to th' edge o' th' sword / His wife, his babes, and all unfortunate souls / That trace him in his line" (IV.1.171-173). Macbeth vows that, as soon as he conceives of an action, he will perform it. He will no longer weigh his options or coolly consider them, as this delay is what enabled Macduff to escape him.
Doris Lessing's "Through the Tunnel" has both internal and external conflicts in the story.
Externally, the conflict is a man vs. nature conflict. Jerry wants to swim through an underwater tunnel that he saw some native boys swim through. It's not an easy swim. Jerry will need to be able to hold his breath for more than two full minutes. Much of the story is his training to do this swim. Near the end of the story, Jerry finally decides to try it. This conflict is life or death for Jerry. He either makes the swim or dies trying it.
One internal conflict deals with Jerry's journey toward manhood and independence. When the story first begins, Jerry wants to get some independence from his mom. It's why he so desperately wants to go to the "wild looking" rocks. Jerry's mother struggles with giving permission to Jerry. She worries about his safety, even though she knows he's old enough to take care of himself.
She was thinking, Of course he’s old enough to be safe without me. Have I been keeping him too close? He mustn’t feel he ought to be with me. I must be careful.
Jerry's mother isn't the only character who is internally struggling to come to terms with Jerry's more independent spirit. Jerry struggles with it, too. He feels a bit guilty that he left his mother alone on the beach.
He swam back to shore, relieved at being sure she was there, but all at once very lonely.
The swim that Jerry is attempting to make is also an internal conflict for Jerry. He's scared. He knows he might die, and getting up the courage to attempt the swim is a major man vs. self struggle for Jerry.
He was frightened. Supposing he turned dizzy in the tunnel? Supposing he died there, trapped?
In The Catcher in the Rye, Holden likes places that do not change. Since the death of his brother Allie, Holden has a hard time dealing with change and wishes that life would just stay the same. So, he likes places that are the same as they were during his childhood. For example, Holden likes the Museum of Natural History because the exhibits are the same as they were when his teachers used to take the students in elementary school. Thinking about seeing his sister Phoebe, Holden walks over to the museum and reminisces on the exhibits that never change, like the one showcasing Native American Indians. If places like these never change, then Holden does not have to say goodbye to the old and usher in new places.
Estate systems refers to a kind of social stratification based on control of land. This type of system existed from the 1500's to the 1800's in Europe and Asia. In a general estate system, there are two kinds of people: the nobility who own the land and the peasants or serfs who work on the land to produce profit for the nobility. The peasants typically live in poverty and perform toilsome labor with scant pay but they are not considered slaves. The most famous estate system was the three estate system that existed in France prior to the French revolution- the first estate was the clergy; the second estate was the nobility and the third estate was the commoners. The famous motto of the French revolution, "Liberty, Fraternity, Equality" had to do with the desire of the third estate to abolish the estate system that existed in France.
Peasant rebellions are common throughout history occurring in France, Russia and China and many believe that the success of the French revolution ultimately lead to other peasant uprisings such as the Russian revolution.
In Part Three of Fahrenheit 451, Montag is confronted by Beatty and forced to set fire to his house. Montag suspects Mildred is the person who reported his books to Beatty for a couple of reasons.
First of all, Montag is suspicious of Mildred because she flees the house without acknowledging him, which he interprets as a sign of her guilt:
Mildred came down the steps, running, one suitcase held with a dream-like clenching rigidity in her fist, as a beetle-taxi hissed to the curb.
Secondly, while there are other characters in the story who know about Montag's collection of books, Mildred is the only one who is likely to call the alarm. This is because Mildred is a conformist character; she fears books, believes in the fireman system, and has no intention of rethinking her attitude.
Montag's suspicions are soon confirmed by Beatty: Mildred turned him in immediately after her friends, Mrs. Bowles and Mrs. Phelps, reported him. Beatty had no choice but to act, though it comes at great cost to himself.
Both Varma and Bhatia are old and are dependent upon their families for their welfare.
In the story, Varma finds his diet restricted by his son, Rakesh; he is not allowed to eat his favorite foods or enjoy the customary fare he is used to. In fact, Varma is treated like a wayward child in his own home. In his attempt to display an exemplary filial solicitude, Rakesh neglects to demonstrate any sort of empathy towards his aged father.
The son's sterling personality and character now underwent a curious sea change. Outwardly, all might be the same but the interpretation had altered: his masterly efficiency was nothing but cold heartlessness, his authority was only tyranny in disguise.
Varma finds himself discouraged and unhappy with life. He resorts to bribing his grandchildren to bring him forbidden sweets and delicacies. Varma's only consolation is that he can share his frustrations with Bhatia, another elderly neighbor. For his part, Bhatia also has to fight his family's attempts to curtail his personal movements. In all seasons and at sometimes inconvenient hours, Bhatia insists on bathing outside under the garden tap. He refuses to wash up in the indoor bathroom. This is one way that Bhatia rebels against being treated disrespectfully.
Bhatia and Varma find themselves in similar situations. Both are elderly men, dependent upon their families for their welfare and daily care. Neither has the strength to engage in continued conflict for prolonged periods. For his part, Varma weakens and eventually asks to be let alone to die.
The Industrial Revolution describes a time where machines replaced hand tools. Before the Industrial Revolution began, people made many products by hand and worked in small work environments. As a result, many products were custom made. Some of the first industries impacted by the Industrial Revolution were the textile and the iron industries.
As a result of the Industrial Revolution, people began to work in factories. This was a big change for the workers. Before the Industrial Revolution, work environments were small and friendly. Owners and workers knew each other and their families. When workers began to work in factories, there were many workers. The owners didn’t know the workers. Working conditions deteriorated. People worked long hours and had low pay. They also worked in dangerous or unsafe environments. It wasn’t uncommon for a worker to be injured on the job and then lose his or her job.
More products were made during the Industrial Revolution. Eventually, products were mass-produced. This helped to lower the cost of items that previously were custom made.
George and Myrtle Wilson live in an area referred to as the Valley of Ashes. The Valley of Ashes is introduced and described in the opening of chapter two. If East Egg is old money and high class, and West Egg is new money, the Valley of Ashes is industrial and blue collar.
This is a valley of ashes — a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens; where ashes take the forms of houses and chimneys and rising smoke and, finally, with a transcendent effort, of men who move dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air.
In the Valley of Ashes, everything is covered in a gray haze, including the people. The exception to this is a billboard for a now long-departed eye doctor, Dr. T. J. Eckleburg.
The eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg are blue and gigantic — their irises are one yard high. They look out of no face, but, instead, from a pair of enormous yellow spectacles which pass over a nonexistent nose.
The Valley of Ashes is significant because it provides a setting for various scenes in the novel without the distraction of the East Egg/West Egg class distinctions. The Great Gatsby is rife with symbolism, and the scenes that occur in the Valley of Ashes seem to defy class and wealth; an unhappy marriage, an affair, and a death all happen there.
George and Myrtle must live in the Valley of Ashes, as opposed to East Egg or West Egg, because they, like Nick, don't fit the mold of the others. They are neither new money nor old, and they are neither fully corrupt nor fully moral.
One point is that it is not just fear of Julius Caesar overthrowing the republic and becoming the king of Rome, but also the same fear regarding Pompey and Brutus. Both of these men were a subject of hero-worshiping to the point that there was fear that they would proclaim themselves emperor. In Act 1 Scene 1, Flavius and Marullus are removing decorations from statues of Pompey, placed there in his honor. Pompey is now dead, and Caesar is now the key figure in Rome. After Caesar’s death, there are calls for Brutus to become the ruler. However, he dies before that happens, and Octavius becomes emperor as Caesar Augustus.
It is not so much fear of the ambition of these men that troubles the Roman Senate, but it is the willingness of the Roman citizens to cast aside the republic for a dictatorship in order to improve their lives. The same situation has happened at the rise of any tyrant. Dictators come to power because they are invited to assume that power.
In Animal Farm, there is an external conflict between animals and humans. Orwell introduces this conflict early in the story: in Chapter One, for example, Old Major expresses this conflict when he assembles the animals in the barn to warn them about the "tyranny of human beings." He also teaches them a song from his childhood called Beasts of England which inspires them to unite against the humans. This conflict is resolved in Chapter Two when the animals successfully overthrow Mr Jones and take control of the farm for themselves.
