I am against poaching and hunting, please help me support my reasons for opposition to poaching and hunting.

First of all, you really should decide which of the two
you are going to oppose in your essay or speech (I assume that is what you are working
on here).  The arguments against these two activities are rather
different.

To argue against hunting, you will probably need
(depending on what kind of prey you are talking about) to argue that hunting is an
inhumane activity.  You would need to argue that it causes excessive pain to the animal
that is being killed.

If you are arguing against poaching,
the argument is much simpler.  Rules are set regarding hunting so as to ensure that the
population of the prey will remain stable and viable.  Poaching animals is bad because
it tends to endanger the viability of the entire population of a given animal in a given
area.  Therefore, you can argue against it on much more pragmatic and much less
moralistic grounds than you can use to argue against hunting.

I'm writing a speech about Errol Flynn but I need help. Do you have information about Errol Flynn's life?I'm struggling a lot at the moment with...

The swashbuckling playboy Errol Leslie
Flynn (1909-1959)--my favorite Hollywood film star--is still considered
one of the most handsome and debonaire actors to ever grace the screen. He was one of
the most popular actors of the mid-1930s and early 1940s, thanks in part to films like
Captain Blood (1935), The Charge of the Light
Brigade (1936), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and
The Sea Hawk (1940). Flynn specialized in playing pirates and other
sword-yielding heroes. His sexual exploits are legendary, and he was linked with many of
the great Hollywood stars and starlets of the time; his actions even spawned two phrases
that became popular in describing a successful ladies' man: "In Like Flynn" and
"Errolesque." His non-stop boozing and womanizing contributed to his early death of a
heart attack at the age of 50.

Flynn was best friends with
the equally debonaire British actor, David Niven. The two appeared in many films
together, and they shared a Hollywood bungalow on the property of billionaire William
Randolph Hearst, where they entertained many famous Hollywood actresses. (Niven wrote
two critically acclaimed reminiscences of his Hollywood days with Flynn, The
Moon's a Balloon and Bring on the Empty Horses). Flynn's
excesses soon left him prematurely aged and bloated, and he found it difficult to find
satisfactory roles, acting in a number of B-movies in the last decade of his life. Among
his many exploits include:

• Charges of statutory
  rape against two teenagers, which were later
  dismissed.


• Meeting personally with Fidel Castro in Cuba,
  who Flynn said he admired, and Flynn's subsequent narration of a Cuban propaganda film.
  Flynn claimed that Castro was a close friend and "drinking
  partner."


• Flynn's dating of a 15 year old (who he planned
  to marry) at the time of his fatal heart attack.


• Rumors
  that Flynn was a Nazi sympathizer and spy during World War II as well as
  being bi-sexual. (See Charles Higham's book, Errol Flynn: The Untold
  Story, 1980.)

How did wealthier individuals in Pride and Prejudice have more choices than the poorer ones?

Although people were limited to a large extent by what
were considered the appropriate behaviours, occupations, and partners for men and women
of their class, the more money a person had, the more that person was free to act.
William Paley was rumoured to have excused his not signing the Feathers Tavern Petition
with the comment that a man with 8 children could not afford a conscience. In Austen, a
common obstacle to marriage choice is money. Darcy and Bentley, being rich, can afford
to marry beneath their social and economic station. Willoughby must seek his fortune
through marriage and cannot really afford to marry a Bennett. Charlotte Lucas must marry
the odius Mr. Collins to avoid being a burden to her family. Many of Austen's plots
hinge on the economic constraints on marriage.

According to The World is Flat, how did Netscape make the internet interoperable?

Before Netscape, it was very difficult for people using
different computer systems to access information on each other's systems.  There was
plenty of information on computer networks, but it was very hard for any one person to
access it all.  Netscape changed that.

What Netscape did
was to use open standards to create a way for anyone to access all parts of the
internet.  When Netscape made this interoperable internet possible, and when they made
it widespread by distributing their web browser very cheaply and often for free,
consumers started to demand that other companies go along.  This made the idea of open
standards and an interoperable something that had to be adhered to by computer
companies.  They could not go back to creating separate systems that were not
interoperable.

