If you use a level of significance in a two tail hypothesis test what decision will you make if zstatequalsminus

eation of several BST functions * We have to use Valgrind * We have to create a memory struct that provides a compare function for insertion * The above needs to contain two fields of unsigned int, representing memory address and size int memory_addr_cmp(const void* x, const void* y){ //TODO return 0; } By the instructions: "This function takes two arguments, const void* x and const void* y, you will need to cast both of them to type "memory*", and make comparisons. If x is less than y, return -1. If x is greater than y, return 1. If they are equal, return 0;" Also per the instructions, concerning the BST functions "Note, in particular, that there are two separate structus - the node struct that describes information for a single node in the tree, and a bst struct, that holds the root pointer and a function pointer to the comparison function being used for this tree. When you first create the tree, you pass in the comparison function, and this will be used for all functions that need it thereafter. Therefore, after that, you don't need to specify the comparison function to bst-level functions. The stored function pointer is then passed to the node-level functions." So then we have to create allocation and initialization functions for both the BST and one for the node. * nod_insert, BST_insert then inorder_traversal

Make note of bias, but remember that finding bias does not necessarily mean that the source cannot be used — it is, however, something to be aware of. If you use a source that you find to have questionable reliability make sure to make the reader aware in your source criticism. For facts like statistics you should try to find information that is a first hand source and if this is not possible, a source as close to the information as possible. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5e215f01-8e41-424b-96bc-541b8ed12b4e Published by Ciaran Varley, 24th August of 2018 . https://www.stylist.co.uk/long-reads/fifa-18-world-cup-england-football-women-female-fans-sport-photography-sexism/212319 https://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/the-reasons-people-become-football-fans-marketing-essay.php?

year, NOK 15,000 in two years and NOK 40,000 in five years. a) What is the present value of the company's cash flow if you use a discount rate of 10%? b) You read that an investment in team-building, which costs NOK 10,000, can give more motivated employees and increase sales. The increase in sales results in the following cash flow: NOK 2,000 in 1 year, NOK 7,000 in 2 years and NOK 5,000 in 5 years. Should you make this investment in team-building?

ions there are after you get your answer, how do you figure whether there will be one or two solutions? (sorry if my explanation isn't clear) (this is for Ambiguous Case Sine Law)

there was no Age and/or Sex entered) has been created. It is called Newmarket_Cleaned.csv. Data file: Newmarket_Cleaned.csv (Links to an external site.) . Direct HTTP link: https://unh.box.com/shared/static/p8x4xlbean3rlslmfskfu74fe89yjui8.csv Please use it for this problem. Consider the “Model 4” developed in class, which contained Age, Age^2, and Sex as independent variables. First re-create this model with the cleaned dataset (you will need to create the Age^2 column; you can verify your model summary against the one from class), and then proceed with this problem. Make the necessary changes to the model to incorporate Year as a categorical explanatory variable (you may need to change how R interprets the variable, before running this model). Does the year of the race seem to be related to mean finishing time, after taking into account the other variables in Model 4? Use the 0.05 significance level. Explain your work/logic, and key output to support your answer. Using the updated model, after accounting for age and sex, what is the expected difference in finishing times for runners from 2008 versus runners from 2004? Using the updated model, after accounting for age and sex, what is the expected difference in finishing times for runners from 2014 versus 2011? In the above, the directions are to treat Year as a categorical variable. Explain how the regression model would be different if it instead were treated as a numeric variable. What are the assumptions being made about the effect of Year in the two different approaches?

el tabletop. A child attempting to use the spring to pull the block directly horizontally from rest extends the spring by 30.0 cm a) Does the block slip? Explicitly state how you know. b) Calculate the magnitude of the acceleration if the block accelerates or, if it does not, calculate the magnitude of the static frictional force acting on the block.

oduce the product only if the average response to a 5-point scale question (where 5 = Strongly Prefer) is better than 4.0. Please set up the appropriate hypothesis test and do the first three steps (use an á value of 0.05). Then, use these data: Sixty-four people answer the question. You calculate the average response to be 4.5 on a 5-point scale, and the standard deviation (Sx) is 2. How will you state the Null and Alternate Hypotheses [2 points]?

f you know 10 times the number?

d. (If you don't wish to share a real relationship, you may use one from a book, movie, or television program.) Try to create a pragmatic description of the communication interaction that took place. That is, describe it as if it were a game; perhaps a game that only one of you seems to know the rules. Please specifically include the following: 1. Name the game 2. Provide a brief description of the problematic relationship. 3. List the ground rules for the game. 4. Identify the "plays" in the game - that is the repeated patterns of "moves" that the individuals act out. 5. Respond to two reflection questions: What insights does seeing this as a game give you? Now that you have identified the game, what suggestions can you make for improving the relationship?

