How many bones does a newborn baby have?

A newborn baby has around 300 bones in their body, but during their life this number will decrease. At birth, many of a baby's bones are unfused--that is, they are a little flexible and many will later grow into a single, hard bone. A great example is found in the bones of the skull. Newborn babies have several plates of bone in the skull that shift during birth to allow the baby to pass through...

A newborn baby has around 300 bones in their body, but during their life this number will decrease. At birth, many of a baby's bones are unfused--that is, they are a little flexible and many will later grow into a single, hard bone. A great example is found in the bones of the skull. Newborn babies have several plates of bone in the skull that shift during birth to allow the baby to pass through the mother's birth canal without injury to either person. For about the first year of infancy, babies will have a "soft spot" on top of the head where these bones haven't quite grown together yet. During early childhood, these bones in the skull will grow together and harden into a single cranial bone. 

Many other parts of the body, like the elbow and knee joints, the long bones, and the ribs are either unfused or are entirely made of cartilage at birth but will later grow into hardened, solid adult bone. Different bones (and joints) fuse at different times. Have you ever heard of someone having a growth spurt? During puberty, people may experience several growth spurts as their bones finish ossifying and the growth plates fuse shut. In late adolescence or early adulthood, a person will have their final growth spurt and the last unfused bones of the body--the clavicles--will complete their growth! 

This long process of bones growing together and hardening will reduce the skeletal count from around 300 to just 206 in adulthood.

What kind of school is Yancy Academy?

Yancy Academy is a private, boarding school for troubled children in upstate New York.  Percy tells us that the school encourages the students to learn by taking them on a number of field trips, trips like the one he takes with Mr. Brunner and Mrs. Dodds (a Kindly One in disguise) to a local art museum.  He says that most field trips that he's gone on since continuing his studies at Yancy have been "torture,"...

Yancy Academy is a private, boarding school for troubled children in upstate New York.  Percy tells us that the school encourages the students to learn by taking them on a number of field trips, trips like the one he takes with Mr. Brunner and Mrs. Dodds (a Kindly One in disguise) to a local art museum.  He says that most field trips that he's gone on since continuing his studies at Yancy have been "torture," but this could have more to do with Percy's sense that he is not a good student rather than anything to do with the school itself.  He does admit that field trips never seem to go well for him no matter what school he's attending.  So, other than the fact that a demigod and satyr attend the school under the protection of a centaur, Yancy Academy seems like a pretty typical school trying to work with students who have struggled academically and personally in the past.

Using Chapters 20 - 27 of Jane Eyre, explain Rochester's rationale in saying he has a right to marry Jane. Then, explain Jane's rationale in...

To understand Rochester's rationale, we must look to Chapter 27 when Rochester explains to Jane the circumstances and history of his marriage to Bertha. Once Bertha's madness had become apparent, Rochester says that he transformed himself into a "will-o'-the-wisp;" a ghostly, unreachable figure who began wandering the world in search of a new life. As part of this transformation, Rochester no longer felt bound by the vows of his marriage to Bertha. He courted other women as he searched out a new wife:

Jane: But you could not marry, sir.

Rochester: I had determined, and was convinced that I could and ought.

So, Rochester felt that he had a right to marry Jane because his marriage to Bertha was, for the most part, non-existent. 

As for the second part of this question, it is important to point out that Jane does not leave Rochester because she is mad at him and cannot forgive his betrayal. On the contrary, she loves him as much as she ever has and bears no grudge, as she says in Chapter 27:

Reader! - I forgave him at the moment and on the spot...I forgave him all: yet not in words, not outwardly; only at my heart's core.

We learn Jane's rationale for leaving Rochester later in this chapter when he suggests that she goes to his villa in the South of France. Jane responds:

Sir, your wife is living: that is a fact acknowledged this morning by yourself. If I lived with you as you desire, I should then be your mistress.

The idea of being Rochester's mistress is impossible to Jane for two reasons. First of all, Rochester has had many mistresses in his past, all of whom fell quickly out of his favour. Jane has no desire to be treated in this manner nor to be scorned and shunned by Rochester, as she comments:

That if I were so far to forget myself and all the teaching that had ever been instilled into me, as—under any pretext—with any justification—through any temptation—to become the successor of these poor girls, he would one day regard me with the same feeling which now in his mind desecrated their memory.

Jane has another reason for not wanting to become Rochester's mistress. She recognises the social implications of such a position; namely, that she would be the object of gossip and scandal and would lose her respectability. Jane is not prepared to accept either of these outcomes and so leaves Rochester at the end of Chapter 27. 

In The Omnivores Dilemma, Pollan comes to the conclusion that "industrial organics" is a contradiction in terms. Why?

The term "industrial organics" is contradictory on two levels-- both in the literal meaning of the phrase and in its implications as an agricultural practice.

First, let's address the meaning of the phrase. Industrial refers to that which is entirely made and controlled by man. Typically, we use the word when we talk about machinery or mass-scale production of goods. In contrast, organic refers to that which is produced naturally, without human intervention. When we...

The term "industrial organics" is contradictory on two levels-- both in the literal meaning of the phrase and in its implications as an agricultural practice.

First, let's address the meaning of the phrase. Industrial refers to that which is entirely made and controlled by man. Typically, we use the word when we talk about machinery or mass-scale production of goods. In contrast, organic refers to that which is produced naturally, without human intervention. When we talk about organic food, specifically, we are referring to foods produced with as little intervention from humans as possible. "Organic" has come to refer to foods produced without pesticides, but as Pollan notes in his book, there is a lot of variety in the actual practice of organic agriculture.

The phrase "industrial organics" is an oxymoron because industrial and organic agriculture are at odds with one another in terms of how much human intervention is involved in producing foods. We can certainly refer to the mass-scale production of pesticide-free fruits and vegetables as "industrial organic," but this is disingenuous to what organic agriculture is really about. The movement in favor of organic agriculture has grown in response to the drawbacks of industrial agriculture-- environmental degradation, pesticide toxicity, and reduced diversity, to name a few. To advocate for industrial organic agriculture may seem a better choice but is essentially swapping one evil for another.

As I mentioned above, industrial organic agriculture has some practical issues. Any two farmers could be adhering to very different practices in raising crops they call organic. Without standardization of what it means to raise organic produce, the premise of mass-scale production isn't really feasible. Even with standards of organic agriculture in place, the degree of human intervention necessary to raise produce on a massive scale creates a system that is inherently industrialized. This brings us back to the original issue-- organic and industrial agriculture are two very different means of production.

How has ethnocentrism had an effect on medication management and human wellness?

In a recent article, Dr. Egede argues that "there is evidence that racial and ethnic minorities tend to receive lower quality of care than nonminorities". 

The first area in which ethnocentrism affects medication management is linguistic. Patients who are not fluent in English may have some difficulty in understanding oral directions given by doctors, nurses, or pharmacists, and also might have difficulty reading materials accompanying medications and thus miss crucial instructions such as whether to take...

In a recent article, Dr. Egede argues that "there is evidence that racial and ethnic minorities tend to receive lower quality of care than nonminorities". 

The first area in which ethnocentrism affects medication management is linguistic. Patients who are not fluent in English may have some difficulty in understanding oral directions given by doctors, nurses, or pharmacists, and also might have difficulty reading materials accompanying medications and thus miss crucial instructions such as whether to take medications with or without food or details of drug interactions. Health care providers may also have difficulty understanding patients' symptoms or lifestyle issues, which can impede proper diagnosis. Thus, ethnocentrism on the part of health care providers may result in incorrect prescriptions or limited compliance with a medication regimen. 

A second issue is that patients from different cultures perceive and report pain differently. While certain cultures may have an ingrained bias towards under-reporting pain, others may tend to exaggerate pain. This means that health care providers should be extremely careful in taking patient histories to understand the cultural components of pain and disability claims made by patients. Ethnocentrism can cause health care providers to take a generic approach when a more tailored one is more effective. 

Finally, researchers are investigating the possibility that there may be genetic components to the way people experience pain and various chronic conditions and react to medications. This suggests that an ethnocentric one-size-fits-all approach to medication for various conditions is less effective than one with some components tailored to specific ethnic groups. 

The narrator interrupts the story to comment on the value of money. What is he saying, and why would he have to turn our attention away from Della...

In this part of the story, Della has presented Jim his gift -- a beautiful watch chain for his prize watch. Della and Jim embrace, and the narrator suggests humorously that we turn discreetly away and consider something else in the apartment. This is "breaking the fourth wall" of fiction by suggesting Jim and Della are aware of readers being aware of them and would like privacy, so the readers should look away at something...

In this part of the story, Della has presented Jim his gift -- a beautiful watch chain for his prize watch. Della and Jim embrace, and the narrator suggests humorously that we turn discreetly away and consider something else in the apartment. This is "breaking the fourth wall" of fiction by suggesting Jim and Della are aware of readers being aware of them and would like privacy, so the readers should look away at something else in the flat. When we do, we are bound to notice their flat's simplicity -- there is nothing valuable in the flat. We must realize there is something invaluable in the flat that cannot be assigned a financial value: the love Jim and Della share. The narrator comments, "Eight dollars a week or a million a year -- what is the difference?" His point is Jim and Della's love falls outside the realm of monetary valuations. Likewise, the gifts of the Magi were trifles compared to the majesty of heaven, which the Christ-child left to come to Earth. It was the love represented by the gifts that God valued.

The narrator goes on to point out the wisdom of valuing love over material things. This sweet little scene where readers politely look away from the outward expression of the couple's love to consider what is truly valuable in the scene reinforces the author's message that those who "sacrificed for each other the greatest treasures of their house" were truly wise, for they valued their love above their material possessions.

What were some reasons why Germany lost World War I?

