In "The Most Dangerous Game" what are General Zaroff's accomplishments?

General Zaroff is a Cossack who grew up in a wealthy, landed family somewhere in the Crimea, an area which has gone back and forth between Russia and the Ukraine (it is currently part of Russia). As landed gentry it was expected that Zaroff would become an officer in the Russian military. He notes that for a time he commanded a division of cavalry and, as part of the upper class, fought against the Bolsheviks during the civil war which followed the 1917 revolution. He fails to mention any specific accomplishment as a soldier, but he does go into detail about his outstanding ability as a hunter. He tells Rainsford that he killed his first bear when he was only ten years old. Afterward, hunting became Zaroff's main passion in life. He talks of hunting in every region of he world and that he was able to fund his adventures investing in "American securities" after those loyal to the czar were defeated in the civil war:

"Naturally, I continued to hunt—grizzlies in your Rockies, crocodiles in the Ganges, rhinoceroses in East Africa. It was in Africa that the Cape buffalo hit me and laid me up for six months. As soon as I recovered I started for the Amazon to hunt jaguars, for I had heard they were unusually cunning."

In fact, Zaroff becomes such an accomplished hunter that he eventually grows bored with the sport because every time he hunts he knows he will win. This is why he purchases the island where he adopts a new form of hunting involving the pursuit of men who are shipwrecked on his remote island. In the end, despite all his skill, he is unable to defeat Rainsford and when the two meet at the end of the story, Zaroff is killed by the American, who describes himself as a "beast at bay."

How can I write a three to five page analysis on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit?

This question is a little difficult to answer, as you can write an analysis about many different aspects of a work of literature. However, what I can do is give you some advice on how to approach analytical writing, and then give you some ideas about prominent themes in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit to analyze. 

Writing an analysis paper is like forming an argument. There are a couple of general steps you should follow when you're working on this kind of assignment. First, read the work of literature you have to analyze. Then, think about your particular opinion of the book. Usually, this opinion shouldn't be general (don't just say it's a "good" or "bad" book), but should deal with an important theme, idea, scene, or stylistic aspect in the book. Then, you'll come up with a thesis. This might sound complicated, but a thesis is just your particular opinion about a specific point in a work of literature. In other words, your thesis is your main argument/what you think about the point you're analyzing. Once you come up with a thesis, you'll need to back it up by picking examples from the book that support your ideas, and then explaining what these examples mean and how they prove your thesis.

Here's an example: you could analyze The Hobbit by reading it as an example of the Hero's Journey (a specific sequence of events, themes, and motifs that occurs again and again in literature and is absolutely present in The Hobbit). A sample thesis statement, depending on what you actually think about the topic, could read as follows: "I believe that The Hobbit is an example of the Hero's Journey because it includes perfect examples of each stage of this cycle, including the Departure, the Initiation, and the Return." Then, the rest of your essay would involve presenting examples from the book that support this idea. For example, you could argue that Bilbo's unexpected party is the Hero's Journey's Call to Adventure, or that his heroism in Mirkwood is part of the Initiation stage. All of these could be great examples, as long as you thoroughly and logically explain how they support your thesis. 

Don't worry if you don't want to write about the Hero's Journey in The Hobbit; that was just an example. There are many other things you could write about, such as the parallels between Tolkien's novel and the poem Beowulf, the importance of Bilbo's merciful refusal to kill Gollum, and more. If you're still having trouble writing your analysis paper, I'd recommend looking at ' essay resources. They're excellent and could give you some more specific support. 

How did Hancock help Johnny in Johnny Tremain by Esther Forbes?

John Hancock ordered a silver sugar basin as a birthday gift for his Aunt Lydia.  The sugar basin was to match the creamer pitcher he already owned.  The original sugar basin, which Mr. Lapham had made many years before, had been melted recently by a maid.  When John Hancock left the shop, he gave Johnny Tremain and the two other apprentices each a coin.

Johnny Tremain was confident that he could recreate the original sugar basin.  A terrible accident occurred while Johnny was making the silver basin.  His hand was badly burned, and he was no longer able to work as a silversmith's apprentice.  His entire life changed.  Desperate, Johnny went to John Hancock for help.  He begged Mr. Hancock to give him a job as a cabin boy, but the man refused.  Johnny left, but Mr. Hancock's slave followed him.  He gave Johnny a purse full of coins from Mr. Hancock:

Johnny took the purse.  It was heavy.  That much copper would provide him with food for days.  He opened it.  It was not copper, but silver.  John Hancock had not been able to look at the crippled hand--nor could he help but make this handsome present (Johnny Tremain, page 65).

Why would Shakespeare include the theme of corruption and decay in Hamlet?

Corruption and decay are a constant theme in Hamlet. From Horatio's assertion early in the play that something is "rotten in the state of Denmark," to Hamlet's disturbing joke that "politic worms" are eating the corpse of the recently dead Polonius, to his reflections on viewing Yorick's skull in the graveyard, the characters seem obsessed with the subject. One reason why Shakespeare may have included this theme is that he wished to underscore the foulness of the crime Claudius had committed. By murdering his brother and marrying his former sister-in-law, the king has eaten away at the moral center of Denmark. Something is rotten indeed in Denmark, and Hamlet is alone (with only Horatio as a confidant) in his knowledge of exactly what the source of the corruption really is. The theme of corruption and disease also serves to emphasize Hamlet's apparent madness, a major manifestation of which is his obsession with death and mortality. This, of course, is the focus of his speech at Yorick's grave. Thus corruption and decay can be found at the heart of Denmark and in Hamlet's own psyche. Shakespeare drives home the ubiquity of this theme through evoking it in one scene after another.

Kidder points out that Farmer is dissatisfied with the current distribution of money and medicine in the world. What is your opinion of the...

Dr. Paul Farmer, physician and anthropologist, is the co-founder of Partners In Health, a non-profit organization that states that it has two major goals: 

... to bring the benefits of modern medical science to those most in need of them and to serve as an antidote to despair ...

The essential argument of Farmer is that we have a moral obligation to alleviate suffering and thus that poverty should be no obstacle to medical care. 

I agree that income inequality and the ensuing level of inequality in medical care are morally problematic. Adequate food, shelter, safety, and medical care seem to me fundamental human rights, especially in a world that has more than sufficient wealth to distribute these universally.