Later in the story, this external conflict is again expressed through the animals' relationships with their human neighbours, Frederick and Pilkington. This is best shown when both men bid for a pile of seasoned timber which Napoleon wants to sell. In the end, Napoleon sells the timber to Frederick but is double-crossed when he realises that the bank notes are nothing more than forgeries (in Chapter Eight). This conflict is resolved through battle and the animals are, once again, victorious.
I would argue he is. Shakespeare's plays have endured hundreds of years, and audiences still pay to see them performed, either in period costumes or with modern settings and interpretations. Despite the enormous difference in the way Shakespeare's use of English sounds compared to modern English, his use of language is so artful, poetic, and powerful that we accept the challenge to make sense of it. Those producing and performing his plays must work to make the language accessible to modern audiences. In addition to the impressive use of language, Shakespeare also created many memorable characters and stories that are still relevant to contemporary culture. His plays are taught in schools and performed by theatre companies (such as the annual Shakespeare in the Park performances in New York every summer, or the many Shakespeare plays performed in Stratford-on-Avon, Shakespeare's hometown). Romeo and Juliet is often called the greatest love story ever written, and was remade into a contemporary musical called West Side Story, and a contemporary film by Baz Luhrmann starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. Hamlet is seen as an outstanding example of a young man struggling with his own depression and ambition. The Merchant of Venice and Othello have much to teach modern audiences about the nature of ethnic and racial prejudice. So much of Shakespeare's work is central to our experience of language and the arts that it is impossible to imagine the worlds of theatre or literature without it.
In The Catcher in the Rye, narrator Holden Caulfield often discusses his disdain for "phonies," but also states that he enjoys lying. He describes himself as "the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life," and recounts times when he lied about going to the opera when he was walking to the store, and lied to Spencer about going to the gym when he needed an excuse to leave the room. Although Holden declares a hatred for insincerity and dishonesty, his confession of this habit shows he is guilty of being a "phony," too. Another example of Holden being "phony" is his frequent complaints about the falseness of movies and D.B.'s decision to "prostitute himself" as a screenplay writer, despite the fact that Holden frequently attends movies and says he enjoys them, especially with his younger sister. He says, "if there's one thing I hate, it's the movies," but later describes several instances of enjoying movies with Phoebe, concluding that many of the movies they watched were "pretty good." Holden contradicts his own stated hatred for dishonesty and movies throughout the novel, showing the hypocrisy of his worldview.
The allegory of the cave was developed by the philosopher, Plato, to explain reality. In Plato's cave, a group of people are chained up, unable to turn their heads, and are facing a blank wall. Behind them, puppeteers move objects so that they cast shadows onto the blank wall. Unable to see the objects behind them, the prisoners believe that the shadows are real objects which make up the world. By creating this analogy, Plato suggests that people are like these prisoners and are ignorant to the world around them. It is only by breaking free from their shackles can people experience and understand the real world. (Please see the reference links provided).
In Part Two of Fahrenheit 451, Montag references Plato's cave when he is talking to Mildred about the problems of their society:
"I've heard rumours; the world is starving, but we're well-fed. Is it true, the world works hard and we play? Is that why we're hated so much? I've heard the rumours about hate, too, once in a long while, over the years. Do you know why? I don't, that's sure! Maybe the books can get us half out of the cave. They just might stop us from making the same damn insane mistakes!"
Like Plato, Montag is suggesting that the only way to truly understand the world is by breaking free from the cave (represented in Fahrenheit 451 by censorship) and using books to learn the truth. Montag is, therefore, advocating direct rebellion and the beginning of a new and enlightened way of life.
Uluru, located in the Uluru-Kata Tjutu National Park of Australia, was given back to the Anangu people by the government of Australia, and the Anangu people leased it to Australia for 99 years, allowing tourists to visit the park and rock. Climbing Uluru, as well as preventing tourists from climbing Uluru, poses multiple ethical and cultural problems.
First, the climb has "great spiritual significance" to the Anangu because they celebrate the Mala "hare wallaby" people as creation beings who walked the sacred climb since creation (McClintock, "Climbing the Rock," ABC News). For this reason, tourists are dissuaded from making the sacred climb.
Secondly, 30 people have died climbing Uluru in the past few decades. These deaths are particularly disturbing to the Anangu who believe people should "take responsibility for their [own] actions" (McClintock). Since Uluru is the responsibility of the Anangu, they feel responsible for these deaths, which is very distressing for them.
However, making Uluru completely illegal to climb poses cultural problems. Since the Anangu believe people should be responsible for their own actions, they believe people should choose for themselves what is right or wrong. Therefore, hanging a sign on Uluru saying it's wrong, or illegal, to climb the rock contradicts the culture of the Anangu.
According to some views, such as Thomas Jefferson's Utilitarian view, it is ethical to create laws to protect both safety and happiness. While it would be ethical to create a law to protect the safety of tourists, it would be unethical to create such a law if doing so infringes on the culture and, therefore the happiness, of the people most affected by the law, the Anangu.
To simplify the logarithmic equation: `log_5(sqrt(x-4))=3.2` , recall the logarithm property: `a^((log_(a)(x))) = x` .
When a logarithm function is raised by the same base, the log cancels out which is what we need to do on the left side of the equation.
As a rule we apply same change on both sides of the equation.
Raising both sides by base of 5:
`5^(log_5(sqrt(x-4)))= 5^(3.2)`
`sqrt(x-4) = 5^(3.2)`
To cancel out the radical sign, square both sides:
`(sqrt(x-4))^2 = (5^(3.2)) ^2 `
`x-4 =5^(6.4)`
` x= 5^(6.4)+4`
` x~~29748.593` (rounded off to three decimal places)
To check, plug-in `x=29748.593` in `log_5(sqrt(x-4))` :
`log_5(sqrt(29748.593-4))`
`log_5(sqrt(29744.593))`
`log_5(172.4662083)=3.2` which is what we want
So, x=29748.593 is the real solution.
Note:` (x^m)^n= x^((m*n ))`
A social contract is an agreement in which people set up a government and agree to have it rule them. They agree as to what the purpose of government is and they agree on the very basic outlines of what it can and cannot do. The Declaration of Independence is a social contract because it sets out the Americans’ ideas about what government can do and it explains why the Americans will agree to be ruled by a new government.
The Declaration of Independence does not explicitly include any language where the signers swear to be ruled by the new government that will be set up. Instead, that is implied. They say that they are becoming independent from the English government because that government is not acting in the correct way. This implies that they will obey the government of the new country so long as it behaves correctly.
The Declaration clearly sets out the purpose of government. It says that all people (or at least all men) have rights that have been given to them by God. These are rights that no humans can legitimately take away. It argues that people form governments to protect these rights and that governments only have the right to rule if the people agree. This, in essence, is the social contract. It implies that the American people will agree to be ruled by the American government. In return, that government will protect their life, their liberty, and their ability to pursue happiness.
Since the Declaration is not a constitution, it does not specifically say what the government can and cannot do. However, it clearly implies this. It says that a government only exists to protect “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In says that the people have the right to rebel if the government fails to do this. Therefore, it is clear that the government cannot do anything that will infringe upon these fundamental rights.
The Declaration, then, is a social contract because it says what the government should do and what it cannot do and because it, at least implicitly, commits the people to obey the government. It implies that the people will consent to be governed so long as the government protects their fundamental rights.
Unfortunately, there is no such quote. Romeo obviously misleads his parents, who know nothing of his marriage to Juliet, but his parents are nowhere near as central in his life as Juliet's are in hers. In fact, Romeo never speaks directly to his father or mother in the play, and his parents have only a few lines between them. Montague appears in the first scene after the fight breaks out on the street to ask Benvolio about Romeo. Montague is present in Act III, again after a fight in the street. He learns there that Romeo is banished for killing Tybalt. Finally, he speaks at the end of the play when the bodies of Romeo and Juliet are discovered in the Capulet family mausoleum. Likewise, Lady Montague is only present in the first scene, when she expresses her relief that Romeo was not involved in the street fight. We learn by the end of the play that she has died, supposedly from a broken heart brought on by Romeo's banishment. Right before he dies, Romeo gives Balthasar a letter to deliver to his father, presumably explaining why he has taken his own life, but there are no quotes in which he lies about Juliet to his parents.
I would suggest always reading verse (whether poetry or drama) with a dictionary nearby. Understanding the words that one is reading is important no matter what, but it is even more critical when one reads verse because verse is a more condensed style of writing than prose. I hesitate to say that a poet must choose his or her words with greater care than a novelist, for example, but I think it may be true because words have to pack a greater punch in verse. There is no way to understand Romeo's language unless one understands all of his word choices.
