What is a poor conductor of electricity? Not an insulator, but still a conductor.

When you say a poor conductor but not an insulator, I assume you mean something on the border between insulator and conductor.

Even an insulator is considered a conductor if electricity can pass through it. The rubber coating on wire can conduct electricity if a high enough potential exists between the wire and an exterior object. This tends to happen if you are holding the wires of a piezo starter when you push the button,...

When you say a poor conductor but not an insulator, I assume you mean something on the border between insulator and conductor.

Even an insulator is considered a conductor if electricity can pass through it. The rubber coating on wire can conduct electricity if a high enough potential exists between the wire and an exterior object. This tends to happen if you are holding the wires of a piezo starter when you push the button, for example, and can be used to make shock pens.

Air is a conductor in high enough voltages, which is how lightning can travel all the way between the clouds and the ground, while passing through a massive insulator.

I would say that if you are looking for relatively poor conductors, though, a good bet would be something like a semiconductor like graphite or silicon, or perhaps a metal like lead or mercury with poor conductivity.

A 0.115 kg piece of iron with a temperature of 99.3 degrees Celsius is dropped into a calorimeter containing 0.120 kg of water. Over time, the...

Assuming no heat loss to the surroundings, the amount of heat lost by one material should be equal to the amount of heat gained by the other material. In this case, iron piece had an initial temperature of 99.3 degrees Celsius and a final temperature of 30.8 degrees Celsius. Thus, iron piece lost heat and an equivalent amount of heat is (ideally) gained by water.

The amount of heat lost or gained can be calculated...

Assuming no heat loss to the surroundings, the amount of heat lost by one material should be equal to the amount of heat gained by the other material. In this case, iron piece had an initial temperature of 99.3 degrees Celsius and a final temperature of 30.8 degrees Celsius. Thus, iron piece lost heat and an equivalent amount of heat is (ideally) gained by water.

The amount of heat lost or gained can be calculated as the product of mass of material, its specific heat capacity and the change in temperature. The specific heat capacity of iron is 0.45 J/g/degree C and that of water is 4.186 J/g/degree C. 

The amount of heat lost by iron = mass of iron piece x specific heat capacity of iron x change in temperature 

= 0.115 kg x 1000 g/kg x 0.45 J/g/degree C x (99.3 - 30.8) degrees C

= 3544.875 J

The same amount of heat is gained by water. Assuming the initial temperature of water to be T degrees Celsius,

0.12 kg x 1000 g/kg x 4.186 J/g/degrees C x (30.8 - T) degrees C = 3544.875 J

Solving this equation, we get: T = 23.7 degrees C.

Thus, water had an initial temperature of 23.7 degrees C and gained 7.1 degrees C.

Provide an analysis of The Phantom of the Opera.

The play version of the Phantom of the Opera is based on a French novel by Gaston Leroux, published in serial format from 1909-1910. The novel is in part based on true stories and myths about events that took place in the Paris Opera. 

Much of the analysis of Leroux's book and the play has been through a psychological lens. Christine, the main character, is asked to turn to the dark side in order to...

The play version of the Phantom of the Opera is based on a French novel by Gaston Leroux, published in serial format from 1909-1910. The novel is in part based on true stories and myths about events that took place in the Paris Opera. 

Much of the analysis of Leroux's book and the play has been through a psychological lens. Christine, the main character, is asked to turn to the dark side in order to achieve greatness as a singer. She must abandon her regular life and her boyfriend to go to a literal and metaphorical land of seduction and darkness. Christine, who is a Christ-like figure, must sacrifice herself to Erik, who is a devil-like creature who dwells in darkness, to achieve greatness as an artist.

This story is the classical choice between good and evil, and it can be analyzed through the writings of Jung, a psychoanalyst who studied good and evil. Jung believed that evil was one side of the devil and that evil was not separate from humans but something that dwelled within them. People often cast the idea of evil onto others through a process that Jung referred to as casting a shadow. In a Jungian analysis, Christine's association with Erik, the phantom, can be analyzed as her process of casting her own shadow onto Erik. In other words, Christine has both evil and good within her. Her sense of evil comes from her willingness to do anything to become a great singer, while her sense of goodness comes from her love for Raoul, her boyfriend. In the end, by recognizing Erik, the phantom, she becomes whole again and is no longer threatened by him. Instead, Erik lets her go, with a promise that she will return when he dies. The phantom can be seen as an extension of herself and of her own evil desires. 