In the case of infectious diseases, given the level of global travel and migration, it also seems in the self-interest of wealthier countries to aid poorer ones, as diseases know no borders. It is only by global programs of vaccination and care that we can eradicate diseases rather than leaving reservoirs permitting the diseases to recur. 

In "The Postmaster" by Tagore, what is the relationship between the postmaster and Ratan?

The relationship between the postmaster and Ratan is an emotionally imbalanced one.

The postmaster’s needs are met in his relationship with Ratan.  He finds a companion even though he is isolated from others. He finds someone who helps him pass the time in Ulapur.  When he is with Ratan, the postmaster is able to relive the joys of his family and his past life in Calcutta. At the same time, the postmaster benefits from Ratan’s loyalty towards him.  She waits on him with extreme devotion, taking care of him when he falls ill and never leaving the front of his home.  It is clear that the postmaster's needs are sufficiently met in this relationship.  Ratan selflessly gave the postmaster whatever she could.

When the postmaster tells Ratan he is leaving, it is the only time she insists on reciprocity.  She asks to be a part of his life in Calcutta. The dismissiveness in his response reflects how her needs were a distant second to his in their relationship. He received what he needed at the time, and now he no longer requires her because he is going “home.”   Tagore illustrates a relationship where two desperate people who met in one particular moment needed one another at that instant. In this relationship, one person’s needs were met, while the other's remained unfulfilled despite giving so much. Contrasting the postmaster’s content ending with Ratan’s pathetic state of “wandering about the post office in a flood of tears” shows the relationship’s emotional imbalance.

Where is there a synecdoche in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights?

A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is used to stand for a whole (or sometimes, a whole is used to stand for a part). The following sentence from Wuthering Heights contains a synecdoche: "Mr. Heathcliff may have entirely dissimilar reasons for keeping his hand out of the way when he meets a would-be acquaintance, to those which actuate me." Mr. Lockwood, Heathcliff's tenant, says this about Heathcliff in Chapter 1 in reference to Mr. Lockwood's own tendency to be shy and retiring. In this example, "hand" is a synecdoche because it is a part that stands for the whole. Heathcliff does not only keep his hand out of the way when he meets people, but instead keeps his whole body out of the way. "Hand" is used to represent his entire self. 

What happens in an aqueous solution as the concentration of H3O+ decreases? ...

Each water molecule can form four hydrogen bonds with other water molecules due to its polar nature.

Therefore, a hydrogen atom taking part in a hydrogen bond between two water molecules can shift from one water molecule to the other. When this occurs, it leaves its electron behind. Therefore, the hydrogen ion will be a proton written as H+. The molecule that has lost its proton is called a hydroxide ion with the symbol OH-. The molecule that has accepted the extra proton is now called H30+ and is known as a hydronium ion. It is sometimes written as simply H+.

The process described above is dissociation of water molecules. However, these molecules can re-form water exists in a state of equilibrium with a neutral pH of 7.

Anytime a substance increases the H+ ion concentration in solution, it is called an acid. A base reduces the H+ ion concentration of a solution. Water is technically both an acid and a base. A shift in the number of H+ ions where they outnumbered the OH- ions would result in a lowered pH and the solution would be acidic. A shift in the number of H+ ions where they were less than the OH- ions would result in an increase in pH.

In a water- based solution at 25 degrees C, the product of H+ ions and OH- ions = 10 -14. Basically, in a neutral solution, there is an equal number of H+ and OH- ions.

The pH of a solution = -log (H+) therefore, in neutral water, the H ion concentration is 10-7 and if one uses the formula above, pH= - (-7)= 7. 

The pH scale is written from 1 to 14. Neutral water has a pH of 7 and values below 7 are increasingly stronger acids. Values above 7 and continuing to 14 are increasingly stronger bases.

In a solution, if the number of H30+ ions (also written as H+ ions) decreases, the pH of the solution will increase. There will be a shift toward more OH- negative ions as the H3O + ions decrease. 

In the poem "Dream Variations" by Langston Hughes, why does the idea of whirling and dancing have power? What does it symbolize to Hughes?

In Hughes's poem, he speaks about stretching his arms wide during the day. He writes, "To whirl and to dance / Till the white day is done. / Then rest at cool evening." This is a poem about dreams, and whirling and dancing are powerful ideas in this poem because they express his desire to be free and express himself fully. However, because Hughes is a black man, he does not have the ability to express himself fully during the day or expand his arms wide, literally and figuratively. His days are likely spent working, and he lives in a society that does not always allow him to whirl and dance. When he cries, "Dance! Whirl! Whirl!," he is expressing his dreams rather than reality. These actions symbolize what he feels a black man can't do in America--that is, to act with freedom, creativity, and abandon. 

What is your impression of Bruno in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas?

Bruno is a heroic figure in The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.

The way Bruno views people leaves an impression.  Bruno treats people as ends in of themselves, and not as a means to an end.  In this regard, Bruno is authentic. While he might make mistakes, such as thinking that Pavel could not be a doctor or letting Shmuel take abuse from Kotler, Bruno makes amends.  He does not mistreat people deliberately.  This makes him different from others in the novel.  Bruno's father looks at Auschwitz as enhancing his career, while Gretel sees the embrace of Nazism as a vehicle for popularity.  Bruno's mother fails to speak out when she knows better, while Kotler is the prototypical Nazi when it comes to abusing people. Bruno is heroic in the honorable way he treats people, something rare in the Holocaust time period.

Bruno is heroic in how he stands by his word to Shmuel. Once again, it was rare for people to be this decent during the Holocaust.  When Bruno promises Shmuel that they will go on an "adventure," he sees to it that they do. Eve though Bruno is scared about what he finds on the other side of the fence, he does not back away from his promise of being there for his friend.  Finally, as he and Shmuel walk into the gas chamber, into terrifying reality, he affirms their friendship.  Bruno's heroism can be seen in his loyalty towards Shmuel.

Finally, I would say that Bruno is heroic because he is an example of how people should behave even in the worst of situations.  During the Holocaust, there was so much cruelty that not taking action or being apathetic could be seen as a virtue.  Given how badly people behaved, not doing anything was better than perpetrating evil. However, Bruno is a reminder that in the worst of times, human beings must act in the best of their nature. Relativism does not apply to human decency.  Bruno embodies the very best during the very worst, and this impression makes him heroic.

What is the difference between a servant and a slave, and how does this relate to Chains by Laurie Halse Anderson?