There were several reasons why Germany lost in World War I. Two reasons were that Germany underestimated how close they were to winning the war, and they underestimated how fast the United States would become a factor in the war. Germany knew that breaking the Sussex Pledge, which said they wouldn’t sink our ships without warning, would bring the United States into World War I on the side of the Allies. Germany believed they could...

There were several reasons why Germany lost in World War I. Two reasons were that Germany underestimated how close they were to winning the war, and they underestimated how fast the United States would become a factor in the war. Germany knew that breaking the Sussex Pledge, which said they wouldn’t sink our ships without warning, would bring the United States into World War I on the side of the Allies. Germany believed they could end World War I very quickly. They believed the war would be over before the United States could fully mobilize its military and become a factor in the fighting in the war. They didn’t expect the United States to mobilize as fast as we did. Thus, when the United States entered World War I, we brought rested troops to the Allies as well as needed supplies. The United States was the deciding factor in World War I.

Another reason why Germany lost in World War I was that they had to fight a two-front war. Germany hoped to knock France out of the war quickly, and then they would go and fight Russia. However, Germany couldn’t defeat France. As a result, they had to fight on both the eastern front and the western front. This meant Germany couldn’t fully devote all of their troops to one area at any given time. It is very hard to fight and to win a two-front war.

There were several reasons why Germany lost in World War I.

It is said that the hen came first not the egg. But for this to happen the egg should be fertilised by a cock. But there is no mention of a cock....

This is often posed as a deep quandary: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In our everyday experience, every chicken egg comes from a chicken, and every chicken comes from an egg. So where did the first one come from? Here you speculate that perhaps the hen (female chicken) came first; but then you rightly point out that in order for the egg to be fertilized we'd need a cock (male chicken) to do so. But then where did he come from? An egg? And round and round we go.

The true answer is as surprising as it is fundamental: Chickens and eggs are not well-defined categories. There is not a clear dividing line in the universe between chickens and non-chickens; this paradox arises because we think as though such a dividing line existed.

What actually happened to bring chickens into existence was that they evolved; over millions of years, animals that were somewhat chicken-like became a bit more chicken-like with each successive generation, driven by the demands of surviving in a harsh environment. Being just slightly more chicken-like improved their chances of survival, so each successive generation was a bit more chicken-like than the last. A group of birds that were 50.001% chicken might become 50.002% chicken in the following generation, and then 50.003% in the next. Over enough generations, they eventually got all the way to 100% chicken.

What were they before that? A different sort of bird. And before that? They were dinosaurs. Chickens actually share a common ancestor quite close to Tyrannosaurus rex!

We could keep going further back, of course, to the reptilian ancestors of dinosaurs, and then their amphibian ancestors, and then their fishlike ancestors, and back and back and back for billions of years until at last we reach the beginning of all life on Earth, an unassuming single-celled organism similar to what we'd now think of as blue-green algae.

Before that? We're actually not sure. Somehow, inert matter got reorganized into single-celled organisms of this kind. Scientists are still working on exactly how that happened. But once it did, those single-celled lifeforms began evolving, until one day their descendants would diverge into millions of different species, including ourselves---and of course, chickens.

What is the historical importance of the novel Deliverance?

Although it's a relatively simple straightforward story, Deliverance is in many ways a continuation of very old American anxieties and a reflection of the era in which it was written. Since the rapid expansion of territory and increased use of technology that began in the 19th century, many Americans have felt a sense of over-civilization, feeling that all the modern convenience has disconnected them from the natural world and a kind of pioneering spirit that contributed to the development of the United States. This perspective is espoused by Lewis, who has organized the trip as a way to get back to nature and celebrate their masculinity.

Not long after beginning their trip, the group starts to recognize that the reality doesn't quite match Lewis' primitivist fantasy. Not only do they lack the skills to navigate what they come to recognize as an isolated and rugged terrain, but they are also eventually attacked by locals, which dramatically changes the group dynamic and gives things a much more serious and dangerous tone as they fight for their lives trying to get to safety.

Written in 1970, Deliverance was published during a time of considerable social unrest in the US. Not only was the country involved in an increasingly divisive war, but it was also undergoing significant cultural transformation. This is the era of civil rights when African-Americans, the LGBT community, and feminism were pushing hard to change the social hierarchy that placed a very high value on straight white men. The influence of these movements is reflected in the character of Lewis, who is hypermasculine and somewhat resentful of the others for not being as adventurous (masculine).

Although there are other books released around that time that are probably more historically significant, many are written from the perspective of the marginalized or oppressed. Deliverance, on the other hand, reflects the ways that modernity, feminism, and the changing social structure of the United States affected many men, particularly the feelings of loss and disconnection that many felt.

Is the pursuit of pleasure considered a sin in To Kill a Mockingbird?

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, there are only a few characters who believe that the pursuit of pleasure is a sin. In Chapter 5, when Scout asks Miss Maudie if she thinks their neighbor, Arthur (Boo) Radley, is still alive and why he never leaves his house, Miss Maudie responds by explaining to Scout the religious beliefs of the Radley family. According to Miss Maudie, Arthur Radley's father was a "foot-washing...

In Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, there are only a few characters who believe that the pursuit of pleasure is a sin.

In Chapter 5, when Scout asks Miss Maudie if she thinks their neighbor, Arthur (Boo) Radley, is still alive and why he never leaves his house, Miss Maudie responds by explaining to Scout the religious beliefs of the Radley family. According to Miss Maudie, Arthur Radley's father was a "foot-washing Baptist." Miss Maudie further explains the following to Scout:

Foot-washers believe anything that's pleasure is a sin. Did you know some of 'em came out of the woods one Saturday and passed by this place and told me me and my flowers were going to hell? ... They thought I spent too much time in God's outdoors and not enough time inside the house reading the Bible. (Ch. 5)

Hence, based on Miss Maudie's explanations, we can deduce that one reason why Arthur Radley never leaves his home is because he has been taught to believe that anything he finds pleasure in doing, such as being outside, is a sin.

However, not many characters in the novel agree with the perspective of foot-washing Baptists. Aside from Miss Maudie taking pleasure in gardening, Atticus takes tremendous pleasure in reading and devotes every evening to the activity. He also teaches his children to indulge in activities they take pleasure in such as reading and shooting. Granted, he additionally teaches them to act with moderation. For example, he states that although he would rather see them shooting after tin cans, he knows they will go after birds and allows them to do so as long as they understand that "it is a sin to kill a mockingbird," meaning it is a sin to kill innocent beings (Ch. 10).

Hence, for those of us who agree with Miss Maudie, we can agree that the belief that pursuing pleasure is a sin is an overly-literal interpretation, perhaps even a misinterpretation, of the Bible.

What is a quote that shows that Macbeth is desperate to become king through violence in Macbeth?

Macbeth wants to be king and will overstep anyone to do it.

When Macbeth first gets a visit by three witches, he is just an ordinary solider.  He has recently distinguished himself heroically in battle, but other than that he is a mid-level thane.  The witches put delusions of grandeur into his head, telling him that he will soon be king.  He believes them.

In the meeting with Duncan, the king, Macbeth learns that he...

Macbeth wants to be king and will overstep anyone to do it.

When Macbeth first gets a visit by three witches, he is just an ordinary solider.  He has recently distinguished himself heroically in battle, but other than that he is a mid-level thane.  The witches put delusions of grandeur into his head, telling him that he will soon be king.  He believes them.

In the meeting with Duncan, the king, Macbeth learns that he is not going to become king the easy way.  Duncan names his son Malcolm heir to the throne, not Macbeth.  When he learns of this, Macbeth becomes angry and lets the audience know in a fiery aside.

The Prince of Cumberland! that is a step
On which I must fall down, or else o'erleap,
For in my way it lies. Stars, hide your fires;
Let not light see my black and deep desires:
The eye wink at the hand; yet let that be,
Which the eye fears, when it is done, to see. (Act 1, Scene 4)

Macbeth does not come right out and say that he is ready to grab a dagger and start doing some damage, but all of that stuff about “deep desires” and the “eye wink at the hand” seems to pretty clearly point to what Macbeth has in mind.  He wants to be king one way or another, and he is willing to kill to get there.

Macbeth writes his wife, and she is all in.  She worries that her husband will not have what it takes to kill to get what he wants.  She is not far off.  Macbeth goes home, and ponders his situation in a soliloquy.

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly: if the assassination
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With his surcease success; that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We'ld jump the life to come. (Act 1, Scene 7)

Macbeth is definitely considering violence.  Whereas before he was determined to become king by any means necessary and burning with ambition, this speech demonstrates how he wavers when coming up to the actual act.  Yes, he does want to be king and part of him is willing to do violence to get it.  However, he is also nervous about doing that.

His wife turns out to be the deciding factor.  She is more committed to the plan than he is, and she spurs him on until he finally kills Duncan.  She plots out every aspect of the murder, including framing the attendants and sons, so that Macbeth can become king.

Why did Harper Lee use the allusion of the Garden of Gethsemane in the quote, "At each seat was a cardboard fan bearing a garish Garden of...

In Chapter 12, Calpurnia takes the children to First Purchase African M.E. for Sunday service. Scout is describing the church and mentions that each seat had a cheap cardboard fan with a garish image of the Garden of Gethsemane on it. Located in the New Testament, is the account of when Jesus and his disciples prayed and slept in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before his crucifixion. Harper Lee's Biblical allusion reflects Atticus'...

