Was Jefferson's embargo a failure?

I would say that the embargo was fairly successful in what
it was meant to do.  However, at the same time, it was certainly not a great thing
because of its effect on the economy.

The whole point of
the embargo was to keep the US from getting involved in the conflict going on between
Great Britain and Napoleonic France.  During the time that embargo was in effect, the US
did not go to war with either nation.  So, to that extent, it was a success.  However,
the embargo did not get either Britain or France to agree to stop seizing US
ships.

However, the embargo really badly hurt the US
economy.  So you would not really want to say that it was a good idea since the harm
that it did was so great.

So it ends up coming down to how
you define failure -- the US didn't get involved in the war so that was good.  But the
French and British did not change their policies and the US economy was hurt by the
embargo.

What examples of irony are there in "The Bet" by Anton Chekhov?

Clearly one central piece of situational irony is the fact
that the lawyer decides to lose the bet and forsake his wealth, even though he is
literally moments away from winning and he has lived almost the entire time in solitude,
according to the bet. This is the premise that this short story is based around - the
lawyer through his time of solitude has obviously learned far more about the world and
life than the other characters in the novel. Consider what he writes in his
letter:

"You
may be proud, wise, and fine, but death will wipe you off the face of the earth as
though you were no more than mice burrowing under the floor, and your posterity, your
history, your immortal geniuses will burn or freeze together with the earthly
globe...

To prove to you in action how I despise all that
you live by, I renounce the two million of which I once dreamed as of paradise and which
now I despise."

The lawyer
has learnt the truth of the illusions that we try to project to protect ourselves from
the reality of our own fragility, and above all he has learnt the false promise of
wealth and paradise that money gives.

How ironic therefore
that the banker has obviously not learned this lesson. Note how he responds to reading
the letter:

readability="11">

At no other time, even when he had lost heavily
on the Stock Exchange, had he felt so great a contempt for himself. When he got home, he
lay on his bed, but his tears and emotion kept him for hours from
sleeping.

Clearly the words
of the lawyer and his resolution to forsake the bet impact the banker deeply at an
emotional and fundamental level. Yet note how in the last paragraph, we are told that
the banker took the letter which recorded the renunciation of the bet and stored it
safely away, in case the lawyer should change his mind. The author ironically shows us
that, whilst the lawyer has definitely developed and moved on in his humanity, the
banker is just as greedy and doubtful as he ever was, showing, ironically, that whilst
the lawyer has overtly lost the bet, it is the banker who is the real loser, because he
has not been able to learn from the lawyer and develop in his
character.

Derivade of: xy = (1 –x –y)2

We'll calculate the partial derivatives of the given
expression:

xy = (1 –x
–y)^2

For the beginning, we'll square raise the right
side:

(1 –x –y)^2 = 1 + x^2 + y^2 - 2x - 2y +
2xy

The expression will
become:

xy = 1 + x^2 + y^2 - 2x - 2y +
2xy

1 + x^2 + y^2 - 2x - 2y + xy =
0

If we'll calculate the derivative with respect to x,
we'll get:

2x +  y^2 - 2 - 2y + y =
0

(d/dx)(1 + x^2 + y^2 - 2x - 2y + xy)' =  2x
+  y^2 - y - 2

Note: the terms in y are
considered constants.

If we'll calculate the derivative
with respect to y, we'll get:

(d/dy)(1 + x^2 + y^2 - 2x -
2y + xy)' = x^2 + 2y - 2x - 2 + x

(d/dy)(1 +
x^2 + y^2 - 2x - 2y + xy)' = x^2 + 2y - x -
2

Note: the terms in x are considered
constants.

Where does the line y= 5x-3 meets the curve f(x) = x^2 +3 ?

Given the line y= 5x -3 and the curve f(x) = x^2
+3

We need to find the intersection points between the line and the
curve.

==> f(x) = y

==>
x^2 + 3 = 5x-3

==> Now we will combine like
terms.

==> x^2 - 5x + 6 = 0

Now
we will factor.

==> (x-3)(x-2) =
0

==> x 1= 3 ==> y1 = 5x-3 = 5*3-3 =
12

==> x2= 2 ==> y2= 5x-3 = 5*2-3 =
7

Then the intersection points are ( 2,7) and (3,
12)

Define bureaucracy and explain in three principles that define a bureaucracy? Does the merit system increased the efficiency of federal...

