Pick two types of murderers and compare and contrast as well as explain how we can catch these murderers.

One type of murder is the medical murderer, a type of serial killer who uses his or her position in the medical field and access to lethal drugs to kill victims. Generally, this type of killer is difficult to catch, as the person uses his or her position in a medical office or hospital to cover up the crime. Harold Shipman was a famous example of a medical killer; he used his position as a doctor in the U.K. to kill what is estimated to be 250 victims. His case was difficult to detect, and it was only unearthed once the daughter of one of his victims raised questions about her mother's will (as it left money to Shipman). The police investigation that followed turned up large does of a pain medicine in the victim's body that had been used to kill her. These types of killers are often only caught when medical boards, funeral homes, or related professionals raise questions about the medical professional's high death rate or other suspicious behavior after the fact. 
The premeditated serial killer is a generally psychotic person who carries out his or her crime so that as little evidence is left as possible. However, the FBI has developing means of profiling killers through such clues as how the body was found (for example, was it posed?), whether the killer carried out sexual crimes against the victim, and whether the body was mutilated. Killers have modus operandi, or ways of carrying out their crimes, that provide clues to their identity, and they also have particular signatures, or ways that they try to satisfy their psychopathy, such as mutilating their victims. The killers' M.O. and signature help police catch them, as they can connect several crimes and try to predict the killer's next move.

How did the Enlightenment answer the question of what it means to be human, and what it means to live a life of meaning and purpose?

For a thorough exploration of this question, it might be helpful to consult the two-volume work, The Enlightenment by the late historian Peter Gay.
Gay's thesis hinges on the notion that the Enlightenment marked the "rise of Modern Paganism." He is explicit in saying that he is not using the term to refer to the sensuality of its proponents, notably Rousseau and Hume. Rather, he is referring to the era's adherence to Classical modes of thought and living (Gay 9). 
The typical philosophe was "a cultivated man, a respectable scholar, and a scientific amateur" (Gay 14). In both their lives and in their writings, Enlightenment thinkers adopted the view that individual freedom, which sometimes meant abandoning one's country for a freer one—as Voltaire did when leaving France for England—was of the utmost importance. They did not marry, but kept what were then considered "mistresses." 
Living according to one's desire and being committed to the free expression of one's ideas were the highest purposes. This predictably meant that a thinker had to be as distant from the Church as possible. It also meant that one should be committed to cosmopolitanism, which involved engaging with as many different ideas and people as possible. The salons, or drawing rooms, of wealthy patrons and royals provided many opportunities to mingle with and exchange ideas with luminaries from around the Western world.

How was organic first defined?

In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan explains the roots of the term "organic." "Organic" is the counterpoint to industrial agriculture and is a term coined by J.I. Rodale, who was the editor of Organic Gardening and Farming Magazine.
According to Pollan, this term was a way to show that nature should take the lead when it comes to agriculture. The people who supported the organic movement thought that machines weren't the healthy way to provide food for the people. Pollan notes that Rodale thought that there was a clear delineation between industrial and organic gardening, but industrial farms that are also organic exist. Also, there are small farms that are not organic but are sustainable and not bad for the environment.
One point Pollan makes is that these differences force people "to think a lot harder about what these words—sustainable, organic, natural—really mean." It's clear that there's not an easy way to decide exactly what is best for the world and for people. There are so many variables, and it's not always clear what's best for a person's community and the environment.
Another thing Pollan points out is that so many terms can make the choice difficult for customers. For example, local corn and corn that is shipped but with fewer additives might come into competition. While the local corn might have a chemical used on it to protect it from insects, it also doesn't require a great deal of fuel to transport it. It's all about what choices a person can make to minimize their impact, keep things sustainable, and feel good about the choices they're making.

The term “organic” has a few different meanings. Since 1942, it has been used to refer to natural foods—specifically those produced without using any chemical additives or pesticides. This is its most common meaning today.
Historically, though, “organic” referred to a branch of chemistry that focused on the materials and components of living organisms. The term “organic chemistry” was coined in 1778. Scientists used to believe that there was some special force to be found in living creatures, but in the 1800s, it became apparent that all of these compounds contained carbon. Because carbon is present in all forms of life on earth, “organic” came to be associated with biology, nature, and natural processes in general (as opposed to nonliving compounds or anything synthetic or man-made).
You may also have heard someone describe a work of art or interior design as “organic.” This means that the work has a free-flowing, asymmetrical feel to it, with a variety of curved shapes and lines. It also suggests a process that relies more on stream-of-consciousness than careful planning.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/198141/how-why-was-the-word-organic-chosen-to-represent-natural-foods-or-foods-withou

https://www.etymonline.com/word/organic

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 4, 4.4, Section 4.4, Problem 12

Determine $\displaystyle \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{2 - 3y^2}{5y^2 + 4y}$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{2 - 3y^2}{5y^2 + 4y} \cdot \frac{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2}}{\displaystyle\frac{1}{y^2}}
=& \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{\displaystyle \frac{2}{y^2} - \frac{3 \cancel{y^2} }{\cancel{y^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{5\cancel{y^2}}{\cancel{y^2}} + \frac{4y}{y^2}}
\\
\\
=& \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{\displaystyle \frac{2}{y^2} - 3}{\displaystyle 5 + \frac{4}{y}}
\\
\\
=& \frac{\displaystyle \lim_{x \to \infty} \left( \frac{2}{y^2} - 3 \right) }{ \lim_{x \to \infty} \left( 5 + \frac{4}{y} \right)}
\\
\\
=& \frac{\displaystyle \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{2}{y^2} - 3}{\displaystyle 5 + \lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{4}{y}}
\\
\\
=& \frac{0 - 3}{5 + 0}
\\
\\
=& \frac{-3}{5}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

What would be a good research question for the major political difference between the Republican Party and Democratic Party in the upcoming national election?

This year is certainly a weird one for politics in the United States. The two main candidates are probably the most unpopular candidates ever to face each other in the battle for president. The situation can raise some interesting questions. Right now, aside from the usual differences between Republicans and Democrats, we have a new difference between the candidates. Trump is the true outsider, but he's unpredictable. Clinton is predictable, a tried and true Democrat, but she has a lot baggage. Can voters take a risk with Trump, or will they go with well-known Hillary?
Let's look at one question for each of the candidates.
1. Will Donald Trump's outspoken style attract enough voters to the Republican party to defeat the more predictable Democrat Hillary Clinton? The question addresses the effect of Trump's oratory. He has gained support by using what his supporters consider a “straight shooting” speaking style. Detractors say he the style is reckless and indicative of a man unfit for public office.
2. Will Hillary Clinton be able to overcome her negatives, such as the email controversy and the Benghazi episode that the Republicans simply will not quit talking about?
3. Will a third party candidate, like the Libertarian's Gary Johnson, finally be able to attract a sizable chunk of votes? The Libertarians have never gotten more than about 1% of vote in a presidential election. But with the dissatisfaction voters are feeling over Trump and Clinton, maybe it's time for a third party to show some muscle. Nobody thinks they can win, but if they could pull in even 10% of the vote it might make an impact on future political races.
 

why did the cold war start and when

The Cold War began shortly after the end of World War II in 1945. The reason the Cold War started was the the Soviet Union (Russia) violated international agreements about how war-torn Europe would be governed and rebuilt. One such agreement they violated was that territories recaptured from Germany would be given democratic elections. Instead of instituting democratic elections, the Russians set up what were essentially puppet communist governments controlled by the Soviet Union. Angered by this, the United States and the other western democracies refused to "appease" Russia as they had Germany prior to World War II. Instead, they instituted a policy of containment, in which they would not fight the Soviets directly but would seek to prevent them from expanding their territory and ideology into new places. This is why the United States fought several conflicts to promote democracy and prevent communism from spreading during the Cold War.
https://edsitement.neh.gov/curricula/origins-cold-war-1945-1949

What do Tom's final words of the play mean? What do the lit candles represent? Why does he say the world is "lit by lightning"?

In this passage, Tom is reflecting on his memory of his sister Laura as someone who will never be able to move in the world as others do because of her shyness and lack of confidence about her appearance. She is a "candle" in a world "lit by lightning," and this metaphor describes her quiet beauty and gentle ways, that may not be noticed or appreciated among people who are louder, more talkative, more assertive, or more glamorous. Tom fancies himself one of the kinds of people who Laura can never really fit in with: he is talkative, confident, and has a sense of adventure. He also has a deep urge to get away from his mother and his upbringing, and he knows Laura will never be able to get away as he has done, and this fills him with guilt. 
The lit candles are Laura's memory and the image of her Tom carries with him. He tries to distract himself with other things, but cannot forget her. He says "blow out your candles, Laura," and the stage directions of the play depict Laura blowing out the lit candles on a candelabra. This same candelabra was given to Laura's Gentleman Caller Jim by Laura's mother Amanda, in a scene that symbolizes what may be Laura's last chance to find happiness and a way out of her situation. The lit flame may symbolize Laura "carrying a torch" for Jim, who she has had a crush on since they were in school together. In a wider sense, it could also symbolize Laura's sense of hope for the future and her quiet way of doing things.
Tom says goodbye to Laura when she blows the candles out in this final scene. Is he finally extinguishing his memory of her? Does his goodbye mean he commits suicide? Does her act of blowing out the candles, which we assume happens on a nightly basis, mean she goes on as before while Tom moves further away from his old life? The play's ending is somewhat ambiguous on these points.

How does Holden feel about his brother D.B.’s having become a screenwriter in The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger?

For Holden, Hollywood epitomizes everything he hates. It stands for all that's phony, fake, and insincere. He positively loathes the movies, and so he isn't in the slightest bit impressed at his brother's becoming a screenwriter. As is often the case when Holden lashes out at so-called phonies, there's more than a hint of jealousy involved here. D.B. has found a place for himself in the big old world, something that Holden shows absolutely no sign of being able to do.
But more significantly, Holden wants to live life on his own terms, however difficult that is. His brother, like just about every adult he's ever come across, doesn't do that. He simply goes with the flow, acting the way that people expect him to, working for someone else, and doing their bidding. In other words, D.B. is no longer an individual in Holden's eyes, and Holden can't respect him for it.

Holden Caulfield is repulsed by his brother's profession as a screenwriter.
In the opening chapter, Holden explains that his brother D. B. lives in Hollywood, not far from the hospital where he is. Holden relates that D.B. was a "regular writer" when he lived at home, and he wrote a "terrific book of short stories, The Secret Goldfish." But, Holden remarks, "Now that he's out in Hollywood, D. B. [is] being a prostitute." He adds, "If there's one thing I hate, it's the movies."What Holden probably means is that when he was a freelance writer, D. B. expressed his own ideas and exercised his own creativity, so there was a genuine quality to his writing; however, now, as a screenwriter, D.B. writes what is demanded by other people, such as directors and producers. Thus, he has "prostituted" himself.
When Holden mentions his hatred for movies along with his disgust for his brother's being a screenwriter, these remarks seem to foreshadow his repulsion for phoniness as well as his cynicism that is expressed later in the narrative.  