It is also important to read verse aloud. Shakespeare employs meter, sound devices, and more, in order to convey tone and mood, and reading aloud helps the reader to pick up on these more readily. Further, reading aloud causes one to slow down and spend a bit more time with the text. This will help you to appreciate the poetry of Romeo's language as well as its meaning.
Macbeth is experiencing an inner conflict about killing King Duncan; his soliloquy reflects that. He thinks through the consequences of killing the king step by step. The first, and most important, consequence is his immortal soul. Macbeth knows that murder, no matter how secret, will not escape God’s notice “Bloody instructions, which being taught, return/To plague th’ inventor” (Act I, Scene vii). Macbeth knows that although he may not face consequences on earth, he will face them in the afterlife. He is also worried about his relationship to the King. Macbeth says he should not betray the king because not only is he the King’s subject, but he is also Duncan’s cousin and host. Finally, Macbeth reasons that Duncan has been such a good king that his assassination will cause a huge outcry. “…tears shall drown the wind” (Act I, Scene vii). As a result of these very good reasons not to kill the King, Macbeth’s announcement to Lady Macbeth is: “We shall proceed no further in this business” (Act I, Scene vii). He tells his wife that Duncan has honored him and people currently have a high opinion of him. He doesn’t want to change that. Unfortunately for Macbeth, his wife does not agree.
Gatsby never does achieve his American dream. For him, the dream wasn't just about getting rich, which he's already done. The wealth was just a means to an end; he wanted to get rich so that he could win back Daisy. He knew that she could never be with him if he were not wealthy, and so he must acquire wealth before he can acquire her. Gatsby would stare and stare across the bay at the green light at the end of Daisy's dock (this is what he's doing the first time Nick sees him), and it came to be a symbol of her, of his dream of her. In the end of the novel, he waits and waits and waits for her call, the call that would tell him that she chose him, that she was leaving Tom for good. He said to Nick, "'I supposed Daisy'll call [...].' He looked at [Nick] anxiously, as if he hoped [Nick would] corroborate this." But she never does. Finding out how Gatsby had acquired his wealth -- illegally, as a bootlegger -- was enough to scare her away from him forever. And since she was the dream, never being secure of her meant that Gatsby never achieved his dream.
Strong acids or bases can dissociate completely when placed in a solution of water. HCl is a strong acid with a pH value between 0 and 2. Pure water has a pH of 7. When placing HCl into solution with water, it will shift the pH by increasing the number of Hydrogen ions (H+) in solution. When HCl dissociates, it will add H+ ions along with Cl- ions to the solution.
Actually, because the compound HCl contains H atoms bound to the nonmetal Chlorine, this type of compound is known as a nonmetal hydride. When placed in water, the HCl acts as a source of H+ ions thus lowering the pH of the solution.
To summarize, when HCl dissolves in water, its components dissociate into H+ ions and Cl- ions when the covalent bond is broken between them. Water molecules are polar with oxygen atoms negatively charged and the hydrogens positively charged. This helps make water an excellent solvent for polar compounds like HCl due to the attraction of opposite charges.
The problem:` xy+y'=100x` is as first order differential equation that we can evaluate by applying variable separable differential equation:
`N(y)y'=M(x)`
`N(y)(dy)/(dx)=M(x)`
`N(y) dy=M(x) dx`
Apply direct integration:` intN(y) dy= int M(x) dx` to solve for the
general solution of a differential equation.
Applying variable separable differential equation, we get:
`xy+y'=100x`
`y' =100x-xy`
`y'=x(100-y)`
`(y')/(100-y)= x`
Let `y' =(dy)/(dx)` :
`((dy)/(dx))/(100-y)= x`
`(dy)/(100-y)= x dx`
Apply direct integration on both sides:
`int(dy)/(100-y)= int x dx`
For the left side, we consider u-substitution by letting:
`u= 100-y` then `du = -dy` or -`du=dy.`
The integral becomes:
`int(dy)/(100-y)=int(-du)/(u)`
Applying basic integration formula for logarithm:
`int(-du)/(u)= -ln|u|`
Plug-in `u = 100-y` on "`-ln|u|` " , we get:
`int(dy)/(100-y)=-ln|100-y|`
For the right side, we apply the Power Rule of integration: `int x^n dx = x^(n+1)/(n+1)+C`
`int x* dx= x^(1+1)/(1+1)+C`
` = x^2/2+C`
Combing the results from both sides, we get the general solution of the differential equation as:
`-ln|100-y|= x^2/2+C`
or
`y =100- e^(-x^2/2-C)`
`y = 100-Ce^(-x^2/2)
Jo March is introduced at the first as a tomboy among the four sisters. Each of the other girls is feminine in some way (Meg wants to be a wife, Beth is shy and quiet, Amy wants to be sophisticated and beautiful), but Jo wants to have good times. In Laurie (ironic that as a boy he has what is now seen as a “girl’s name”), she finds the brother and companion she has desperately wanted her whole life. They enjoy physical activity such as ice skating, climbing the nearby hills, running and joking. Jo envies Laurie’s chance to study, something that was denied to females at that time. Their relationship continues to be merely as friends. It does not have any hint of romance during their teen years. It is only as they grow up that Laurie begins to think of Jo as a woman. Jo has not made that transition of thinking of herself in that way, and she cannot think of Laurie as a husband. He has been too much her playmate. They begin to drift apart after this until Laurie falls in love with Amy with Jo’s blessing.
Jimmy Valentine was an exception. The other prisoners did not expect to be "sprung" from prison before their sentences were served; but Jimmy had a lot of connections on the outside. The text explains this in part and leaves more to the reader's imagination.
He had expected to stay only about three months, at the longest. When a man with as many friends on the outside as Jimmy Valentine had is received in the “stir” it is hardly worth while to cut his hair.
Jimmy is an exceptional person. For one thing, he makes lots of money in his illegal profession, and no doubt he is generous to politicians and other important people. For another thing, he is exceptionally intelligent, which explains why he is so successful as a criminal. The other men in "stir" are not like him. Jimmy has a charming personality. This also explains why he has so many "friends on the outside." Everybody likes Jimmy. They call him "Jimmy" rather than Jim because they like him. Even the warden likes him.
“Now, Valentine,” said the warden, “you'll go out in the morning. Brace up, and make a man of yourself. You're not a bad fellow at heart. Stop cracking safes, and live straight.”
When Jimmy goes to the place where he keeps a room, the building-owner Mike Dolan greets him cordially.
“Sorry we couldn't make it sooner, Jimmy, me boy,” said Mike. “But we had that protest from Springfield to buck against, and the governor nearly balked. Feeling all right?”
Dolan is one of Jimmy's many "friends on the outside." He represents a whole wide circle of underworld figures, shady politicians, and others who can do such favors as getting a criminal pardoned.
Jimmy's brains and personality are great assets. But he comes to realize that he can use his personal assets to better advantage by going straight rather than remaining a career criminal. He is getting too well known to many people such as Mike Dolan and Ben Price, the detective. Jimmy decides to move to an entirely different area of operations where he is unknown. There he falls in love and his whole life changes. He is even more successful as an honest businessman than he was as a safecracker.
In The Giver, the members of the community have ceded all control to the elders, who are the rulers of the community. This is apparently a choice that their ancestors made a very long time ago, according to the Giver, who says,
Our people made that choice, the choice to go to Sameness. Before my time, before the previous time, back and back and back.... We gained control of many things. But we had to let go of others (Lowry 95).
The Giver is speaking of Sameness, of course, and Sameness is the consequence of the elders having removed choices from the people. As I imagine this, some external force or conditions caused these people to think that they would be more secure, peaceful, and productive a society if they gave up choices and allowed their rulers to tell them what to do. This was a tradeoff, as the Giver notes. There is clearly enough food and shelter in the community for everyone, as well as education and some amenities of life. The people have given up choice for these forms of security. From the elders' perspective, it is far easier to control a community that has no choices. If everyone has the same housing, furniture, food, and clothing, there is nothing to argue about. There is a perception of equality that helps the elders rule effectively. The elders can observe everyone's skills and talents and choose a profession for each, which is a more efficient allocation of human resources. They can choose partners for the people based on some sort of compatibility, which makes each household run more smoothly. Some women are chosen to bear children because they can produce better physical specimens, while women who do not bear the children can use whatever skills they have more productively. This community is, in essence, a dictatorship. If people do not want to endure this, there is the threat of release, just as in any other dictatorship, in which people who do not follow the rules can be and are put to death. All of these are choices that most societies allow people to make themselves, which is, of course, not necessarily efficient or peaceful. A society is messy when people make their own choices, and this community has avoided that. It is a bad bargain, though, as Jonas comes to understand during his time with the Giver.
