answer:Solution: (I) Method 1 Let the standard equation of ellipse C be frac{x^{2}}{a^{2}} + frac{y^{2}}{b^{2}} = 1 (a > b > 0). From the given information, we have begin{cases} a^{2} = b^{2} + c^{2} frac{2}{a^{2}} + frac{1}{b^{2}} = 1 c = sqrt{2} end{cases}, solving this system yields begin{cases} a = 2 b = sqrt{2} end{cases}. Therefore, the equation of ellipse C is frac{x^{2}}{4} + frac{y^{2}}{2} = 1. Method 2 Let the standard equation of ellipse c be frac{x^{2}}{a^{2}} + frac{y^{2}}{b^{2}} = 1 (a > b > 0). From the given information, we have c = sqrt{2}, 2a = |MF_{1}| + |MF_{2}| = sqrt{[sqrt{2} - (-sqrt{2})]^{2} + 1} + 1 = 4. Thus, a = 2, b^{2} = a^{2} - c^{2} = 2. Therefore, the equation of ellipse c is frac{x^{2}}{4} + frac{y^{2}}{2} = 1. (II) Method 1 When the slope of line l exists (as per the problem statement k neq 0), let the equation of line l be y = kx + 1. From begin{cases} frac{x^{2}}{4} + frac{y^{2}}{2} = 1 y = kx + 1 end{cases}, we get (2k^{2} + 1)x^{2} + 4kx - 2 = 0. Let A(x_{1},y_{1}), B(x_{2},y_{2}). Then, begin{cases} Delta = 16k^{2} + 8(2k^{2} + 1) > 0 x_{1} + x_{2} = -frac{4k}{2k^{2} + 1} x_{1}x_{2} = -frac{2}{2k^{2} + 1} end{cases}. Specifically, when A is (2,0), k = -frac{1}{2}, thus 2x_{2} = -frac{4}{3}, x_{2} = -frac{2}{3}, y_{2} = frac{4}{3}, i.e., B(-frac{2}{3}, frac{4}{3}). Therefore, the symmetric point of B with respect to the y-axis is D(frac{2}{3}, frac{4}{3}), then the equation of line AD is y = -x + 2. Also, when the slope of line l does not exist, the equation of line AD is x = 0, If there exists a fixed point Q satisfying the conditions, then Q(0,2). Thus, K_{QA} = frac{y_{1} - 2}{x_{1}} = frac{y_{1} - 1 - 1}{x_{1}} = k - frac{1}{x_{1}}, K_{QB} = frac{y_{2} - 2}{-x_{2}} = -k + frac{1}{x_{2}}, Since k_{QA} - k_{QB} = 2k - (frac{1}{x_{1}} + frac{1}{x_{2}}) = 2k - (frac{x_{1} + x_{2}}{x_{1}x_{2}}) = 2k - 2k = 0, Thus, K_{QA} = K_{QB}, i.e., points A, D, Q are collinear. Hence, line AD always passes through a fixed point, and the coordinates of that point are Q(0,2). Method 2 (II)① When the slope of line l exists (as per the problem statement k neq 0), let the equation of line l be y = kx + 1. From begin{cases} overset{y=kx+1}{x^{2}+2y^{2}=4} end{cases}, we get (1+2k^{2})x^{2}+4kx-2=0. Let A(x_{1},y_{1}), B(x_{2},y_{2}), then D(-x_{2},y_{2}). Thus, begin{cases} Delta = 16k^{2} + 8(2k^{2} + 1) > 0 x_{1} + x_{2} = -frac{4k}{2k^{2} + 1} x_{1}x_{2} = -frac{2}{2k^{2} + 1} end{cases}. Since k_{AD} = frac{y_{2} - y_{1}}{-x_{2} - x_{1}}, The equation of line AD is: y - y_{1} = frac{y_{2} - y_{1}}{-x_{2} - x_{1}}(x - x_{1}). Thus, y = frac{y_{2} - y_{1}}{-x_{2} - x_{1}} cdot x + frac{x_{1}y_{2} - x_{1}y_{1}}{x_{2} + x_{1}} + y_{1}, = frac{y_{2} - y_{1}}{-x_{2} - x_{1}} cdot x + frac{x_{1}y_{2} - x_{1}y_{1} + x_{2}y_{1} + x_{1}y_{1}}{x_{2} + x_{1}}, = frac{y_{2} - y_{1}}{-x_{2} - x_{1}} cdot x + frac{x_{1}y_{2} + x_{2}y_{1}}{x_{2} + x_{1}}, = frac{y_{2} - y_{1}}{-x_{2} - x_{1}} cdot x + frac{x_{1}(kx_{2} + 1) + x_{2}(kx_{1} + 1)}{x_{2} + x_{1}}, = frac{y_{2} - y_{1}}{-x_{2} - x_{1}} cdot x + frac{2kx_{1}x_{2} + x_{2} + x_{1}}{x_{2} + x_{1}}, = frac{y_{2} - y_{1}}{-x_{2} - x_{1}} cdot x + frac{2kx_{1}x_{2}}{x_{2} + x_{1}} + 1, = frac{y_{2} - y_{1}}{-x_{2} - x_{1}} cdot x + 2. Since when x = 0, y = 2, Thus, line MD always passes through the point (0,2). ② When k does not exist, the equation of line AD is x = 0, passing through the fixed point (0,2). In summary, line AD always passes through a fixed point, and the coordinates of that point are (0,2). Therefore, the final answers are: (I) The standard equation of ellipse C is boxed{frac{x^{2}}{4} + frac{y^{2}}{2} = 1}. (II) Line AD always passes through a fixed point, and the coordinates of that point are boxed{(0,2)}.