How is Jane Eyre both a deeply religious and a deeply irreligious novel?

Jane Eyre both attacks the conventional religious hypocrisy of the Victorian era and depicts Jane as a deeply moral, feeling and upright person who is true to her Christian faith as she understands it. 
The novel depicts religious hypocrisy through the figure of Mr. Brocklehurst, surely one the more odious characters in English literature, who lives in warm, well-dressed, well-fed comfort while subjecting the girls at the Lowood School Jane attends to a harsh regime of hunger, cold and mortification of vanity through short hair and plain clothes, a regime meant to improve their souls. Jane experiences intense anger at the deprivations Mr. Brocklehurst forces the girls to endure for their spiritual salvation while apparently not feeling he or his family needs such moral improvement or suffering. Thus, the novel calls into the question conventional religious morality that allows the poor to be treated differently than the rich for "their own good." 
Jane loves the deeply religious Helen Burns, but Jane also rebels at Helen's long suffering patience in enduring hardship, unfair punishment and ultimately death at Lowood. The novel thus calls into question the limits of female submission in the name of Christianity. Jane's own heart burns with a far more rebellious flame than Helen's, one shocking to Victorian audiences in its desire for freedom. Likewise, while the adult Jane admires St. John, she cannot marry him despite his deep religious faith and missionary zeal, because she cannot accept his emotional coldness.
Though the novel rejects the kind of religious conventionality that can damage the human spirit, Jane remains morally upright. For example, she reacts with extreme distress and horror when she realizes that Rochester is trying to trick her into a bigamous marriage and when she finally understands that he has his insane wife hidden in the attic. She believes in the religious sanctity of the marriage bond and runs away rather than compromise her values. Further, although she cannot love everyone, Jane follows her conscience and tries as far as she can to treat all people with Christian love and fairness as well as she can: it is this moral strength of character that attracts Rochester despite her lack of good looks or high spirits.

In Boyne's The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, how is Shmuel on a hero's quest?

In many heroic and epic adventures, real heroes must endure unspeakable suffering before emerging triumphant. Heroes also have noble traits and quests. For example, Odysseus, from Homer's The Odyssey, nobly faces pain, sadness, fatigue, and other mental and physical trials before finally arriving home as a hero. Shmuel, in Boyne's The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, suffers just like any other hero must, and he has a noble cause as well. The only difference is that his trials exist within the walls of Auschwitz, a Nazi concentration camp during World War II. 
First, Shmuel is taken from his home, separated from his mother, and taken to the men's section of Auschwitz. The only good part about his situation is the fact that he is with his father in the camp. Meeting Bruno helps to ease a little suffering because of the company and food he receives from the friendship; but, each day Shmuel must endure prejudice, fear of dying, fatigue, and intense hunger.
Then, if things couldn't get any worse, Shmuel loses his father and finds out that Bruno is moving back to Berlin in Chapter 18. The final chapter in Shmuel's heroic quest is to find his father, and Bruno volunteers to help him. The boys become excited to go on a real quest as mentioned in the following passage:

"Bruno imagined a great adventure ahead and finally an opportunity to see what was really on the other side of the fence before he went back to Berlin -- not to mention getting in a little serious exploration as well -- and Shmuel saw a chance to get someone to help him in the search for his papa. All in all, it seemed like a very sensible plan and a good way to say goodbye" (199).

Unfortunately, the two boys are unmatched for the final adventure. Not only is Shmuel's father probably dead, but the boys unknowingly end up in a line that leads to the gas chambers. The final journey doesn't turn out as the boys had hoped, and they become victims of one of the worst atrocities in history. Overall, though, Shmuel is on a heroic quest because he has the attributes of a hero, and his quests to survive the camp and look for his father are noble. 

Why is Burris Ewell unusual?

Burris Ewell is unusual for being extraordinarily filthy and for having lice in his hair; he also speaks to the teacher with much disrespect. Each year he only comes to school on the first day. Perhaps his most inappropriate behavior is his aggression toward Miss Caroline.
When one of the students points out that Burris has "cooties," Miss Caroline notices Burris for the first time. She advises Burris on how to remove lice from his hair; he asks her "What fer, missus?" Then, Miss Caroline tells Burris to bathe before he returns to school, then:

The boy laughed rudely. "You ain't sendin' me home, missus, I was on the verge of leavin'—I done done my time for this year."

Miss Caroline is perplexed by Burris's claim that he only comes one day each year. An older member of the class informs his teacher that the Ewells are always truant. They only attend the first day because the truancy officer "threatens 'em with the sheriff." However, she has despaired of keeping them in school during the year. As Burris continues to be insulting, Miss Caroline tells him to sit down. "You try and make me, missus," Burris retorts. Little Chuck Little suggests that his teacher let him go. "He's a mean one, a hard-down mean one. He's liable to start somethin', and there's some little folks here." Burris does leave, but before he goes, he insults Miss Caroline upon departing.

"I know I am thane of Glamis. But how of Cawdor? The thane of Cawdor lives." What does Macbeth mean?

This is a case where the audience knows something that Macbeth does not know. In Act I, Scene 2, King Duncan tells Ross:

No more that Thane of Cawdor shall deceiveOur bosom interest. Go pronounce his present deathAnd with his former title greet Macbeth.

Duncan revokes the present Thane of Cawdor's title even while the traitor is still alive. It takes Ross some little time to reach Macbeth with the King's pronouncements. In Act I, Scene 3, Ross encounters Macbeth on the heath and confirms what the three Witches have already told him. The Witches must have had supernatural powers to be able to make that prediction. This seems to make their third prediction, that Macbeth would become king, more plausible.
In Act I, Scene 3. when the weird sisters greet Macbeth as Thane of Glamis, Thane of Cawdor, and king hereafter, Macbeth tries to stop them from leaving. He says:

Stay, you imperfect speakers, tell me more.By Sinel's death I know I am Thane of Glamis;But how of Cawdor? The Thane of Cawdor lives,A prosperous gentleman; and to be KingStands not within the prospect of belief,No more than to be Cawdor. 

A bit later in the same scene, Macbeth will encounter Ross and Angus, and Ross will deliver the King's message that Macbeth is pronounced Thane of Cawdor. Macbeth protests:

The Thane of Cawdor lives. Why do you dress me,In borrowed robes.

And Angus will confirm what Ross has just told him:

Who was the thane lives yet, But under heavy judgment bears that lifeWhich he deserves to lose.

Shakespeare has two men deliver the King's message so that there will be no doubt that Macbeth has immediately become the Thane of Cawdor. What really surprises Macbeth is that these three weird sisters could know about it so far in advance. And if they had some supernatural knowledge, then their prediction that he will "be king hereafter" is the most astonishing and disturbing thing of all. Macbeth says to himself:

[Aside.] This supernatural solicitingCannot be ill, cannot be good. If ill,Why hath it given me earnest of success,Commencing in a truth? I am Thane of Cawdor.If good, why do I yield to that suggestionWhose horrid image doth unfix my hairAnd make my seated heart knock at my ribs,Against the use of nature?  

While it was not necessary for Macbeth to become Thane of Cawdor in order to advance to the throne, the fact that the weird sisters know about it while the present Thane of Cawdor is still alive is persuasive evidence that their other prophecy will also come true. In Act I, Scene 5, Lady Macbeth will receive a letter from her husband which she will read aloud. Part of the letter reads:

Whiles I stood rapt in the wonder of it, camemissives from the King, who all-hailed me ‘Thane ofCawdor’; by which title, before, these weird sisters salutedme, and referred me to the coming on of time with ‘Hail,King that shalt be!’ 

 

In Kaffir Boy, track the changes in the main character's attitude about the day's events. How does his attitude change?

If you're referring to the day's events in Chapters 2 and 3, I would argue that the character's attitude changes from fear to hatred as the day progresses.
The events of the day began one cold morning in 1965. On that morning, the Peri-Urban police descended upon Mark's neighborhood in search of "people whose passbooks were not in order, gangsters, prostitutes, black families living illegally in the township, shebeen owners, and those persons deemed "undesirables" under the Influx Control Law." During such raids, Mark's parents usually hid away from home or made themselves scarce. Mark relates that he and his siblings were usually left to fend for themselves during such raids. 
His description of his feelings of terror and helplessness at being left alone are palpable. As the oldest, he was the only thing standing between the police force and his defenseless younger siblings. Added to his feelings of sheer trepidation were feelings of betrayal; his mother often left during Peri-Urban raids, causing Mark to question her love for him and his siblings. On that particular day, Mark was left alone to comfort his hysterical siblings; at only five years old, he sorely felt his lack of life experience during the entire horrific episode. Eventually, overwhelmed beyond endurance, Mark remembers covering his screaming infant brother with a blanket, not realizing that he might have suffocated George in the process.
Mark also slapped his sister, Florah, when she whimpered and screamed for their mother. He remembers that he desperately wanted to prevent the police from detecting their presence that day. As it stood, the police weren't interested in the children at all; they wanted to arrest all adults who were guilty of infractions under Alexandra's draconian laws. Mark's mother eventually returned after three hours, but Mark remembers cowering together with his siblings until she did so.
A little after midnight, the police returned. This time, Mark's mother hid in a wardrobe, while his father hid under a bed. Unfortunately for Mark, the police were not in a forgiving mood; they brutalized him with kicks until he bled and emptied his bladder in sheer terror and pain. His sister, Florah, was subjected to physical intimidation until she screamed uncontrollably. Mark reports watching as the police patronized and terrorized his usually bombastic father into submission. Accordingly, Mark's father had failed to pay both his poll and tribal taxes.
Worse of all, Mark's mother was nowhere to be seen, which meant that Mark's father had failed to adhere to the precepts that were put in place by the Peri-Urban force. As the police continued to intimidate Mark's father, Mark reports feeling an intense rage that frightened him to his core. His anger only intensified as he watched his father being led away in cuffs. So, on that day, Mark's attitude changed from acute fear to intense anger, due to the atrocities his people had to endure under the apartheid system.

In Rudyard Kipling's poem "If," what are the qualities one should possess to become a perfect man?

Rudyard Kipling wrote the poem “If” to give his son direction on how to become a respectable man.
He advises his son to stay calm in the face of adversity, to be truthful, self-righteous, and proud. When others are attempting to spread untruths and hate, he suggests remaining true to one’s ideals, while not sinking to the lowly actions of others.
In addition, Kipling suggests the need for hard work while maintaining a “dream.” The dream should not impede progress and if all is lost, it is important to continue to move forward. If all is lost, he suggests that the respectable man will find a way to recover and prosper once again without burdening others with his problems.
Finally, he feels it is important be able to interact with all of humanity while demonstrating self-dignity. One should not put on airs when dealing with those of a higher class, nor should a man look down upon others. A true man will fit in with all of humanity, but not be solely identified with one group.

