How does Romeo change from the start of Act I to the end?

Since Romeo has only three days in which to effect any
personality change, little happens within him.  For the most part, he remains
impetuous, emotionally involved with fate--

readability="9">

Some consequence, yet hanging in the
stars,

Shall bitterly begin his fearful
date...(1.4.13)

and later,
yet feeling the control of fate in his life, he declares, "Then I defy you,
stars!"(5.1.24)--and idealistically in love.  Perhaps the only change in Romeo is the
alteration of his attitude toward the Capulets: While he has hated them as a true
Montague should since the families have long been involved in a vendetta, after having
married Juliet, Romeo softened in his feelings toward the Capulets.  His profession of
love to Tybalt in Act III--

          I do protest I never
injured thee,

readability="12">

But love thee better than thou canst
devise

Till thou shalt know the reason of my
love.

And so, good Capulet--which name I
tender

As dearly as mine own--be satisfied.
(3.1.68-71)

--attests to
this.

Still, there is some modification in Romeo's
personality. Prior to his secret marriage to Juliet, Romeo was known as a rather
reasonable young man.  But, his reactionary slaying of Tybalt in Act III, along with
his rash murdering of anyone who enters Juliet's tomb indicates that in his desperate
love for Juliet, Romeo lost his reasonableness.  Truly, in Romeo, "The violent delights
have violent ends." 

What is Shakespeare's impersonality in the art of characterization ?

The first thing to acknowledge when observing that there
is an impersonality to the art of Shakespeare's characterizations is that you could and
should say this about any good dramatist.  A work of drama differs from a novel, and a
major way in which it differs is how the story is told.

In
a novel, there is always a narrative point of view -- first person, second personal,
third person -- through which the story is told.  This makes the work feel "personal,"
especially if it is written in the first person.  Those reading a novel critically often
look for the point of view to give them information about the writer's own point of
view, sometimes noticing that this or that character seems to "represent" the author's
viewpoint.

In a play, the author must create all characters
with equal fullness.  There is, to be sure, a protagonist, but, the play is not told
from that character's point of view.  So, in drama, there is no narrative
mode to give the reader (or audience member) a link to the author's
personal perspective. Shakespeare was certainly a master of creating all his characters
with equal fullness.

Another reason that we should regard
Shakespeare as an impersonal writer is the simple fact that we know so few real facts
about his life.  There has been tons of speculation, in fact, that these plays were
written by someone else altogether.  It is hard to be very analytical about the
relationship between the author's personal point of view and the characterizations in
his work if we can't even agree who the author, in fact,
is.

So, whether you are considering that plays always
present an impersonal point of view, or you note the few facts (and authorship
controversy) about his life, Shakespeare's plays must be noted as impersonal in their
characterizations.

What is the main setting of The Good Earth, and why is it significant?

The setting in The Good Earth is not
specifically named in the novel, but the reader does know that the story mainly takes
place in rural China on Wang Lung's farm.  The plot of land seems to have been in Wang
Lung's family for some time because Wang Lung has a particular affinity for his land. 
The farm must be in central or northern China because later in the story, the family
must "go south" to the city to avoid starving on the failing land.  Once Wang Lung
becomes wealthy, he buys the land on which the former House of Hwang sits, and he moves
his family from the farm into the big house.  But Wang Lung still goes to his farm to
oversee the work there, so it must be nearby.

The setting
of the story that revolves around Wang Lung's farm is significant to the story because
the land serves as a symbol for Wang Lung's beliefs in hard work and independence.  Even
when times are tough, he vows to never sell his land because he believes that his land
is the foundation of his identity.  When the family starts to have trouble and his sons
persuade him to sell land, the reader understands the extent of Wang Lung's internal
conflict because the land is so important to him.

Why do you think Gibson chose the particular way to end Act 2 of The Miracle Worker?William Gibson ends Act 2 with Annie singing a lullaby to...

It's an interesting way to end Act II, isn't it?  In
regards to the reasoning behind why it's done this way, I think Gibson wants us to focus
on two things:

• Annie's progression of feeling
  towards Helen


• The Keller family's progression of feeling
  towards Annie & Helen

Both sets of
progression are the same:  dislike to admiration, and even
love.

It's an interesting start to this episode as well. 
Annie is exhausted after using Percy to teach Helen late at night.  Annie has just
realized, and imparts to Helen that "all I have to teach you is--one word. 
Everything."  This is when Annie picks up the doll that causes such an issue previously,
sits down, dons her glasses, and sings a very famous lullaby called "Hush Little
Baby."

Note the progression of feeling here (especially in
regards to the quotes).  Annie begins with the doll by whispering "to it in
mock solicitude."  Moments later, Annie "lays it against her
shoulder, and begins rocking with it, ... she talks the lullaby to it, humorously at
first."  Further, Annie notes that, "the rhythm of the rocking
takes her into the tune, softly, and more
tenderly."

The progression is absolutely
amazing!  She begins by mocking and ends with complete tenderness.  This scene
corresponds exactly with Annie's feelings towards Helen.  Annie begins by mocking ("oh,
not the drawers!") and ends with Tenderness ("Jealous are you?  All right, ...") 
Point-blank, Annie is beginning to teach Helen "everything."  Often I like to go even
further about this subject and say that Helen's feelings are progressing in the same way
towards Annie:  from mocking by hiding the key to tenderly (and obediently) holding her
hand out to learn new words.

