What are the events leading up to Lady Macbeth dying of guilt?

At the beginning of the play, Lady Macbeth appears to be manipulative, stronger, and more dominant than her husband. Although Macbeth states that he would like to take the throne, he needs support and persuasion which he gets from Lady Macbeth. She appears to be bolder than her husband, urging him to follow through with his plan to kill king Duncan:

Art thou afeard
To be the same in thine own act and valour
As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that
Which thou esteem'st the ornament of life,
And live a coward in thine own esteem,
Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would,'
Like the poor cat i' the adage?

Lady Macbeth's eloquence and passion reassured Macbeth that he should have no doubts, so after some hesitation, he commits the infamous deed and succeeds in taking the throne unlawfully.

Once Macbeth kills Duncan, he begins to turn inward, neglecting his wife and avoiding her consultation. He becomes obsessed with murdering anyone who could potentially rob him of his position as the king.

Lady Macbeth turns into an irrelevant figure and no longer possesses the strength she once had. As her husband begins to turn his back on her, Lady Macbeth becomes tormented by her own guilt for having encouraged her husband to get involved into evil acts (such as killing Duncan). In Act 5, her descent into madness is quite clear as we see her sleepwalking and hallucinating:

Out, damned spot! out, I say!--One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't...

who would have thought the old man
to have had so much blood in him.

She believes that she cannot wash bloodstains from her hands, which is the result of her guilt-ridden conscience. She pressured Macbeth to murder Duncan, and the past has come back to haunt her. Her tragic death is imminent. After her death, Macbeth realizes how futile life is:

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

What does modernity mean?

A visit to Dictionary.com tells us that the definition of modernity is "the quality of being modern." This definition is only so helpful unless we consider what it means to be modern.

In the humanities, we refer to modernity in terms of certain cultural shifts that began with the European Renaissance and spread throughout the world during and after European Imperialism. We consider the Modern Period to have begun in different times in different places, and some parts of the world might be said to still not have entered the Modern Period. So, what do "modern" cultures have in common that defines them?

Modernity implies an emphasis on that which is empirical, quantifiable, logical, or based in reason. This is in opposition to understanding the world and acting based on a sense of tradition or qualitative impressions. Cultural shifts like the Age of Discovery (for the sciences) and the Enlightenment Period (for philosophy) have helped to shape societies which value objectivity and that which can be measured and demonstrated over a subjective, perceived experience.

It can be a little hard to wrap our heads around such a concept without an example, so let's compare two port cities-- one established in the Pre-Modern Period, and one in the Modern. If you click here, you can view a map of Dublin, Ireland. Notice how the streets seem to radiate out from the center of the port. Development of the area surrounding Dublin began during the Pre-Modern Period, and people naturally gravitated towards the center of where business could be done. Settlement patterns in the Pre-Modern Period were largely based on where people felt was a good place to be. In comparison, have a look at this map of New York City, which has been developed in the Modern Period. Notice how the streets of Manhattan have a far more organized, grid-like pattern. Can you see how an emphasis on order, logic, and quantifying space has helped to shape the layout of the City? Take note of the high degree of consistency in the shape and size of segments of the city. Much of Manhattan was planned and developed in expectation of population growth. In contrast, Dublin was developed as a result of population growth. 

I don't mean to imply that one form of city planning is inherently better than the other, but I hope that this example helps you understand how Modern values have come to shape our lifestyles in addition to ways of thinking.

In other aspects of culture, like education and the arts, we find that modernity implies a break with tradition and/or collectivism in favor of individualism. 

What is the sequence of Puck's love juice victims in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream? Whom did Puck anoint and when?

In Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, while Puck uses his own magic on Bottom to give him the head of a donkey, Puck actually only uses the love juice of the flower on one person throughout the play--Lysander. Oberon uses the love juice otherwise.

In act 2, scene 1, Puck is requested by King Oberon to find the magic flower that was hit by Cupid's stray arrow. While Puck is away, Oberon witnesses Helena following Demetrius through the wood and begging for his love. When Puck returns with the flower, Oberon next requests Puck to anoint Demetrius's eyes with the love juice, saying only, "Thou shalt know the man / By the Athenian garments he hath on (263-64). In scene 2 of the same act, while Oberon is anointing Titania's eyes as she sleeps, Puck goes off looking for Demetrius. He thinks he has found him when Lysander and Hermia enter the scene and lay down to sleep in the woods, giving Puck a chance to anoint Lysander's eyes. Yet, of course, Lysander is awakened by Helena and promptly falls in love with her, forgetting all about Hermia. Hence, Puck anoints Lysander, causing greatest conflicts in the play, whereas Oberon anoints Titania.

In act 3, scene 2, Oberon realizes the mistake Puck has made and sends him off to find Helena while Oberon himself anoints Demetrius's eyes. Helena enters while being pursued by Lysander, and their quarreling awakens Demetrius so that, upon seeing Helena, he too falls in love with her.  

Finally, also in act 3, scene 2, Puck stops Demetrius and Lysander in the middle of a duel and tricks them until they are so tired that they fall asleep. While they are asleep, Puck anoints only the eyes of Lysander, leaving Demetrius alone to remain in love with Helena.

Hence, as we can see, Lysander is actually Puck's only love juice "victim."

What does the following quote from To Kill a Mockingbird mean? “People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for, and...