If all men count with you, but none too much:If you can fill the unforgiving minuteWith sixty seconds' worth of distance run,Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son! 

The qualities needed to be a “perfect” man include: self- worth, compassion for mankind, a strong work ethic, the ability to interact with those from all walks of life while not stooping to the pettiness of others, and to care about others while maintaining self-dignity.

How was populism the same or different from the New Deal?

Both populism and the New Deal sought to improve the living conditions for the working poor and middle class. The populist movement at the turn of the twentieth century sought to allow the coinage of both gold and silver. This would increase the money supply and make it easier for farmers to get credit. The populist movement was more important in agricultural sections of the country and this is why it ultimately failed in achieving its purposes: it could not lure urban city workers to join.
The New Deal was more comprehensive than the populist movement, and it had something for all members of society. For reformers, it had federal deposit insurance and the Glass–Steagall Act. For farmers, it had the Agricultural Adjustment Act. For seniors, it had the Social Security Act. For industrial workers, it had the National Industrial Recovery Act. While these acts were controversial in that the federal government was going farther into people's lives than ever before, most embraced these measures due to the desperation felt all over the country.

Precalculus, Chapter 1, 1.2, Section 1.2, Problem 32

Plot the point $(4,-2)$ then plot the point that is symmetric to it with respect to (a) the $x$-axis; (b) the $y$-axis; (c) the origin

a. The $x$-axis

If the point $(x,-y)$ is reflected over the $x$-axis, then the image is the point $(x,y)$. So

$(4,-2) \to (4,2)$







b. The $y$-axis

If the point $(x,-y)$ is reflected over the $y$-axis, then the image is the point $(-x,-y)$. So

$(4,-2) \to (-4,-2)$







c. The origin

If the point $(x,-y)$ is reflected over the origin then the image is the point $(-x,y)$. So

$(4,-2) \to (-4,2)$

McDougal Littell Algebra 2, Chapter 3, 3.2, Section 3.2, Problem 4

We have the equations: x+3y=-2 and -4x-5y=8 . We have to isolate one of the equations' variables in order to do the substitution method. In this case, let's isolate the x in the first equation.
Rewrite the equation.
x+3y=-2
Since it is addition next to the x, we have to do the opposite operation to isolate x. Subtract 3y on both sides to isolate x.
x+3y-3y=-2-3y
Simplify.
x=-2-3y
Now, plug in this equation into the 2nd equation we have to solve.
2nd equation before plug-in: -4x-5y=8
2nd equation after plug-in: -4(-2-3y)-5y=8
Distribute the -4.
8+12y-5y=8
Combine like terms.
7y=0
Divide 7 on both sides to isolate the y.
y=0
Now that you have found y, find x by plug in the solution of y into any the original equations.
x+3(0)=-2
Simplify
x=-2
CHECK: plug in the solution of x and y into both equations to see if you got the correct answer.
-2+3(0)=-2
-4(-2)-6(0)=8
Since we checked the answer, and the answer came out to be -2 and 8 in the first and second equation, respectively... x=-2, y=0

Do you think that the mental disorders that can be considered in a defense of diminished capacity should be limited and defined by statute? Why or why not? If you favor limiting mental disorders, which ones would you limit it to?

To a certain extent, criminal insanity is defined by each state according to its own adherence to any of several tests or definitions. About one-half of the states use what is called the “M’Naghten Rule,” which has its origins in 19th century British law. This rule applies a standard by which a criminal defendant can plead insanity by proving that he or she was mentally incapable of differentiating between right and wrong or that he or she was unaware that he or she was committing the criminal act in question. Most of the rest of the country uses the Model Penal Code criteria developed by the American Law Institute, which requires the defendant to prove that he or she was temporarily mentally incapacitated and therefore incapable of determining the legality of his or her actions. In addition to the M’Naghten Rule, which has its origins in 19th century British law, and the Model Penal Code, there is also the Durham rule, which dates to the 1950s.
In response to the question as to whether the insanity or diminished capacity defenses should be limited by statute, they pretty much already are by virtue of their institutionalization in criminal law. Only four of the 50 states do not allow for an insanity defense, while the other 46 have adopted one of the above variations. There is a serious lack of uniformity across the nation with respect to the insanity defense, but defining psychological or physiological disorders that impair judgement in statute is much harder than it sounds. The insanity defense is more a product of common than statutory law and is likely to remain so indefinitely for two reasons. The first reason is the individual states’ reluctance to have elements of their criminal law structures altered by federal action. The second reason is the near impossibility of defining insanity in such a way as to preclude misinterpretations or misapplications of any such law. Even well-written laws are susceptible to manipulation by lawyers and others. Defining insanity for the purposes of criminal law would be fraught with complications.
This educator would be extremely hesitant to limit the definitions of mental disorders for the purpose of refining criminal law. There are simply too many variables involved. Was the mental disorder caused by an operable tumor as opposed to an inoperable one? Did the defendant fail to distinguish between right and wrong because of a prescribed medication that impaired judgement? As to whether this educator would limit mental disorders that can be used to excuse criminal behavior, the answer is no. While there has inarguably been abuse of the insanity defense, the perils of imposing such limitations are too great to allow for such an exercise in micromanagement of medical conditions.

Where do the stories in The Ways of White Folks take place?

There is a wide variety of settings for these stories by Langston Hughes, and each deals with interactions between black and white people in the early 20th century.  
"Cora Unashamed" takes place in a small town in Iowa.
"Slave on the Block" is set in Greenwich Village in New York City.
"Home" is about a man returning to the southern US from Europe.
The man writing the letter in "Passing" mentions that he lives in Chicago and that he'd like to leave for New York or San Francisco. 
"A Good Job Done" is set in New York City. The main character goes to Columbia University, and many other areas of/surrounding New York are mentioned. 
In "The Blues I'm Playing," Oceola is studying in Paris, and we also learn about her life before this in New York.
"Red-Headed Baby" takes place in a town on the coast of Southern Florida.
"Poor Little Black Fellow" follows Arnie, the son of black servants, who is adopted by a white family in New England. They take him to Europe, where he ultimately decides to stay in Paris. 
I don't believe "Little Dog" ever gives us a specific location, but Miss Briggs lives in a place close to a park by a lake, and eventually moves "downtown."
"Berry" is about a black man coming from Jersey City to work at Dr. Renfield's Summer Home For Crippled Children, which is near a beach in the countryside.
"Mother and Child" takes place somewhere in Ohio. 
In "One Christmas Eve," Arcie mentions living in a "small town," presumably somewhere on the East Coast.
"Father and Son" is set on a plantation in Georgia. 

How did the Qing state manage the demographically driven problems in Chinese society and the economic depression from 1790 to 1820? Please correlate at least one social reform solution with one economic reform solution. Did the Qing state succeed or fail? Why?

The trials and tribulations the Qing government faced between 1790 and 1840 were, ironically, a result of their successful rule during the eighteenth century. While strict methods of control were imposed upon Chinese society under early Qing rule, they were also wisely paired with necessary economic and social reforms. Embracing Confucian ideals, Qing officials encouraged the growth of the agrarian and manufacturing classes, with a resulting increase in internal trade. New methods of farming were introduced, including the introduction of new crops imported from the West such as corn, which grew well in dryer areas, and sweet potatoes, which did well in sandy soil. As a result, by the late 1700s, most of the arable land was being utilized and everyone was being fed. Thus, China prospered under Qing rule. But it wasn’t to last.
The stability during the 1700s led to a higher standard of living. With improved living conditions came better overall health and lower mortality rates. The result was rapid population growth. It is estimated that China’s population almost doubled between the mid-eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries. Some factors that may have contributed to this rapid growth include almost complete peace under Manchu rule during the eighteenth century, an improvement in the transportation system throughout the empire, the opening of Canton to foreign trade, more effective disease control, and improvements in the food supply.
Not surprisingly, such explosive population increase soon began to put a strain on the available resources and led to severe shortages, particularly in the eastern provinces. The shortage of land, excess of labor, and lack of food led to periodic famines. Further, high taxes imposed on the manufacturing class, coupled with a high degree of corruption by Qing officials, led to growing dissatisfaction with Qing rule, particularly among the peasant and working classes. Rapidly deteriorating conditions resulted in widespread unrest that would eventually unravel the cords that bound the Qing Empire together.
In the end, it was foreign trade that proved to be the bane of the Qing Dynasty, for with trade came opium. The two "Opium Wars" of the mid-nineteenth century (1839–42 and 1856–60) effectively exposed the Qing’s military weakness and political impotence. The resulting loss of Qing respect, both internally and externally, invited the rise of reformers and revolutionaries from within and opportunistic nations from without.

Where was Nicholson born and raised?

From what I can see, you are referring to Brian Nicholson. To answer your question, Nicholson was born and raised in Kenya. During his youth, he attended the Prince of Wales School in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya. The author, Peter Matthiessen, describes Nicholson as aloof and brusque in manner.
In the book, we discover that Nicholson was a former warden of the Selous Game Reserve in southeastern Tanzania. When Nicholson flew Tom Arnold to the reserve in 1976, he was grieved to discover that the system of dry-season tracks, air strips, and patrol posts he had established between 1950 and 1973 had fallen into disrepair.
Despite Nicholson's curt manners, Matthiessen found that the former was extremely knowledgeable about the ecology of the Selous Game Reserve. According to Nicholson, the Selous Reserve can lay claim to having East Africa's largest populations of lion, hippo, buffalo, leopard, rhino, and crocodile. Nicholson also maintained that the Selous Reserve is home to more than three hundred and fifty species of birds and two thousand species of vascular plants.

You are given a mixture of NaCl and NH4Cl. Name and define the technique which can be used to obtain NH4Cl from the above mixture.

We have a mixture of ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) and sodium chloride (NaCl).  These are both white solids that will be essentially visually indistinguishable from each other.  The name of the technique we can use to separate them is called sublimation.  Sublimation is the act of a solid passing directly from the solid phase to the gaseous phase while completely bypassing the liquid phase.  Ammonium chloride is capable of sublimating while sodium chloride is not.  So if we take the mixture and heat it, the ammonium chloride will turn into a gas and separate from the solid sodium chloride which will not undergo any change.  The gas vapors rising up in the air can be condensed on a cold surface to convert back into a solid.  This re-condensed ammonium chloride can then be scraped off the cold surface to collect the separated solid.

Would our legal system work better if our punishments resembled those in the Code of Hammurabi?