Peter Wood, a professor of history at Duke University, was asked this very same question.  His answer has always surprised me because I always assumed that the difference between a servant and a slave was that a servant could legally choose to quit, while a slave could not do that.  Wood's description of the difference between slaves and servants is quite interesting.  

A servant could be a white person or black person.  Skin color doesn't make a difference.  The defining feature of a servant is that he or she is under contract to work for a certain number of years.  When the contract time runs out, that person is free to leave and seek out another contract if desired.  What I find interesting about Wood's response is that he says owners occasionally treated their servants worse than their slaves because the owner knew that he/she had the servant for a limited time.  In essence, the servant was the equivalent of a rental, while the slave was actual property and needed to be taken care of.  

In Isabel's situation though, Isabel was treated much more poorly as a slave than Becky was treated as a servant. 

In Coriolanus by Shakespeare, is Coriolanus's death an assertion of his role as a heroic Roman warrior, or is it a death of a traitorous villain?

There is no straightforward answer to this intriguing question. Like many of Shakespeare’s heroes, Coriolanus is both a victim and a villain. He is the definition of a tragic hero whose flaws bring about his destruction. He certainly does not die in battle, the usual death of a heroic Roman warrior. Instead, a group of conspirators stab him to death. The crowd cries, “Tear him to pieces,” and the conspirators chant, “Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill him!” Even Coriolanus directs, “Cut me to pieces, Volsces; men and lads, / Stain all your edges on me.”

It is possible that Coriolanus dies in a blaze of glory, fighting his way through the conspirators until they slay him. Another interpretation is that he simply gives up or is taken by surprise. There is not enough evidence in the text to know exactly how he dies. The Volsces murder Coriolanus because he has helped and hurt both them and the Romans. It is interesting that the Romans do not kill him for betraying them. Instead, the Volsces stab him because he not only failed to take Rome, but he needs to pay for his past violence against them when he was loyal to Rome.

Ultimately, Coriolanus dies as a traitor to both Rome and the Volsces, and as a hero to both sides. Aufidius commemorates him as a destructive but honorable warrior:

Though in this city he
Hath widow'd and unchilded many a one,
Which to this hour bewail the injury,
Yet he shall have a noble memory.

Coriolanus threatened Rome, but eventually saved it from himself. He also advanced the Volsces, but did not deliver them Rome. Coriolanus dies as both traitor and hero.

What are some examples of the impact of the internment camp on the family in the book Farewell to Manzanar?

The internment camp was hurriedly put up, and minimal efforts were directed towards health and sanitation. People suffered from diarrhea and other sanitation related diseases. Jeanne suffered from exposure to the filthy conditions and the situation affected the family.

Group living in the internment camp forced the people, including the Wakatsuki family, to share all the available amenities. In addition, the rooms were small, and the situation affected individual privacy. For instance, the young couples in the Wakatsuki family were forced to share the small space with their parents.

The internment camp also affected the family psychologically. Years after the camps were closed, the Japanese people carried the shame associated with living in the camps, and Jeanne was among those affected by the experience.

The Wakatsuki family was also split by the relocation. Mr. Wakatsuki was arrested and separated from his family. His son was forced to take charge of the family when they settled in Manzanar.

What historical circumstances resulted in the Louisiana Purchase?

After the French-Indian War in 1763, France lost all of its North American holdings but maintained control of the island of Haiti.  After this war, Spain owned the land that would be known as the Louisiana Purchase.  During the Napoleonic War, France regained the territory and Napoleon intended on using the land as a granary to feed his army and the island of Haiti to provide sugar for trade.  In 1803, the slaves of Haiti overthrew their French masters and declared an independent nation.  Napoleon now saw the North American land as a hindrance, as it would be something else to defend against the British.  When Jefferson sent ambassadors to Napoleon to ask to use the port of New Orleans, Napoleon surprised them by offering to sell the entire territory, encompassing millions of acres.  Jefferson instructed his envoys to create a deal with the French, and the treaty was sent to Congress.  Congress, while upset that they were not consulted and that this massive land purchase was supposed to be outside the presidential realm of power, signed off on the popular land purchase, thus overnight more than doubling the size of the United States.  

Why did Ratan feel so crushed at the end of "The Postmaster" by Rabindranath Tagore?

In the story, Ratan felt abandoned by her employer. His nonchalant rejection of her, based on his decision to return to Calcutta alone, essentially crushed her spirits.

Ratan had always been a faithful servant girl, and in her naivety, assumed that the postmaster would value and welcome her presence in his new life. As an unmarried man, Ratan's employer probably felt uncomfortable with the prospect of returning to Calcutta with a little girl in tow. The damage to his reputation might have been devastating; his chances for future material advancement and marriage prospects might have suffered. Essentially, the postmaster wasn't courageous enough to take any chances.

Because he neglected to consider matters from Ratan's point of view, the postmaster acted insensitively towards his young servant. Essentially, her faithfulness and solicitude were rewarded by abandonment and rejection. Ratan is crushed because she was loyal to and trusted the postmaster implicitly but is betrayed.

What are some examples that economics was a strong force in the colonization of the New World?

There are some examples that show that economics was a factor in the colonization of the New World. When Spain sponsored Christopher Columbus and his voyages, one factor that influenced their decision to sponsor him was that they hoped he would find minerals. If he found minerals, this would help strengthen the Spanish treasury.

The British also hoped to discover minerals in the New World. Some of the early settlements, such as Jamestown, were based on the hope of finding gold and silver. The British also had an interest in North America because they needed resources for their factories when the Industrial Revolution began. They knew it would be cheaper to get resources from their colonies instead of buying them from other countries. They also knew the colonies would serve as a guaranteed market for their goods that were manufactured in the factories in Great Britain. This would benefit the British economy.

The French were very protective of the lands they controlled in the North America. The French made a great deal of money from the lucrative fur trade. They didn’t want other countries, mainly Great Britain, infringing on this trade. It was a factor that led to the start of the French and Indian War.

Economics was definitely a factor in the colonization and development of the New World.

In The Boy in the Striped Pajamas by John Boyne, how many children live in the hut with Shmuel?