In Chapter 12, Calpurnia takes the children to First Purchase African M.E. for Sunday service. Scout is describing the church and mentions that each seat had a cheap cardboard fan with a garish image of the Garden of Gethsemane on it. Located in the New Testament, is the account of when Jesus and his disciples prayed and slept in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before his crucifixion. Harper Lee's Biblical allusion reflects Atticus' impending task to defend Tom Robinson in front of a prejudiced community. Atticus' personal sacrifice to defend Tom Robinson and suffer immense scrutiny from his community correlates to Jesus' personal sacrifice to die on the cross for the sins of humanity. In the Biblical account of the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus is overwhelmed with sorrow and prays that he would not be required to die on the cross. Similar to the anguish Jesus felt, Atticus knows that Tom's case is unwinnable, and he will be viewed with contempt throughout Maycomb. Despite the negative response from his community and the difficult task ahead of him, Atticus chooses to defend Tom Robinson because he is a morally upright individual.

How does Brian's dream contribute to the plot of Hatchet by Gary Paulsen?

Brian often dreams of the secret, and it is because of the secret that he was headed to Canada.

As with many kids, the divorce of Brian’s parents hit him hard psychologically.  He was young enough not to understand everything, but old enough to be troubled by the details he knew.  The hardest thing for Brian was the fact that he knew the Secret.

No, not secrets so much as just the Secret. What he...

Brian often dreams of the secret, and it is because of the secret that he was headed to Canada.

As with many kids, the divorce of Brian’s parents hit him hard psychologically.  He was young enough not to understand everything, but old enough to be troubled by the details he knew.  The hardest thing for Brian was the fact that he knew the Secret.

No, not secrets so much as just the Secret. What he knew and had not told anybody, what he knew about his mother that had caused the divorce, what he knew, what he knew—the Secret. (Ch. 1) 

To Brian, divorce is an ugly word.  He seems to blame his mother for the divorce, and when he gets into the little plane to go see his father, he is almost in a daze.  He is having a hard time trusting her because of the divorce.  To Brian, his mother having an affair was a betrayal to him and his father. 

Brian has seen his mother kissing the “man with short blond hair.”  He does not know how to tell his mother this.  The vision and the Secret haunt him. 

And there were the words again. Divorce. Split. The Secret. How could he tell her what he knew? So he had remained silent, shook his head and continued to stare unseeing at the countryside, and his mother had gone back to driving only to speak to him one more time when they were close to Hampton (Ch. 1). 

Brian later has another dream where he sees his father and a friend, and he feels like they are trying to tell him something.  He gets frustrated, but feels like he needs a fire.  He decides to use the hatchet to create a fire.  After that, Brian dreams of food a lot.  It makes sense when you are starving!

In The Giver, what do you think happened to the girl who was chosen ten years ago?

In chapter 18, Jonas asks the Giver for more specifics about what happened to the girl who failed as the Receiver-in-Training ten years earlier. Jonas first asks what she was like and the Giver says that she was "self-possessed and serene. Intelligent, eager to learn" (140). Jonas then asks for her name and the Giver tells him that it was "Rosemary." Because the Giver seems apprehensive to tell the whole story, Jonas urges him to...

In chapter 18, Jonas asks the Giver for more specifics about what happened to the girl who failed as the Receiver-in-Training ten years earlier. Jonas first asks what she was like and the Giver says that she was "self-possessed and serene. Intelligent, eager to learn" (140). Jonas then asks for her name and the Giver tells him that it was "Rosemary." Because the Giver seems apprehensive to tell the whole story, Jonas urges him to tell him everything that happened.

The Giver finally explains that it only took five weeks to fail with Rosemary because he gave her too many emotionally and psychologically painful memories early on in her training. Apparently, she was enthusiastic about learning quickly so he gave her memories that she wanted, but she wasn't ready for them emotionally or psychologically. He didn't give her war or even pain, but he gave her loneliness and loss. In addition, he gave her a memory of parents losing a child, but then followed up with memories of anguish, poverty, hunger, and fear. He also tried to finish sessions with happy memories, but those weren't enough to heal the pain she had already felt.

As a result of these emotionally-charged memories, Rosemary got up after a memory session on day, seemed to make a decision, and rather than going home, she went to the elders and asked for release. The elders gave it to her without understanding the consequences of such a decision and once she died, the memories fell back onto the citizens of the community and there was chaos. Needless to say, the rules for Jonas's training indicate that he cannot ask for release.

What is Pericles's legacy,impact and influence on his time?

The influences from The Golden Age or Classical Period of Greek rule are indisputable and many are still visible today. Pericles, born in 495 BCE, an applauded Athenian statesman, ruled Athens during the later part of The Golden Age, after the Persian wars ended in 449 BCE. There is still much debate regarding his policies and successes, but Athens was a dominant force and Pericles, a wealthy man, was able to defeat his opponents, particularly...

The influences from The Golden Age or Classical Period of Greek rule are indisputable and many are still visible today. Pericles, born in 495 BCE, an applauded Athenian statesman, ruled Athens during the later part of The Golden Age, after the Persian wars ended in 449 BCE. There is still much debate regarding his policies and successes, but Athens was a dominant force and Pericles, a wealthy man, was able to defeat his opponents, particularly Cimon and then to establish himself. He was a champion for the rights of the lower classes and his rule was so successful that it is remembered as the Age of Pericles.

Pericles did, of course, have his critics and his inclusion policies made other prominent statesmen doubt that he could sustain peace. Especially with the threat from Sparta. Despite threats, Pericles maintained his rule until his death and is credited with creating the first "polis" or center in Athens likened to a modern day democracy.

Pericles also commenced with the reconstruction of the Acropolis which had been damaged during the Persian wars. The very famous Parthenon is attributed to Pericles and is a testament to his achievements in promoting culture and inclusive politics. Socrates was born during The Age of Pericles and Pericles himself was a great believer in the value of philosophical thought. 

What federal policies could reduce the number of non-alcohol-related traffic fatalities?

One issue here is that if there really were a simple, cost-effective, universally acceptable way of reducing traffic fatalities, it would already have been implemented. The policy options that remain will tend to be incremental rather than radical and often involve trade-offs. Below I will list a few possible policy options you might investigate. Once you have selected one, then you can ask additional questions to explore it in more detail.

1. Adding an additional tax...

One issue here is that if there really were a simple, cost-effective, universally acceptable way of reducing traffic fatalities, it would already have been implemented. The policy options that remain will tend to be incremental rather than radical and often involve trade-offs. Below I will list a few possible policy options you might investigate. Once you have selected one, then you can ask additional questions to explore it in more detail.

1. Adding an additional tax on gasoline to subsidize mass transit would be a sensible policy. Increasing use of mass transit reduces driving fatalities by taking drivers off the road. If people have increased access to mass transit, it will be easier to increase the age at which licenses can be obtained and tighten restrictions for retesting of senior citizens to prevent age-related deficits from endangering them. Light rail systems, in particular have a far better safety record than cars as well as reducing air-pollution induced illnesses.


2. Tightening specific safety standards for cars will reduce fatalities. Many currently available safety technologies for cars are sold as options. Mandating incorporation of one or more of them on new cars would increase safety. See this source.


3. Road design can reduce fatalities. One current measure is placing more speed bumps in residential neighborhoods to force drivers to slow down. Another major way to improve road safety would be a policy to replace 4-way stop sign intersections with roundabouts. See this source.

Rahul claps near a cliff and hears the echo after 6 sec. Find the distance of cliff from him given speed of sound in air is 340m/s.

When Rahul claps, he makes a sound. This sound moves towards the cliff and reflects off the cliff and comes back as an echo. He hears the echo 6 s after clapping. This means it takes 6 s for the sound to reach the cliff and back to Rahul. In other words, it takes 3 s for sound to reach the cliff and 3 s for it to come back. Since the speed of the...

When Rahul claps, he makes a sound. This sound moves towards the cliff and reflects off the cliff and comes back as an echo. He hears the echo 6 s after clapping. This means it takes 6 s for the sound to reach the cliff and back to Rahul. In other words, it takes 3 s for sound to reach the cliff and 3 s for it to come back. Since the speed of the sound is 340 m/s in air, the distance to the cliff is the distance traveled by the clapping sound in 3 s.

Distance traveled can be calculated as the product of speed and time. That is,

Distance = speed x time = 340 m/s  x 3 s

= 1020 m = 1.02 km.

Thus, the cliff is 1.02 km away from Rahul.

Hope this helps.

In the book Into the Wild, Chris's death created much discussion. Which persona, Chris or Alex, did he die as?

Chris McCandless.  He died as Chris McCandless.  He did not die as Alex, Supertramp, McCandless.  The best possible proof that I can offer you is the note that McCandless left on the outside of the bus that he died inside of in the Alaskan interior.  

S.O.S. I NEED YOUR HELP. I AM INJURED, NEAR DEATH, AND TOO WEAK TO HIKE OUT OF HERE I AM ALL ALONE, THIS IS NO JOKE. IN THE NAME...

Chris McCandless.  He died as Chris McCandless.  He did not die as Alex, Supertramp, McCandless.  The best possible proof that I can offer you is the note that McCandless left on the outside of the bus that he died inside of in the Alaskan interior.  

S.O.S. I NEED YOUR HELP. I AM INJURED, NEAR DEATH, AND TOO WEAK TO HIKE OUT OF HERE I AM ALL ALONE, THIS IS NO JOKE. IN THE NAME OF GOD, PLEASE REMAIN TO SAVE ME. I AM OUT COLLECTING BERRIES CLOSE BY AND SHALL RETURN THIS EVENING. THANK YOU, CHRIS MCCANDLESS. AUGUST?

The note, written by McCandless, clearly identifies himself as Chris.  He is scared, hurt, and starving to death.  McCandless is a long way away from being the brash and overconfident "Alex" that he likes to envision himself as.  He knows that unless he gets help, quickly, he is going to die.  He no longer has the energy or the confidence to maintain the "I can do anything and forget the world" persona of Alex.  In his dying days, McCandless reverts to his given name, Chris, because he knows that Alex died several days earlier.  