To understand why Judge Taylor says this, one would have to take it in context of the story. In chapter 17, Bob Ewell is giving his testimony about what happened on the day his daughter was allegedly raped. The whole county is in attendance: men, women, and children. Bob Ewell doesn't sugarcoat what he says even if there are innocent ears in the courtroom. When he gets to the part where he supposedly sees Tom raping Mayella, he says, "I seen that black ni**** yonder ruttin' on my Mayella!" (173). This causes quite a raucous in the audience and Scout says that Judge Taylor had to use his gavel for five minutes before anyone would listen to him. This is when Judge Taylor says the following:

“There has been a request . . . that this courtroom be cleared of spectators, or at least of women and children, a request that will be denied for the time being. People generally see what they look for, and hear what they listen for, and they have the right to subject their children to it, but I can assure you of one thing: you will receive what you see and hear in silence or you will leave this courtroom, but you won't leave it until the whole boiling of you come before me on contempt charges" (174). 

Judge Taylor permits women and children to stay because everyone is going to hear and see things differently anyway; so, there's no use banning anyone from the courtroom. He gives parents the discretion to decide if they want their children to be involved in the case that day and feels no need to control people's choices. However, if they do choose to stay, they stay at their own risk, they will be quiet, and they will not disrupt the proceedings. Otherwise, the consequences will be that he charges them with what is called contempt of court. That means they will get fined, and maybe even jailed, depending on a person's infraction or disruption of the case. Since everyone knows everyone else in Maycomb, the audience members should not have been surprised to hear such crass talk coming from Bob Ewell. Judge Taylor therefore refuses to babysit anyone who chose to listen in on this case.

0.30 g of citric acid is dissolved in distilled water to produce 100.0 mL of a 0.016 M solution. How much citric acid is needed in order to...

The balanced chemical reaction for this problem is:

`C_6 H_8 O_7 + 3 NaHCO_3 -> 3 CO_2 + 3 H_2O + Na_3C_6H_5O_7 `

First, we need to get how many moles of sodium bicarbonate to be neutralized. 

Moles of NaHCO3 = 

`30 mL * ((1L)/(1000 mL)) * ((0.5 mol es NaHCO_3)/L) = 0.015 mol es NaHCO_3 `

To get the moles of citric acid (C6H8O7) that will react with 0.15 moles of NaHCO3 = 

`0.015 mol es NaHCO_3 * ((1mol e C_6H_8O_7)/(3 mol es NaHCO_3)) = 0.0050 mol es C_6H_8O_7`

Now we can solve for the amount of citric acid needed to completely react with sodium bicarbonate.

(1) In terms of mass:

`0.005 mol es C_6H_8O_7 * ((192.12 grams)/ (1 mol e C_6H_8O_7)) = 0.96 grams of C_6H_8O_7`

(2) In terms of the citric acid solution:

Molarity = moles/volume of solution

Volume of solution = moles citric acid/molarity of the citric acid solution

`Volume of solution = (0.005/0.016) = 0.31 L`

When did Shakespeare become famous?

“Famous” is almost a modern term, made viable by today’s technologies – radio, television, Internet, and all the mass-media outlets in daily use today. But in Shakespeare’s day (1564-1616), "famous" was not a common term. “Well-known” might be more moderate.

In London theatre and literary circles of the Elizabethan era, Shakespeare was quite “well-known” when he appeared on the scene with his first plays (including, we know for sure, Henry VI Part 3). One contemporary, in 1592, probably referred to him when he criticized a fellow playwright he said had appeared on the “   …Shake-scene.” As his plays become more and more popular, especially from 1600 to 1615, he was known nationwide; even the Queen herself often commanded performances by The Lord Chamberlain’s Men (later named The King’s Men), Shakespeare’s acting company.

Modern scholars also estimate that every printed quarto of a Shakespeare play (starting in 1594) sold in London was read by perhaps 50 people, since the buyers would bring them into the country (outside of London) for their country friends and relatives to read as part of “keeping up” with London society. Shakespeare’s poems as well were quite popular with the reading public during his lifetime.

The phenomenon that made Shakespeare’s plays “famous” after his lifetime was their popularity during the later historical periods – Restoration, Age of Reason, Victorian era, etc. No actor or stage entrepreneur could survive without homage to and acknowledgement of Shakespeare’s works.

Today he is famous, read, and performed for his impressive contribution to the English language hundreds of neologisms, and scores of book titles and “sayings,” and for the universal appeal of his moral, philosophical, and artistic messages.

Although the Paramount Decision opened the door for increased independent film production, independent filmmakers were generally still...

In a word? Distribution.

Before the landmark Supreme Court decision United States vs. Paramount Pictures (the Paramount Decision), film studios were operated as vertically-integrated oligopoly---frankly almost as feudalism. No one involved in production of a film was allowed to work with other studios once they signed a contract with one studio, and there were only eight major studios producing films at all. As a result workers in the film industry were underpaid and mistreated, while profits for the corporations that owned these huge monopolies were enormous. In 1948 the US government finally brought an end to this system by enforcing anti-trust laws against the film oligopoly and forcing them to allow competition.

(As Disney buys up more and more of the copyrights to beloved franchises---they already own Star Wars, Star Trek, and Marvel---we may yet see the return of the old studio monopoly system in a slightly different form!)

But while this did open up production of films to more competition, the Paramount Decision did not apply to the distribution of films, which remained under the control of a handful of companies (and does to this day). Much of the monopolistic exploitation that the film production companies had used continued in a new form as independent filmmakers could make their films, but not show them in theaters or on TV without the support of Hollywood corporations.

Fortunately, this too seems to be failing at last, not because of anti-trust enforcement (the US essentially stopped enforcing all anti-trust laws under Ronald Reagan!) but because of the disruptive power of computers, digital video, and the Internet; as it now becomes affordable for an independent filmmaker to shoot, edit, and then stream films for only a few tens of thousands of dollars (instead of millions before), more and more films are being made outside the conventional Hollywood channels and distributed directly from the filmmakers to the viewers.