I think our legal system likely would not work better if our punishments resembled the Code of Hammurabi, or we would have stuck with that code. The Code of Hammurabi was the basis of many legal systems around the world for centuries, but we changed to modern systems for a reason.
There are some things modern legal codes share with the Code of Hammurabi. One is clearly delineated laws formally spelled out in writing. That was probably the Code of Hammurabi's central innovation; instead of rules being vague social norms people more or less learned by assimilation, Hammurabi's rules were explicit, codified laws that were written down and couldn't be argued with. It established a system of land ownership and taxation not too different from what we use now.
Many aspects of Hammurabi's code are appalling today. For one, the Code explicitly defines people into upper, middle, and lower classes, and explicitly grants more legal rights to the upper class. The Code includes a number of regulations on slavery, meaning slavery was allowed and considered a legitimate institution. It grants extreme power to the king (who wrote it, after all)—essentially the authority to override any rule or property right at will.
The only part I can see anyone really wanting to go back to today is the criminal justice system, specifically its very harsh punishments which are specifically tailored to the crime. It is what we call a lex talionis, a law of retaliation, under which the way things work is that if someone does something to you, you can do it back to them. If someone punches you, you can punch that person back. If someone pokes out your eye, you poke out that person's eye.
This didn't really work for more abstract crimes like fraud; if he defrauds you, can you really defraud him? Instead, the Code prescribed physical punishments for non-physical crimes. Theft and fraud resulted in your hand being cut off (something still done on occasion in Saudi Arabia). Indeed, a great many crimes were assigned the death penalty, ranging from kidnapping and murder to trespassing and selling unlicensed alcohol.
What would happen if we did this today? Revolution. Violent revolution is essentially the only logical result of such a legal system. Historically, that is ultimately what happened, although Hammurabi conquering a whole bunch of neighboring countries clearly contributed to that.
Why? Because almost everyone breaks some laws on occasion—often for fairly low-risk crimes such as parking improperly, speeding, and jaywalking. If the penalty for all crimes was death, then once you've committed a small crime, what's your incentive not to commit a larger one? If you're going to be executed for jaywalking, why not go ahead and aim for treason, since the punishment is no worse? Treason at least offers the potential for an escape: If you overthrow the government, the government can't enforce its rules on you. Since everyone breaks some laws, the revolution will have a huge amount of popular support.
Modern legal systems are lenient on purpose, because they retain their legitimacy by making punishments feel fair even to most of the people being punished. A $50 parking ticket is annoying, but if you did really park illegally you can't really argue with it, and the legitimacy of the fine or the government executing it is not really in question. If parking in a fire lane carried a sentence of hanging instead, everyone who has ever parked in a fire lane would rise up against the government, because we'd have little to lose and no real other way to try to survive.
There's a proverb about this, usually told as a Chinese general:

"General, we are late for the rendezvous with the Emperor!"
"What is the penalty for tardiness before the Emperor, Lieutenant?"
"Death, sir."
"I see. And what is the penalty for revolution, Lieutenant?"
"Also death, sir."
"I see. Revolution it is, then. We march on the palace at dawn."
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/hamcode.asp

If cos A = -5/13, what is cos (A - pi/4) ? It wants the answer in exact form.

Hello!
There is a formula cos(a-b)=cos(a)cos(b)+sin(a)sin(b).
In our case, a=A and b=pi/4, and we know cos(pi/4)=sin(pi/4)=sqrt(2)/2. So 
cos(A-pi/4) = cos(A)cos(pi/4)+sin(A)sin(pi/4)=sqrt(2)/2(cos(A)+sin(A)).
 
cos(A) is given, what about sin(A)? Of course cos^2(A)+sin^2(A)=1, so
sin(A) = +-sqrt(1-cos^2(A))=+-sqrt(1-25/169) = +-sqrt(144/169) = +-12/13.
 
To select "+" or "-" we have to know something additional about A. If it resides in the II quadrant, then "+", if in the III quadrant, then "-" (it cannot reside in the I or IV quadrants because its cosine is negative).
Without any additional information, we can only state that the answer is either  sqrt(2)/2*7/13  or  -sqrt(2)/2*7/13.
 

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 5, 5.8, Section 5.8, Problem 28

y=ln(tanh(x/2))
The derivative formula of natural logarithm is

d/dx[ln(u)] = 1/u*(du)/dx
Applying this formula, the derivative of the function will be
y' = d/dx [ln(tanh(x/2))]
y' = 1/(tanh(x/2)) * d/dx[tanh(x/2)]
To take the derivative of hyperbolic tangent, apply the formula

d/dx[tanh(u)] = sec h^2 (u) * (du)/dx
So y' will become
y'= 1/(tanh(x/2)) * sec h^2 (x/2) * d/dx(x/2)
y' = 1/(tanh(x/2)) *sec h^2(x/2) * 1/2
y'=(sec h^2(x/2))/(2tanh(x/2))
To simplify it further, express it in terms of hyperbolic sine and hyperbolic cosine.

sec h(u) = 1/cosh(u)

tanh(u)=sinh(u)/cosh(u)
Applying this, y' will become
y'= (1/(cosh^2(x/2)))/(2*sinh(x/2)/cosh(x/2))
y'= (1/(cosh^2(x/2)))/((2sinh(x/2))/cosh(x/2))
y'=1/(cosh^2(x/2)) * cosh(x/2)/(2sinh(x/2))
y'=1/cosh(x/2) * 1/(2sinh(x/2))
y'=1/(2sinh(x/2)cosh(x/2))
Then, apply the identity

sinh(2u) = 2sinh(u)cos(u)
So y' will be
y' = 1/sinh(2*x/2)
y'=1/sinh(x)

Therefore, the derivative of the given function is y'=1/sinh(x) .

What is the family dynamic like in "Everyday Use" by Alice Walker?

The family is a trio: Dee, Maggie, and their mother. Maggie and her mother live at home and have more in common than with Dee. Mama is somewhat protective of Maggie, noting her insecurities that seem to stem in large part from the fire that burned their former house to the ground:

Have you ever seen a lame animal, perhaps a dog run over by some careless person rich enough to own a car, sidle up to someone who is ignorant enough to be kind to him? That is the way my Maggie walks.

Mama longs for a closer relationship with Dee. In the beginning, she dreams of being brought together on a television show where Dee would embrace her with "tears in her eyes."
Dee is smarter and prettier and knows it. Before moving out, she would impart her scholarly knowledge to Mama and Maggie, "a lot of knowledge [they] didn't necessarily need to know."
When Dee returns home, Mama learns that she has changed her name to Wanegro Leewanika Memanjo. She says that she no longer wants a name of "people who oppress" her, but mama reminds her that she was named after her Aunt Dicie. In actuality, Dee is trying to distance herself from her own family, including her mother.
As it turns out, Dee has come home to ask for things. After laying claim to various items around the house, she asks for two quilts:

They had been pieced by Grandma Dee and then Big Dee and me had hung them on the quilt frames on the front porch and quilted them . . . In both of them were scraps of dresses Grandma Dee had worn fifty and more years ago. Bits and pieces of Grandpa Jarrell's Paisley shirts. And one teeny faded blue piece, about the size of a penny matchbox, that was from Great Grandpa Ezra's uniform that he wore in the Civil War.

When Dee tries to claim these as hers, Mama has a choice to make. She has already promised these quilts to Maggie.
Maggie is quite submissive to her sister's wishes. She says, "She can have them, Mama," even after Dee calls her sister "backward" and says that she'd likely use them for "everyday use."
Mama protects her promise to Maggie. Dee ends by telling her sister that she "ought to try to make something of herself." When she leaves, Mama and Maggie find peaceful contentment in each other's company.
Dee brings tension to both the relationship with her mother and with her sister, while Maggie and Mama exist in an easy understanding of each other.

In Alice Walker's "Everyday Use," the family dynamic is tense between Dee and the rest of the family, Mama and Maggie. Dee has gone away to college and has also gotten in touch with her African roots. She wants to be called by a new name, Wangero. The tension in the story becomes clear when Dee/Wangero comes home for a visit.
The narrator, Mama, and her daughter Maggie live together. Maggie was seriously burned in a house fire some years before the story takes place. Maggie seems to lack confidence and to be very quiet. Mama tells us, though, that she is a gifted quilt-maker, following a family tradition. This detail is key because when Wangero returns, she asks to take quilts made by her grandmother to display as art on her walls. Mama feels that Maggie should keep the quilts and has already promised them to her. Maggie and Mama become more assertive in the face of Dee's challenges, and Mama wonders how deep Dee's connection is to the quilts, as her interest in them is so sudden. Maggie possesses the skill to make the quilts, and Dee is concerned that instead of appreciating the artistry of the quilts, Maggie will put them to "everyday use." Maggie and Mama, though, feel that the true way to honor the skill that goes into the quilts is to do just that: to use them. 
The central conflict in the story is between two sides of the family: Mama and Maggie on one, and Dee/Wangero on the other. The tension between them has to do with their education levels and their connection to the family's history. 
 

What is the strong desire in the mind of Ulysses?

In Tennyson's poem "Ulysses," the speaker, who is the great former king and warrior Ulysses, also known as Odysseus, wishes to travel. He has lived a long life, and he remembers the voyages he took in his youth, both journeying to and from battle and just general voyages he took in life. In spite of his old age, he yearns from the feeling of being in a new land, because it is invigorating and exciting to see something new that he has never experienced before.
Ulysses is aging, and he feels death coming for him. Because of this, he wishes to escape and feel he is doing something adventurous and dangerous. In this way, he feels his death, which is at this point inescapable, will not be accepted lying down. He will instead be active, as he prefers to be forced into death than to simply succumb to it.

Ulysses wants to travel; he wants to take to the high seas and embark upon exciting new adventures. Ulysses is an old man, acutely aware of his own mortality. But he's also a great king and a noble warrior. Exploration and adventure are in his blood; they are the very marrow of his being. He could just settle down for a nice, quiet life in the twilight of his years, but he simply can't do that. Nor, for that matter, does he want to.

Old age hath yet his honour and his toil; 
Death closes all: but something ere the end, 
Some work of noble note, may yet be done, 
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.

Ulysses is constitutionally incapable of settling down. However old he may be, there are always new worlds to conquer, new opportunities to explore.


"Come, my friends, 
'T is not too late to seek a newer world."


And what goes for an old warrior king, also goes for the rest of us. Irrespective of our age or physical condition, we must seek to emulate the inspiring example of Ulysses and be

"but strong in will /To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

 
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45392/ulysses

How might we read The Great Gatsby as a critique of excessive materialism in America in the 1920s?