In Chapter 12, Shmuel tells Bruno about his experience leaving his home in Poland. Shmuel explains to Bruno that the first hut his family was forced to stay in was only one room. He goes on to tell Bruno that he lived there with his mother, father, brother, as well as another family that had "sons." Shmuel then tells Bruno that one of the sons was named Luka, and he used to beat him up. Bruno shakes his head to contradict Shmuel because he doesn't believe that two families could live in one hut, but Shmuel insists that he is being honest. Shmuel then says that there were eleven people living in the hut together. Using this information one can figure out that Shmuel was living with six other children in one hut before they were sent away to live in Auschwitz. Shmuel does not give any information regarding how many children he lives with in Auschwitz, but the reader does learn that Shmuel's mother was taken away from them. Shmuel currently lives with his brother, Josef, and his Papa in a hut at Auschwitz.

What is the World State's response to overpopulation in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

The World State's response to overpopulation is to regulate the type and number of the population on a global scale.

According to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, the World State is the entity responsible for keeping the population at an optimum number for each succeeding generation. By its calculation, a population of under two billion is the ideal population number to support global welfare. To ensure the realization of its population goals, the World State relies on eugenics and dysgenics.

Eugenics basically refers to the breeding of superior human beings for the welfare of global societies. Conversely, in Brave New World, dysgenics refers to the breeding of inferior human beings for the purposes of supporting the higher-skilled populations of the earth.

In his novel, Huxley introduces the idea the population of the earth must not only be maintained at a certain number, but also that the number of that optimum population must be carefully apportioned among the genetically superior and the genetically inferior. This ensures the majority of the population is composed of genetically superior humans.

In the novel, biologically superior ova and sperm are fertilized and decanted as superior species of Alphas, Betas, and Alpha Pluses. To ensure a class of almost sub-human beings are able to support the genetically superior beings, inferior ova is combined with inferior sperm to produce Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons. As an additional step, the Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons are exposed to what is called Bokanovsky's Process. The novel describes the process:

One egg, one embryo, one adult-normality. But a bokanovskified egg will bud, will proliferate, will divide. From eight to ninety-six buds, and every bud will grow into a perfectly formed embryo, and every embryo into a full-sized adult. Making ninety-six human beings grow where only one grew before. Progress.

In the novel, Bokanovsky's Process is combined with Podsnap's Technique, which speeds up the maturation of unfertilized eggs to produce a vast number of these genetically inferior beings. The Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons are used to perform unskilled, menial labor; the World State keeps this group content in its servile condition by providing the members of this subhuman group easy and plentiful access to gratuitous entertainment, sexual fulfillment, and daily doses of soma (a pleasure drug). Since drugs like cocaine and heroin aren't legally available in the dystopian world of the novel, soma is the only available means by which the World State can protect itself from rebellion within its borders; it's an insurance policy against uprisings and societal unrest.

To prevent over-producing humans of either genetically superior or inferior stock, the World State only allows 30% of female embryos to develop normally. The others develop into what are called freemartins: sterile women developed from female embryos that were periodically injected with male sex hormones.

Since the World State makes all decisions for citizens, they also decide when human beings die. Those who are too sick and old are not allowed to burden society with their infirmities. Death conditioning begins at the age of eighteen months; every toddler spends at least two mornings a week at the Hospital for the Dying.

So, to recap, the World State's response to overpopulation is to control the number and type of citizenry as well as to utilize euthanasia to dispose of what the state considers useless citizens.

Why would a country have a low GDP per person? Why is Madagascar so poor?

That's the trillion-dollar question, isn't it? If we knew precisely what determined the GDP of a country, development economics would be a solved problem.

But I can tell you some things that most economists believe are important to the development (or lack thereof) of a country's GDP.

The first is institutions. In order to achieve and maintain prosperity, a country must have institutions that support economic development, which generally means some form of democracy and free market economy. The precise form can vary (Switzerland is more democratic than the United Kingdom, while the United States has more free markets than France, yet all are about equally prosperous), and there are some exceptions, especially in the short run (Saudi Arabia has horrible totalitarian institutions, but will remain wealthy as long as the oil continues to flow). But in general, you need to have a free government and a free market if you really want to achieve a high level of economic development.

Does Madagascar have these things? Not really. Madagascar has a moderately free government with a high level of corruption, and in the 1970s implemented a number of socialist economic policies that undermined investment and stunted economic growth. Starting in the 1980s many of these policies were reformed, and Madagascar transitioned to a more liberal export-oriented economy. But with corruption high, investments intended to support growth have been skimmed off to line the pockets of individual government officials.

Which brings me to the next two key features: infrastructure and education. Successful economies always have a large infrastructure base of roads, rails, electric power, and clean running water; most regions of Madagascar have none of these things. Prosperous countries have educated populations where almost everyone is literate and a large fraction go to college; Madagascar has hardly anyone with college degrees and a large fraction of the population who are outright illiterate.

Trade is another important source of wealth, which Madagascar has had trouble maintaining due to their geographic isolation. Their large sea coast could help with trade (it is certainly better than being landlocked), but they are very far from most of the major trade hubs like Tokyo, New York, London or Singapore.

Notice what I haven't mentioned: Land or natural resources. Madagascar does have many natural resources, but these actually turn out not to be all that relevant to economic development. They don't hurt necessarily (at one time economists actually thought they did hurt, an idea called the "Resource Curse", but it turns out that the problem isn't the natural resources per se but the extractive institutions that tend to build up around them if they are the only source of wealth. The US and Norway are quite rich in natural resources, and they do just fine because they have sound institutions.)

To make matters worse, Madagascar has a long history of colonialism and extractive institutions, starting centuries ago with French colonization. Even after independence they were never fully able to shed these institutions, and still have an economic system that works better at enriching a small few than it does at achieving overall prosperity.

Reforming Madagascar to achieve economic growth will be no small task, but we must not give up hope. Other countries such as Korea and Japan have lifted themselves out of similar levels of poverty in the past. Once we figure out exactly how, perhaps we can achieve it elsewhere as well.

What are operating system functions?

When most end-users encounter computers, they are working on what are sometimes referred to as "virtual machines." In other words, when you interact with a computer or smart phone, there are many layers of software between you and the device you are using. Computers are actually very simple devices, that can store binary data (bits that can have the value of 0 or 1) and perform a very limited set of operations on those bits. What enables computers to perform such operations as accepting input from keyboards and mice and displaying output on monitors is a combination of software and firmware (firmware is basically software hardwired into a system). 