In Philbrick's Freak the Mighty, Maxwell has a difficult time learning, so his grandparents sign him up for the resource classes. When Freak discovers that his big friend is not as skilled at reading and writing as he is, he jumps to the task of teaching him. Freak starts out by telling Max stories such as those of King Arthur and his knights. There are words in Freak's daily speech that Max doesn't understand, though. Freak then decides that Max needs to learn to break words down into parts and how to look them up in a dictionary for his own personal edification. At Christmas Freak constructs his own dictionary with his favorite words as a gift for Max. Everything that Freak teaches him really sinks in because of how much he believes in Max.
Then, when Max is allowed to join Freak in his smart classes, the teachers demand a lot from him. Freak tells him not to worry because he will help him through every assignment. Max does his best to learn what Freak teaches him, but what he remembers most is the following:
"Like Freak says, reading is just a way of listening, and I could always listen, but writing is like talking, and that's a whole other ball game" (82).
This helps to simplify things in Max's mind. Max can easily listen just as well as he can talk. If he simply transfers these skills to reading and writing, his academic abilities should develop more quickly.
The effects of European "discovery" of the Americas on the people who already lived there were dramatic. First, and most obvious, the introduction of European diseases (for which native peoples had no immunity) led to massive epidemics that ravaged Indian peoples across both North and South America. Smallpox, typhus, malaria, measles, and plague carried off millions of Native Americans in the wake of European contact and exploration. This was the reality faced by most Indian peoples, and it was, in many places, followed shortly thereafter by conquest. But in most of North America in particular, the process was more complex. Natives were not simply pushed aside in places like the Great Lakes, the Southeast, or the Southwest. Rather, Indian people traded, formed alliances, and made war on Europeans, all in an attempt to manage the presence of the invaders to their benefit. In almost all cases, this process ended in the taking of Indian lands, but this sometimes took a very long time. In the short term, Indian peoples married whites, they used (often repurposed) European trade goods, they converted (often on their own terms) to Christianity, and they generally tried to make the best of what we can now see was a dire situation.
Throughout the novel, Bud Caldwell perseveres in the face of adversity. Bud relies on his "rules" that he has created in order to survive and make the right choices in difficult situations. Although many of his rules are naive and do not help him, Bud keeps a positive attitude and attempts to make the best out of bad situations. Bud escapes the Amos household, attempts to walk to Grand Rapids, and remains positive when he meets the ornery Herman Calloway. Bud also relies on helpful, caring individuals to aid him on his journey to find his father. Bud accepts the help of others to get through difficult times. Whenever he realizes that Herman Calloway is a mean person, he does not quit and attempt to leave Grand Rapids. Bud also refuses to cry and let his emotions get the best of him when he is faced with adversity. His peaceful memories about his mother give him hope that allows him to conquer difficult situations throughout his journey.
When Johnny and Ponyboy are hiding out in the church, Ponyboy says, "I was dying for a Pepsi. I'm what you might call a Pepsi addict. I drink them like a fiend, and going for five days without one was about to kill me." When Dallas takes them out after they've been in the church for several days, the first thing Ponyboy orders at Dairy Queen is a Pepsi.
Pepsi symbolizes Ponyboy's and Sodapop's innocent desires. Ponyboy and Soda do not drink alcohol, but both love Pepsi. Soda does not drink alcohol, as, in Ponyboy's words, "He gets drunk on just plain living." The fact that Ponyboy only craves Pepsi when he is in hiding—not alcohol or drugs—means he is essentially an innocent kid who is only addicted to reading and drinking Pepsi. Ponyboy gets caught up in a situation that is deadly, but he is an innocent kid who is not self-destructive.
The most important day in Helen Keller's life was when Miss Sullivan's attempts to communicate with her were finally successful. Miss Sullivan repeatedly tried fingerspelling into Helen's palm to help her associate words with objects. Helen was confused and thought of it as more of a game. One day, Miss Sullivan took Helen to an outdoor water pump on the Keller property. She held the girl's hand under it and spelled "w-a-t-e-r" onto her palm as the liquid poured out. For the first time, Helen made the connection between what was spelled into her hand and the water that was flowing through her fingers. Helen described that moment in her autobiography The Story of My Life:
I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten — a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me (Chapter Four).
After that moment, Helen became eager to learn the names of everything around her. This was when Helen became a life-long learner.
The Annapolis Convention was a meeting that was held in Annapolis, Maryland in 1786. It was held at Mann’s Tavern. There was a growing concern about the weaknesses of the plan of government created by the Articles of Confederation. The meeting was designed to deal with issues affecting trade between the states that existed in our country.
Unfortunately, the Annapolis Convention was poorly attended. Only twelve delegates were there, representing five states. Since attendance was so limited, the concept that came out of the Annapolis Convention was to ask to have another meeting scheduled to discuss the trade issues that existed. This led to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in September 1787. The Constitutional Convention led to the development of a new plan of government for the country. This new plan addressed the trade issues as well as other issues that existed under the plan of government created by the Articles of Confederation.
A metaphor is a way of explaining something in terms of something else, without using the words "like" or "as." It is an implied comparison. I think the best way to help you understand this is with some examples.
In explaining that I have a difficult task to do, I might say, "It's going to be long haul." My task, which might be grading a large pile of papers, has nothing to do with hauling anything anywhere, but it gives the listener an image of someone having to do a lot of work by hauling something very heavy over a long distance. That is a metaphor.
I might write that someone who had an unpleasant surprise was shell-shocked—in other words, shocked by the form of bomb called a shell, which one could be attacked with in a war. Everyone reading this understands I am making a comparison with a person who is attacked, but that the person I am speaking of has not been attacked, and is instead just unpleasantly surprised.
In each instance, the reader or listener must be able to understand what attributes of the metaphor are meant as the comparison. Otherwise, the metaphor cannot be understood properly. If I say someone is a rock, I probably mean the person is strong and someone I can depend upon. A misinterpretation of that might be that this is someone who is very cold, unemotional, or who has rough edges. These kinds of misunderstandings can happen for the listener or reader who does not have a good familiarity with the language being used. Young children also frequently misunderstand metaphors because they take them literally. When I was a child, I remember my father saying someone he knew was fired, which probably did start out as a metaphor. I was terribly upset because I had the image in my mind of a man on fire. This does show us, though, how strong an image a metaphor can provide!
Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Kubla Khan" is often thought to be a dream poem, and for good reason. A short, descriptive line before the beginning of the poem describes it as "a vision in a dream," while Coleridge himself claimed to have "composed" the poem in response to a vision he had while sleeping. Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that the poem is either meant to describe a dream sequence or, at the very least, a fantastical dream world.
Furthermore, the imagery within the poem suggests a magical dreamscape. For example, Coleridge describes "A stately pleasure-dome" (2), "gardens bright.../ Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree" (9), "Ancestral voices prophesying war" (30), and "A damsel with a dulcimer/ In a vision" (37-8). All in all, the poem takes us on a tour of various fantastical images, many of which seem to spring to life spontaneously and without prior explanation, just like images in a dream. As such, given the fragmented, exotic, and almost magical nature of the poem, it would be perfectly plausible to assume that Coleridge is, at least in part, describing a dream sequence.
At the beginning of the novel, Nick does not really know Daisy and Tom well. He mentions in chapter 1 that "Daisy was [his] second cousin once removed and [he'd] known Tom in college. And just after the war [he] had spent two days with them in Chicago." Nothing about these meetings tells the reader that Nick had any previous depth of feeling toward the Buchanans.
However, when Nick has his first dinner with the Buchanans in Chapter 1, the reader understands Nick's feelings better. First, when he describes Tom, he notes, "I always had the impression that he approved of me and wanted me to like him with some harsh, defiant wistfulness of his own." Nick seems to understand that Tom may appear gruff and cruel on the outside, but there is something in human nature that causes people to want others to like them.
As for Daisy, Nick seems infatuated with her; he describes her voice:
It was the kind of voice that the ear follows up and down, as if each speech is an arrangement of notes that will never be played again. Her face was sad and lovely with bright things in it, bright eyes and a bright passionate mouth, but there was an excitement in her voice that men who had cared for her found difficult to forget: a singing compulsion, a whispered “Listen,” a promise that she had done gay, exciting things just a while since and that there were gay, exciting things hovering in the next hour.
