What are the difference between the book The Color Purple and the movie?

• Alice Walker's novel The Color
  Purple is much darker and more complex than Speilberg's adaptation, which
  develops the comedy and the musical aspects more.  In the book, the men are meaner,
  crueler, more abusive, more sexist.  In the movie, they seem more like childish clowns,
  especially Mr. ____.  The book reads like tragedy and ends up like comedy only at the
  end.  The film introduces the comic/musical aspects much earlier and develops them
  throughout.


• Celie is a writer in the novel: she writes to
  God.  It's an epistolary novel.  Letters to God is the impetus of how the novel beings,
  as confession.  There's no such writing or confession in the movie: it's interior
  monologue done as voice over.  Speilberg only shows her writing to Nettie, not to
  God.

Some other, smaller
differences:

• There's no quilting in the movie.
   It's a major motif in the book.


• The movie shows more
  female's kissing (homosexuality) than the book (there's only Shug and Celie), which
  takes away from the power of the sexual
  experimentation.


• Again, the music is a major character in
  the movie (Quincy Jones was brought in to do the score), and there's more hymn singing
  and juke-joint cross-cutting to make it seem more like a musical than a novel.
   Obviously, this is a major reason why it becomes a musical on Broadway
  later.

In "A Modest Proposal," in paragraph 9, why doesn't Swift end the sentence after the word food?

I take it you are referring to the paragraph where Swift
finally presents his idea, based on the report of an American of "his acquaintance." It
is actually the eighth paragraph in my book, but it could be that you have a slightly
different edition.

What is important to note is the way
that the series of modifiers after the word "food" in this paragraph move this shocking
idea to being one that is completely hilarious through a long list of different ways in
which an Irish child can be cooked. Consider how Swift achieves
this:

I have
been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young
healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, noruishing, and wholesome
food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled, and I make no doubt that it will
equally serve in a fricassee, or
ragout.

Swift uses
exaggeration here to highlight the immense humour of what he is suggesting. In addition
to proposing cannibalism, he then goes on to list a number of different ways in which
the children can be consumed, going as far as presenting himself as something of a food
expert, not merely restricting himself to common ways of cooking, but also mentioning
such methods as creating a "fricassee, or ragout." Swift is obviously increasing the
satire of his suggestion by pretending to present an Irish child as the latest
"must-have" food and suggesting a number of different ways that it could be consumed. To
suggest the idea of canniballism itself would be shocking enough, but then to go on and
identify a number of different ways of preparing the Irish child for consuming makes it
even more shocking.

Given the following situation, your insight would be valued.I am the captain of my cricket team at my school. Last month, I made specifications for...

In my mind, I sense a couple of issues here at play.  The
first is one of leadership.  I think that we confuse "leadership" with "infallibility." 
Good leaders, the very best of leaders, are quick to recognize and understand their own
limitations and their own mistakes.  As the leader of this team, I don't think you would
lose credibility if you were able to go to your team and say that your original
calculations were not entirely accurate.  Part of being a great team is recognizing when
adjustments are made and part of being a great leader is being able to pull your
teammates and ask them to help you help them.  If leaders were perfect and above
reproach, they would not be human.  The reality is that leadership, specifically sports
leadership, is not so much about technical provisions, or what is known as "X's and
O's."  Rather, it's about self actualization and merging the subjective into the
collective.  Pat Riley writes about this in his book, Showtime,
regarding his own coaching of the Los Angeles Lakers.  In much the same way, I think
that going to your teammates, individuals who naturally trust you by virtue of being
captain, and telling them what needs to be done is an important step in being able to
help all of you out and being able to solidify your own leadership.  The best leaders I
have seen in the sports arenas are the ones who can look their teammates in the eyes and
ask for their help as they all strive for a common end.  Something happens at that
moment, for the recognition of something larger is understood and this is when greatness
becomes a unit.  As their leader, opening this dialogue and asking them to keep the
larger goal, your cricket team's success, in mind only helps all of you.  Silence or
trying to pass something off when it is not authentic does not enhance leadership. 
Rather, it takes from away from collective success because it is not evidence of self-
actualization, something that all sports units and captains require in order to find
their success.

In "The Rules of the Game," what is the wind that whispers to Waverly during her chess game?

I assume you are referring to Waverly's first chess game
that she plays in a tournament. It is clear that as she goes up to play the
fifteen-year-old boy from Oakland who is her opponent, Waverly is nervous, however, when
she starts playing, she very quickly loses all of her
nerves:

As I
began to play, the boy disappeared, the colour ran out of the room, and I saw only my
white pieces and his black ones waiting on the other side. A light wind began blowing
past my ears. It whispered secrets only I could
hear.

It is typical of Amy
Tan's style that she occasionally inserts lyrical passages like this one that show the
imagination of her main character. The next paragraph describes how this wind gives
Waverly strategies which she uses to win the match. The wind could be said to represent
quiet strength or strategy to the narrator, but it also follows Waverly's own earlier
comments about how it is important to keep your opponent guessing, distracting them and
avoiding their traps.

Determine the inverse function of f(x)=2x/2(x^3+x) .

For the beginning, we'll simplify the fraction that
represents the expression of the function. We'll factorize by x the
denominator:

f(x) = 2x/2x(x^2 +
1)

We'll simplify and we'll
get:

f(x) = 1/(x^2 + 1)

We'll
write f(x) = y.

y = 1/(x^2 +
1)

We'll change y by x:

x =
1/(y^2 + 1)

We'll multiply by 1/(y^2 + 1) both
sideS:

x(y^2 + 1) = 1

We'll
remove the brackets:

xy^2 + x =
1

We'll subtract x both
sides:

xy^2 = 1 - x

We'll
divide by x:

y^2 =
(1-x)/x

We'll take radicals both
sides:

sqrt y^2 =
sqrt[(1-x)/x]

y =
sqrt[(1-x)/x]

The inverse function is f^-1(x)
= sqrt[(1-x)/x].

Looking only at Chapter 2, why does the author use dialect and jargon rather than standard English, and what is the impact on the story?Of Mice and...

Having grown up in the Salinas Valley of California, the
setting of his novella, Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck became
sympathetic to the workers of this area.  A socialist himself, Steinbeck rallied
for those who were oppressed by writing about them and presenting a realistic--if not
naturalistic--portrayal of their condition.

Reflective of
the title, George and Lennie are mice in the "maze of life," inferior to the bosses who
have control over them.  By having them speak in the realistic dialect of their class,
Steinbeck indicates this social inferiority.  Having taken his protagonists from the
agricultural working class of California, Steinbeck, in his social realism, presents
effectively the problematic relation between the workers and the land (represented by
the owners) on which they labor:

readability="13">

The boss said suddenly, 'Listen,
Small!'....'What can you do?'

In a panic, Lennie looked at
George for help. 'He can do anything you tell him,' said
George.

The boss turned on George. "then why don't you let
him answer?  What you trying to put
over?' 

What is the equation of the line between the points (4,3 ) and ( 7, 9)?

The equation between the two points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2)
is given by (y – y1) = [(y2-y1) / (x2 – x1)]*(x – x1).

Here
we have the two points (4, 3) and (7, 9). This gives x1 = 4, x2 =7, y1 = 3 and y2 =
9.

Substituting the values in (y – y1) = [(y2-y1) / (x2 –
x1)]*(x – x1)

=> (y – 3) = [(9 – 3) / (7 – 4)]*(x –
4)

=> y – 3 = (6/3)*(x –
4)

=> y – 3 = 2x –
8

The required line is y – 2x + 5 =
0.