The operating system of a computer is a type of managerial software that handles many of the computer's administrative functions, such as switching between tasks. The key function of an operating system is actually to execute a wait loop, a sequence of code in which it looks for interrupts or signals from various devices (keyboard, mouse, internal clock, etc.) to see if anything needs to be done. Then, if the operating system sees that it has received one or more such signals, it responds by transferring control to an appropriate piece of software (either an operating system module or an application) to deal with the interrupt. Operating systems also provide standard interfaces for application software and handle issues such as memory management, allocating resources among various tasks, resolving conflicts among tasks, and handling interfaces with external devices, so that people writing application software such as word processors or spread sheets can focus on application functionality, and simply use standard commands to write something in a specific font to the screen, for example, rather than dealing with the mechanics of displaying every single pixel in each letter a user will see. 

On which page does the quote, "...drank it up anyways... Sometimes went off in the swamp for days, and come home sick...." appear in To Kill...

This quote is pulled from the middle of Chapter 18 of To Kill a Mockingbird. (In the paperback edition published by Warner Books, it is on page 185).

In this chapter, Mayella Ewell is on the witness stand, supposedly recounting what happened on the day that she was purportedly raped. She is a fairly hostile witness as she complains after Atticus calls her "ma'am":

"I don't hafta take his sass. I ain't called upon to take it."

Judge Taylor explains that Mr. Finch is merely being polite. So Atticus continues and asks Mayella a number of questions. From this interrogation it becomes apparent that Bob Ewell is an irresponsible, dissolute, and neglectful parent. Their relief check is not only insufficient to provide for everyone, but Ewell often takes it and spends it on liquor. He stays away from the house and drinks until there is nothing left. The children fend for themselves, and as the oldest, Mayella must care for the younger ones. 

When Atticus asks her, "Does he ever go after you?" Mayella becomes quiet. Judge Taylor orders her to answer. Then, she declares, "My paw's never touched a hair o' my head in my life." Clearly, she fears retaliation.

The speed of light in a transparent plastic object is the same as that in water. Explain whether or not you can see this object when it is...

Hello!

Theoretically, the answer is no, you cannot see such an object in water.

It would be no refraction of light between such plastic and water. Refraction occurs when an inclined ray approaches a boundary between two media, in which the speed of light is different.

Refraction occurs because while one side of the ray moves through the external medium, the second side of the ray already hits the internal medium and moves with the different speed. Therefore the front of the ray rotates and the ray itself changes its direction.

If speeds of light are the same, this change of direction is zero (no change of a direction). In other words, all light rays will go through the object the same way as through water, an we couldn't discover it with the help of light. This means we cannot see the object.

In Hoot, how are Beatrice's and Roy's families similar? Different?

Beatrice and Roy have slightly similar families, but in most ways their families are different. Both Beatrice and Roy are their biological parents' only children. Both Beatrice's and Roy's fathers have been high achievers in their professions. Leon Leep was a professional basketball player, and Roy's father has received multiple promotions within the Department of Justice. Of course, both families live fairly near each other in Coconut Cove, Florida, and their children attend the same school.

Beyond those few similarities, however, the families stand in stark contrast to each other. Roy's parents are nurturing and loving. They commend him when he does something good, they discipline or reprimand him when he does something wrong, and they help him think through tough issues. His mother and father seem to agree about most things and don't quarrel much. Roy's father works outside the home, while his mother doesn't. They go on family outings, eat dinner, and spend Sundays together. His parents don't hover over him, though. They allow him enough freedom to solve his problems and grow in the process. In short, they represent a functional family.

Beatrice's family is dysfunctional. Her parents quarrel and even become physically violent with each other. They are a blended family; Lonna is Beatrice's stepmother. Beatrice has never bonded with Lonna, and Lonna doesn't want her son around. Leon seems depressed and may be an alcoholic. He doesn't work and seems to have no practical life skills or healthy interests. Lonna works in the evenings. The family doesn't seem to do things together or enjoy each other's company. Beatrice makes supper for her father each night because she doesn't think he's capable of doing it for himself. 

Beatrice's family represents the inadequate parenting that many of the teens in Coconut Cove seem to have, while Ray's family represents parents who are healthy and engaged enough to provide a positive environment for their child.

How does Marlowe's Doctor Faustus relate to Dante and Everyman?

Marlowe's Doctor Faustus does relate to the concept of Everyman as seen in Dante's Divine Comedy because, at least in part, both have strong central thematic elements foregrounding God's salvation—even for ordinary humans in a sinful condition—attained through repentance and calling upon God's name, a dominant theme in Everyman (The Summoning of Everyman, 15th century), the play most connected with the Everyman character type. Both plays also examine the idea of the heroic nature of the ordinary, undistinguished Everyman.

Everyman characters are ordinary individuals with no distinguishing talents or abilities who find themselves in situations that require something heroic of them. Dante emerges from the nine celestial spheres into the light of Beatrice's love, his metaphoric salvation. Faustus fails to find a way to ask for salvation, even though signs and opportunities appear before him, and he is overcome by demons.

One presentation of the theme of salvation from sin is represented by Dante, who is saved, and its opposite is represented by Faustus, who is not saved. One representation of Dante's Everyman character is that his journey quest caused heroic traits to ultimately triumph, for himself and for Beatrice. The oppositional representation of a heroic Everyman character is Faustus, who scorns the ordinary, the commonplace, the undistinguished in his pursuit of privileged, elitist knowledge: Faustus feels himself removed from the realm of the uninspired, ordinary Everyman who rises above his circumstances in heroic ways.

What are three instances where characters stand up to authority? Provide quotes.

Montag and Faber both stand up to authority several times throughout the novel. At the beginning of Part III, Beatty tells Montag that he will trace the green bullet back to its owner and Montag switches the safety off of the flamethrower. Beatty then dares Montag to pull the trigger. Bradbury writes,

"And then he was a shrieking blaze, a jumping, sprawling gibbering manikin, no longer human or known, all writhing flame on the lawn as Montag shot one continuous pulse of liquid fire on him" (113).

While Montag is on the run from the authorities, he decides to hide books in a fireman's home as a way to sabotage the system. Bradbury writes,

"He hid the books in the kitchen and moved from the house again to the alley and looked back and the house was still dark and quiet, sleeping" (123).

When Montag arrives at Faber's home to discuss how to escape the city, Faber tells him to follow the river and join a group of traveling intellectuals. Before Montag leaves, Faber mentions how he will stand up to authority by saying,

"You might hole up with them for a time and get in touch with me in St. Louis. I'm leaving on the five a.m. bus this morning, to see a retired printer there, I'm getting out in the open myself, at last" (126).