Daisy is the type of woman that men are magnetically attracted to, even Nick. One could say that he is mesmerized.
However, all of these feelings change at the end of the book, after all the tragedy that occurs at the end. Nick blames Tom for Gatsby death and blames Daisy for not being strong enough to make a decision. One of the most famous quotes of the book talks specifically about Nick's feelings:
They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made. . . .
And that is what Nick was left to do, clean up the mess that Tom and Daisy left in their wake. And Nick "couldn't forgive [Tom] or like him" for what he had done to Gatsby, even though at the beginning Nick's feelings for Gatsby were more harsh than at the end, a reversal of his feelings for Tom and Daisy.
Atticus is trying to prove that Tom Robinson could not physically have attacked Mayella and she wasn’t raped.
Tom Robinson is a black man accused of raping a white woman. The evidence is completely circumstantial, meaning that it really doesn’t prove anything definitively. Atticus questions Bob Ewell, Heck Tate, and Mayella to establish that Mayella never saw a doctor, and to establish what side of the face her injuries were on.
Atticus was trying to show, it seemed to me, that Mr. Ewell could have beaten up Mayella. … If her right eye was blacked and she was beaten mostly on the right side of the face, it would tend to show that a left-handed person did it. … But Tom Robinson could easily be left-handed, too. (Ch. 17)
Atticus then demonstrates that Tom Robinson is crippled. He has not had full use of his left arm since he injured it in an accident as a young man. Due to this injury, it would have been very difficult for him to have caused the injuries to Mayella. Basically, Atticus wants to show that Mayella was never raped, and the injuries were caused by her father.
“Her father saw it, and the defendant has testified as to his remarks. What did her father do? We don’t know, but there is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewell was beaten savagely by someone who led almost exclusively with his left. …” (Ch. 20)
Scout believes that Atticus and her brother are counting their chickens, and that this does not prove that Tom Robinson is innocent. However, Atticus took great pains to point out that there was actually no evidence against Tom Robinson other than the fact that he felt sorry for Mayella and tried to help her. Unfortunately, for a white jury trying a black man, that was enough.
George and Lydia are anxious in general over the amount of time their children, Wendy and Peter, are spending in the nursery, watching scenes of the African veldt on their giant viewscreens. However, what most worries them are the repeated screams they hear as the lions kill their prey. The lions appear bloodthirsty and frightening, and the screams, for some reason, sound familiar to the parents.
The whole panorama of the veldt troubles the parents deeply: it is a hot, unpleasant and savage place, with animals feeding on bloody meat and vultures circling overhead. Wendy and Peter seem obsessed with it. The parents decide, finally, that they are going to shut down the nursery and start afresh, which upsets the children greatly. Only at the very end of the story, when they are trapped inside the nursery, do the parents realize that the screams they have been hearing are their own.
The molecular formula is a multiple of the empirical formula of a compound. In other words,
molecular formula = n(empirical formula)
where, n could be any whole number equal to or greater than 1.
For example, the organic compounds C2H4, C3H6, C4H8, etc. all have the same empirical formula. In these cases, the value of n is 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
In the current case, the mass of 1 l of organic compound is same as that of 1 l of nitrogen gas (N2), at the same temperature and pressure. Using the ideal gas law:
PV = nRT
or, n = PV/RT
at the same temperature and pressure, the same volume of gases (1 l each) will have the same number of moles.
This also means that the molar mass of organic compound is equal to that of nitrogen gas, which is equal to 28 g.
The empirical formula mass = number of carbon atoms x atomic mass of carbon + number of hydrogen atoms x atomic mass of hydrogen
= 1 x 12 + 2 x 1 = 14
Molecular mass = n x empirical formula mass
or, n = molecular mass / empirical formula mass = 28 / 14 = 2
Thus, the molecular formula = 2 (CH2) = C2H4.
Thus, the organic compound is 'C_2H_4,' also known as ethylene or ethene.
Mildred is Montag's wife in Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. She is the perfect example of this hedonistic society's model citizen. She knows exactly how to keep herself distracted from facing any serious issues in life. For example, she's addicted to sleeping pills, watches television on three screens all day long, listens to music at night in bed, and likes to drive fast to run over dogs when she is stressed out. As a result, her perceptions about life are skewed because she values the lives of fictitious characters on television more than she does her own husband and neighbors. When Montag wants her to explore books with him, Mildred argues the following:
"Books aren't people. You read and I look all around, but there isn't anybody! . . . My 'family' is people. They tell me things: I laugh, they laugh! And the colors! . . . And besides, if Captain Beatty knew about those books . . . He might come and burn the house and the 'family.' That's awful! Think of our investment. Why should I read? What for?" (73).
From what Mildred says above, she proves that she has more of a bond with a fictitious television family than she does with real people. Sure, she has a few friends like Mrs. Phelps and Mrs. Bowles, but when she thinks about her house being burned down, she does not worry about her husband because she's too busy worrying about the 'family.'
Furthermore, Mildred does not understand that reading books can create mental images of people to whom she could relate. Because she is the perfect product of this hedonist society, though, she does not understand that one must work at reading, as well as with real relationships, in order to feel truly connected to other people. Mildred just wants to sit around and watch the 'family' and the colors all day long because that is easy and makes her happy. Mildred's life is sad because she connects to "people" on television more than she does with those around her.
In the story, Ludwig originally belonged to the Bavarian farmer, Kurt Wolff, and his wife, Frau Wolff. Jan takes a liking to Ludwig during the childrens' stay at the farm. By all indications, the affection is returned. The faithful dog even hides in one of the canoes the children use for their escape.
As the children make their way down the river, they have to battle their way through the rapids. All of them manage to survive the danger, but they soon find themselves without the use of their canoes. The children and Ludwig walk to Falkenburg, cross the Danube, and eventually get a ride to Switzerland. Their destination is Lake Constance. Eventually, after stopping to make camp, the children discover that Jan and Ludwig are not in their company. Presumably, Jan has gone back to the Bavarian farm to look for the silver sword that he now says is missing.
Edek, Ruth, and Bronia decide to continue the journey without Jan. Eventually, they meet up with him again when they discover him tied up in the back of a truck; the truck is driven by an American soldier, Joe Wolski, who decides not to take Jan north with him.
The children soon find themselves at a crossroads. In order to get to Appenzell where their parents are, Edek and his siblings have to cross Lake Constance. They try to wait patiently for the Swiss boat that is to take them across but are so excited that they are unaware of the approaching rain. Meanwhile, Edek, sick and disoriented, takes shelter in a small boat. Soon, it rains heavily, and Edek's boat floats away. Ruth and Bronia struggle to save Edek. Meanwhile, Ludwig goes missing in the heavy rainstorm, and Jan's first concern is to find and save Ludwig.
Ruth gets frustrated with Jan when she realizes that Edek is not Jan's first priority. She yells at Jan to go after Ludwig, while she and Bronia try to save Edek. Her words jolt Jan back to reality: he suddenly realizes that he has to choose whether he will help save Edek or Ludwig. The text tells us that he chose to save Edek:
The two girls jumped into the boat. Jan was staring at the dog. He wanted to run after the animal, but Ruth's words had hurt him. He looked back at her brave face, and he knew what he had to do. He had lost Ludwig, but he could not lose Ruth.
Since there are no further mentions of Ludwig after the storm incident, we can deduce that Ludwig has probably drowned.
I would say that balance of power is both a cause of war and a condition of peace. A balance of power can bring about peace, but it can also cause war when a country or countries tries to break up the balance that currently exists.
Balance of power can certainly bring about peace. There was balance of power in the “long 19th century” and peace in Europe because of it. We can say that there was balance of power between the US and the USSR during the Cold War. Between those two countries, at least, there was peace. When there is a balance of power, countries know that they cannot gain by going to war. They will not go to war because they are likely to lose without gaining anything. In this way, balance of power can bring about peace.
However, balance of power can also cause war. When there is a balance of power, there is always the possibility that some country will try to get stronger so as to break the balance. When this happens, the other countries will typically go to war to try to prevent the first country from breaking the balance. This, in a sense, is what happened in WWI. There was a balance of power between European countries, Germany tried to increase its power to break that balance, and the other European countries fought to prevent this.
In these ways, balance of power can act both as a force for peace and a condition that can bring about war.