If a hammer weighs `0.5` kg and travels at `8` m/s and impacts a nail at a constant force of `4*10^5` N and bounces off at the same velocity, how...

Hello!

Let's start from Newton's Second law, `F=ma.` Here `m` is the mass of a hammer, `a` is its acceleration and `F` is the force which acts on it. By Newton's Third law this force is the same in magnitude as the force which acts on a nail, and it is given that it is constant.

Next, recall that acceleration `a` is the derivative of velocity `V,`  `a=V'(t),`  `t` is for time. Then `F=ma=(mV)'` and we...

Hello!

Let's start from Newton's Second law, `F=ma.` Here `m` is the mass of a hammer, `a` is its acceleration and `F` is the force which acts on it. By Newton's Third law this force is the same in magnitude as the force which acts on a nail, and it is given that it is constant.

Next, recall that acceleration `a` is the derivative of velocity `V,`  `a=V'(t),`  `t` is for time. Then `F=ma=(mV)'` and we can integrate this equality over time interval in question.

At the left side we obtain `F*T` where `T` is the time we have to determine, at the right side we obtain the change of `(mV).`

Denote the initial speed of a hammer as `V_0,` then the change of `(mV)` is equal to `2mV_0,` because the velocity was `V_0` in one direction and becomes `V_0` in the opposite direction, or `-V_0,` and `V_0-(-V_0)=2V_0.`

This way we have  `T=(2mV_0)/F.`

In numbers it is `(2*0.5*8)/(4*10^5)=2*10^(-5) (s).` This is the answer.

That said, it is absolutely impossible that the force was constant. Actually the given value for force means average force during the collision.

What is a key theme explored in Alan Moore's Watchmen?

Alan Moore’s seminal graphic novel was unique upon its initial release during the 1980s in that it was one of the few comics willing to deconstruct archetypal superheroes and humanize typically larger-than-life personalities. Indeed, he uses this psychologically realistic approach in superhero storytelling in order to satirize some themes and motifs contained within superhero stories. One of these themes is fascism. Superheroes are able to act as vigilantes and stop the “crimes” they see fit...

Alan Moore’s seminal graphic novel was unique upon its initial release during the 1980s in that it was one of the few comics willing to deconstruct archetypal superheroes and humanize typically larger-than-life personalities. Indeed, he uses this psychologically realistic approach in superhero storytelling in order to satirize some themes and motifs contained within superhero stories. One of these themes is fascism. Superheroes are able to act as vigilantes and stop the “crimes” they see fit without considering the ramifications of their actions. They act without regard to established laws, and they have the ultimate say in what they pursue as crime. In a flashback scene in chapter two, Captain Metropolis warns against the dangers of promiscuity, campus subversion, and “black unrest.” The Comedian calls his peers to task for assembling a large group of superheroes and pursuing useless aims:

“You people are a joke. You hear Moloch's back in town, you think 'Oh boy! Let's gang up and bust him!' You think that matters? You think that solves anything? It don't matter squat” (11).

This theme of fascism is made even more potent by the Cold War tensions that Moore sows throughout the tale. Both the U.S. and Russia accused one another of being fascist entities during the Cold War. Finally, the ending in which Ozymandias annihilates major cities in order to secure world peace is the ultimate act of fascism. He does what he deems to be an act for the “greater good,” but he does not have the right to make this grave decision. He acts as a fascist, and Moore uses potent instances like this to explore this theme: “Who Watches the Watchmen?”  

Why does Jem want to go out at ten o'clock at night in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Jem wants to go downtown at ten o'clock at night because he is worried about his father, who has taken a lightbulb and an extension cord and then driven off to town.

Earlier on this Sunday, men from town have visited Atticus, asking if the Tom Robinson trial could not have a change of venue. Mr. Link Deas is heard saying to Atticus, "You got everything to lose from this, Atticus. I mean everything." Overhearing the men talking, Jem grows concerned, and as the phone rings, he calls out to his father. This breaks the tension; the men laugh and disperse.

That evening, however, Atticus gathers a light bulb and an extension cord, bidding everyone good-night,

"You folks'll be in bed when I come back, so I'll say good night now."

Because of the events of the day and this irregular behavior of Atticus, Jem begins to worry about his father. At 10:00 p.m., when Atticus has not returned, Jem tells his sister that he is going downtown, but Scout insists that she accompany him. As they cut through Miss Rachel's side yard, they tap on Dill's window, and in a few minutes, he joins them. Jem tells Dill he has a feeling that something is going on, so they head to Atticus's office, which is located in the Maycomb Bank Building. Atticus is not there, so the children walk up the street and see Atticus's lightbulb over the jailhouse door.

He was sitting in one of his office chairs, and he was reading, oblivious of the nightbugs dancing over his head.

Then, four dusty automobiles pull up and men with hats pulled low on their foreheads emerge from the cars to approach Atticus, speaking in whispers as they walk. When Atticus sees Jem, he tells him to go home, but Jem shakes his head. One burly man grabs Jem, pulling him nearly off his feet. This action angers Scout, who kicks the man in the shins, prompting Atticus to quickly scold Scout.

Looking around, Scout finally recognizes one of the sullen, tired men as Mr. Cunningham; she speaks to him and causes him enough discomfiture that he decides to leave, calling to the others to do the same. Afterwards, Mr. Underwood emerges and tells Atticus he has had him covered with his rifle all the time. The Finches all walk home, safe and content with one another.

What stages in life do the places and things (such as the mound) that the speaker passes in her ride with "Death" symbolize in the poem, "Because I...

The speaker of "Because I Could Not Stop for Death" finds herself taking an unexpected ride with "Death," who transports her through her stages of life.

With the use of metaphor, dying is compared to an unexpected carriage ride. (In Dickinson's time, this comparison would not have been as unusual because in the nineteenth century, hearses were drawn by horses; so, they were, essentially, carriages.)Here are the stages of life and their symbolic meaning...

The speaker of "Because I Could Not Stop for Death" finds herself taking an unexpected ride with "Death," who transports her through her stages of life.

With the use of metaphor, dying is compared to an unexpected carriage ride. (In Dickinson's time, this comparison would not have been as unusual because in the nineteenth century, hearses were drawn by horses; so, they were, essentially, carriages.)

Here are the stages of life and their symbolic meaning in this poem:

1. Youth - The gentleman named "Death" and the speaker pass the "School," which acts as a symbol of childhood. In the schoolyard at recess, the children make a "Ring," which may be symbolic of the custom of children to hold hands and go around the small circle, or ring, that they have formed as they sing such songs as "Ring around the Rosie."
   This song is actually a macabre song about the Bubonic Plague of 1665.


2. Maturity - The fields of grain that are "Gazing" appear ready for the harvest as they have reached maturity. This stage is middle age.


3. Old Age and Death - The "Setting Sun" symbolizes aging and the eventual end of life, indicated by the "Swelling of the Ground," (the mound) which suggests a grave.

The order of the places which the speaker and "Death" pass certainly describes the chronological stages of a person's life. In this poem, as in so many others, Miss Dickinson demonstrates her "tragic vision."

Analyze Gulliver's Travels as a satire on humankind.

Gulliver's Travelssatirizes many of humankind's most negative traits. In the first and second parts, including Gulliver's trips to Lilliput and Brobdingnag, Swift draws attention to the way in which we resort to war or physical conflict to solve many of our problems. Swift also satirizes the way we feel the need to control others' basic ways of life, in terms of religion, when he has Gulliver describe the Trameckstans and Slameckstans and their disagreements....

Gulliver's Travels satirizes many of humankind's most negative traits. In the first and second parts, including Gulliver's trips to Lilliput and Brobdingnag, Swift draws attention to the way in which we resort to war or physical conflict to solve many of our problems. Swift also satirizes the way we feel the need to control others' basic ways of life, in terms of religion, when he has Gulliver describe the Trameckstans and Slameckstans and their disagreements. Further, by showing the response of the peace-loving Brobdingnagian king to Gulliver's prideful boasting about gunpowder and other weaponry, Swift emphasizes our brutality and savagery.

Swift satirizes the contemporary rage for conducting useless experiments in the name of progress and science, even when they have no benefit whatsoever for humankind. Experiments like attempting to extricate sunshine from cucumbers or return human fecal matter to its original food matter are depicted as a waste of money, resources, and brainpower. Science can be incredibly useful, and its potential benefit to humanity should perhaps be the way in which we measure whether an experiment is worthwhile or not.

Swift also points out the way in which human beings are incredibly animalistic in part four. The Yahoos are very like us, a similarity that we ought to find somewhat troubling, given how disgusting and loathsome they are. Swift satirizes our greed and selfishness through these creatures.

What indirect method of characterization does O’Flaherty use least in "The Sniper"? The choices are speech, thoughts, effects or reactions...

At first, I thought this question was going to be very easy.  After reading the list of choices about indirect characterization in "The Sniper," I had a hard time choosing between speech and reactions from other characters.  

I believe that speech is used the least.  Throughout the entire story, the sniper says exactly two words.  "I'm hit."  The text says that he muttered the words too, which actually tells you a lot about the...

At first, I thought this question was going to be very easy.  After reading the list of choices about indirect characterization in "The Sniper," I had a hard time choosing between speech and reactions from other characters.  

I believe that speech is used the least.  Throughout the entire story, the sniper says exactly two words.  "I'm hit."  The text says that he muttered the words too, which actually tells you a lot about the sniper's high tolerance for pain.  If I got shot, I would be saying a lot more than two words.  And I for sure wouldn't be muttering them.  