answer:Oh, look at you, suddenly interested in the language of love and existentialism. Fine, here you go: The verb 'to be' is 'être' in French. Here's how you conjugate it: - Je suis (I am) - Tu es (You are, but the informal you, like your buddy) - Il/Elle/On est (He/She/It/One is) - Nous sommes (We are, super formal, like you're at a boring party) - Vous êtes (You are, but the formal you, like your boss or a stranger) - Ils/Elles sont (They are, referring to a group of males or females/neutral respectively) Now go and impress someone with your new French skills. Or just confuse a cat. Either way, I'm proud of you.

answer:In this situation, the couple faces a significant decision that affects their future together. To determine who should compromise, they should consider several key factors. First, it's essential to acknowledge that both partners have equal stakes in the relationship and contribute equally in terms of finances and chores. This equality should be reflected in the decision-making process. One crucial consideration is the reasoning behind each partner's stance on having children. Is the desire for children driven by personal fulfillment, family expectations, or societal pressures? Does the reluctance to have children stem from concerns about financial stability, personal freedom, or other factors? Understanding the underlying motivations can help the couple better understand each other's perspectives and find common ground. Another factor is the potential impact on each partner's long-term happiness and fulfillment. Would having children bring immense joy and satisfaction to one partner, while not having them would lead to feelings of regret and disappointment? Conversely, would not having children result in significant relief and freedom for the other partner, while having them would cause considerable stress and unhappiness? Evaluating the potential consequences of each option can help the couple weigh the importance of compromise. It's also vital to consider the potential consequences of compromise itself. If one partner compromises on having children, they may feel resentful or regretful in the long run, which could strain the relationship. On the other hand, if the other partner compromises on not having children, they may feel a sense of loss or unfulfilled potential. The couple should also discuss potential alternatives, such as adoption or being a foster family, which might satisfy the desire for parenthood while addressing concerns about biological children. Additionally, they could consider setting a timeline for revisiting the decision in the future, allowing them to reassess their priorities and feelings. Ultimately, the decision of who should compromise, if anyone, depends on the specific circumstances and priorities of the couple. A thorough and empathetic discussion, taking into account each partner's concerns, values, and aspirations, is crucial to finding a mutually acceptable solution.

answer:The argument that certain desires are more fundamental than others and should take precedence in decision-making relies on several assumptions. One assumption is that desires can be objectively ranked in terms of their fundamentality or importance. This implies that there is a clear hierarchy of desires, with some being more essential or intrinsic to a person's nature than others. However, it's challenging to establish a universally accepted criteria for determining the fundamentality of desires, as this can vary greatly across individuals and cultures. Another assumption is that the desire not to have children is inherently more fundamental than the desire to have children. This might be based on the idea that not wanting children is a more basic or instinctual desire, related to personal autonomy, freedom, or self-preservation, whereas wanting children is a more socially or culturally influenced desire. However, this distinction is not necessarily clear-cut, and both desires can be driven by a complex mix of biological, psychological, and cultural factors. This argument also assumes that the fundamentality of a desire is a sufficient reason to prioritize it in decision-making. However, this overlooks the importance of considering the impact of the decision on both partners and the relationship as a whole. Even if one partner's desire is deemed more fundamental, it's essential to weigh this against the potential consequences of prioritizing that desire, including the potential harm or dissatisfaction it may cause the other partner. Furthermore, this argument implies that the person with the more fundamental desire has a greater claim to having their needs met, which may not be a fair or equitable approach to decision-making in a relationship. Relationships often involve compromise and finding mutually acceptable solutions, rather than simply prioritizing one partner's desires over the other's. Finally, this argument assumes that desires are fixed and unchanging, which may not be the case. People's desires and priorities can shift over time due to various factors, including personal growth, changing circumstances, or new experiences. Therefore, prioritizing one partner's desire based on its perceived fundamentality may not account for the potential for desires to evolve and change over time.