a program designed to provide a decent standard of living to all Americans by spreading the nation’s wealth among the people. Long proposed capping personal fortunes at $50 million each (roughly $600 million in today's dollars) through a restructured, progressive federal tax code and sharing the resulting revenue with the public through government benefits and public works. In subsequent speeches and writings, he revised his graduated tax levy on wealth over $1 million to cap fortunes at $5 - $8 million (or $60 - $96 million today). The full text of this speech, as printed in Long's official Share Our Wealth pamphlet (see right), appears below. “EVERY MAN A KING” Share Our Wealth Radio Speech by Senator Huey P. Long, of Louisiana, February 23, 1934 I s that a right of life when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men than it is by 120,000,000 people?” Ladies and Gentlemen: — I have only 30 minutes in which to speak to you this evening, and I, therefore, will not be able to discuss in detail so much as I can write when I have all of the time and space that is allowed me for the subjects, but I will undertake to sketch them very briefly without manuscript or preparation, so that you can understand them so well as I can tell them to you tonight. I contend, my friends, that we have no difficult problem to solve in America, and that is the view of nearly everyone with whom I have discussed the matter here in Washington and elsewhere throughout the United States—that we have no very difficult problem to solve. It is not the difficulty of the problem which we have; it is the fact that the rich people of this country—and by rich people I mean the super-rich—will not allow us to solve the problems, or rather the one little problem that is afflicting this country, because in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people. We have a marvelous love for this Government of ours; in fact, it is almost a religion, and it is well that it should be, because we have a splendid form of government and we have a splendid set of laws. We have everything here that we need, except that we have neglected the fundamentals upon which the American Government was principally predicated. How many of you remember the first thing that the Declaration of Independence said? It said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that there are certain inalienable rights for the people, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and it said further, "We hold the view that all men are created equal." Now, what did they mean by that? Did they mean, my friends, to say that all men are created equal and that that meant that any one man was born to inherit $10,000,000,000 and that another child was to be born to inherit nothing? Did that mean, my friends, that someone would come into this world without having had an opportunity, of course, to have hit one lick of work, should be born with more than it and all of its children and children's children could ever dispose of, but that another one would have to be born into a life of starvation? That was not the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that all men are created equal or "That we hold that all men are created equal." Nor was it the meaning of the Declaration of Independence when it said that they held that there were certain rights that were inalienable—the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Is that right of life, my friends, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men than it by 120,000,000 people? Is that, my friends, giving them a fair shake of the dice or anything like the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or anything resembling the fact that all people are created equal; when we have today in America thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of children on the verge of starvation in a land that is overflowing with too much to eat and too much to wear? I do not think you will contend that, and I do not think for a moment that they will contend it. Now let us see if we cannot return this Government to the Declaration of Independence and see if we are going to do anything regarding it. Why should we hesitate or why should we quibble or why should we quarrel with one another to find out what the difficulty is, when we know that the Lord told us what the difficulty is, and Moses wrote it out so a blind man could see it, then Jesus told us all about it, and it was later written in the Book of James, where everyone could read it? I refer to the Scriptures, now, my friends, and give you what it says not for the purpose of convincing you of the wisdom of myself, not for the purpose, ladies and gentlemen, of convincing you of the fact that I am quoting the Scriptures means that I am to be more believed than someone else; but I quote you the Scripture, or rather refer you to the Scripture, because whatever you see there you may rely upon will never be disproved so long as you or your children or anyone may live; and you may further depend upon the fact that not one historical fact that the Bible has ever contained has ever yet been disproved by any scientific discovery or by reason of anything that has been disclosed to man through his own individual mind or through the wisdom of the Lord which the Lord has allowed him to have. But the Scripture says, ladies and gentlemen, that no country can survive, or for a country to survive it is necessary that we keep the wealth scattered among the people, that nothing should keep the wealth scattered among the people, that nothing should be held permanently by any one person, and that 50 years seems to be the year of jubilee in which all property would be scattered about and returned to the sources from which it originally came, and every seventh year debt should be remitted. Those two things the Almighty said to be necessary—I should say He knew to be necessary, or else He would not have so prescribed that the property would be kept among the general run of the people, and that everyone would continue to share in it; so that no one man would get half of it and hand it down to a son, who takes half of what was left, and that son hand it down to another one, who would take half of what was left, until, like a snowball going downhill, all of the snow was off of the ground except what the snowball had. I believe that was the judgment and the view and the law of the Lord, that we would have to distribute wealth ever so often, in order that there could not be people starving to death in a land of plenty, as there is in America today. We have in America today more wealth, more goods, more food, more clothing, more houses than we have ever had. We have everything in abundance here. We have the farm problem, my friends, because we have too much cotton, because we