The other characters in the story do not react too much to the sniper, which is why I thought it was a good candidate for the correct answer.  The other characters don't react, because they can't.  They're dead. Except for the enemy sniper.  The enemy and the protagonist play a bit of cat and mouse with each other.  I have always gotten the feeling that the enemy sniper knows that his quarry is dangerous, because he waits for a head shot.  He knows that an arm shot is not enough to put the main character sniper out of commission.  That piece of information is important to knowing the sniper. The reader also learns that the main protagonist takes some pleasure from outwitting the actions of his enemy.  It's why he smiles right before his kill shot.  

He [the enemy] was now standing before a row of chimney pots, looking across, with his head clearly silhouetted against the western sky. The Republican sniper smiled and lifted his revolver above the edge of the parapet.

Compare The Life of Pi to the Hero's Journey.

Different scholars on literature and mythology have different steps and stages in the hero's journey, so this can be done a few different ways. I will use Joseph Campbell's hero's journey to review Pi's tale. 

The Ordinary World: Like the exposition in a story, this is the part of the journey where the audience learns what the hero's everyday life is like before the adventure. Nearly everything that happens to Pi in India fits into this part of the journey.

Call to Action: This is the moment when the hero's life will change from what it once was. In Pi's case, this is when his father declares that they will be selling the zoo and moving to Canada.

Refusal of the Call: There isn't a big refusal in Pi's story, but he is reluctant to leave his life behind. In the hero's journey, the hero typically refuses to go until persuaded by an event or mentor.

Crossing the Threshold: In the hero's journey, this is the moment when he leaves the ordinary world to enter the special world, which has new rules and will test him in new ways. In Life of Pi, this is when Pi is ship-wreaked and finds himself on a raft, with his family dead. 

Meeting the Mentor: The hero rarely goes through her trials alone, instead she often has an older and wiser mentor. In Pi's case, his mentors are the animals with him on the raft, particularly the tiger, with whom he forms an unlikely and spiritual bond with over time. His survival handbook also acts as a more practical mentor.

Tests, Allies, Enemies: The hero travels through several small obstacles and meets others who can help or hinder him. Pi is faced immediately with multiple tests from his environment. He also has the orangutan as an ally and the hyena as the most immediate enemy. 

Approaching the Inmost Cave: This is when the hero prepares for her final test. In Pi's case, that test will be surviving with the tiger, and he works to train him using the boat and seasickness. 

The Ordeal: This is where the hero confronts death in the special world and has to overcome something particularly terrifying. In Pi's case, this is when the thunderstorm hits, bringing flying fish and forcing him to hide with the tiger, furthering their bond. 

The Reward: The reward is the treasure that the hero earns by overcoming the ordeal. In Pi's case, this is the island with the edible plants, fresh water, and meerkats. Here he can rest, recover, and prepare to make the final leg of his journey. 

The Resurrection: This is the hero's final death and rebirth to prepare for the journey home. In Pi's case, he is tempted to stay on the island and renounce society, until...

The Road Back: This is when the hero is finally pushed to leave the special world. When Pi realizes that the island is carnivorous and they must leave, he begins the road back, which ends when he and the tiger land on the beach in Mexico. 

Return with Elixir: This is the part of the hero's journey when the hero comes back home with some sort of power of treasure that he can carry with him. In Pi's case, this treasure is his faith and knowledge of the world that his experience has given him. 

Who, in Animal farm is happier, the selfish or unselfish characters?

The question is one of perspective. Whether one deems a selfish or unselfish person to be happier than the other depends on from whose point of view the issue is approached.

If one uses Animal Farm as an example, it would seem that those who are selfish, are happier overall. The pigs, who become leaders on the farm, soon misuse their advantage and abuse the other animals. They are absolutely selfish and think only of their own comfort and enjoyment, whilst completely ignoring the plight of all the other animals. Under Napoleon's leadership, the pigs were extremely happy. They had created a utopia for themselves, precisely as it is set out in the anthem, Beasts of England. They, however, are the only ones who benefit from the freedom they gained after the tyranny of Mr Jones and his men.

The other animals, though, are no better of than they had been in Mr Jones' time. Their lives are laborious and short. They are constantly cold, hungry and tired and they still sleep in the barn on straw and hay, whilst the pigs are comfortably ensconced in beds, eat the best food, wear clothes and do no physical labor. They commandeer the other animals to do all the hard work and benefit from that labor. There is evidence from the text that the pigs eventually grow fat from the privileged lives they lead even when resources were running low..

But the pigs seemed comfortable enough, and in fact were putting on weight if anything. 

Even though the farm prospers, only the pigs and their cronies benefit and the larger body of animals are left with much the same as before and. in many instances, with even less.

Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer-except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs. Perhaps this was partly because there were so many pigs and so many dogs. It was not that these creatures did not work, after their fashion. There was, as Squealer was never tired of explaining, endless work in the supervision and organisation of the farm. Much of this work was of a kind that the other animals were too ignorant to understand. For example, Squealer told them that the pigs had to expend enormous labours every day upon mysterious things called "files," "reports," "minutes," and "memoranda". These were large sheets of paper which had to be closely covered with writing, and as soon as they were so covered, they were burnt in the furnace. This was of the highest importance for the welfare of the farm, Squealer said. But still, neither pigs nor dogs produced any food by their own labour; and there were very many of them, and their appetites were always good.

The other animals all believe in the cause that they had fought so hard for They unselfishly committed themselves to do their best for the good of all concerned. They toil hard but are never given even the slightest bit of advantage and they are, therefore, generally miserable.

The best example of he animals' sacrifice is Boxer. He is a truly committed comrade and would wake up earlier than everyone else and work longer hours. He is driven by his motto, "I will work harder." This unselfish dedication brings Boxer much satisfaction and he seems happier. His toil is, however, never adequately rewarded, for, when he falls desperately ill, he is quickly transported to the knacker to whom the pigs sell him. It is later reported that he died peacefully. The pigs bought a case of whisky from the proceeds of their sale.

Another animal who seemed happy about his unselfish commitment was Snowball, who worked indefatigably at improving conditions on the farm. Although, as a pig, he was rewarded to a greater extent, it was the pleasure in his commitment that made him happy. Both he and Boxer, though, were seen as threats and Napoleon got rid of them at the first opportunity.

So, if one should weigh up, in terms of the overall effect of being selfish or unselfish as a determinant of one's happiness, it seems that, as far as Animal Farm goes, the vote overwhelmingly goes to selfishness. The pigs who excluded others from their lives of luxury and privilege were much happier than any of the other animals.

What role does the speaker assign to the "dear friend" in line 13, in relation to the metaphors of the poem?

The speaker begins by noting how he remembers good things from the past. But then he recalls things he did not accomplish or achieve. And he feels that in wailing about these "old woes," he is wasting his (present) time. He cries and this is illustrated by the metaphor to "drown an eye." He is overcome with nostalgia for people he had known who have died in the past. His now present weeping is about...

The speaker begins by noting how he remembers good things from the past. But then he recalls things he did not accomplish or achieve. And he feels that in wailing about these "old woes," he is wasting his (present) time. He cries and this is illustrated by the metaphor to "drown an eye." He is overcome with nostalgia for people he had known who have died in the past. His now present weeping is about things he has wept about in the past. It is as if he is reliving his past "woe." He uses the metaphor of paying an old debt again to symbolize how he is reliving this misery: 

And heavily from woe to woe tell o'er 

The sad account of fore-bemoaned moan, 

Which I new pay as if not paid before. 

The mourning he is going through seems new, as if he never went through it in the past. The solution or cure to his misery of reliving his past regrets and sorrows is to focus on the present. Therefore, his "dear friend" is someone who is alive and well in the present. His dear friend functions as a hero or the cure to his obsession with the past. 

Who is Ted Cruz and where does he stand on important political issues?

Ted Cruz is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Currently he serves in the United States Senate as a Senator from Texas. As the Republican primary season has progressed, he finds himself one of only three of the original seventeen candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. Cruz runs on a conservative platform and often speaks against "the Washington cartel," by which he means entrenched politicians and lobbyists in the federal government who pursue an agenda that benefits themselves rather than the voters, everyday working men and women, around the country. Cruz has distinguished himself on the Senate floor by calling for a hard stance against the Affordable Care Act, preferring to hold off on passing a federal budget if it included funding for Obamacare. 

Some of his positions on issues, available on his website, are:

1. Restoring the Constitution: He would appoint originalist judges to the Supreme Court, and he would rescind executive orders signed by President Obama that overreach presidential authority.

2. Second Amendment: He is for the rights of gun owners and opposes gun control legislation.

3. Immigration: He feels strongly that the southern border needs to be secured to prevent illegal immigration and that current laws regarding immigration should be enforced.

4. National Defense: Cruz has said he would "rip up the Iran nuclear deal" his first day in office; he wants to rebuild the military; he takes a strong stand against ISIS; he embraces America's role as a leader in world affairs.

5. Israel: Cruz has declared that, unlike the Republican front runner, he will not be neutral in the conflict between Palestinians and Israel but would firmly stand with Israel as the foremost U.S. ally in the Middle East. 

6. Religious Liberty: As a lawyer, Cruz defended before the Supreme Court a monument in Texas that displayed the 10 Commandments. In matters where laws come into conflict with religious expression, such as companies or associations being required to pay for health plans that include abortions or bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, Cruz argues for religious liberty.

7. Life, Marriage and Family: Cruz is pro-life and has advocated legal restrictions on abortion; he would like to see the issue of same-sex marriage left to the states to decide. 

8. Taxes and Economy: Cruz has said he would like to abolish the IRS, which could be accomplished by adopting his proposed flat tax, which he believes will stimulate the economy, bringing back jobs and employers that are now doing business overseas. He favors reducing burgeoning regulations that have made it harder for small businesses to start and operate in the last two decades.

9. Rein in Government: Cruz favors smaller federal government and would eliminate five federal agencies: the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He believes this will not only reduce the money spent by the federal government but also provide more local control to states and citizens. 