Fitzgerald offers a harsh critique of 1920s American society throughout the novel The Great Gatsby by depicting the corruption of the American Dream and portraying the dark side of the Roaring Twenties. America during the early 1920s was a time of economic prosperity when consumerism increased and the entertainment industry flourished. America's younger citizens developed a new set of morals and were less concerned with the traditional values of past generations. Wealth, individualism, expression, and consumption were promoted throughout society, and Fitzgerald portrays these values in a negative light throughout the story.
Wealthy characters like Tom and Daisy are depicted as superficial, selfish individuals who take advantage of others. Tom is enormously wealthy, and he is also depicted as a violent, ignorant man who continually cheats on Daisy. Daisy is depicted as a shallow, materialistic woman who has a terrible marriage and carries on an affair with Gatsby. Fitzgerald also illustrates the lack of morals and excessive materialism during Gatsby's extravagant parties, where guest indulge in illegal alcohol and engage in dangerous behaviors.
Gatsby attains the American Dream through illegal means as a bootlegger working with the mysterious Meyer Wolfsheim. Despite Gatsby's enormous wealth, he is unable to attain Daisy's love, because she values financial security and social status more than she does a healthy, loving relationship. Overall, Fitzgerald portrays the dark, violent, immoral nature of wealthy aristocrats living in New York during the 1920s and illustrates the futility and corruption of the American Dream.

Intermediate Algebra, Chapter 3, 3.3, Section 3.3, Problem 40

Determine an equation of the line that satisfies the condition "through $(7,-2)$; slope $\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}$".

(a) Write the equation in standard form.

Use the Point Slope Form of the equation of a line with $(x_1,y_1) = (7,-2)$ and $m = \displaystyle \frac{1}{4}$


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

y - y_1 =& m (x - x_1)
&& \text{Point Slope Form}
\\
\\
y - (-2) =& \frac{1}{4} (x-7)
&& \text{Substitute $x = 7, y = -2$ and } m = \frac{1}{4}
\\
\\
y + 2 =& \frac{1}{4}x - \frac{7}{4}
&& \text{Distributive Property}
\\
\\
- \frac{1}{4}x + y =& - \frac{7}{4} - 2
&& \text{Subtract each side by } \left( \frac{1}{4}x + 2 \right)
\\
\\
- \frac{1}{4}x + y =& - \frac{15}{4}
&& \text{Standard Form}
\\
\text{or} &
&&&
\\
x - 4y =& 15
&&

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$



(b) Write the equation in slope-intercept form.


$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}

- \frac{1}{4}x + y =& - \frac{15}{4}
&& \text{Standard Form}
\\
\\
y =& \frac{1}{4}x - \frac{15}{4}
&& \text{Slope Intercept Form}

\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

How did colonialism end in Southeast Asia? Why not earlier? Why did it occur earlier in some places than in others?

I would argue that official colonialism ended in Southeast Asia in the 1960s. The French left Vietnam, part of what was formerly Indochina, in the early-1960s and American forces moved in as early as 1964 to prevent the Communist Vietcong from seizing power in the country. President Kennedy expressed initial interest in preserving democracy in Vietnam. However, shortly after World War I, Ho Chi Minh directly appealed to President Woodrow Wilson in Paris to seek the United States's assistance in helping Vietnam become independent of France. His attempt to appeal to the U.S. president was unsuccessful.
What these early examples indicate is that the United States had no interest in interfering in the colonial interests of its Western allies. However, it had great interest in avoiding the spread of Communist regimes during the Cold War. Thus, colonialism ended in Indochina with the rise of Communist regimes, which were an attempt by native populations to determine their own futures, which meant rejecting the Western capitalist model that had exploited their people and resources for a century.
The United States's attempt to interfere in Vietnam, resulting in a series of carpet-bombings, as well as the abuses of villagers, could be interpreted as a form of neo-colonialism—that is, when a dominant economic and military power seeks to control a less powerful nation by influencing its policies and exploiting its resources without permanently occupying the nation. Some believe that the United States's hard diplomacy in the region helped lead to the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, though Cambodia was another nation, like Vietnam, seeking self-determination through Communism.
Before the end of European colonialism, Southeast Asia also awaited the end of Japanese colonialism, which occurred after the fall of Japan's militarist regime after World War II in 1945. Japan's colonial empire stretched from Korea (then unified) all the way down to Indonesia, which it colonized from 1942-1945. It had seized control of Taiwan as early as 1895.

Which road does the speaker select and why?

When the speaker comes to a fork in the road, he examines one and looks down as far as he can see to the place where it is no longer visible through the undergrowth. Then, he examines the other road, noting that it is "just as fair" as the first road, but it is grassier. Therefore, the roads look somewhat different from one another, but, he says that "the passing there / Had worn them really about the same." In other words, then, about the same number of people have traveled each road; one is not obviously more or less traveled than the other. Further, "both that morning equally lay / In leaves no step had trodden black." Both roads, then, are covered in leaves, and no one appears to have traveled either road that day, because the fallen leaves that cover each are fresh and not muddy. Again, the narrator tells us that the roads, aside from their general appearance, are essentially equal in terms of how worn they are. He says that he "kept the first for another day," and so we know that he chooses the second, grassier road. He never really says exactly why he chooses that road, but he does tell us that he plans to lie someday in the future, "ages and ages hence." He will tell people then that he took the road "less traveled," but he's already told us that the roads have been traveled the same number of times.

In the poem "The Road Not Taken," the narrator comes to a fork in the road through a "yellow wood" and wishes that he could somehow travel down both roads. After looking down one of the paths as far as he can see, the speaker decides to take the road less traveled. Despite the fact that the speaker spends a considerable amount of time contemplating which path he should take, one could surmise that the speaker is not interested in following the flock. Frost does not explicitly explain why the speaker chooses to walk down the less traveled path, but the audience can infer that the speaker is an independent person. The speaker may also enjoy taking a risk or experiencing something new and exciting. The speaker's decision also reveals that he is an adventurous individual, who may be seeking a thrilling experience. Regardless of why the speaker chooses to make the unique decision to walk down the road less traveled, the speaker's decision has significantly impacted the trajectory of his life.

Which strategies/wisdom will you incorporate in your college career?

First, this is a personal question for you to answer; I cannot tell you what to incorporate into your own college career.  I can tell you that Randy Pausch's The Last Lecture has some great life tips in it, however.  I think that never giving up on your childhood dreams would be an ideal lesson to apply to your college career.  Also, being prepared and working well with others would make your life go more smoothly at the college level and beyond.  You should also have fun, especially when learning difficult things. Try to gain experience even if you do not get the outcome that you desire.  He also says that criticism can be a good thing, as it means that people have not given up on you.  There are many more lessons that you can use in your college career and beyond; this is a very inspiring book that I believe you can apply to the rest of your academic career.  

What was the third place the family decided to reside in? Why did they wish to shift there?

Once safely ashore, the Robinsons urgently need to find shelter. So they hastily construct a makeshift tent out of some sailcloth they've brought with them from their ship. This is only a temporary home, however, as the family are going to need adequate protection from both the elements and the numerous wild animals that roam the island.
Their next dwelling is a large tree-house, a much firmer, more enduring structure that protects them from wild animals. As the Robinsons explore more of their new surroundings, they begin to construct additional dwellings across the island. This makes it less likely that all their hard work will be undone by a sudden natural disaster. Although the tree-house is a marked improvement on the makeshift tent, it still offers insufficient protection from the elements. Fortunately, the Robinsons find a cave, which acts as a warm, safe home, as well as a handy place for storing provisions.

Why did slavery become an even bigger national political issue in the late 1840s?

The late 1840s were a time of great territorial expansion in the United States. Inspired by the notion of Manifest Destiny, tens of thousands of settlers headed out West to make new lives for themselves away from the increasingly overpopulated cities of the East. As settlers moved into the new territories, they brought many of America's social and political problems with them.
The most significant of these was slavery. Most Americans, even some of those who owned slaves, accepted that it was a thoroughly loathsome institution. But as slavery was so deeply entrenched in the economic and social life of so many states, it was politically daunting to abolish it completely. The issue was given added urgency by the United States' victory in the war with Mexico, which led to the incorporation of the slave state Texas into the Union.
However, if slavery couldn't be abolished, its spread could at least be halted. But even this proved controversial to supporters of slavery. As far as they were concerned, the new territories had every right to have slaves if that's what they really wanted. Abolitionists, however, were worried that this would lead to even greater entrenchment of the slave system's power in the American political system.
The idea of popular sovereignty became increasingly prominent at this time. This simply meant that settlers in the new territories would get to decide whether they wanted to have slavery. To die-hard abolitionists, however, this was an unacceptable compromise, as it did nothing to prevent the spread of slavery, let alone bring about its abolition. As we can see, then, the United States' expansion in the late 1840s greatly exacerbated the problem of slavery by making it harder than ever to find a practical solution.

Does Shelley’s novel conform to what you take to be the typically romantic view of scientific endeavor? Why or why not?

There are a couple of different ways we can relate the "romantic view of scientific endeavor" to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. First of all, we must recognize that Shelley does not in any way romanticize scientific ambition; in fact, she warns against its dangers. In terms of the "Romantic" movement in literature and the qualities the Romantic writers valued, Shelley may be criticizing the tendency to celebrate the individual and to glorify the individual in isolation. However, the Romantic movement is in some ways a response to the Enlightenment, which of course, emphasized scientific advancement and the ability of human reason to solve problems and understand the mysteries of the world. The Romantics embraced that mystery and sometimes included references to the supernatural in their works; in this way, Frankenstein does line up with other works of the Romantic era.
Scientific ambition is certainly under fire in Shelley's novel. Victor Frankenstein fantasizes about finding the philosopher's stone, about unlocking the secrets of life and death, and of being praised and remembered for all time for his conquest of mortality. In making his creature, Victor does not think through the consequences of his actions, and his quest leads to dire consequences, particularly for himself and his own family. Particularly, Victor usurps the creative force of women in "making life" on his own. He takes the mother out of the equation and also does nothing to "parent" his creation. These are important parts of Shelley's critique of science, excess ambition, and the male ego. We can also link this to her subtle criticism of the Romantic movement, even though her husband was one of the prominent poets of that era.
On the other hand, bringing a creature to life from dead body parts is a task not seen as possible in the Romantic period, so this engagement with the supernatural taps into one of the Romantic era's favorite modes. Other Romantic works incorporate myth and mysticism, pondering the unknown in the face of the contemporary impulse to believe science can uncover all of the world's secrets. Shelley's novel is, of course, the first science fiction novel, and as such, she combines Romantic fascination with mystery and the supernatural with the debate over science in the post-Enlightenment world in Frankenstein.

Why did parents and intellectuals object to comic books in the 30s?