Does the story "The Cask of Amontillado" give hints to the thousand injuries that Montresor has suffered?

In Edgar Allan Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado," Montressor
is using extreme exaggeration (hyperbole, verbal irony) when he
says:

THE
thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could ; but when he ventured upon
insult, I vowed
revenge.

Montressor provides
neither the injuries nor the insult in the story, which makes us believe that it is the
other way around (Montressor is delivering all injuries and insults).  Indeed,
Montressor is more than a bit paranoid--to the point of mania.  His overdeveloped
sensitivities (regarding his family code of revenge: "I must not only punish, but punish
with impunity") have lead him to imagine these violations, and his elaborate plan of
revenge reveals signs of his own mental illness.  It seems that family reputation (which
prides in revenge) has driven him to look for signs of insult that--to an average
person--are unintended or non-existent.

At worst, Fortunato
is guilty of drunkenness, which is a self-induced injury that should not offend
Montressor.  In fact, Fortunato's drunkenness plays into Montressor's plan of revenge.
 Perhaps Fortunato is materialistic in his connoisseurship of wine: he must have it at
all costs.  This too plays into the plan, but it is not an overt
threat.

Nothing from Fortunato's statements in the story
lead us to believe even a hint of malice by him toward the narrator.  Sure, he forgets
Montressor's coat of arms and family motto.  Big deal.  Sure, he insults Lechesi,
calling him an "ignoramus," but this should not offend our narrator.  In the end,
Fortunato remains completely oblivious of Montressor's intentions and his
fate.

No, the thousand injuries and insults are indeed
delivered by Montressor, not Fortunato, which makes this story a classic tale of
motiveless revenge and extreme paranoia.

What are Limits?Please explain Limits in absolutely simple langusge without the usage of any technical language. Actually, i am a newbie to...

There are different kinds of limits in calculus --the
limit as x approaches c of a function, the limit of a sequence or series, etc... In a
typical first semester calculus class you are probably working with
`lim_(x->c)f(x)` .

There area large number of
technical things to consider, but basically what `lim_(x->c)f(x)=L` says is that
as x gets arbitrarily close to c, f(x) gets arbitrarily close to L. (The rub comes when
we try to define "arbitrarily close"-- for that we use a `delta-epsi`
definition).

If you look at a table of values for f(x),
when x is close to c the function value (y=f(x) ) is close to L. The closer x gets to c,
in general the closer y gets to L.

If you graph f(x), as
you trace along the curve and get closer to c in the x-direction, the y-value is getting
closer to L.

You might consider when a function fails to
have a limit at a point -- here are some possibilities:

(1)
If the function grows without bound as x nears c (e.g. `y=1/x` with c=0) then there is
no limit since as x approaches c the y-value does not approach a number L-- it just
keeps growing past any number you specify.

(2) If the
function experiences a "jump" at c: define f(x) to be x if x>0, and f(x) to be
-2x-3 for `x<=0` , and let c=0. As you approach c from the left, f(x) approaches
-3; but as you approach 0 from the right, f(x) approaches 0. Note that as x approaches
0, f(x) does not approach a number L; it approaches two different numbers so there is no
limit.

(3) Finally, consider a function with infinite
oscillations at c. Since the function goes from its maximum to its minimum an infinite
number of times, you cannot say that f(x) approaches any single
number.

In a surface, the force to make an object just start is 4N. A force of 4.1N is applied on an object. Will the object move a bit and stop or will it...

The force required to just make the stationary object
start moving is 4N. This is due to the force of static friction between the object and
the surface it is placed on. To move the object, this force of friction has to be
overcome.

Once the object has been set into motion, there
is a force of kinetic friction between the object and the surface. In most cases the
coefficient of kinetic friction is less than that of static friction, but there is a
force opposing the motion nevertheless.

From the way you
have framed your question I think you are applying the force instantaneously and not
over a prolonged duration of time. The force applied will make the body start moving but
it will move only for a small duration of time which is required for the force of
friction to bring it to a halt.