What is a central idea in Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck?

One universal idea that prevails throughout the narrative of Of Mice and Men is that of the strength that lies in the fraternity of men.

As one who believed in the ideology of socialism--perhaps even communism--John Steinbeck perceived the homelessness and alienation of the dispossessed men as a result of failed capitalism in the 1930's. The only strength and hope that these men could gain was in unifying with others. When some of the other workers at the ranch, such as Candy and Crooks, hear about George and Lennie's dream of owning a little farm of their own, it is only then that they begin to have some hope for the future by joining in this venture. 

When Curley, the son of the boss, comes into the bunkhouse in a bellicose manner time after time, the men must do their best to not antagonize him lest they lose their jobs. Then, when the amazingly strong Lennie crushes Curley's hand, they all feel empowered, knowing that Curley will stay away from the bunkhouse while his hand heals, and out of embarrassment he will not tell the truth of what has happened to this hand. 

After Candy loses his old dog, he is very forlorn and anxious about his job as swamper. However, he regains hope after he asks if he can be part of George and Lennie's dream of owning a farm.

"S'pose I went in with you guys. Tha's three hunderd an' fifty bucks I'd put in. I ain't much good, but I could cook and tend the chickens and hoe the garden some. How'd that be?"

George half-closed his eyes. "I gotta think about that...."
But, then, George calculates if he and Lennie save their wages at the end of the month, they would have one hundred dollars more. "I bet we could swing her for that." For, the first time, George ponders his and Lennie's dream as a real possibility because of another man's joining in with them.

Later, when Candy tells Crooks about the place they are going to have, Crooks asks if he can be a part of this dream, too.

"...If you...guys would want a hand to work for nothing--just his keep, why I'd come and lend a hand. I ain't so crippled I can't work...if I want to."

With the fraternity of the men, the dream of George and Lennie becomes a real possibility.

The renowned metaphysical poet John Donne wrote that "no man is an island, entire of itself"...men must join together in order to have strength, helping each other to have a life with some dignity. As Crooks has noted, a man needs someone else with him by whom he can measure himself.

What is the difference between the plot and summary of a novel?

The summary of a novel is a review of the important events that happened. This includes the events of the story’s plot.  When someone says the “plot” of a novel as opposed to the summary of a novel, it could be that this refers to an explication of the plot, also known as a story grammar. 

A story’s plot consists of five elements. These are the exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution. These are terms we use for analyzing the structure of the story. They are often plotted on a graphic that looks like a line graph, starting out straight, then going up, coming to a point, going down, and then going flat again. Each section of the graph represents one of these parts of the plot. 

The exposition is the beginning of the story. This is where the story’s characters, setting, and inciting incident are introduced. The events that follow are called the rising action. This is where the story develops. The rising action leads to the climax, which is the turning point of the story and usually the most dramatic part. From the climax to the resolution is the falling action. This is where the story is being wrapped up. The resolution is the story’s ending. 

A summary is used to review the basic events of the plot. It will include the main characters and describe the setting.  The most important events that happen in the story will then be briefly described.

After watching this video from A Midsummer Night's Dream, from 1:36:52 and stopping at 1:54:00, what props are being used? Are they appropriate?...

The troop of actors who perform "Pyramus and Thisbe" for the Duke in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, are average men who are not highly educated. They are also tradesmen from the village who do not have a lot of money; so, they must be resourceful in order to produce their play. As a result, the tiny wooden swords and/or daggers used are enough to satisfy their needs for the play. Straw is used for Pyramus' beard and the lion's fur, which seems appropriate for what these average men would be able to acquire for their production. Also, the rough cast and lantern, which signify wall and the moon, are these players' way of creating a set with their own bodies; and, this is completely acceptable for their imaginations and to present to an audience. Audiences can accept whatever the actors tell them to in order to participate in the play.

However, some audience members, like Demetrius, make fun of their costumes and props. For example, Demetrius criticizes and/or makes fun of the moon because the props are ineffective for him; but, he lets this pass eventually to follow the plot of the play. Therefore, the props and costuming might be a little raw, which cause some to laugh, but in the end the story is accepted over the cheap props and costuming.

How does one distinguish one type of weapon from another through the examination of bloodstains?

Bloodstains and splatter marks can leave numerous clues about attacks and injuries sustained. Bloodstains can relate information about the type of weapon used, where a person was hit, how many times they were hit, the order in which hits occurred, the movements of the victim, direction of attack, and more.

Many clues can reveal the type of weapon. If a bloodstain is long and straight and the droplets are elongated, you can infer the blood was moving fast. This might imply the use of a slash with a knife; blood flowing off the tip of a knife splashes out like paint from a brush. If the stain shows a big, circular spatter, you might think a high powered firearm was used; when a bullet creates an exit wound, it will pull a large amount of blood and tissue with it. Smaller projectiles will not evoke as much splash, so the power of the weapon can also be inferred. If the bloodstain shows a big, curved spatter of blood, there is evidence of a struck artery. Splashed blood on clothing can also give away a weapon. Blood on the dominant hand's sleeve would suggest the use of a melee weapon like a knife.

Bloodstains with large, round drops are from slow-moving blood and can be caused by slow bleeding as a result of lacerations or crushing blows.