The biochemical oxygen demand or BOD is simply the amount of oxygen required for biological decay of organic material present in the sample. Mathematically it is expressed as:
`BOD_t = BOD_u (1 - e^(-kt))`
where BODu is the ultimate BOD or the total amount of oxygen needed for complete decay, while BODt is the amount of oxygen needed in time t. The rate constant, k, is given in the units of per day. The equation can also be written as:
`BOD_t = BOD_u (1- 10^(-k't))`
Depending on the author, k and k' may be represented by k1 and k2 or k1 and k1', etc. The only difference between these values is where we use base e or base 10 in the equation.
We can rearrange the equation as following to determine the proportion of total BOD expressed in a given time:
`(BOD_t) / (BOD_u) = 1 - e^-(kt) = 1- 10^-(k't)`
Since it is not clear from the question whether we have to use base "e" or base "10", I am using base 10 for the calculations.
The time t = 5 days
For k1' = 0.05, `(BOD_5)/(BOD_u) = 1- 10^-(0.05 xx 5) = 0.44`
For k1' = 0.1, `(BOD_5)/(BOD_u) = 1-10^-(0.1xx5) = 0.68`
Similarly for k1' values of 0.15, 0.2 and 0.25, the proportion will be 0.82, 0.9 and 0.94, respectively.
If you need to use base "e," then the equation involving e (1-e^-kt) can be used. The answers in that case would be 0.22, 0.39, 0.53, 0.63 and 0.71, respectively for k1' values of 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 and 0.25.
In this Romantic poem, the speaker offers praise to one of Nature's beautiful creatures, the skylark, that sings while in flight. The particular stanza you cite could be explicated in this way:
the sound of spring showers/on rain-sprinkled grass/flowers refreshed by rain/and everything that was ever "joyous, clear and fresh", pales in comparison to the song of the skylark
The poem is an ode, and what that means is that the speaker is directly addressing the subject of the poem, the skylark. Odes are intended to praise the entity that they address. The speaker respects and admires the bird and in the stanza you have asked about, essentially tells that bird that its song is superior to other beauties found in the natural world.
This quote comes in the 4th paragraph of “Civil Disobedience:”
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?
Thoreau makes a solid point that our rules and laws are often made, not with common sense as the guideline, but solely by the number of people who agree. The assumption is that the more people we can count who believe in a certain stand on an issue, the more right and correct this stand is. And Thoreau wrote this essay well before legislators got the sizable contributions they get today from lobbyists, corporations, and special interest groups. Now he would have to add to the mix the number of dollars spent promoting an issue as well. He maintains that “majority rule” ignores the rights of the individual who may have good reason to act on his own belief system, his own higher law:
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. … The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.
Think of any controversial issue we have today, and you can apply Thoreau’s interpretation to it. The use of medical marijuana and the right to have an abortion both come to mind. These are actions that may make perfect sense in specific individual situations, but which other people may oppose no matter what, and over which laws have come into question. Thoreau thinks government should be set up to allow for such individual differences to thrive, and somehow without breaking the law.
Kit is angry at Dr. Bulkely’s prayer because she does not consider Mercy afflicted.
Mercy is weak, but she doesn’t let that stop her. She just does as much as anyone else in the household, and with patience too. This is why Kit is angry when Dr. Bulkeley calls attention to her weakness.
After a few days in this household Kit had ceased to be aware of Mercy's lameness. No one in the family ever referred to it. Mercy certainly did not consider herself afflicted. She did a full day's work and more. (Ch. 6)
Kit really admires Mercy, because she finds the work difficult even though she is healthy. Mercy is patient enough to help her with it, and teach her how to do everything. Mercy does this and her own work.
Mercy is not out of the woods yet though. Later, she comes down with a terrible fever. Her already weakened state makes this even more dangerous.
Dressing rather shakily, Kit was compelled to ask Mercy's assistance with the buttons down her back, and was shocked when her older cousin suddenly bent double in a violent fit of coughing. Kit whirled round on her. (Ch. 17)
Judith and Kit had already been sick. Kit’s constitution was stronger than the colonists’ because of her time on Barbados. Mercy was the one they had to worry about, however.
Fortunately, Mercy recovers from her fever. She marries John Holbrook, who is perfect for her calm and gentle personality. Judith marries Wlliam Ashby, who had been courting Kit, but Kit marries Nat Eaton instead. Everyone has a happy ending.
The entire passage relating to Simon's body being washed out to sea uses imagery that conveys a gentleness and peace that is in direct contrast to the earlier savagery that resulted in his brutal death. The passage focuses on the beauty of nature, which was largely ignored by the boys.
...the sky was scattered once more with the incredible lamps of stars.Then the breeze died too and there was no noise save the drip and trickle of water that ran out of clefts and spilled down, leaf by leaf, to the brown earth of the island. The air was cool, moist, and clear; and presently even the sound of the water was still.
Only Simon had been able to recognize nature's beauty and he was acutely aware of it.
The passage makes it clear that Simon was a symbol of peace. He was profoundly at one with his surroundings and shared a link with nature which was absent in the other boys. Their surroundings had become only a means to an end, it provided food, water and shelter. It was, for the hunters, a space in which they could exercise their savagery. Simon, conversely, had a spritual connection with nature and he sought sanctuary within its depths, isolating himself from the rest of the boys.
This connectedness with nature is aptly depicted in the images illustrating Simon's final departure. The tiny ocean creatures seem to be acting in reverence to Simon's body. They gather at the edge of the ocean and then around his head like a farewell party there to provide a solemn goodbye to an innocent, one who has become a victim of brutality.
...the creatures made a moving patch of light as they gathered at the edge.The strange attendant creatures, with their fiery eyes and trailing vapors, busied themselves round his head.
Golding clearly emphasises the absolute end of innocence in these images. Soon savagery and malice will triumph, for it is not long after that that Piggy is killed and the conch is destroyed. Jack's dictatorial rule results in Sam and Eric being captured, leaving Ralph alone, exposed and vulnerable. He soon becomes prey for Jack and his hunters who maliciously set out to hunt him down and kill him.
Simon, as it were, depicts spirituality and man's innate goodness. He was the one who was always prepared to assist Ralph to build shelters and care for the littluns. Although he was frail and suffered from epilepsy, Ralph instantly recognised that he was good and different to the others and, therefore, when he and Jack went to explore the island, he became an easy choice for Ralph to accompany them. Simon was also deeply intuitive and prophetic, foreseeing the impending danger and Ralph's eventual rescue.
It is in this regard then, that he attempted to explain that the beast was within them, a concept that the others could not comprehend. To prove his point, he courageously went out by himself to find evidence that the beast, in fact, did not exist. In this venture, he also suffered hallucinations and experienced a deep spiritual encounter with the lord of the flies, a pig's head stuck on a stick.
In a hallucinatory state, after he had had a fit, he conversed with it. It was there that he confirmed the fact that malice is an innate quality present in all men. His exploration also lead him to discovering the dead parachutist, who Sam and Eric had identified earlier as the beast.
It is tragically ironic then, that Simon's attempt at informing the boys about his discovery and the true nature of their fear, results in his death. When he appears out of the foest, exhausted and filthy, during a lightning storm, the boys who are in a frenzy believe that he is the beast and attack him, brutally killing him. His body is left on the beach and later washes out to sea. The fact that the body is surrounded by a phosphorescent light highlights Simon's spirituality and his innate goodness. He is sacrificed, as it were, and becomes an unfortunate victim of the boys' malice.
Alexandra thinks that people who worry about what other people have consider themselves better than others, and are therefore social climbers.
The conversation about social climbers relates to Scout and Cecil Jacobs. At the Halloween celebration, Cecil tells Scout not to bob for apples.
His mother said he might catch something from everybody’s heads having been in the same tub. “Ain’t anything around town now to catch,” I protested. But Cecil said his mother said it was unsanitary to eat after folks. I later asked Aunt Alexandra about this, and she said people who held such views were usually climbers. (Ch. 28)
Aunt Alexandra is implying that Cecil Jacobs’s mother is looking around at other people and looking down on them. She feels that Cecil Jacobs’s mother is lower on the social ladder, and wants to be higher. This is why Alexandra calls her a climber.
Connecting bobbing for apples with social class demonstrates how class-conscious Alexandra is. She is constantly evaluating people, to see who is better than others. Alexandra, of course, considers herself better. The Finches are an old established family. She wanted Atticus to impress upon Scout and Jem that they are better because they are Finches. He had a hard time with this, because it made him uncomfortable since he usually considered all people valuable.
Our father was actually fidgeting. “No, I just want to explain to you that—your Aunt Alexandra asked me… son, you know you’re a Finch, don’t you?”