According to Gretel, what is the name of the new house?

In Chapter 3, Bruno runs into his sister's room and tells her that he hates it at their new house. Gretel agrees and tells Bruno that once the house is "smartened up a bit" it will probably seem better. Gretel tells Bruno that she heard her father say that whoever lived in the house before them at Out-With lost their job quickly and didn't have enough time to make the house look appealing before they...

In Chapter 3, Bruno runs into his sister's room and tells her that he hates it at their new house. Gretel agrees and tells Bruno that once the house is "smartened up a bit" it will probably seem better. Gretel tells Bruno that she heard her father say that whoever lived in the house before them at Out-With lost their job quickly and didn't have enough time to make the house look appealing before they moved in. Bruno says, "What's an Out-With?" (Boyne 24). Gretel corrects him and says, "It's just Out-With" (Boyne 24). She incorrectly explains to Bruno that Out-With is the name of the house. Gretel's explanation does not make sense to Bruno because his old house in Berlin did not have a name. He then asks Gretel what does Out-With mean. Gretel says it means, "Out with the people who lived here before us" (Boyne 25). Gretel surmises that the previous person who lived in the house did not do a very good job, which is the reason their father was sent to Out-With because he is capable of doing a better job. The reality of the situation is that the two children are naive and are mispronouncing the name Auschwitz. The name Auschwitz sounds similar to Out-With. Auschwitz is actually the name of the concentration camp located in southern Poland where Bruno's father is in charge of the systematic annihilation of the prisoners.

In "The Black Cat," is the suffering of the narrator related to superstition about the cat or personal psychological problems?

It depends on how you interpret the story, which is one of the interesting things about Poe's stories and poems: they can have different meanings for every reader. Personally, I tend to favor the interpretation that the narrator has a psychological problem; that does not mean that superstition is completely out of the question, mostly because superstition is in people's mind. So the narrator himself may believe that the whole thing is because of his...

It depends on how you interpret the story, which is one of the interesting things about Poe's stories and poems: they can have different meanings for every reader. Personally, I tend to favor the interpretation that the narrator has a psychological problem; that does not mean that superstition is completely out of the question, mostly because superstition is in people's mind. So the narrator himself may believe that the whole thing is because of his superstition surrounding the black cat, but the reader understands that his superstition is part of the narrator's psychosis.

 Let us not forget that this whole thing started because the narrator got intoxicated one evening and removed the eye of Pluto, the titular black cat. This had nothing to do with superstition and everything to do with the narrator's alcoholism, which often has psychological consequences.

However, Poe certainly writes the story with the superstition about black cats in mind. When the narrator sees the only wall to survive the fire displays the image of a cat, he comes up with a scientific reason for why the image might have appeared. But how did the fire start in the first place? There is also the white spot on the second black cat that slowly takes the shape of the gallows.

In the end, though, the narrator's desire to mutilate and hang Pluto, and then to kill his own wife out of anger, are clearly problems of a psychological nature, not a superstitious one.

What makes Jem so sure that Tom will be acquitted in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Jem thinks that Atticus has adequately proven that Tom Robinson did not attack Mayella Ewell. 

The trial of Tom Robinson is very divisive in Maycomb.  Many people automatically feel that Robinson is guilty, because he is a black man and she is a white woman.  A lot of people are angry at Atticus for defending a black man.  

Jem is old enough that he understands much of what is happening at the trial.  His father has taught him to respect all people, so he is not a racist.  He watches the trial with interest because he wants to be a lawyer, and because he respects his father.  He believes that his father is doing a fine job defending Robinson, even though it is an uphill battle.

Scout watches too, but she is not as convinced as Jem.  She believes he is “counting chickens” to assume that Robinson will be acquitted. 

Atticus was trying to show, it seemed to me, that Mr. Ewell could have beaten up Mayella. That much I could follow. If her right eye was blacked and she was beaten mostly on the right side of the face, it would tend to show that a left-handed person did it. (Ch. 17) 

The crux of Atticus’s case is that Mayella was attacked by a left-handed person and Tom Robinson is not left handed.  When we learn that Tom Robinson is a cripple, and can’t even use his left hand, that seems to be enough for Jem.  He believes that his father has won.  He has proven that Tom Robinson could not physically have attacked Mayella Ewell, because he is not left-handed (and also doesn’t have the use of his left arm). 

Scout comes in halfway through Atticus’s speech to the jury, and asks Jem what he said.  Again, Jem is convinced that Atticus has won. 

“He’s just gone over the evidence,” Jem whispered, “and we’re gonna win, Scout.

I don’t see how we can’t. He’s been at it ‘bout five minutes. He made it as plain and easy as—well, as I’da explained it to you. You could’ve understood it, even.” (Ch. 20) 

Jem asks Atticus if they won, and he says he doesn’t know.  When discussing the case with Mr. Sykes, Jem is completely confident.  Sykes tells him not to be so sure, because he has never seen “any jury decide in favor of a colored man over a white man” (Ch. 21).  Although the jury does deliberate, they return a guilty verdict.  

Jem is horrified by the verdict, feeling it almost physically.  As far as he was concerned, there was no way they could have lost.  It was a terrible miscarriage of justice.  Unfortunately, in Maycomb justice is still divided by black and white.

How is Atticus an imperfect parent in To Kill a Mockingbird? How do these imperfections make him an even better parent to Jem and Scout?

Most parents are not perfect, but although Atticus’s children find him somewhat disappointing, he tries his best to be a good father.  First of all, Atticus is raising his kids on his own.  Aunt Alexandra does not approve of the fact that Scout does not have a woman’s influence in her life and Atticus lets her wander around in overalls.  However, the fact that he lets Scout be a tomboy and express her individuality actually makes him a pretty good father by most measures.

Another reason that Atticus might be lacking is his unusual parenting style.  Most children do not call their father by his first name.  Why he has them do this is not ever really clear.  Maybe he just doesn’t like the word “Dad.”  The children are never familiar or disrespectful.  They actually call him “Sir” most of the time.

Scout explains her life this way.

We lived on the main residential street in town— Atticus, Jem and I, plus Calpurnia our cook. Jem and I found our father satisfactory: he played with us, read to us, and treated us with courteous detachment. (Ch. 1)

“Courteous detachment” means that Atticus gives his kids quite a bit of freedom.  However, freedom to play and run around is important for a child.  That is how children learn.  Scout and Jem may not be well-supervised during the summer, but they grow into adults through their antics then.

Scout and Jem in particular do not like the fact that their father does not spend as much time with them as they would like because he works a lot.  They are also concerned that he is too old to play with them physically or spend time with them the way they would like.  Basically, Scout and Jem feel he is boring.

Atticus was feeble: he was nearly fifty. When Jem and I asked him why he was so old, he said he got started late, which we felt reflected upon his abilities and manliness. He was much older than the parents of our school contemporaries… (Ch. 10) 

Atticus keeps some of life secret from his children.  They have no idea that he can shoot a gun better than anyone in the county until he has to shoot the mad dog.  They also do not really understand the complexities of Maycomb’s racist justice system until he defends Tom Robinson.  His children become the target of many of the townspeople’s disgusted taunts, but he is never really specific about what he is doing.  This is the reason his children end up in the company of a lynch mob one night. 

Fortunately for his children, Atticus sets a good example.  He has given them enough independence and provided them with a moral compass, so he can trust in their decisions.  They learn how the world works and their places in it as they grow up, and they both turn into pretty good people.  Jem demonstrates that he is not a racist during the trial, and Scout shows that she can have empathy for others through her treatment of Boo Radley.

The situation in Maycomb was hardly ideal for raising children when Scout and Jem were growing up, and Atticus had to do it alone.  However, he treated them with dignity and respect and taught them to treat everyone else the same way, regardless of race or class.   

In Act I, what does Benvolio advise his cousin Romeo to do?

In Act I, Scene 1, just after the street fight between the Montagues and Capulets, Benvolio assures Lord and Lady Montague that he will discover why Romeo is so depressed. Apparently Romeo is in love with a girl who doesn't return his affection. He woefully laments his situation, explaining to Benvolio that the girl he loves has chosen to "live chaste" and will not respond to his charms. In response, Benvolio advises Romeo to "Forget...

In Act I, Scene 1, just after the street fight between the Montagues and Capulets, Benvolio assures Lord and Lady Montague that he will discover why Romeo is so depressed. Apparently Romeo is in love with a girl who doesn't return his affection. He woefully laments his situation, explaining to Benvolio that the girl he loves has chosen to "live chaste" and will not respond to his charms. In response, Benvolio advises Romeo to "Forget to think of her" and "Examine other beauties." Romeo, however, will not be relieved of his despondency and suggests, in Act I, Scene 3, that there are no other women as lovely as Rosaline when he discovers she has been invited to a party at the estate of Lord Capulet. Benvolio disputes this claim, saying that he can show Romeo several other beautiful women and that Rosaline will not compare to them:

At this same ancient feast of Capulet’s
Sups the fair Rosaline whom thou so loves,
With all the admirèd beauties of Verona.
Go thither, and with unattainted eye
Compare her face with some that I shall show,
And I will make thee think thy swan a crow.

Benvolio proves to be quite prescient as Romeo sees Juliet at the party and falls instantly in love with her, totally forgetting Rosaline.   

How can Banquo's children rule Scotland when Malcolm is already ruling it?

Your question references one of the prophecies made by the witches in Act I, Scene 3 of Macbeth. After foreseeing a great future for Macbeth, the witches say to Banquo, "Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none" [I.iii.66]. Yet, as you point out, when the play ends it is Malcolm who is king—and we know almost nothing about what happened to Banquo's son Fleance after he survived the assassination attempt that killed Banquo. So, what gives?