have too much wheat, and have too much corn, and too much potatoes. We have a home loan problem, because we have too many houses, and yet nobody can buy them and live in them. We have trouble, my friends, in the country, because we have too much money owing, the greatest indebtedness that has ever been given to civilization, where it has been shown that we are incapable of distributing the actual things that are here, because the people have not money enough to supply themselves with them, and because the greed of a few men is such that they think it is necessary that they own everything, and their pleasure consists in the starvation of the masses, and in their possessing things they cannot use, and their children cannot use, but who bask in the splendor of sunlight and wealth, casting darkness and despair and impressing it on everyone else. "So, therefore," said the Lord in effect, "if you see these things that now have occurred and exist in this and other countries, there must be a constant scattering of wealth in any country if this country is to survive." "Then," said the Lord, in effect, "every seventh year there shall be a remission of debts; there will be no debts after 7 years." That was the law. Now, let us take America today. We have in America today, ladies and gentlemen, $272,000,000,000 of debt. Two hundred and seventy-two thousand millions of dollars of debts are owed by the various people of this country today. Why, my friends, that cannot be paid. It is not possible for that kind of debt to be paid. The entire currency of the United States is only $6,000,000,000. That is all of the money that we have got in America today. All the actual money you have got in all of your banks, all that you have got in the Government Treasury, is $6,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid it out today you would still owe $266,000,000,000; and if you took all that money and paid again you would still owe $260,000,000,000; and if you took it, my friends, 20 times and paid it you would still owe $150,000,000,000. You would have to have 45 times the entire money supply of the United States today to pay the debts of the people of America and then they would just have to start out from scratch, without a dime to go on with. So, my friends, it is impossible to pay all of these debts, and you might as well find out that it cannot be done. The United States Supreme Court has definitely found out that it could not be done, because, in a Minnesota case, it held that when a State has postponed the evil day of collecting a debt it was a valid and constitutional exercise of legislative power. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if I may proceed to give you some other words that I think you can understand—I am not going to belabor you by quoting tonight—I am going to tell you what the wise men of all ages and all times, down even to the present day, have all said: That you must keep the wealth of the country scattered, and you must limit the amount that any one man can own. You cannot let any man own §300,000,000,000 or $400,000,000,000. If you do, one man can own all of the wealth that the United States has in it. Now, my friends, if you were off on an island where there were 100 lunches, you could not let one man eat up the hundred lunches, or take the hundred lunches and not let anybody else eat any of them. If you did, there would not be anything else for the balance of the people to consume. So, we have in America today, my friends, a condition by which about 10 men dominate the means of activity in at least 85 percent of the activities that you own. They either own directly everything or they have got some kind of mortgage on it, with a very small percentage to be excepted. They own the banks, they own the steel mills, they own the railroads, they own the bonds, they own the mortgages, they own the stores, and they have chained the country from one end to the other until there is not any kind of business that a small, independent man could go into today and make a living, and there is not any kind of business that an independent man can go into and make any money to buy an automobile with; and they have finally and gradually and steadily eliminated everybody from the fields in which there is a living to be made, and still they have got little enough sense to think they ought to be able to get more business out of it anyway. If you reduce a man to the point where he is starving to death and bleeding and dying, how do you expect that man to get hold of any money to spend with you? It is not possible. Then, ladies and gentlemen, how do you expect people to live, when the wherewith cannot be had by the people? In the beginning I quoted from the Scriptures. I hope you will understand that I am not quoting Scripture to you to convince you of my goodness personally, because that is a thing between me and my Maker; that is something as to how I stand with my Maker and as to how you stand with your Maker. That is not concerned with this issue, except and unless there are those of you who would be so good as to pray for the souls of some of UK. Rut the Lord gave His law, and in the Book of James they said so, that the rich should weep and howl for the miseries that had come upon them; and, therefore, it was written that when the rich hold goods they could not use and could not consume, you will inflict punishment on them, and nothing but days of woe ahead of them. Then we have heard of the great Greek philosopher, Socrates, and the greater Greek philosopher, Plato, and we have read the dialogue between Plato and Socrates, in which one said that great riches brought on great poverty, and would be destructive of a country. Read what they said. Read what Plato said; that you must not let any one man be too poor, and you must not let any one man be too rich; that the same mill that grinds out the extra rich is the mill that will grind out the extra poor, because, in order that the extra rich can become so affluent, they must necessarily take more of what ordinarily would belong to the average man. It is a very simple process of mathematics that you do not have to study, and that no one is going to discuss with you. So that was the view of Socrates and Plato. That was the view of the English statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen. That was the view of American statesmen like Daniel Webster, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, and Theodore Roosevelt, and even as late as Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both of these men, Mr. Hoover and Mr. Roosevelt, came out and said there had to be a decentralization of wealth, but neither one of them did anything about it. But, nevertheless, they recognized the principle. The fact that neither one of them ever did anything