Describe in detail 2-3 differences between functionalism and conflict theory

Functionalism and conflict theory are two different accounts of how societies form and are structured, based on different basic assumptions about human behavior.

Functionalism says that human beings are fundamentally cooperative, and will work together to build institutions and achieve mutual goals. The whole society is often conceptualized as like a living organism, with individual people playing a role similar to cells in that organism.

Conflict theory says that human beings are fundamentally competitive, and societies consist of individuals and groups in a constant state of conflict over goals and resources. Society is conceived more individualistically, though often the unit of analysis is some sort of group of people (such as "the working class" or "women") rather than individuals.

Both theories contain valid insights, and both have flaws. Human beings are both cooperative and competitive, and while social structures do serve many useful mutual goals, it is also quite common for different people and groups of people to come into conflict. In general, good sociologists apply insights from both theories rather than maintaining a dogmatic view of one or the other.

One of the most important differences between the two theories is what they say about the economic system and distribution of wealth; taken in their most extreme forms, functionalism would say that the economy is a well-oiled machine that functions optimally and the inequality it creates is necessary for efficiency, while conflict theory would say that the economy is a constant state of class warfare in which different groups of people try to grab a larger piece of the pie for themselves. An extreme functionalist would probably oppose redistribution of wealth as undermining the efficiency of the system, while an extreme conflict theorist would likely demand a great deal of redistribution of wealth as a means of making the conflict more fair.

Another important difference between them is how they view social change. Functionalism actually has a hard time making sense of social change, because if institutions are serving their function, why change them? Functionalists could reply by saying that as the world changes, the institutions needed can also be changed, and societies will make the necessary changes. Or, they might say that change, or at least rapid change, is bad, and should be avoided. Conflict theorists on the other hand have a very clear explanation for social change: Everyone is fighting, and sometimes one side wins and the other side loses. Such victories can be temporary or permanent, partial or total. Societies change as different groups take the upper hand in the fight and impose their own goals on the rest of society. Many conflict theorists believe that rapid social change is necessary, because one particular group (namely, rich, White, straight men) has been winning far too much and other groups should be given their fair share.

What are the risks in each step of the Solvay process?

The risk with step one of the Solvay process is the intense heat needed to break apart the calcium carbonate. According to this paper on calcium carbonate, an activation energy of 40.6 kcal/mole (about 1000 degrees centigrade) is required to begin decomposition. In addition, the release of free CO2 could be harmful, and the quicklime (CaO) is an irritant and releases heat in contact with water.

The risk with step two is the ammonia. Ammonia can be toxic and causes lung damage.

Step six makes a strong base solution of calcium hydroxide, so protective equipment should be worn while using the solution. Calcium hydroxide can cause skin irritation, burns, lung damage, and blindness. 

I suggest wearing safety goggles during most of the process, and a mask if possible while working with ammonia and any of the lime products.

How does the setting bring about changes in the conflict between Ulrich and Georg in "The Interlopers" by Saki?

When the lightning during the storm strikes in the contested forest, the huge birch tree that is struck by lightning pins Ulrich von Gradwitz and Georg Znaeym beneath its fallen branches. Held captive in this manner, the two enemies begin to reconsider their attitudes about each other.

Having been locked in conflict for generations, the two enemies who are now pinioned down near each other utter both "thank offerings and sharp curses." At first, the two men threaten that their entourages will reach them before the other's. Georg promises his men will free him, and in so doing, the mass of the trunk of the big tree will roll over the top of Ulrich. "For form's sake I shall send my condolences to your family," he says to his enemy. Ulrich claims his men will arrive first, and when they are able to release him from the branches, he will remember Georg's threat.

Only as you will have met your death poaching on my lands, I don't think I can decently send any message of condolence to your family.

As time passes and no men appear, Ulrich manages to bring his partially free arm around to his outer pocket and draw out his wine flask. After some time he manages to pour some of the warming liquid down his throat. Looking over at his enemy, Ulrich feels some pity and offers his suffering enemy some of his wine. Georg declines, telling him there is so much blood in his eyes that he can barely see; besides, he adds, he will not drink with an enemy.
Ulrich is quiet for a time, but "in the pain and languor that Ulrich himself was feeling," his hatred seems to die. Now, he calls Georg his neighbor, and he declares that if his men arrive first, he will have them help Georg first.

Lying here tonight, thinking, I've come to think we've been rather fools; there are better things in life than getting the better of a boundary dispute. Neighbor, if you will help me to bury the old quarrel, I—I will ask you to be my friend.

Georg Znaeym is silent for a long time—so long, in fact, Ulrich thinks that Georg may have fainted. At last, George answers haltingly:

How the whole region would stare and gabble if we rode into the market square together. No one living can remember seeing a Znaeym and a von Gradwitz talking to one another in friendship. And what peace there would be among the forester folk if we ended our feud tonight...I never thought to have wanted to do other than hate you all my life, but I think I have changed my mind about things...Ulrich von Gradwitz, I will be your friend.

They lie silently, imagining how things will be after this reconciliation. When no men appear after all this time, Ulrich suggests they shout for help. The two men raise their voices in a hunting call. In a short while, they hear sounds, but the sounds belong to neither company of men. Tragically, the men's conflict will soon end, but the end will come from their mutual deaths, not their reconciliation. For, the "rescue" company that runs toward them are not men, but wolves.