The bureaucracy is a large group of people whose role is
to ensure that laws are executed; it creates rules to enable this; and in adjudication.
The President’s role is to take care that laws are faithfully executed. The bills
introduced by the Congress and made into laws by the President are implemented by the
bureaucracy. For this bureaucrats write rules specific to the proper implementation of
each law. In case there are any disputes while the rules are being created for the
proper execution of the laws the bureaucracy has to adjudicate in the
disputes.

Most of the bureaucracy worked under the Spoils
System during the 19th and the 20th century. Here what mattered was not how well people
worked but who they knew. Under the Merit system people are hired and promoted based on
their qualifications and the performance of their job instead of their political
connections.

In Julius Caesar, were there 3 shouts praising Caesar?Or were there 2 shouts praising him and the third was the crowd booing?

It is always a good idea, when asking about a specific
moment in a play to cite the Act and Scene to which you refer.  I will assume here that
you refer to Act I, scene ii when, as Brutus and Cassius talk, there are shouts heard
offstage from the direction in which Caesar has gone to observe the
games.

The number of shouts that are heard by Brutus and
Cassius is, dramatically, an interesting question.  It is most important to refer to the
text, the lines spoken by the characters, when determining action or sound effects. 
Shakespeare, if he intended that some necessary action or sound occur, always had
characters make reference to it.  We have no proof of any kind that stage directions you
might find written in your edition of each play were, in fact, the work of Shakespeare. 
So, it is always the safest course to rely on the words spoken by the
characters.

During his conversation with Cassius in Act I,
scene ii, Brutus mentions the cheering of the crowd twice.  The first mention is at line
78:

What means
this shouting?  I do fear that people

Choose Caesar for
their King.

And again at line
132:

Another
general shout!

I do believe that these applauses
are

For some new honours that are heap'd on
Caesar.

Shouting is not
mentioned in the scene again until Caesar has re-entered and exited, leaving Casca alone
onstage with Brutus and Cassius.  They talk about what Casca
witnessed.

readability="19">

Casca

Why
there was a crown offered him.  And being offered him, he put it by with the back of his
hand, thus.  And then the people fell
a-shouting.

Brutus

What
was the second noise
for?

Casca

Why,
for that
too.

Cassius

They
shouted thrice.  What was the last cry
for?

Casca

Why
for that
too.

Brutus

Was
the crown offered him
thrice?

Casca

Ay,
marry, was't, and he put it by thrice. .
.

So, though, during the time
that Brutus and Cassius are alone onstage, Brutus only remarks upon two shouts, Casca
confirms that there were three, and they were all in relation to Caesar's  being offered
and refusing of the crown.

As Casca tells the story, the
shouts happen in this way:

readability="7">

. . .the rabblement hooted and clapped their
chopped hands and threw up their sweaty night-caps and uttered such a deal of stinking
breath because Caesar refused the crown that it had almost choked Caesar. .
.

However, we cannot assume
the nature of these shouts simply by reading the play.  What sort of "shouts" they are
would be something each production of the play would decide.  Are the shouts Caesar's
supporters?  Detractors?  Some of each?  The script cannot really confirm this, since we
only have Casca's re-telling of the events to inform us, and he is hardly a
disinterested bystander.

So, in answer to your question,
whether all three shouts are the same or are each of a different kind of response, is
not something that reading the script alone can confirm.  This sort of information must
be gained from experiencing the play as Shakespeare meant it to be experienced -- as a
live performance.

For more on this scene, please follow the
links below.

What is the strongest argument for Plato's ideal state?I need to write an paper and I didn't really get this part.

To get a better answer, it would be good if you could tell us
which aspect of the ideal state you want addressed.  The part I have the strongest feelings about
is the idea that the ideal state would be ruled by a philosopher
king.

I really wish that this were possible.  The argument in favor
of this is that a philosopher king would just do what is best for the society without having to
worry about what is popular.  We could really use this today at a time when our elected leaders
will not do the things that are needed because they are afraid they will not get reelected if
they do those things (like cutting back on Medicare and Social Security in some
way).

Sadly, there is no way to be sure that we are going to get a
good philosopher king instead of a tyrant.