How can we look at "The Necklace" from a feminist perspective? What does it say about women?

A feminist critique of "The Necklace" would argue that Madame Loisel is the victim of a patriarchal society. Because she is a woman, her life is controlled by men and she lacks the ability to do anything other than be the dutiful wife of a middle-class clerk. French society at the time was decidedly hierarchical, and women of Madame Loisel's background languished toward the bottom of that hierarchy. Because of her plight, she becomes bored and yearns for something else in her life. She dreams of being wealthy and living a life of luxury. For Madame Loisel, it is essential that she escape her mundane existence. Controlled by her husband, she is at the mercy of his decisions. To his credit, Monsieur Loisel is a caring husband who recognizes his wife's unhappiness, so he secures tickets to a fancy ball being held at the "Ministerial Mansion." Loisel hopes this night out will help ease his wife's melancholy.

In her groundbreaking contribution to feminist theory, The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan posits that women such as Madame Loisel (Friedan deals with American suburban housewives) suffer from what Friedan labeled "housewives syndrome." Women afflicted with this "syndrome" aspire to something more in their lives and feel stifled by the monotony of their current situations. Therefore, it could be argued that Madame Loisel viewed her attendance at the fancy ball as a turning point in her life. For once, she was dazzling and exciting. All the men wanted to dance with her. This one-time experience as the life of the party clashed with her otherwise ordinary life trapped in her comfortable home as a clerk's wife.

When the party is over and her husband brings her shabby coat to cover her shoulders, Madame Loisel recoils and flees the scene. This is when she loses the necklace. From a feminist point of view, it might be argued that Madame Loisel was purposefully careless with the necklace because she could not accept a return to the tedious normalcy of her previous life. Her loss of the necklace is an expensive rebellion against that life. Faced with her new situation, Madame Loisel actually rises to the occasion. She seems to experience an epiphany in her new life as a poverty-stricken woman striving to makes ends meet for her and her husband. De Maupassant writes,

Mme. Loisel experienced the horrible life the needy live. She played her part, however, with sudden heroism. The frightful debt had to be paid. She would pay it.

Ironically, it takes the loss of everything to bring out the best in Madame Loisel. In the end, she is proud of her accomplishments in paying back the debt, and this simple pride leads her to speak to Madame Forestier. That the necklace was fake seems only a whim of chance and ultimately only the vehicle which led Madame Loisel to discover a genuine existence in her struggles to meet the goal of paying back the debt.

In "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell, are the Burmese capable adults who can rule themselves or do they like having the British Empire take...

In "Shooting an Elephant," Orwell's experience of working in Burma suggests that the native people did not like being ruled by the British. We see this through their reaction to Orwell as he carried out his professional duty as a sub-divisional police officer. Buddhist priests jeered at him, for example, and football players tripped him up on the field. This is, arguably, a result of the nature of Britain's rule in Burma. As Orwell comments,...

In "Shooting an Elephant," Orwell's experience of working in Burma suggests that the native people did not like being ruled by the British. We see this through their reaction to Orwell as he carried out his professional duty as a sub-divisional police officer. Buddhist priests jeered at him, for example, and football players tripped him up on the field. This is, arguably, a result of the nature of Britain's rule in Burma. As Orwell comments, British rule was not consensual:

I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down…upon the will of prostrate peoples.

Moreover, this attitude of resentment among the Burmese suggests that they really did want to be independent but were afraid to break Britain's rules. We see this through Orwell's description of the Burmese prisoners in the "stinking cages of the lock-ups" in which prisoners were "bogged with bamboos."

It is, therefore, logical to suggest that the Burmese were more than capable of self-rule but were unable to achieve this because of the strength of British power. It was not until 1948, two decades after Orwell's service, that the British finally returned Burma to its native people. 