“That’s what I’ve been told.” Jem looked out of the corners of his eyes. His voice rose uncontrollably, “Atticus, what’s the matter?” (Ch. 14)
To Alexandra, everything is about class. As a Finch, she is better than others in Maycomb. She has a responsibility in the social order. Scout and Jem also have it. This is why she wants them to understand their position in Maycomb.
Bruno makes this comment about Lt. Kotler in Chapter Seven after witnessing the odious term that Kotler calls the Jewish prisoner Pavel twice and the vitriolic tone with which he addresses the older Pavel, who is the cook for the family.
"There really was no other way to dress it up; he was just plain nasty."
Another reason that Bruno finds Kotler "nasty" is the way that he conducts himself; for, Bruno finds him very arrogant. He stands outside the house as those he is in charge of it, and he talks deprecatingly to Bruno as those he were just a small child. In addition, Bruno disapproves of how his sister Gretel, who is not thirteen, flirts with Kotler. Later, he hears his mother, who does not know that anyone is listening, call Kotler "precious" and she laughs at his remarks and jokes much more heartily than she does at his father's.
One day as a dog approached the fence barklng loudly, Kotler "marched right over to the dog and shot it," Bruno observes.
Further in the narrative, after Shmuel gets into trouble for eating the meat that Bruno denies having given him, Lt. Kotler beats Shmuel severely back at the camp. Certainly, there is no question that Kotler is a cruel, sadistic, and spiteful young man, who has become thoroughly indoctrinated in Nazism.
It would be best to analyze Ralph and Jack's relationship throughout the novel before drafting the letter and take into consideration which stage of the story Ralph would be addressing Jack from. The two characters feel differently about one another as the novel progresses. In the beginning of the novel, Ralph gets along well with Jack. If Ralph was writing a letter to Jack at the beginning of the story, he would probably generously ask for Jack's opinion and help lead the group of boys. Ralph would more than likely have an open mind to Jack's ideas and would appreciate feedback from him.
As the story advances, Jack becomes increasingly jealous of Ralph and attempts to usurp his power. Ralph quickly becomes frustrated and agitated when dealing with Jack. Ralph realizes that Jack is a jealous, polarizing figure who is trying to gain power. If Ralph were to write Jack a letter in the middle of the story, it would be best for Ralph to threaten Jack with punishment for his insubordination. Ralph would have to assert his power by setting clear limits and addressing Jack's negative behavior. Ralph would also benefit from attempting to include Jack in some of his future decisions to appease his thirst for power.
By the end of the novel, Jack is a tyrannical leader who is attempting to hunt and kill Ralph. If Ralph were writing him a letter at the end of the novel, it is possible that Ralph would probably beg for mercy and agree to become a subordinate member of Jack's tribe in order to survive.
Integrity refers to a person's ability to be honest and have high moral values. Rebecca shows that she has these qualities by speaking her mind and not being afraid of what others think of her, as indicated in Act 1 of the play when she comments about the rumors of witchcraft going around the village. She displays this quality specifically when she refers to the conditions suffered by Betty Parris and the Putnam's daughter, Ruth.
In her comments, Rebecca expresses her honest opinion about what the girls are experiencing. She explains:
...Pray calm your-selves. I have eleven children, and I am twenty-six times a grandma, and I have seen them all through their silly seasons, and when it come on them they will run the Devil bowlegged keeping up with their mischief. I think she'll wake when she tires of it. A child's spirit is like a child, you can never catch it by running after it; you must stand still, and, for love, it will soon itself come back.
The common sense advice she gives is based on her extensive experience as a mother and a caregiver. Advice that Mr and Mrs Putnam as well as the reverend Parris do not seem to relate well to. They rather turn to superstition to find answers. She is also surprisingly direct when she tells reverend Parris that she hopes he is not out 'looking for loose spirits.'
Rebecca displays more of her honesty and her genuine belief that the truth is much less complicated than everyone else believes. She is forthright in the instructions that she gives the reverend that he should send reverend Hale back to Beverley. She believes that they should seek answers from the doctor and from prayer. They should ignore the supernatural, lest such beliefs set the villagers to arguing again.
When Mrs Putnam mentions that the doctor has no clue, Rebecca asks that they should turn to God for answers since she fears the idea about loose spirits being around. She sincerely believes that they should rather blame themselves for what has happened to the girls.
A further display of Rebecca's virtue lies in the fact that she advises John Proctor not to break charity with reverend Parris, when he threatens to find the faction the reverend believes is against him, and join it. She beseeches him to take the reverend's hand and make peace with him. Her actions are as those of a saint for she is concerned about the goodwill of others. Even Reverend Hale, when he arrives, acknowledges her goodness by saying:
It's strange how I knew you, but I suppose you look as such a good soul should. We have all heard of your great charities in Beverly.
In the end, the Putnams, driven by their greed for the Nurse's land, manage to convince the court that Rebecca is a witch. Mrs Putnam blames her for having killed her babies by sending her spirit out to them, whilst Ruth testifies that she had seen Rebecca's spirit coming to harm her. The court demands that Rebecca confess her sin and so win redemption, but she bluntly refuses. She is steadfast in her belief and will not confess to something she has not done. She is incarcerated and chained but refuses to budge even though she could gain freedom by confessing.
She shames John Proctor by refusing to give in to the court's demands after he has confessed and he, probably encouraged by her resilience and the depth of her character, later decides to tear up his confession so that his name remains untainted and he can leave behind a respected legacy. He, Rebecca, Martha Corey and others, are eventually hanged, innocent of the crimes they were supposed to have committed.
Well, first you have to understand how drag works. There are three important types to consider: skin friction, form friction, and interfering friction.
Skin friction is the drag experienced when air flows over a surface, and can be minimized by using a surface with a lower coefficient of friction. The second is form friction, where the shape of the surface causes air to be pushed out of the way of the object. The most important thing about this is to limit the forward facing surface area. The smaller the outline of your vehicle, the faster it should go. Next, interfering friction is caused when pressure regions interact. For example, dragging a branch through the water will have almost as much drag as a paddle, despite having less material in the front, because the water will have to speed up as it passes between sticks. This speeding up takes more energy away from the branch, slowing it down. Limiting places where air passes between parts is a good way to fix this in your vehicle, but covering them can be just as effective.
There are some shapes that are good for limiting drag. In nature these are often reproduced by animals like fish and birds, and to a lesser extent faster mammals. This page should help with shaping.
Finally, being aware of the lift your vehicle creates is important. Keeping your lift generation in the downward direction can apply more downward force, increasing the friction on your wheels and improving acceleration. Many race cars use this, and formula one car spoilers generate so much lift, they could theoretically drive upside down. This is about these cars.
I would say the theme of this poem is that there are common steps taken throughout the life of a woman. While I'm not suggesting that every woman must follow these steps, the poem represents three major moments in life that seem to define women. The bangles are used to represent those moments.
The first stanza is an introduction to the idea of the bangles representing the women's stages of life. They establish that the bangles are for "happy daughters and happy wives." This sets up for the rest of the poem, where the stages of lives are described by the colors of the bangles being sold by the bangle sellers to the various women.
The second stanza discusses women in adolescence, or, maidenhood. These women wear bangles of "silver and blue" and the entire section is tinged with nature references as the blooming plants are related to the blooming women.
The third stanza discusses women at the age of marriage.
Some, like the flame of her marriage fire,
Or, rich with the hue of her heart's desire,
Tinkling, luminous, tender, and clear,
These descriptions hone in on passion and tenderness, the qualities of a wife and someday a mother.
The last stanza discusses women who have had children and have families. These bangles are "purple and gold flecked grey." These are rich colors, representative of a woman who is rich in experience with a husband, family, and religion.
Hope this helps!
One method for macro-environmental analysis is called the "PESTLE" method. This is essentially a framework through which to explore the broad environment surrounding an organization. PESTLE stands for Political, Economic, Socio-cultural, Technological, Legal, and Environmental. It's a relatively simple method: you analyze each of these individual areas and how they relate to the organization, and come up with a broader plan that incorporates these various factors.
For example:
1) Political: What political factors might affect your organization? What are the government's beliefs and policies?
2) Economic: What are the current economic conditions in the area? Is the economy growing or shrinking? What are interest rates like?
3) Socio-cultural: What is the social climate like? What are some demographics that might affect the organization?
4) Technological: What technology is available and how can it be used? This means not only digital/ internet tools but also manufacturing and distribution tools.
5) Legal: The laws in any country are constantly changing. What are the legal factors that might help or hinder the organization? Are there new or changing laws that might have an effect?