Nowadays, comic books are commonplace, with people of all ages enjoying the different genres offered in the illustration-focused style. However, comic books were not always accepted freely as appropriate entertainment. 1929 was when the first collection of comics was published, and when the golden age of comics rolled in with the 1930s, there was much controversy surrounding the matter. Many groups voiced their objections to comic books, including educators, parents, churches, civic groups, as well as mental health experts. 
Educators believed that comic books would have negative effects on their students’ abilities, whether in their reading or in their taste for literature. Parents, churches, and civic groups were concerned about the possibility of children absorbing what they considered immoral content. Mental health experts were worried about the possibility of children becoming desensitized to violence, since violent behavior was rampant throughout many comic books. (This same desensitization to violence is something that is often studied nowadays in regard to the effect of movies and television on children.)
When superhero comics came about, objections seemed to die down. However, when the superhero craze began to fade, controversy rose again, and in 1954, the Comics Code Authority was formed to regulate the contents of comic books in the United States. Over the years, publishers have broken off from the CCA, and by 2011, the CCA became obsolete when the last publisher abandoned it.
http://cbldf.org/comics-code-history-the-seal-of-approval/

https://comicsalliance.com/history-comics-code-authority/

tanh^-1 x = 1/2 ln((1+x)/(1-x)) , -1 < x < 1 Prove

Given to prove
tanh^(-1) x =1/2 ln((1+x)/(1-x))
so let
tanh^(-1) x =y
=> x= tanh(y)
       x =(e^y - e^-y)/(e^y + e^-y)
=> (e^y + e^-y)*x = (e^y - e^-y )
=> xe^y + xe^-y = e^y - e^-y
=> (xe^(2y)+x)/e^y = (e^2y -1)/e^y
=> (xe^(2y)+x)= (e^(2y) -1)
=>(xe^(2y)+x)-e^(2y) +1=0
=>e^(2y)(x-1)+x+1=0
=>(x-1)(e^(2y)) =-(x+1)
=>e^(2y) = -(x+1)/(x-1)
=> e^(2y) = (1+x)/(1-x)
=> e^(2y)=(1+x)/(1-x)
=> e^(2y) = ((1+x)/(1-x))
=>2y=ln (((1+x)/(1-x)))
=>y=1/2 ln (((1+x)/(1-x)))
so,
tanh^(-1) x =1/2 ln((1+x)/(1-x))
 

Why does Crispin fear that he and Bear have been trapped?

It looks like you're referring to Bear's capture in chapter 46. Crispin fears that he and Bear have been trapped because Aycliffe's soldiers have captured Bear, and Crispin does not know how he can rescue his mentor. Furthermore, if Crispin does try to rescue Bear, he may also end up in captivity. Basically, Crispin feels trapped because his nemesis has captured Bear, and it is only a matter of time before they find him as well.
In chapter 47, Crispin tries to figure out where Aycliffe's soldiers have taken Bear. He takes a risk and asks strangers about soldiers dragging a "large red-bearded man" along. He has a bit of luck when some bystanders point him towards the square. So, Crispin makes his way there. He is just in time to see the soldiers drag Bear into a large building. After making inquiries, Crispin discovers that Bear has been taken to Lord Furnival's palace.
It suddenly dawns on Crispin that Aycliffe has taken Bear for a reason: they want him to reveal where Crispin is hiding. Unable to do anything more, Crispin returns to the Green Man Inn.
In chapter 48, Crispin hears a loud commotion from his room. Upon investigating, he finds the tavern room ransacked and the Widow Daventry nursing wounds. It's clear to Crispin that the soldiers came to the inn to look for him during his absence. By the widow's condition, Crispin can see that Aycliffe and his men will stop at nothing to kill him and Bear.
So, from the story, we can see how Crispin may have felt trapped. Bear has been taken, and there is a concerted effort by Aycliffe and Furnival to capture him as well.

The wicked John Aycliffe has discovered Crispin kneeling at prayer in the city cathedral of Great Wexly. Crispin takes off, with Aycliffe's men in hot pursuit. He wants to find Bear to warn him about the danger, but he's nowhere to be seen. Wherever Crispin goes, he seems to be trapped by Aycliffe's men. Somehow he manages to escape, though he loses Bear's dagger in the process.
What's even worse for Crispin is that the city's layout is so confusing; everything looks the same. Even if he can shake off Aycliffe and his men, there still doesn't seem to be any way out. Crispin figures that his best chance is to locate the city walls and from there find the main gate. It sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately when Crispin finally reaches the gate, he finds that it's closed. There's a curfew in force; so no one is allowed in or out of the city. No wonder Crispin feels trapped.

Single Variable Calculus, Chapter 7, 7.4-1, Section 7.4-1, Problem 70

Find the integral $\displaystyle \int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du$

$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du &= \int^2_1 \frac{4}{u^3} + \frac{u^2}{u^3} du\\
\\
\int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du &= \int^2_1 4u^{-3} + \frac{1}{u} du\\
\\
\int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du &= \left[4 \left( \frac{u^{-3+1}}{-3+1}\right) + \ln u \right]^2_1\\
\\
\int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du &= \left[4 \left( \frac{u^{-2}}{-2}\right) + \ln u \right]^2_1\\
\\
\int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du &= \left[ -2u^{-2} + \ln u \right]^2_1\\
\\
\int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du &= \frac{-2}{(2)^2} + \ln (2) - \left[ \frac{-2}{(-1)^2} + \ln (1) \right]\\
\\
\int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du &= \frac{-2}{4} + \ln (2) + 2 - 0\\
\\
\int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du &= \frac{-1}{2} + 2 + \ln (2)\\
\\
\int^2_1 \frac{4+u^2}{u^3} du &= \frac{3}{2} + \ln (2)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$

Calculus of a Single Variable, Chapter 8, 8.8, Section 8.8, Problem 23

We will use integration by parts
int u dv=uv-int v du
We will need to apply integration by parts two times in order to eliminate x^2 from under the integral.
int_0^infty x^2e^-x dx=|[u=x^2,dv=e^-x dx],[du=2x dx, v=-e^-x]|=
-x^2e^-x+2int_0^infty xe^-x dx=|[u=x,dv=e^-x dx],[du=dx,v=-e^-x]|=
(-x^2e^-x-2xe^-x)|_0^infty+2int_0^infty e^-x dx=
(-x^2e^-x-2xe^-x-2e^-x)|_0^infty=
lim_(x to infty)(-x^2e^-x-2xe^-x-2e^-x)-(-0-0-2)=
To calculate the above limit we will use L'Hospital's rule:
lim_(x to a) (f(x))/(g(x))=lim_(x to a)(f'(x))/(f'(x))
First we rewrite the limit to fit the form of L'Hospital's rule.
lim_(x to infty) -x^2e^-x=lim_(x to infty)-x^2/e^x=
Now we differentiate.
lim_(x to infty)-(2x)/e^x=
This integral still yields infty/infty so we differentiate again. Notice that this corresponds to the second term in our calculation of the integral.
lim_(x to infty)-2/e^x=0
Now we know everything needed to calculate the integral.
-0-0-0+0+0+2=2
As we can see the integral converges to 2.
The image below shows the graph of the function and area under it corresponding to the integral. We can see that the function converges to zero "very fast" (there's hardly any area under the graph after 12). This implies likely convergence of the integral.

Hello, is it possible to have a detailed analysis of the story "Meteor" by John Wyndham including themes, analysis of characters, and important passages? Thanks.

"Meteor" by John Wyndham is a short story about Sally Fontain and her fiancee, Graham, whose house is shaken by an impact which they assume to be a meteor. Wyndham's carefully structured narrative enhances tension as it slowly reveals, through the intertwining of the framed third person narrative with the first person epistolary narrative of Onn the alien, that what has impacted Earth is not a meteor at all.
Each strange finding by the Police Inspector and his Sergeant is explicated to us slightly by the diary entry that follows: we know that Onn wants to make friendly contact with humans, after which the policemen discover a cat with a strange hole bored through its head. Then, Onn explains that he has encountered "an enormous face . . . high above us . . . black. It had two pointed ears . . . " His narrative makes us understand that the aliens are very tiny and mistook the cat for a monster. Next, he explains having seen the four humans approach and pick up the Globe itself, which leaves Onn feeling very desolate. Wyndham repeats this pattern throughout the story.
Characters in the story:
Sally Fontain is the first character introduced. Sally, interestingly, upon discovering that the meteor is artificial, speculates that "all those people who hate war . . . could go to a clean new planet," unknowingly describing exactly what the creatures from Forta are attempting to do.
Graham is Sally's fiance. A former soldier, Graham says that "noises like that [of the supposed meteor] remind me of the war" and worries that "a new one" is beginning. Graham is very affected by the hissing sound emitting from Onn's Globe, which causes him to faint.
Sally's father spots the "faint flash" of what he thinks is a meteor and encourages the inhabitants of the house to venture out in the garden to see the hole where the meteor hit.
We encounter Onn through his diary, which is written in the first person. Onn explains that "Great Leader Cottaft" has informed his people that "the Globes" are about to go out into the universe to "win a victory over nature" with the science and skills of Forta—the planet that Onn comes from—which is dying. The purpose of the Globes is to search the universe for a new home.
Onn observes Earth, "the planet to which our Globe is being sent," through a telescope and remarks that it "shines like a blue pearl," which pleases him—"the other globes are being sent to worlds that do not look so inviting." Onn reveals that he will be put to sleep with gas inside the Globe, and when he next wakes up, he will be on Earth. Interestingly, Onn expresses "trust in God."
The police inspector is invited by Sally to come and see the crater where the supposed meteor has hit. Sally reveals to him that Graham and her father have in fact dug out the meteor. The Inspector fears that the Globe (as the reader knows it to be) may actually be a nuclear weapon of some kind.
When the humans finally discover the aliens, they think they are "like insect[s]," and, unaware that these are the creatures who have designed the meteor, they kill them with "a cloud of insect-killer" without even thinking. The alternating perspectives of this story have enabled us to see two completely different views on the same thing. Sally's observations about the possible use of the meteor are so similar to the use it was put to by the aliens that the audience cannot help but interpret the meaning as being that all peoples, however different, really want the same thing. Everyone wants peace and happiness. However, our first instinct is often to kill each other: we dismiss other cultures as possible allies instead of working together in pursuit of our mutual goals. Thematically, the story highlights the natural tendency of mankind to destroy and the extent to which prejudice and division leads to further destruction.

What is the relationship between Hero and Leoneto?