A small dust particle of mass `7.90 * 10^-6 g` is being observed under a magnifying lens. Its position is determined to within `0.0050 mm.` (`1 y =...

Hello!

A. The main physical law to use here is the uncertainty principle with respect to momentum and position. The formula is

`Delta p*Delta x gt=` ħ/2,

where `Delta p` is an uncertainty in a momentum, `Delta x` is an uncertainty in a position of the same particle, and ħ is the reduced Planck's constant, `h/(2 pi).`  It is obvious that `Delta p = m*Delta v,` where `m` is a mass of a particle and `Delta v` is an uncertainty in its speed.

Therefore the minimum uncertainty in a velocity is  `h/(4 pi)*1/(m*Delta x).`

All values are given, but we have to make m from mm and kg from g. The numerical answer is

`((6.626*10^(-34))/(4 pi))/(7.9*10^(-6)*10^(-3)*0.0050*10^(-3)) approx 6.626/(7.9*5*4*3.14) * 10^(-34)/10^(-15) approx`

`approx 0.0133*10^(-19) = 1.333*10^(-21) (m/s).`

Thus I agree with your answer. I don't even have an idea where 4.6 may come from.

B. A time is a distance divided by a speed, the only problem is to use correct units. A time in seconds is  `10^(-3)/(1.33*10^(-21)) approx 0.75*10^(18) (s).` To get this time in years we have to divide it by the given number of seconds in a year, i.e. `(0.75*10^(18))/(3.156*10^7) approx 0.238*10^(11) = 2.38*10^(10) (years).`

If we would use the speed that stated as the "correct answer" for A, the answer would be that you want as "correct" for B.

In a population of rabbits, there are 496 black rabbits and 27 white rabbits. Fur color is determined by a pair of alleles where "B" is the...

Since the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the dominant allele displays complete dominance. This means that rabbits with black fur have a genotype of either BB or Bb. Since the numbers of both black and white rabbits are given, we can easily calculate the frequency of the black fur phenotype.

Black fur phenotype frequency = number of black rabbits/(number of black rabbits + number of white rabbits)

                                            = 496/(496 + 27)

                                            = 496/523

                                            = 0.95

The Hardy-Weinberg equation assumes that a population is infinitely large, which is not the case in this question. Therefore, the observed frequency of 0.95 may differ from the theoretical frequency. To calculate the theoretical frequency of the black fur phenotype, we simply use the frequency given for B.

Since there are only two alleles in this population, the sum of both allele frequencies equals one. To write this out mathematically: B + b = 1. Since we already know B, we must solve for b.

b = 1 – B

b = 1 – 0.8

b = 0.2

To calculate the theoretical frequency, we need to use the Hardy-Weinberg equation: B^2 + 2 Bb + b^2 = 1. As noted earlier, black rabbits will have a genotype of either BB or Bb. Therefore, we are solving the equation for B^2 + 2 Bb.

B^2 + 2 Bb + b^2 = 1

                – b^2 =  – b^2

       B^2 + 2 Bb = 1 – b^2

Since b = 0.2, the theoretical frequency of black fur will equal 1 – b^2.

Black phenotype = 1 – b^2

                        = 1 – (0.2)2

                        = 1 – 0.04

                        = 0.96

The theoretical frequency of black fur is close, but not quite equal to the observed frequency of 0.95.

Why was non-violent action so effective in the civil rights movement?

The nonviolent protests of the 1950s and the 1960s were very successful for several reasons. For example, the Montgomery Bus Boycott showed that African-Americans were very determined to achieve their goals. They walked, biked, or carpooled for 381 days, regardless of the weather, until they got what they wanted. They took these actions in a peaceful manner, not destroying property or hurting people.

Another reason why the nonviolent method was successful was that it showed the rest of the country who was really being violent. When the police in Birmingham turned the fire hoses on the protesters and used dogs to attack them, it showed the brutal methods that law enforcement was using. When the police beat the marchers as they attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery, it also showed how violently the police were responding to the nonviolent protests. These actions were captured by the news media covering these events. The whole country was able to watch and see these events unfold. This helped sway public opinion in favor of the nonviolent protesters. This helped to pressure Congress to act and led to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Another factor that supported the nonviolent protesters was that those who were against integration went after black churches and killed black children. People were horrified when the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed and young, black children were killed.

The constant use of nonviolent protests helped to sway public opinion and some lawmakers to take actions to deal with the civil rights’ injustices facing our country.

How does Felix connect to the thesis of The Odd Couple?

In The Odd Couple, Felix connects to the thesis of interpersonal relationships that is so dominant in the drama.

Felix is the countervailing force to Oscar.  Their relationship is predicated upon a balance.  Attributes of one offset the detriments of the other.  While Oscar spends money freely, Felix is financially controlling.  Oscar does not care about cleanliness, while Felix cares for little else.  Oscar cannot cook, yet Felix enjoys creating sumptuous meals in the kitchen.  The disorder of one matches the order of another.  While each is incapable of being effective on their own, when they are together, they make a whole.  In this way, Felix connects to the drama's thesis that relationships can be formed when people complement one another, compensating for the weaknesses of one with the strengths of another.

Another aspect of the interpersonal thesis that Simon illuminates is that excessive love of self can destroy relationships.  Oscar and Felix are single because their self-indulgence drove away their spouses.  Both were unable to overcome their own narcissism.  This prevented them from validating the other person.  Felix was overbearing to Frances, insistent that he could do things like cooking and cleaning better than she could.  Oscar drove Blanche away because his voice crowded out hers. Felix and Oscar demonstrate the dangers of being in a relationship without paying attention to the needs and wants of another person.  Through Felix and Oscar, Simon argues that no relationship can survive if reciprocity and mutual respect is lacking.  Interestingly enough, this becomes the reason why Felix and Oscar have to separate.  Neither one is capable of allowing the other's voice to flourish because they are so insistent on their own being dominant.  Simon's thesis is a warning to those in relationships who cannot see past their own needs.

What is a brief explanation of the attack made by the Bulgarians against the Serbs?

Arms and the Man by George Bernard Shaw is set during the Serbo-Bulgarian War. This was a war between Serbia and Bulgaria that started on 14 November 1885 and ended on 28 November 1885. More specifically, it recounts the events of the Battle of Slivnitsa that occurred on November 17–19, 1885 and represented a decisive victory for the Bulgarians. 