To understand that, we have to look first at Shakespeare's source for the play and second at the political context in which the play was written.

Shakespeare took much of the story of Macbeth from a historical narrative called Chronicles by Raphael Holinshed. In his history of Scotland in that work, Holinshed writes about a historical figure who would become the Banquo of Shakespeare's play, though no mention is made of Banquo's kids becoming kings.

So why did Shakespeare include all that stuff? Well, when Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, King James I was on the English throne. James was also king of Scotland, and he just so happened to trace his lineage (and, partly, his claim to the throne) back to—yup, the historical Banquo.

When Macbeth was originally performed (probably at court before King James I, who was also a lover of all things witch-related) and the line about Banquo's kids becoming kings was spoken, everyone knew who Shakespeare was winking at: the very guy who was sitting on the throne and who paid Shakespeare's salary. That's why the witches prophesy Banquo's kids will become kings—and why Shakespeare didn't need to explain what he meant by that line: everyone in the audience knew it was a reference to their king.

(For a real treat, with all this info about James I in mind, go and look at the image of Banquo's sons that the witches show Macbeth in Act IV, Scene 1 [lines 110 - 123]. Here, again, Shakespeare is paying homage to his benefactor, King James I: "the two-fold balls" Macbeth sees in the kings' hands represent England and Scotland and the "treble [or triple] scepters" stand for James having rule over England, Scotland, and Ireland.)

How did the United States expand territorially after the revolution? What challenges did such expansion present?

How did the United States expand territorially after the American Revolution? It expanded from the original 13 colonies, all of which lied along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, a distance, depending upon precise starting and ending points, of around 3,000 miles. Those 13 colonies, in short, would eventually become the 48 contiguous United States, with Alaska and Hawaii added later to round-out the total at 50.

Following the Revolutionary War, the leaders of the newly-established United States of America set themselves on a course of expansion as a matter of economic and military necessity. The situation with the British Empire remained extremely tense (remember that the War of 1812 loomed ahead), and relations with France were increasingly uncertain as Napoleon Bonaparte embarked upon military expedition after military expedition. It was, in fact, France’s continued colonization of the Louisiana territory, and, particularly, the port of New Orleans, that served as one of the first and most important obstacles confronting the United States. Fortunately for then-President Thomas Jefferson, however, Napoleon was overextended and willing to sell France’s holdings, some of which had been held by Spain, to the United States. What became known as “the Louisiana Purchase” of 1803 doubled the physical size of the United States and gave America its sought-after port on the Mississippi River from which to export goods abroad while importing goods from foreign nations.

Beyond the expansion associated with the Louisiana Purchase, the policy of Manifest Destiny represented the other great expansion of the United States. The phrase coined by newspaper editor John O’Sullivan, an individual imbued with an exceptionally but hardly unique sense of divine providence with respect to his country’s destiny, wrote the following for publication in an 1839 issue of The United States Democratic Review:

“The expansive future is our arena, and for our history. We are entering on its untrodden space, with the truths of God in our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts, and with a clear conscience unsullied by the past. We are the nation of human progress, and who will, what can, set limits to our onward march? Providence is with us, and no earthly power can. We point to the everlasting truth on the first page of our national declaration, and we proclaim to the millions of other lands, that "the gates of hell" -- the powers of aristocracy and monarchy – ‘shall not prevail against it’."

O’Sullivan’s point was that the United States had a God-given right to expand its sovereignty over the lands as far as its abilities will allow. He would continue to advance the cause of American expansionism from Atlantic to Pacific coasts in his editorials, as in the following oft-cited passage from December 27, 1845:

"And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of Liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us."

The policy, or concept, of Manifest Destiny, then, was used to legitimize the nation’s westward expansion, the charts for which were developed by Meriwether Lewis during his, and William Clark’s, government-sponsored expedition to explore the lands that lied beyond the country’s frontiers. The Lewis and Clark Expedition, in fact, had been commissioned with the eventual expansion of America’s initial frontiers already in mind.

The obstacles confronted by the United States during its westward expansion involved mainly opposition from British colonists in Canada, the initial colonization by Spain and France of the Louisiana territory, and, of course, the indigenous tribes that were already living in the lands that the United States was committed to conquer. It was the latter that presented the single greatest military obstacle to this expansion, although Mexico’s tenacity in defending the Texas territory was clearly no small thing. The series of treaties signed with these indigenous tribes, the Native Americans, and eventually violated by the United States, served to facilitate westward expansionism, but at the cost of those tribes’ cultures, lands, and dignity.

Why does Ponyboy imagine various worst-case scenarios while he is waiting for Johnny to return with supplies?

At the beginning of Chapter 5, Ponyboy wakes up alone in the abandoned church. He calls for Johnny, and when Johnny doesn't answer, he begins to panic until he looks down at the floor. On the floor of the church, Johnny had written in the dust that he had left to get supplies and would be back soon. While Johnny is out getting supplies, Ponyboy's active imagination begins to take over. Ponyboy remembers the...

At the beginning of Chapter 5, Ponyboy wakes up alone in the abandoned church. He calls for Johnny, and when Johnny doesn't answer, he begins to panic until he looks down at the floor. On the floor of the church, Johnny had written in the dust that he had left to get supplies and would be back soon. While Johnny is out getting supplies, Ponyboy's active imagination begins to take over. Ponyboy remembers the night of the stabbing in vivid detail and imagines various worst-case scenarios. He imagines what it would be like if he had been sleeping for a week, and Johnny was picked up by the police, waiting to get the electric chair for not telling them where Pony was. He then thinks about what it would be like to die alone if Dally got into a car wreck and no one ever knew that he was staying in the abandoned church. Ponyboy mentions that he is feeling the delayed shock from the traumatic incident. He feels scared, traumatized, and hopeless sitting in the church alone, which is why he begins to think of worst-case scenarios. Ponyboy finally settles himself down and feels better when Johnny returns.

Which of the following molecules will have an overall permanent dipole? a)CCl4 b)CH2Cl2 c)H2O d)HCl

These kinds of questions are easiest to answer if you have an electronegativity table and a molecular model kit handy. In order for a molecule to have a permanent dipole (as opposed to the transient dispoles produced by lesser forces like London Dispersion) you need a bond between two or more atoms with a significant electronegativity difference, and a three dimensional structure that allows one or both of the atoms involved in the dipole to be accessible from the outside of the molecule in a "lopsided" manner (in contrast, dipole atoms that are uniformly arranged can effectively cancel the dipole by not having an accessible charge difference from the outside).

a: the C-Cl bond would be a good candidate for a dipole, but this molecule has a tetrahedral configuration, so that only the negatively charged chlorine are accessible from the outside. This cancels the effective dipole, as mentioned above, so CCl4 is not considered a dipolar.

b:CH2Cl2 makes the two dipolar bonds a little more accessible, but in a linear arrangement, which once again shields the positively charged carbon with the help of the hydrogens. This molecule would be a little more dipolar in nature, but not much.

c: H2O is an ideal model of a dipolar molecule: the O-H bond is highly polar, and the molecule has a bent linear configuration because of the two lone pairs on the oxygen. This makes both of the positive charges on the hydrogen, as well as the negative charge on the oxygen, fully accessible.

d:The answer for HCl may change depending on who you ask; a lot of introductory approaches treat hydrohalics as ionic compounds, and according to this you would say that they aren't polar (although again, depending on who you ask, ionic bonds could be considered an extreme form of polarity). However, HCl is actually covalent: there's a variety of evidences for this, but essentially it means that HCl is a dipole as well. On the other hand, if your instructor is asking for only one answer, I would go with H2O

How can functionalism and conflict perspectives work together?

Functionalism is an approach to sociology based on the idea that social institutions are structures which groups of people build in order to achieve certain functions, such as maintaining order or making profit. It focuses on how institutions and societies hold themselves together. One of its founders was Emile Durkheim.

Conflict theory is an approach to sociology based on the idea that social change is driven by conflicts between different groups of people, particularly groups based on race, sex, and economic class. Originally based on the works of Karl Marx, conflict theory postulates that competition between groups over scarce resources is at the heart of all social structures.

These two perspectives sound very different, even diametrically opposed; but they can really be thought of as two extremes of a continuum. At one end, functionalism says that society is based upon cooperation to achieve shared goals; at the other end, conflict theory says that society is based upon conflict over scarce resources. Reality is of course some combination of the two; obviously conflicts do arise between different groups of people (on various scales, ranging from individual families to whole nations), but at the same time there is cohesion within most groups most of the time, and not all conflicts are resolved violently. People do often cooperate with one another for common goals.

One place where I think the two perspectives are both necessary is in understanding war. Plainly, war involves a great deal of violent conflict over scarce resources, so we need conflict theory; but that's not the whole story. In order to fight a war as opposed to just a few random guys fighting over a piece of land, you need an enormous amount of organization and cooperation toward particular functions. A modern war effort mobilizes the labor of millions of people in concert, integrating skills from hundreds of different disciplines---a modern war needs physicists and economists at least as much as it needs pilots and snipers. To understand how such a complex system can hold itself together at a time of crisis, we need functionalism.

In The Cay, what did Phillip do that he felt wasn't "a manly thing"?

In The Cay by Theodore Taylor, Phillip Enright, a young American boy, and Timothy, "a huge, very old Negro" who admits that he has "but one name-" Timothy, become unlikely friends after they become stranded together on an island, from which there is little hope of rescue.

Phillip is on a voyage with his mother who is anxious to leave Willemstad, Curacao where her husband is working, and which she now feels is too dangerous...

In The Cay by Theodore Taylor, Phillip Enright, a young American boy, and Timothy, "a huge, very old Negro" who admits that he has "but one name-" Timothy, become unlikely friends after they become stranded together on an island, from which there is little hope of rescue.