Leoneto and "his short daughter" Hero are quite the dynamic duo. In a medieval sense. While "Much Ado About Nothing" is a comedy, it is a comedy of characters stereotypical for its' time.
Hero is demure and innocent, you feel her vitality throughout the play, but her character is left to the readers imagination. You sense she is important, but in the it is her deference that gives her value, not her assertiveness. Hero is painted as the ideal medieval woman. Because of her modesty, other male players can project their idealizations upon her. She is a mystery, a mysterious void for any kind of male fantasy. To her father she is the devoted daughter. To her suitor, Claudio, she is a virgin bride who owes him absolute loyalty. Each man expects her to play the role the project upon her. Her temperament leans toward obedience, and so she seems happy in this role. She loves her father, and though she is an only child, she shows no sign of being spoilt. She represents innocence, and is easy to feel affection for.
Leoneto is gregarious, humorous and generous soul, who frequently wears his heart on his sleeve. He prefers action to thought, which he believes overcomplicates things. He deeply loves his daughter, and one gets the impression he withholds nothing from her. He keeps her in his council, entrusting her into a conspiracy wherein several players trick Beatrice and Benedick, sworn enemies, into falling in love. But there is no question of her deference to him. When Leoneto thinks Don Pedro will propose to his child, he plainly tells her she knows what her answer will be. It was consider the mark of a lady to defer to her father, and the mark of a wise father to know what was best for his daughter. In this Leoneto is an ideal medieval man. Strong and authoritative, but generous and benevolent, he rules his household with an open heart.
While Hero and Leoneto are playing their tricks on Beatrice and Benedick, another and more serious trick is played on them by Don John. Don John makes it appear as though Hero lost her virginity to another man. This presents the first real conflict between father and daughter. When Hero was falsely accused at her wedding, Leaneto became deeply enraged and threatened to kill her. Others intervened, intuiting mischief.
Upon this intervention Leoneto says he will kill Hero himself if the accusations proves true. But if another falsely accused her he would kill him instead. In this you see his character. It seems cruel for our time to murder a daughter for losing her virginity. For the times however, it was not unusual. He also demonstrated her extreme love in his willing to kill on her behalf. He can not quite bring himself to believe the accusations against her. So he tempers his fiery nature and decides to wait for true proof, devising another trick to help bring it to light.
After Hero is proven innocent, the father and daughter team have one last game to play. Convincing her groom, Claudio, that she died by his slander, they guilt him into marrying another in her stead. He gladly accepts, humbled by his mistake. When he lifts her wedding veil, to his joy he finds his one true Hero. Don Pedro expresses his wonder that:
"the Hero that was dead now lives!"
To which Leoneto responds:
""She died my Lord, but whilst her slander lived".
Truly, there was much made ado about nothing.

Hero and Leonato enjoy a close father-daughter relationship. She is characterized as a sweet-natured young woman and an obedient daughter to her father. This depiction of her character is what makes the charge of infidelity against her so difficut for Leonato to bear. The fact that Leonato believes the accusation at first reveals that their father-daughter closeness does not always win out when traditional gender roles are at play. His heartache does, however, reflect the sincere affection and love he feels for Hero.
In modern terminology, Leonato is a single father to Hero, which means that they are closer than perhaps a father and a daughter in a traditional family set-up would suggest. They share characteristics like kindness and gentleness, which reflects the influence they have had on each other and the parenting style Leonato has shown Hero while raising her on his own.

The relationship between Hero and Leonato is a close one. Hero is Leonato's only child; not surprisingly, she is his pride and joy. As with any father of the time, Leonato is very much a creature of the society in which he lives. During the 16th century, fathers were expected to rule their families with a rod of iron, exercising absolute control over their wives and children. And there are moments in the play when Leonato does indeed act out the role expected of him. For example, Leonato instructs his daughter to respond positively to Don Pedro's overtures of courtship:

"Daughter, remember what I told you.  If the Prince do solicit you in that kind, you know your answer." (Act II Scene I)

Yet Leonato is slightly different in some respects to most fathers of the time. For one thing, he respects Hero's judgement enough to allow her to decide whether or not she'll marry Claudio. But there are limits as to how far Leonato departs from the norm. When Claudio stands up Hero at the altar, accusing her of being unfaithful, Leonato's reaction is fairly typical of a father at that time:

"O Fate! Take not away thy heavy hand!
Death is the fairest cover for her shame
That may be wished for." (Act IV Scene I)

Despite his undoubted love for his daughter, Leonato automatically assumes that there's no smoke without fire and that she must be guilty of inconstancy. He subscribes completely to the commonly-held notion that women must be virtuous and not bring shame upon their families, and that the only way to remove the stain of shame in this particular case is if Hero should die.
 
Hero is not a particularly dynamic character. She doesn't make things happen; things happen to her. And she accepts all of this without much in the way of protest, playing the part of a dutiful daughter to perfection. The contrast with Beatrice couldn't be more stark. In that sense she, like her father, can be seen very much as a product of her time. And though Hero's relationship with Leonato is genuinely loving and affectionate, it's also deeply conventional.

Which god does Odysseus ask for help when he is about to shoot the arrow at Antinous?

We've reached Book 22 of The Odyssey. Odysseus has just proved his incredible strength and skill by successfully firing an arrow through a row of axes. Odysseus is disguised as a humble beggar, so the suitors treat him with mockery and contempt, finding him an object of humor rather than a threat. But after Odysseus meets the challenge of firing an arrow through the axes, his true identity is at last revealed. Now it's time to exact a terrible vengeance upon the suitors.
Antinous is the unofficial leader of the suitors; he's certainly the most aggressive of them. He's openly disrespected Odysseus by paying court to his wife and eating him out of house and home. Even worse than that, he's physically Odysseus in his own palace by throwing a stool at him, thinking he was just a beggar. So it must be hugely satisfying for Odysseus to get some payback when he whispers a brief prayer to Apollo and fires an arrow straight through Antinous's throat. Apollo, among other things, is the god of archers. This explains not just Odysseus's prayer, but also the hapless Antinous's suggestion that they adjourn the archery contest until the following day in order to make a sacrifice to the god.

Calculus: Early Transcendentals, Chapter 4, 4.9, Section 4.9, Problem 35

You need to evaluate the antiderivative of the function f'(t), such that:
int f'(t)dt = f(t) + c
int (2cos t + sec^2 t) dt = int 2cos t dt + int sec^2 t dt
int (2cos t + sec^2 t) dt = 2sin t + tan t + c
The function is indeterminate, because of the constant c, but the problem provides the information that f(pi/3) =4, hence, you may evaluate the constant c, such that:
f(pi/3) = 2sin (pi/3) + tan (pi/3) + c => 4 = 2sqrt3/2+ sqrt 3 + c => c = 4 - 2sqrt 3
Hence, evaluating the function yields f(t) = 2sin t + tan t + 4 - 2sqrt 3, for t in (-pi/2, pi/2).

Glencoe Algebra 2, Chapter 2, 2.3, Section 2.3, Problem 45

The line which we needed is perpendicular to y= 3 .
the product of the slopes of two lines which are perpendicular is equal to -1
let the slope of the line which we need to find be m_1 and the slope of the line y= 3 be m_2 .
so ,
m_1 * m_2 = -1
as the slope of the line y=3 is m_2 = 0 ,
so , slope of m_1 is
m_1 * (0) = -1
=> m_1 = -1/0 = oo= undefined
so this is a vertical line to be plotted on the graph , as this line passes through (3,3) so the graph is as follows

Suppose the probability of success of an event is s and the probability of failure is t. What is s+ t ?

Hello!
A sample space is the set of all possible outcomes of experiments. Any event may consist of zero, one or more outcomes.
The first thing we need to know to answer this question is that, by definition, the probability of entire sample space is 1 (or 100%, if you want).
Also we need to know that for any two incompatible events (those that have no common outcomes) A and B, the probability of event "A or B" is the sum of their probabilities, P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B).
Now we can solve the problem. Denote our event as A and its failure (not A) as B. Then it is given that P(A) = s and P(B) = t. Also A and B are incompatible and any outcome is in A or in B (success or failure, no third possibility), so (A or B) is an entire sample space.
Finally, we have
1 = P(entire sample space) = P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) = s + t.
So the answer is  s + t = 1.

How did the Sumerians, Egyptians, and Hebrews differ in how they related to their gods?

The Sumerian and Babylonian deities were closely associated with specific natural forces. For example, Anu, who was more or less the Sumerian supreme deity, was also the god of the sky, Ishtar/Innana was the goddess of fertility, and Enlil was the air god who was also associated with the uncontrolled use of power. The Mesopotamian plain had unpredictable rivers that changed course constantly and often caused large floods. Accordingly, the Sumerian Gilgamesh epics tell the story of a universal flood that the gods inflicted on humanity with little reason and justification.
The Egyptian deities, on the contrary, were relatively sedate in their dealings with humans. This corresponded to the more stable character of the Egyptian natural environment. The Nile floods were much more predictable and beneficial for the Egyptian population, as they enhanced the fertility of the soil. The concept of Maat or Justice shaped the Egyptian religious perception of social relations, which had a much more pronounced emphasis on social ethics and righteous behavior. The Egyptian religion also featured the notion that Osiris would judge souls in the subterranean world, where the deceased would have to render an account for their sins; this idea also contributed to the central importance of ethical principles.
Hebrew monotheism advanced the idea of a universal sovereign deity independent from and superior to nature, and responsible for its creation. Accordingly, one could not approach this deity by manipulating natural forces through the use of magic, which dominated the cultural environment in both Mesopotamia and Egypt. Instead, the Hebrews stressed the notion of a covenant creating an unconditional and exclusive relationship between individual human beings, such as Abraham, and the supreme divinity, and later between God and the people Israel. These notions of an all-embracing divinity and of divine Law gradually established themselves as central in the life of ancient Israel.

The Hebrews were monotheists who believed in only one god, while the Sumerians and Egyptians believed in many gods (they were polytheists).
While the Jews believed in a god who was omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present), and omniscient (all-seeing), the Sumerians and Egyptians worshiped gods who behaved very much like powerful human beings. These gods didn't shy away from committing murders, engaging in incest, having affairs, and plotting to overthrow rivals. For example, the Egyptian god Seth murdered his brother, Osiris, because he was jealous of him. Osiris, of course, was married to Isis, his sister. Here's more about the story: The Story of Isis and Osiris.
As for Sumerians, the god Enki was forefront in their worship; with his Mesopotamian equivalent, Ea, Enki was the creator of the world. He was also, in turn, a virile god who had an immense sexual appetite, and he enjoyed sexual encounters with various goddesses. There are also Sumerian accounts of Enki and Inana (the goddess of sex and war) battling each other for the right to rule civilization. Here's more about Enki: Enki/Ea, god of wisdom and the creator of the world.
The Hebrews, for their part, saw their god as infallible and holy. He was viewed as a god they could trust in a time of trouble. The Hebrews believed that their god had a plan for their lives and that his laws were to be obeyed for their own good. The Hebrews viewed their god as the epitome of perfection, one who didn't participate in the sometimes violent and lascivious activities the Sumerian and Egyptian gods engaged in.
A major difference between the Sumerian and Egyptian people also lay in how they saw their gods. The Sumerians saw their gods as deities who had to be placated and catered to, while the Egyptians saw their gods as deities who were largely benign and well-disposed towards humans. For the Sumerians, the most important gods largely kept a distance between themselves and humans, so worshipers often relied on intermediary gods to intercede for them. Since Sumerian city-states often had patron gods and goddesses, the Sumerian people often spent inordinate amounts of time placating these gods with sacrifices and prayers.
On the other hand, the Hebrews approached their god without the benefit of intermediaries. Although they had a priestly caste, the Hebrews largely believed in a personal experience with their god.
For more information, please refer to the links below.
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Sumer/Sumerian_Religion.htm

https://classroom.synonym.com/how-do-egyptian-jewish-mesopotamian-beliefs-differ-12087798.html

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ancient-religions-egypt-and-mesopotamia

In The Cay, what is the description of the island?