The battle is initially described by Catherine Petkoff in the very first scene of the play. She describes it as follows:

A cavalry charge—think of that! He defied our Russian commanders—acted without orders—led a charge on his own responsibility—headed it himself—was the first man to sweep through their guns.

A few pages later, we get an account of this same battle as seen through the eyes of a professional mercenary, who makes disparaging comments about the sheer foolishness of attacking a machine gun post with horses and swords. In his discussion of the charge the Swiss mercenary gives a very vivid description of the silliness of the charge and the accidental reason why it succeeded when it should have failed.

What are three considerations Diamond discusses as he ponders Yali’s question in Guns, Germs and Steel?

The answer to this question can be found in the Prologue to Guns, Germs, and Steel. In it, Diamond says that Yali, a New Guinean leader, once asked him why it was that "white people developed so much cargo [material goods] and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own" (13). This leads Diamond to the salient question of the book:

Why did wealth and power become distributed as they now are, rather than in some other way? For instance, why weren't Native Americans, Africans, and Aboriginal Australians the ones who decimated, subjugated, or exterminated Europeans and Asians (15)?

Diamond, in short, is seeking to understand why world history progressed as it did, and as a biologist, he will look deeper than cultural, economic, and political considerations, which, he tells the reader, have preoccupied historians. But he mentions three considerations, or "objections," as he terms them. They are paraphrased as follows:

1. By explaining the dominance of some people over others, are we running the risk of justifying their actions? He dismisses this concern by saying that understanding the origins of something is not the same as justifying or accepting the human actions involved.


2. Does investigating the origins of European dominance necessarily involve a "Eurocentric" approach to history? Diamond argues that his approach leads to the opposite conclusion of approaches that glorify European cultural and technological achievements.


3. Is the study of "civilization" based on the assumption that societies and people with advanced technology are necessarily superior to hunter-gatherer societies, for example? Diamond assures the reader that this is not his suggestion, saying that the "so-called blessings of civilization" are mixed, at best.

So, in short, Diamond says that Guns, Germs, and Steel is, if anything, geared toward addressing the kinds of concerns he raises. It is in no way intended to justify European culture or the ways in which it spread around the world.

In All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, what does Paul think is the best thing to come out of the war?

Paul thinks that the best thing to come out of the war is the development of comradeship or esprit de corps within the soldier ranks.

We did not break down, but adapted ourselves; our twenty years, which made many another thing so grievous, helped us in this. But by far the most important result was that it awakened in us a strong, practical sense of esprit de corps, which in the field developed into the finest thing that arose out of the war-comradeship.

Paul explains that "on the borders of death, life follows an amazingly simple course"; the soldiers in the trenches are most concerned about the necessity of prevailing over the enemy and the prospect of surviving the brutal onslaught against them. Everything is reduced to the question of survival. Paul maintains that allowing anything else to distract them "would consume energies unnecessarily." Yet, within this dark atmosphere, an element of comradeship prevails, and Paul asserts that it helps every soldier "escape the abyss of solitude." During the late hours of the night, those on night-watch or patrol take comfort in hearing the steady breathing of their sleeping comrades.

Middlemarch is a highly unusual novel. Although it is primarily a Victorian novel, it has many characteristics typical to modern novels. How does...

Eliot, who herself engaged in what was in Victorian England a highly unorthodox unmarried relationship with George Lewes, critiques the damage conventional marriage can wreak. When the sensitive, passionate and intelligent Dorothea decides to yoke herself, under romantic illusions, to the older Reverend Casaubon, she experiences a crushing disillusion. She thought she would be supporting a great man embarked on a great work of knowledge, throwing her all into him, but instead, she finds herself as companion and nursemaid to a highly conventional, jealous man. She finds after the marriage that he doesn't have the breadth of mind or vision to complete anything great and that she is trapped.

Likewise, Lydgate, full of hopes, dreams and ideals about doing pure medical research that will help mankind, yokes himself to the pretty and very conventional, narrow-minded Rosamond, who wants money, status and pretty things. She doesn't understand or support Lydgate's dreams and he ends up a fashionable London doctor to the rich, making money but at the price of abandoning his youthful dreams.

In both cases, the intelligent, sensitive partner in a marriage is damaged by marriage conventions, Dorothea by the expectation that she will subordinate herself to her husband, no matter how unworthy he is, and Lydgate by the expectation that he will materially support his wife in the style to which she is accustomed, no matter what. Eliot thus critiques an institution that can have a soul-crushing effect on sensitive, intelligent people, preventing them, because of social norms, from achieving their potential.

Why does Portia refuse to marry the Scottish lord in Act one, Scene 2?

In Act one, Scene 2, Portia discusses with Nerissa the various reasons why she refuses to marry any of the previous suitors. After Portia lists why the Neapolitan prince, Count Palatine, and Falconbridge, the English baron are not fit to marry her, Nerissa asks Portia about the Scottish lord. Portia sarcastically comments that he has neighborly charity and is very forgiving since the Englishman boxed his ears and he did not retaliate. Rather than defend himself, the Scottish lord threatened to pay the Englishman back. Then, the Frenchman agreed to help the Scottish lord, but never did, which guaranteed him another another beating from the Englishman. Portia wittingly mocks the Scottish lord's inability to defend himself against the English who took control of Scotland. However, Portia does not go into further detail as to why she chooses not to marry him. One can surmise that his lack of masculinity and willingness to defend his country against invasion is the reason he is not a serious candidate to marry Portia.

Why did the author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks break the book into three sections--"Life," "Death, and "Immortality"?

Rebecca Skloot, the author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, split the book into three distinct sections--"Life," "Death," and "Immortality"--in order to describe the events of Henrietta's life (and the continued life of her cells) in a logical manner.

Thus, the "Life" sections deals with Henrietta's childhood, as she was raised by her grandfather on a farm which had once belonged to a slave owner.

The "Death" section naturally deals with Henrietta's death from cervical cancer and the removal of cells--without consent--from henrietta's cervix during a radiation treatment.

The "Immortality" section deals with the use of Henrietta's cells (which were the first human cells grown in a culture outside of the body) in over 60,000 scientific studies across the world. This section also addresses the immense ethical and financial issues that arose out of the use of these cells, which were removed and replicated without permission from Henrietta or her family.

Interspersed into the narrative is the story of how dramatically this theft of genetic material impacted her family, who received no compensation for these actions (in spite of the immense profits that the cells yielded through medical experimentation) and suffered emotionally upon learning of this violation. 