One of the most significant historical reforms used in dealing with the juvenile offender was the opening of the New York House of Refuge in 1825....

The New York House of Refuge was founded in 1825 as a way of dealing with juvenile offenders in a more humane manner. Previously, youths who committed crimes were sent to jails and other institutions where they had to serve time with adults. Sometimes, children were sent to jails or penitentiaries for noncriminal offenses because cities such as New York, plagued with high rates of poverty, had nowhere else to put them. Reformers John Griscom and Thomas Eddy started the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism in an effort to house juveniles in facilities where they would not be alongside criminal adults. Their efforts led to the founding of the New York House of Refuge, which was clearly a humane and important milestone in the juvenile justice movement. 

The New York House of Refuge was the first institution for juvenile offenders, and it led to similar institutions in many cities. The New York House of Refuge went on to house boys and girls and to employ them in making shoes and chairs as well as in tailoring. Children also received some educational instruction in subjects such as reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and music. They were also required to have morning and evening prayers. Over time, these institutions developed into educational facilities, called training and industrial schools. They resulted in a social changes in the ways in which juvenile offenders were treated, including an emphasis on education and preparation for adult life. 

The New York House of Refuge also led to new forms of judicial treatment for juvenile offenders, including probation and out-of-home placement. The juvenile court system was first established in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois. This court system was based on the legal idea of the state as parens patriae (the state as parent), which meant that the state could act on the behalf of children. Judges had wide latitude to decide what was best for children, acting in their interest.

The current juvenile justice movement has moved away from this system, as the Supreme Court instituted changes in the 1960s that gave juvenile offenders due process rights, including the right to an attorney. As a result, the system became more like the adult criminal justice system than like the earlier parens patriae system. Many juvenile facilities became more punitive in the 1980s, though there are some efforts in California and elsewhere to reform this system. Today's system is very different than earlier reform efforts such as the movement that established the New York House of Refuge, as it places less emphasis on humane treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.  

How does Oscar Wilde satirize his audience in The Importance of Being Earnest, and what may he be trying to evoke from the audience?

In his satirical play The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde ridicules the superficiality of his Victorian society audience and their values and behavior. As his title suggests, Wilde satirizes the facade of earnestness, a virtue purportedly highly esteemed by Victorians, whose hypocritical behavior belies this sublime virtue.

By assigning the quality of being earnest to the name of a man, Wilde creates a subtle allusion to the words of Shakespeare's Juliet, who realizes...

In his satirical play The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde ridicules the superficiality of his Victorian society audience and their values and behavior. As his title suggests, Wilde satirizes the facade of earnestness, a virtue purportedly highly esteemed by Victorians, whose hypocritical behavior belies this sublime virtue.

By assigning the quality of being earnest to the name of a man, Wilde creates a subtle allusion to the words of Shakespeare's Juliet, who realizes a name does not determine character: 

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet (Act II, Scene 2, verses 1-2).

For certain characters in Wilde's play, having the specific name of Ernest, a homophone for the virtue earnestness, becomes essential. Jack must be named Ernest to win the love of Gwendolen. This condition points to the superficiality of the upper class, as a young woman prioritizes marrying a man by the name of Ernest over any other qualities he may possess. The name Ernest holds some sort of ideal for her. 

In Act I, Jack displays the duality that exists in Victorian society when he explains to his friend Algernon that he created the character of Ernest as his younger brother because he must behave in a certain way as the guardian of Cecily Cardew. With this false identity, he can give vent to his private interests, which are anything but true and worthy values. The irony of this is that Jack actually turns out to be named Ernest, as he was named after his natural father. Gwendolen is delighted that Ernest is his name. Employing his inimitable satire, Wilde has his character Jack ask, 

Gwendolen, it is a terrible thing for a man to find out suddenly that all his life he has been speaking nothing but the truth. Can you forgive me?

Wilde may have written these lines to induce members of his audience to search their own characters and discover that when they have acted in pretense, they may verily have been more true to their real character than when they have conducted themselves in polite society.