The island that Timothy and Phillip spend most of the novel stranded on is a small, unnamed cay in an area of the Caribbean known as the "Devil's Mouth." Timothy knows about where they are, and he informs Phillip that their island is likely not in line with any widely used shipping lanes. This will make the possibility of rescue remote. That's unfortunate in and of itself, but the island isn't exactly a lush paradise booming with enough resources to make life easier. The cay is small. It is about a mile long and a half mile wide with beautiful sandy beaches. The island is also littered with palm trees which Phillip is at first terrified to climb in order to get the coconuts. Fortunately, food is somewhat plentiful in the form of sea life; however, the absence of a fresh water source really puts some constraints on Phillip and Timothy.

When Timothy and Phillip approach the island in Chapter Six of The Cay, Timothy must describe it to Phillip, as Phillip has gone blind. Timothy describes it as a small, uninhabited island. There is a beautiful white beach and low sea-grape bushes. About twenty to thirty palm trees grow on the hill. When they land on the island in Chapter Seven, Timothy describes the cay as quite beautiful, populated with native lobsters he refers to as "langosta." After Timothy walks around the island, he tells Phillip that the only things on the island are the beach, the sea-grape bushes, the palm trees, and some little lizards. There is no fresh water source. Timothy describes the island as one mile long and one-half mile wide and says that it is shaped like a melon. The rise with the palm trees is about forty feet from the ocean. 

What are the similarities and differences between Slaughterhouse-Five and The Things They Carried?

Obviously any two books about war will have elements in common. Still, one might expect, based on what we've often been told about how different Vietnam was from World War II, that the war experiences narrated in these two books, Slaughterhouse-Five and The Things they Carried, would be dissimilar. Though outwardly this may be true, the experiences of men serving in the military, conveyed in both books, have a remarkable sameness in the impressions they impart to the reader.
Tim O'Brien's book is a series of connected stories and episodes about a platoon serving in Vietnam. Kurt Vonnegut's novel (which, incidentally, was written during the same period, the late 1960's, when O'Brien's book takes place) by contrast has a dream-like fantasy quality, involving time travel and abduction by aliens, though the central event in it takes place in 1945 during World War II. Vonnegut's Billy Pilgrim, a soldier in Europe, is portrayed chiefly as a passive victim, a man through whom we are given access to the horrors of war most people on their own would be unable to conceptualize. Billy is acted upon, rather than being an actor. But the same is true in some way of the men who serve in Vietnam in The Things they Carried. The men in Lt. Cross's platoon understandably have none of the gung-ho enthusiasm we are often told was typical of combatants in earlier wars, the supposedly "good" wars. They fight, and survive or die, but there is an element of just going through the motions about their conduct. Again, this is understandable. But this is actually the case in any war, as earlier writings, not just Slaughterhouse-Five, indicate. As George Orwell wrote, the average soldier on the field has little idea what the war is about or what is the overall purpose of the actions in which he's engaged. The same mindset of the soldier has been conveyed in works as diverse as The Red Badge of Courage, All Quiet on the Western Front, Born on the Fourth of July, and the two under discussion here.
In Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy Pilgrim is present during the firebombing of Dresden. When he and the other prisoners are brought up from the bunker, they see what appears a moonscape—total desolation, and Vonnegut tells us that the assumption was that every person on the surface was dead, that life in Dresden had been exterminated. Yet the event is narrated matter-of-factly, as are the science-fiction elements of the story when the aliens of Tralfamadore make their appearances. It's as if Vonnegut is juxtaposing these unlike things in order to show that war, as humans practice it, is as insane as the idea of being abducted by aliens.
Similarly, the narrative of The Things they Carried is muted and subdued for the most part. When one of Cross's platoon, Ted Lavender is killed, "there was no twitching or flopping. . . . it was like watching a rock fall." The platoon burn a village and move on to the next village. They discard food and supplies, because a chopper will come by and re-supply them from the endless bounty of America. Among the men there is no feeling of surprise, and no pointing of blame, though there is a sense of guilt. When one of the platoon is killed, Cross blames himself. But the men move on, endlessly repeating the same actions.
It would be unnecessary to reiterate the observation that war makes victims of soldiers. What both these books show, despite that fact, is the assertion of will that enables the survival of men under these conditions, and the continuance of a regular kind of life once they've emerged from war. Even Billy Pilgrim, as bizarre as the incidents are to which he is subjected, is a survivor, a man who lives to tell a story, just as O'Brien and his characters do.

This is a really interesting comparison.
Both novels have some elements of nonfiction and of fiction. Both have some dreamlike sections that highlight soldiers' out-of-body experiences and feelings of war being unreal. Both can be called "anti-war" books.
Both novels show protagonists who are reluctant and unprepared for war, both regarding the physical challenges of war and the mental and psychological ones. In both novels, there are opportunities for the protagonists to back out or run away from the war.
Both novels show the destruction of the country in which the novel takes place, to the horror of the characters in the book. In Slaughterhouse-Five, we see the destruction of Dresden, Germany. In The Things They Carried, villages in Vietnam are destroyed.
Finally, both novels showcase friendship in war and how returning soldiers go home as changed men. One of the biggest differences, it seems, is that Slaughterhouse-Five has elements of time travel, science fiction, and a measure of abstractness that isn't present in The Things They Carried.

What are some physical fights Gene has with other characters?

One of the more memorable physical alterations that Gene has with another student takes place in chapter 6. Following Finny's dismal from school because of his injury, Gene quits playing sports and decides to become the assistant manager of the rowing team. When Gene arrives at the Crew House for his first day, Quackenbush attempts to pick on Gene. Quackenbush is an egotistic, arrogant boy, who is disliked throughout the school. Because Quackenbush is a senior and has never liked Gene because of his popularity, Quackenbush calls Gene a "maimed son-of-a-bitch." Gene cannot control his anger any longer and ends up punching Quackenbush in the face. When Quackenbush grabs Gene's neck, he throws him off his back and the two boys fall into the river. Gene then walks out of the water as Quackenbush tells him never to return to the Crew House again.

What was the first thing Malala's father did that made his own father smile?

The first thing Malala's father did that made his own father smile was win first prize at a public speaking competition.
In the book, Ziauddin tells Malala that he found it difficult to please Rohul, his father, during his childhood years. For his part, Rohul was an impeccable scholar and eloquent orator. In fact, he was known for his speeches. Rohul taught theology at a high school and the village of Shahpur. He was also a local imam, whose sermons were invariably attended by enthusiastic locals from the mountains.
In contrast, Ziauddin struggled with a persistent stutter, which greatly embarrassed him. To make matters worse, Rohul was a terribly impatient man. When Ziauddin stuttered or grappled with his enunciation, Rohul merely roared at him. Of course, this did not help at all.
Despite this challenge, Ziauddin tells Malala that he was determined to win his father's esteem. When he was thirteen, he announced that he was entering a public speaking competition. For his part, Rohul was skeptical that his son could make him proud. However, Ziauddin persisted: he asked Rohul to write his speech and promised to learn it.
At his speech, Ziauddin performed so admirably that he won first prize. This was the first time that he had managed to make his father smile. As time progressed, Ziauddin went on to participate in more public speaking competitions. Rohul wrote his speeches, and he delivered them with aplomb, almost always coming out first. This prompted Rohul to call his son a shaheen or falcon.

Malala's father Ziauddin has a fraught relationship with his own father, Rohul. This is a complete contrast to the relationship that Malala enjoys with Ziauddin, which is loving and supportive. Malala's grandfather has a clear, compelling speaking voice, one that he uses to good effect in delivering sermons and lectures and in reciting poetry. Ziauddin, however, has a terrible stammer. Nevertheless, he's determined to earn his father's respect, so he signs up for a public speaking competition. Not surprisingly, Rohul is more than a tad skeptical, but he agrees to write a speech for his son to deliver. Ziauddin practices the speech for weeks, and on the day of the public speaking competition delivers it perfectly. His speech is such a huge success that he wins first prize. Not only that but he finally earns the respect of Rohul. Ziauddin tells Malala that this is the first time he's ever done something that has made his father smile.

Malala and her father have a loving relationship, but her father, Ziauddin, and his father have much more of a strained relationship. When Ziauddin recited a speech written by his father at a public speaking competition and won first place, overcoming his stammer, it was the first time he had made his father, a respected orator, smile.

How did Europeans’ conceptions of knowledge change during the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment?

The conception of how to acquire knowledge really changed during the Renaissance with the advent of Humanism. Though this cultural revolution is less clearly understood today, one of the main ideas within Humanism is that most of humankind's problems can be solved through rational thinking. This view was sustained in the succeeding centuries, allowing for the development of the Scientific Revolution in the sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuries and the Enlightenment in the eighteenth-century.
Humanist belief also allowed for thinkers to question the supposed infallibility of the Church and religious doctrine. The Catholic Church insisted on the geocentric vision of the universe -- that is, that Earth was at the center of the universe. This view was challenged by Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543 in his book, On the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. Galileo Galilei developed Copernicus's heliocentric theory, or the fact of the sun being at the center of the universe, but would remove those key passages from his book, De revolutionibus, at the insistence of the Church, which had accused him of heresy. The prohibition was not dropped until 1835.
However, the damage had been done. Scientists were challenging Scripture, as well as the accepted, but erroneous, ideas of the ancient thinkers. This curiosity only fomented more curiosity. Soon, studies of anatomy developed under scientist Andreas Vesalius. The body was no longer a site of sin, but one of wonders. Johannes Kepler continued studies of the universe, discovering that the Earth's movements around the sun were not circular, but elliptical. 
The willingness to challenge the continent's most important institution also extended into politics and ethics. What were a human being's natural rights? Were human beings innately good or bad? If innately good, were we corrupted by society, which caused all of our ills? These questions were explored by the political thinkers John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 
After contemplating human nature, they began to wonder about the best possible form of government for a nation: absolute monarchy, as Hobbes had insisted, or a more democratic society based on notions of personal liberty, as Locke would have it. History has sided with Locke. Thinkers who more specifically developed ideas about government include Thomas Paine, Alexis de Tocqueville, and the legal scholar, Montesquieu.
Overall, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment permanently de-legitimized the presumed infallibility of the Church. Renaissance humanists were outliers; most people dared not question Church authority. These cultural movements also encouraged an unprecedented engagement with the natural world and with society.