In regards to what is
happening with the family at this same moment, James, Keller, and Kate all stand
"moveless" while each of them stop and "turned his/her head, as if hearing."  Quite
simply, the family notices this change in Annie.  The family notices this change in
Helen, too.  This is another reason why the act ends this way.  Remember the disarray
when Annie first arrives!  Now look at how far Helen has come!  The family too is
approaching tenderness towards this amazing teacher,
Annie.

Let's talk about the love growing here, then.  Annie
is feeling tenderness and love for Helen.  Helen is feeling tenderness and love for
Annie.  The family is feeling tenderness and love towards Annie.  And yes, the family is
even feeling more tenderness and love for Helen, herself.

What is the difference between cartilage and bones?

Cartilage and bone are stiff tissues which form the
essential structural form of animals. Though both of them serve many common functions
they are also different in many ways.

Cartilage consists of
cells called chondrocyte, and materials produced by the chondrocytes called collagen and
elastin fibers. Bones are made of a bodily tissue called osseous tissue and instead of
collagen as in cartilage bones are made up of calcium compounds. Bones also contain
centers for production of cells and storage of minerals. Cartilage is the slowest tissue
to grow and if damaged repairs itself at the slowest rate.

In Chapter 20 of The Scarlet Letter, how does Dimmesdale change in terms of Hawthorne's theme contrasting hidden sin versus revealed sin?The...

After the minister's clandestine meeting with Hester in
the forest, Hester has convinced him that they must leave the colony and return to
England where they can live together as a family.  Arthur Dimmesdale departs, looking
backward, uncertain of what he has truly experienced.  With the quandary of public
hypocrisy and private suffering seemingly solved now, Dimmesdale's mind is free to
consider other possibilities, and, like a child released from rules, his spirit feels a
sense of release.  He considers that he yet has time to give the Election Sermon,
deceiving himself that the townspeople will at least say he performed his duties to the
end.  Having held his sin within his heart so long, Dimmesdale has become delusional. 
Of this Hawthorne significantly writes,

readability="10">

No man, for any considerable period, can wear
one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as
to which may be the true.

A
transformation, however, does come over the spirit of Dimmesdale in his sense of release
from his secret sin, as he feels that he has "flung down" his sin like "a cast-off
garment."  Describing this sense of release in Dimmesdale, as "a revolution in the
sphere of thought and feeling," Hawthorne portrays Dimmesdale as incited to commit
"wild, wicked things" as an outlet to having held so long his secret guilt. Like Peter,
who denies his Lord three times, Dimmesdale commits three acts of wickedness. Yet, these
great temptations and his conversation with Mistress Gibbins cause the minister to
return to his thoughts that he is a powerless victim of fate and must bear his cross of
guilt and sin:

readability="10">

Tempted by a dream of happiness, he had yielded
himself, with deliberate choice, as he had never done before, to what he knew was deadly
sin. 

Realizing the great
evil of his hypocrisy in concealing his sin for so long, Dimmesdale pulls back from his
feelings of release in the forest with Hester; and, as he feels fate directing him
more,

readability="6">

...Another man had returned out of the
forest...with a knowledge of hidden mysteries which the simplicity of the former never
could have reached.  A bitter kind of knowledge
that!

When he enters his
house, Chillingworth greets him, but realizes that the minister no longer trusts him. 
Speaking of his forthcoming sermon, Chillingworth suggests that he give the minister
medication, but Dimmesdale, sensing a looming fate that he must be punished for his sin,
refuses him and, instead, speaks of going to "another world." 

How did the Columbian exchange affect the world?

The Colombian exchange had both good and bad effects on
both sides of the Atlantic and other areas, primarily in the dispersion of useful plants
and animals but also the spread of harmful elements and
diseases.

Prior to the Colombian exchange, potatoes and
maize (corn) as well as turkeys were unknown outside the Americas. When introduced to
other parts of the world, they contributed to a substantially healthier diet. The end
result was a healthier population with more children surviving to adulthood, and
resulted in an explosion in the population. In the Americas, the introduction of hogs,
cattle, sheep, etc. were immensely beneficial to the Europeans who came there, but were
generally harmful to Indian settlements as they damaged or destroyed food crops. The
most important benefit to Indians was the introduction of the horse by the Spanish. It
soon became important in buffalo hunts on the plains. A less welcome arrival in the
Americas was the cockroach, which made itself at home and has
remained.

Sadly, diseases and other harmful elements were
part of the exchange. Thistles and other noxious plants were transported, probably
inadvertantly, from Europe to the Americas. Diseases such as small pox, measles and
mumps emaciated over 90% of the Indian population. In Europe, the introduction of
syphillis from the Americas (previously unknown in Europe but transported there by
conquistadores and others from the Americas) decimated that population. Human beings
were another sad element of the exchange, as slaves from Africa were introduced into the
Americas after attempts to enslave Indians proved
unproductive.

Charles C. Mann has an excellent new book,
1493 which provides elaborate detailed information on the Colombian
Exchange.