6) Environmental: An organization's physical location and its relationship to the environment can also affect the organization. What is the climate like? What are the local waste disposal practices?
Another method, called STEEPLE, integrates the components of PESTLE with one additional factor: Ethics. Ethics can be complex, since something that is legal is not always ethical and something that is ethical is not always legal. In today's world, it is much easier for people to align with companies they ethically support, and it is important for organizations to consider their ethical profile.
All of these can be run through a SWOT analysis, which refers to an organization's Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. Any one finding from a PESTLE/ STEEPLE analysis can fall into any of these four categories. A new legal ruling might be an opportunity or a threat; a piece of technology might be a strength or a weakness.
Anne calls her hair a “mass of curls.”
Many teenagers are unhappy with their appearance. Anne is no exception. She tries to make her hair something to be proud of, but she often feels she comes up short.
Anne describes her procedure for getting ready, which includes curling her hair and bleaching her face. It is normal teenage stuff.
I brush my teeth, curl my hair, manicure my nails and dab peroxide on my upper lip to bleach the black hairs -- all this in less than half an hour. (Wednesday, August 4,1943)
Even though they are in hiding, Anne likes to look out for her appearance. The families have limited bathroom time, and of course they never go out, but Anne still wants to look nice.
She is obsessed with movie stars, and tries to make her hair look like theirs. Anne’s family and the Van Daans do not approve.
Whenever I come sailing in with a new hairstyle, I can read the disapproval on their faces, and I can be sure someone will ask which movie star I'm trying to imitate. My reply, that it's my own invention, is greeted with skepticism. … By that time I'm so sick and tired of their remarks that I race to the bathroom and restore my hair to its normal mass of curls. (Friday, January 28, 1944)
Soon, Anne is getting herself ready and trying to make herself look nice for Peter. She goes from finding him annoying to becoming his friend, and then finally something more. Now Anne has a reason to primp. It is a small bit of normalcy in a very abnormal situation.
From what I can see, your answer lies in Chapter Seven. In this chapter, Daisy suggests that everyone should go into town.
Meanwhile, the atmosphere in Tom and Daisy's house is charged with a percolating tension that threatens to erupt into outward conflict. At lunch, Daisy is brazenly affectionate with Gatsby; she doesn't bother to hide the fact that she's infatuated with her lover.
For his part, Tom senses that Daisy is past all pretense when it comes to Gatsby, and he's definitely angry about being so obviously cuckolded. It's Tom who suggests that he and Gatsby switch cars. Meanwhile, Gatsby isn't too keen on the idea; he's just a tad uncomfortable with the idea of driving his lover's husband's car. Gatsby finds himself in a difficult position; if he objects, Tom is the kind of man who has no qualms about making an embarrassing scene. If Gatsby consents, he's playing into Tom's hands and publicly consenting to being emasculated in front of Daisy.
Since it's a no-win situation for Gatsby, he decides to cut his losses and to let sleeping dogs lie. He reluctantly consents to let Tom drive his car, while Tom drives his. For his part, Tom feels a need to exert himself in order to salvage what masculine pride he has left. After bullying his way through the exchange, Tom, calling his rival's car a "circus wagon," attempts to get Daisy to ride with him in Gatsby's car. However, Daisy evades her husband's grasp and decides to ride with Gatsby in Tom's car.
Daisy leaves Tom aghast and furious at her blatant disrespect. It's obvious that Tom meant to embarrass Gatsby, but the tables have now been turned on him. So, in truth, Gatsby only consented to switch cars with Tom because the latter pressured him into doing so.
The arc length of a function of x, f(x), over an interval is determined by the formula below:
`L=int_a^bsqrt(1+((dy)/(dx))^2)dx`
So using the function given, let us first find `(dy)/(dx):`
`d/(dx)(ln(sin(x)))=(1/(sin(x)))*(cos(x))=(cos(x))/(sin(x))=cot(x)`
We can now substitute this into our formula above:
`L=int_a^bsqrt(1+((dy)/(dx))^2)dx=int_(pi/4)^((3pi)/4)sqrt(1+(cot(x))^2)dx`
Which can then be simplified to:
`L=int_(pi/4)^((3pi)/4)sqrt(1+cot^2(x))dx=int_(pi/4)^((3pi)/4)sqrt(csc^2(x))dx=int_(pi/4)^((3pi)/4)csc(x)dx`
Then you find the definite integral as you normally would. (Using the method shown on the link below, you can find the integral of csc(x).)
`L=int_(pi/4)^((3pi)/4)csc(x)dx=-ln|csc(x)+cot(x)|_(pi/4)^((3pi)/4)`
`L=-ln|csc((3pi)/4)+cot((3pi)/4)|-(-ln|csc(pi/4)+cot(pi/4)|)`
`L=-ln|sqrt(2)+(-1)|-(-ln(sqrt(2)+1|)=-ln|sqrt(2)-1|+ln|sqrt(2)+1|`
Here, we will switch the two natural logarithm terms and use the quotient property to combine them into a single log:
`L=ln|sqrt(2)+1|-ln|sqrt(2)-1|=ln|(sqrt(2)+1)/(sqrt(2)-1)|`
If you rationalize the denominator (by multiplying by the conjugate and simplifying) and use the power property of logs, you are left with:
`L=ln|(sqrt(2)+1)^2/1|=ln|(sqrt(2)+1)^2|=2ln|sqrt(2)+1|`
So the exact value of the arc length of the graph of the function over the given interval is `2ln|sqrt(2)+1|`
which is approximately equal to 1.76.
Act 1 Scene 2 of A Midsummer Night's Dream is set in the house of Peter Quince, one of the six "mechanicals". He is the author and director of the play-within-a-play. His name suggests that he might be a carpenter or descended from a family of carpenters.
The first decision you need to make in staging this is period. You can set the play in its putative time period, ancient Athens, Shakespeare's period, another period of your choice, or a generic setting of a dream world outside of real time.
Part of the entertainment in the scenes with the mechanicals is broad physical comedy. Personally, I would create a simple space with limited rugged, movable props and furniture to allow the actors space for broad physical comedy. I wood furnish the set with rough-hewn wood furniture, including a rectangular table with a few pewter candlesticks, several pages of the "manuscript" of the play, quill pens and an inkstand. The table would be surrounded by a few wood benches and a couple of stools, and off to one side of the room might be a chest or some shelves. At least one of the stools would have a break away leg, so that it would collapse when an actor sat on it.
Radioactive waste disposal involves finding a safe place to store it until it’s no longer radioactive. Different types of waste give different levels of radiation. Radioactive waste disposal is divided into three general categories: low level, intermediate level, and high-level waste. Low-level waste typically has short-lived radioactivity. It does not require cooling nor shielding to handle. An example of this would be a lab coat that has been contaminated by radioactive material. It is disposed of through shallow land burial.
Intermediate-level waste requires shielding to handle but not cooling. An example of this would be metal fuel cladding at a nuclear power plant. This type of waste is stored at a nuclear waste repository. Please note that the United States does not define this category, but other countries do. High-level waste requires both shielding and cooling to handle. Used nuclear fuel is an example of this. High-level waste is stored in a deep geological repository.
There are other waste categories, but this should be enough to get you started. See the links below for further research.
Ionization energy can be thought of as the energy needed to make an ion from an atom. In more technical terms, it is the amount of energy required to remove an electron from a neutral atom. Since more than 1 electron can be removed from an atom of a large number of elements, we denote the ionization energy as the first ionization energy, second ionization energy, etc.
There is a noticeable trend in the ionization energies of elements as we move across a period or down a group, in the periodic table of elements. As we move across a period, the ionization energy increases, since the nuclear pull on the outermost electrons increases. The ionization energy decreases as we go down a group, due to shielding by inner electrons and increase in distance between the nucleus and the outermost electrons.
Hope is the idea that something in the future might happen. Hope carries an element of optimism that the future event, whether in this life or the next, will be beneficial. Human life is challenging; we face and fear mortality and are constantly dealing with loss. Hope is one thing that keeps us going in the face of our troubles and struggles.
Hope also contributes to our sense of purpose in life. If life is only struggle, people have a hard time being motivated to do the things they need to do. Hope leads us to work harder at work in hope of a raise or promotion, to love more deeply because we hope we will be loved back, to work for eternal things that will influence what happens beyond our death. That may be based on religious beliefs about the afterlife or the desire to leave an earthly legacy. Hope can be a tiny, sweet feeling that keeps us going even when we are facing the storms of life.