Phillip is on a voyage with his mother who is anxious to leave Willemstad, Curacao where her husband is working, and which she now feels is too dangerous due to the war having reached the Caribbean. After the ship is torpedoed and Phillip and his mother are lowered into a lifeboat, Phillip only remembers waking up several hours later and having Timothy for company. At first, Phillip does not trust Timothy and it takes him a long time to understand the kind and caring old man, even after Phillip goes blind, presumably a symptom of a knock on the head he received during the panic to leave the ship.

Having found their way to an island, Timothy busies himself making shelter and then goes to fetch food for them both. Phillip is frightened of being left alone, and also of the possibility of something happening to Timothy but he cannot go with him. During the days alone, Phillip's blindness means that his thoughts and fears are exaggerated to the point, that eventually, after a long day alone, he cannot help it and begins to cry. In chapter 8, he says, "I knew it was not a manly thing to do.." 

Why do you think Tybalt approaches Meructio and Benvolio and has a word with them in Act 3, Scene 1 of Romeo and Juliet?

Tybalt approaches the Montagues because he is angry at them for going to the Capulet party.

There is a feud between the Montagues and Capulets that has been going on for quite some time.  They are willing to kill each other on sight for the smallest insult, or just because.  When Romeo goes to Juliet’s party with his Montague friends, Tybalt Capulet recognizes them.  He is very angry, and tells Lord Capulet so.  Capulet scolds...

Tybalt approaches the Montagues because he is angry at them for going to the Capulet party.

There is a feud between the Montagues and Capulets that has been going on for quite some time.  They are willing to kill each other on sight for the smallest insult, or just because.  When Romeo goes to Juliet’s party with his Montague friends, Tybalt Capulet recognizes them.  He is very angry, and tells Lord Capulet so.  Capulet scolds him and warns him not to cause trouble at the party, but Tybalt will not let it go.

Patience perforce with wilful choler meeting
Makes my flesh tremble in their different greeting.
I will withdraw: but this intrusion shall
Now seeming sweet convert to bitter gall. (Act 1, Scene 5)

Lord Capulet tells Tybalt that Romeo has a good reputation for a Montague.  Tybalt doesn’t care.  He is annoyed with Romeo for being at the party, and wants revenge.  Tybalt apparently has a reputation too.  Mercutio believes that Tybalt has a temper.  He calls him “prince of cats.”  When Tybalt shows up and says he wants a “word” with them, Mercutio counters that it will likely be “a word and a blow.”

Tybalt wants to fight Romeo for having been at the party, but Mercutio intervenes.  Of course, this turns bad quickly.  Mercutio knows that Romeo is not inclined to fight and will try to talk to Tybalt.  He sees him as family and not an enemy, since Juliet is his wife.  Mercutio knows that it won’t work, because Tybalt is spoiling for a fight.  He doesn't know about the wedding, but he knows Romeo is a Montague.

TYBALT

Romeo, the hate I bear thee can afford
No better term than this,--thou art a villain.

ROMEO

Tybalt, the reason that I have to love thee
Doth much excuse the appertaining rage
To such a greeting: villain am I none;
Therefore farewell; I see thou know'st me not. (Act 3, Scene 1)

This fight ends in Mercutio's death.  Tybalt kills him trying to fight Romeo, and Romeo tries to intervene.  Then Romeo kills Tybalt.  It's a big mess just for who went to a party, but that's the point.  Feuds are silly and harmful and people end up dead for no reason.  This unfortunately is not the last death, as we know.

What is the greatest key to our survival?

One can think of a number of reasons for our survival, but I think the greatest reason of them all is our adaptability. Human beings are extremely adaptable to any situation and this, coupled with our technological advances, gives us an edge over other species and ensures our survival. 

An example is a natural disaster, say a flood. A devastating flood will undoubtedly cause significant loss of infrastructure, crops and lives. However, we can use...

One can think of a number of reasons for our survival, but I think the greatest reason of them all is our adaptability. Human beings are extremely adaptable to any situation and this, coupled with our technological advances, gives us an edge over other species and ensures our survival. 

An example is a natural disaster, say a flood. A devastating flood will undoubtedly cause significant loss of infrastructure, crops and lives. However, we can use chemicals to fertilize our crops, make new homes and infrastructure very quickly using large machines and provide alternate employment to people. Our medicinal advances can make sure that loss of life and spread of infection is minimal. 

We have adapted to survival in various extreme conditions, whether it is desert or poles (North and South). We can also keep astronauts alive in space for a year or more.

Thus, our adaptability ensures our survival and provides us a significant advantage over other species.

Hope this helps.  

What is atomicity? |

Atomicity can be defined as the number of atoms in a molecule. Atomicity can be defined for both elements as well as other substances. For example, nitrogen gas is made up of two individual atoms of the element nitrogen and has a chemical formula of N2. That is, each molecule of nitrogen gas contains 2 atoms and thus, nitrogen gas has an atomicity of 2. We can similarly calculate the atomicity of other elements. 

Water...

Atomicity can be defined as the number of atoms in a molecule. Atomicity can be defined for both elements as well as other substances. For example, nitrogen gas is made up of two individual atoms of the element nitrogen and has a chemical formula of N2. That is, each molecule of nitrogen gas contains 2 atoms and thus, nitrogen gas has an atomicity of 2. We can similarly calculate the atomicity of other elements. 

Water is made up of atoms of oxygen and hydrogen, mixed in a fixed 1:2 ratio (1 atom of oxygen and 2 atoms of hydrogen). It has a chemical formula of H2O and since it contains 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen, each water molecule has an atomicity of 3. We can similarly calculate the atomicity of other substance.

Hope this helps. 

Why might one agree or disagree with Socrates' assertion in Apology that the unexamined life is not worth living?

This statement occurs in the context of Socrates' trial for asebeia. In this part of the dialogue, Socrates is describing how Chaerephon brought back a message from the Delphic oracle saying that no man was wiser than Socrates. Socrates interprets this as affirming that he has divine authorization for his quest to seek knowledge and question those people who claim to be wise even if he offends them. The specific claim that the unexamined...

This statement occurs in the context of Socrates' trial for asebeia. In this part of the dialogue, Socrates is describing how Chaerephon brought back a message from the Delphic oracle saying that no man was wiser than Socrates. Socrates interprets this as affirming that he has divine authorization for his quest to seek knowledge and question those people who claim to be wise even if he offends them. The specific claim that the unexamined life is not worth living is one he advances in response to the choice of whether he will cease his practice of elenchus in face of the death penalty. In response to that choice, he argues that his life, were he to stop his quest for truth, would not be worth living. 

For specific examples, you will need to think about those people such as Socrates, Jesus, and Galileo who died or were persecuted for their beliefs. The statement should not be read in light of twenty-first century narcissism, which tends to be purely inward looking, but in terms of a quest for absolute truth. Emulating Socrates in this, therefore, would involve more in the way of careful reading of the Apology and related books as a form of intellectual inquiry than of pure self-reflection. 

What does Teiresias (the prophet in the Land of the Dead) warn Odysseus against in his prophecy?

In The Odyssey Odysseus is warned by the blind prophet Tiresias that all of the sacred cattle of the Sun God Helios should be left alone. Tiresias says that the cattle should be avoided at whatever cost, and that if they are not, the men will all meet their doom.

He also tells Odysseus that when he returns home he will find suitors eating his food and courting his wife. He is told that he...

In The Odyssey Odysseus is warned by the blind prophet Tiresias that all of the sacred cattle of the Sun God Helios should be left alone. Tiresias says that the cattle should be avoided at whatever cost, and that if they are not, the men will all meet their doom.

He also tells Odysseus that when he returns home he will find suitors eating his food and courting his wife. He is told that he must send these men away or kill them. 

Lastly, he was told that he should find a place so far inland that the inhabitants ate unsalted meat and wouldn't know of the sea or be able to recognize an oar. Specifically he said Odysseus should walk until someone asked him about his oar and called it a "winnowing fan" rather than an oar (because they didn't know what an oar was, presumably). In that spot Odysseus is to stick the oar in the ground and make a sacrifice to Poseidon so that he can continue on his journey home safely. 

Odysseus intends to follow all of the prophet's instructions. He leaves to pray and in his absence tells his men to leave the cattle untouched. Unfortunately, food runs scarce and his men get hungry. Since they are temporarily trapped on the island, the men decide to fill their stomachs the only way they can think of: by killing and eating the sacred cattle. Helios is furious about this transgression, and he convinces Zeus to punish the men. On the trip home the ship wrecks and only Odysseus, who did not eat the sacred cattle, survives. 

How do zebras get their food?

Wild Zebras

Zebras have evolved a special digestive system that allows them to use bacteria to digest plant fiber more efficiently than most other plant eating animals. This system is called the hindgut fermentation system. 

Most of a zebra's diet is composed of flowering grasses, including Red Grass, Bermuda Grass, and Common Finger Grass. Zebras also eat wild beans and flowers. Wild zebras get needed salt from eating plants. When grass plants are not...

Wild Zebras

Zebras have evolved a special digestive system that allows them to use bacteria to digest plant fiber more efficiently than most other plant eating animals. This system is called the hindgut fermentation system. 

Most of a zebra's diet is composed of flowering grasses, including Red Grass, Bermuda Grass, and Common Finger Grass. Zebras also eat wild beans and flowers. Wild zebras get needed salt from eating plants. When grass plants are not available, zebras can survive on roots and bark from trees. They are able to survive on plants with little nutritional value because their digestive system enables them to derive more nutritional benefit from plants than other herbivores. 

Zebras in Zoos

Most zebras in zoos eat timothy hay and pellets containing vitamins. Captive zebras are also given salt lick in order to meet their salt intake needs.