The setting of the story is very limited; it is confined largely to a room, staircase, and front door. How does this limitation help to express the...

The strict limitations of the setting mirror the strict limitations placed on women during the Victorian era, the time in which Louise Mallard lives.  As Louise mentally processes the fact that her husband is dead, the first words she speaks aloud are "'free, free, free!'"  Though the joy she feels is a "monstrous" one, she feels it nonetheless.  She knows that her husband loved her, and she feels that she, at times, loved him.  However, most tellingly, she reflects on the idea that

There would be no one to live for her during those coming years; she would live for herself.  There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature. A kind intention or a cruel intention made the act seem no less a crime as she looked upon it in that brief moment of illumination.

She seems to have felt trapped in her marriage.  Perhaps she never wanted to marry at all and was forced to as a result of societal expectation.  Perhaps she didn't want to marry Brently but had to because there was no good, socially-acceptable reason to refuse him.  Whatever the case, her marriage seems to have made her feel that she could not live for herself, that she must always give way to whatever her husband wanted, because that is what marriage demanded of Victorian women.  They were forced to live relatively small lives. 

Likewise, the setting is small, and it parallels the figurative "smallness" of Louise's life.  She has been confined, restricted, and almost the first thing she does after learning of her husband's death is to open the window and look outside, as though his death has liberated her from confinement; she notices the birds and the trees and the clouds now.  One of the main themes of the story, about the confinement marriage posed to women during this era (even when the marriage was a loving one), is further expressed by the story's setting.

What happens during the event at Cajamarca that is discussed in Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel?

The event at Cajamarca that Jared Diamond discusses in Guns, Germs, and Steel was the first meeting between the Inca emperor Atahuallpa and Francisco Pizarro and his invading army of Spaniards.  This meeting took place on November 16, 1532 and is discussed beginning on p. 68 of Diamond’s book.

Diamond says that Pizarro had 168 Spaniards with him at Cajamarca while Atahuallpa had 80,000 of his own warriors.  Even so, Diamond says on p. 68, Pizarro captured the Inca “within a few minutes” of the time when the two leaders met.  Diamond then uses Spanish sources to give many more details.  The details of what happened at the actual encounter/battle begin on p. 70.  Essentially, Pizarro planned to capture Atahuallpa.  He divided his forces and hid most of them at various places around the square in the town of Cajamarca.  According to the Spaniards (p. 72), Atahuallpa looked at the Bible and then threw it away, at which point the Spanish attacked.  The Spanish slaughtered the Native Americans, killing (according to the writer that Diamond quotes) something like 7,000 of them before night fell.  Diamond’s long quotation from the Spanish records ends on p. 74.

So, the best way to describe the event at Cajamarca is to say that it was a fight between 168 Spaniards and tens of thousands of Incas.  The Spanish apparently planned all along to kill the Native Americans (or were at least very ready to do so).  They seem to have used the religious “insult” as a pretext for the fight.  The Spanish routed the Incas decisively, killing thousands of them.  Diamond recounts this incident because he wants to think about why it was that the Spanish were able to defeat a force that was so much larger than their own.  He goes on to discuss this issue in the rest of Chapter 3 of Guns, Germs, and Steel.

In ‘‘Rikki- Tikki-Tavi" by Rudyard Kipling, how does Rikki get to the bungalow?

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, the mongoose in Rudyard Kipling's story, originally lived in a burrow with his father and mother. One day a summer storm washes him away from his home. The rushing water carries him into a roadside ditch. At first he is conscious during this flood, but at some point he loses consciousness. That's when the boy, Teddy, finds him. Teddy thinks the animal is dead, and he plans to conduct a funeral for him. But his mother thinks he might be alive and suggests they take him back to their bungalow to dry him off. So they bring him in from the garden path onto which he has washed up and dry him off in the big house. The man determines he isn't dead, merely "half-choked." They wrap him in a cotton cloth and get him warm, and he sneezes himself awake. 

What are some metaphors in the essay "How It Feels to Be Colored Me" by Nora Zeale Hurston?

One of the metaphors in this essay by Zora Neale Hurston is "the front porch might seem a daring place for the rest of the town, but it was a gallery seat for me." Hurston compares the front porch of the house where she grew up in Eatonville, Florida, to a seat in a theatre from which she can watch the passing show. She realized that she was colored when she moved to Jacksonville, and, in another metaphor, she says, "In my heart as well as in the mirror, I became a fast brown, warranted not to rub nor run." Becoming brown in her heart is metaphorical, not literal, and her skin color is compared to a dye that won't run. Later, she writes, "I am off to a flying start and I must not halt in the stretch to look behind and weep." In this metaphor, she compares her life, coming after the end of slavery, to a race. In this race, she says she is off and running, and she says, like a fast runner, that she won't look behind her.

She writes that at Barnard, "Among the thousand white persons, I am a dark rock surged upon, and overswept." In this metaphor, she compares herself to a lone dark rock among a flood of white people, and because she is a single black person among many, whites she feels their numbers as if a tide is passing over her. When she listens to jazz music, she says, "My face is painted red and yellow and my body is painted blue, My pulse is throbbing like a war drum." In this metaphor, she compares herself to someone who is transported to a jungle and wears war paint and does a war dance, as she becomes one with the music. At the end of her essay, she compares herself to a brown bag with a "jumble of small things." This metaphor encapsulates the uniqueness of her identity, similar to a bag that holds a surprising and unique set of objects. 

Where do Pyramus and Thisbe meet?

The rude mechanicals' play, The Most Lamentable Comedy and Most Cruel Death of Pyramus and Thisbe, is based on a Babylonian myth depicting separated lovers. In Shakespeare's version, Pyramus and Thisbe meet at a couple of places. First, they meet at and primarily communicate through a hole in the wall that separates them. Additionally, the lovers meet at night by Ninus' tomb to court each other in secret. It's also suggested that they meet under a mulberry tree, as Thisbe is depicted as waiting under a mulberry tree for Pyramus. This detail is consistent with the original Babylonian myth, which has the two lovers planning to meet under a mulberry tree.

The play as performed in A Midsummer Night's Dream is particularly hilarious, as it parodies the essential plot of Romeo and Juliet in addition to drawing from Babylonian myth. In that case, The Most Lamentable Comedy and Most Cruel Death of Pyramus and Thisbe is a great example of Shakespeare playfully making fun of himself.