about it is their own problem that I am not undertaking to criticize; but had Mr. Hoover carried out what he says ought to be done, he would be retiring from the President's office, very probably, 8 years from now, instead of 1 year ago; and had Mr. Roosevelt proceeded along the lines that he stated were necessary for the decentralization of wealth, he would have gone, my friends, a long way already, and within a few months he would have probably reached a solution of all of the problems that afflict this country today. But I wish to warn you now that nothing that has been done up to this date has taken one dime away from these big fortune-holders; they own just as much as they did, and probably a little bit more; they hold just as many of the debts of the common people as they ever held, and probably a little bit more; and unless we, my friends, are going to give the people of this country a fair shake of the dice, by which they will all get something out of the funds of this land, there is not a chance on the topside of this God's eternal earth by which we can rescue this country and rescue the people of this country. It is necessary to save the government of the country, but is much more necessary to save the people of America. We love this country. We love this Government. It is a religion, I say. It is a kind of religion people have read of when women, in the name of religion, would take their infant babes and throw them into the burning flame, where they would be instantly devoured by the all-consuming fire, in days gone by; and there probably are some people of the world even today, who, in the name of religion, throw their own babes to destruction; but in the name of our good government, people today are seeing their own children hungry, tired, half-naked, lifting their tear-dimmed eyes into the sad faces of their fathers and mothers, who cannot give them food and clothing they both need, and which is necessary to sustain them, and that goes on day after day, and night after night, when day gets into darkness and blackness, knowing those children would arise in the morning without being fed, and probably go to bed at night without being fed. Yet in the name of our Government, and all alone, those people undertake and strive as hard as they can to keep a good government alive, and how long they can stand that no one knows. If I were in their place tonight, the place where millions are, I hope that I would have what I might say—I cannot give you the word to express the kind of fortitude they have; that is the word—I hope that I might have the fortitude to praise and honor my Government that had allowed me here in this land, where there is too much to eat and too much to wear, to starve in order that a handful of men can have so much more than they can ever eat or they can ever wear. Now, we have organized a society, and we call it "Share Our Wealth Society," a society with the motto "Every Man a King." Every man a king, so there would be no such thing as a man or woman who did not have the necessities of life, who would not be dependent upon the whims and caprices and ipsi dixit of the financial barons for a living. What do we propose by this society? We propose to limit the wealth of big men in the country. There is an average of $15,000 in wealth to every family in America. That is right here today. We do not propose to divide it up equally. We do not propose a division of wealth, but we propose to limit poverty that we will allow to be inflicted upon any man's family. We will not say we are going to try to guarantee any equality, or $15,000 to a family. No; but we do say that one third of the average is low enough for any one family to hold, that there should be a guarantee of a family wealth of around $5,000; enough for a home, an automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences, and the opportunity to educate their children; a fair share of the income of this land thereafter to that family so there will be no such thing as merely the select to have those things, and so there will be no such thing as a family living in poverty and distress. We have to limit fortunes. Our present plan is that we will allow no one man to own more that $50,000,000. We think that with that limit we will be able to carry out the balance of the program. It may be necessary that we limit it to less than $50,000,000. It may be necessary, in working out of the plans that no man's fortune would be more than $10,000,000 or $15,000,000. But be that as it may, it will still be more than any one man, or any one man and his children and their children, will be able to spend in their lifetimes; and it is not necessary or reasonable to have wealth piled up beyond that point where we cannot prevent poverty among the masses. Another thing we propose is old-age pension of $30 a month for everyone that is 60 years old. Now, we do not give this pension to a man making $1,000 a year, and we do not give it to him if he has $10,000 in property, but outside of that we do. We will limit hours of work. There is not any necessity of having overproduction. I think all you have got to do, ladies and gentlemen, is just limit the hours of work to such an extent as people will work only so long as it is necessary to produce enough for all of the people to have what they need. Why, ladies and gentlemen, let us say that all of these labor-saving devices reduce hours down to where you do not have to work but 4 hours a day; that is enough for these people, and then praise be the name of the Lord, if it gets that good. Let it be good and not a curse, and then we will have 5 hours a day and 5 days a week-, or even less than that, and we might give a man a whole month off during a year, or give him 2 months; and we might do what other countries have seen fit to do, and what I did in Louisiana, by having schools by which adults could go back and learn the things that have been discovered since they went to school. We will not have any trouble taking care of the agricultural situation. All you have to do is balance your production with your consumption. You simply have to abandon a particular crop that you have too much of, and all you have to do is store the surplus for the next year, and the Government will take it over. When you have good crops in the area in which the crops that have been planted are sufficient for another year, put in your public works in the particular year when you do not need to raise any more, and by that means you get everybody employed. When the Government has enough of any particular crop to take care of all of the people, that will be all that is necessary; and in order to do all of this, our taxation is going to be to take the billion-dollar fortunes and strip them down to frying size, not to exceed $50,000,000, and if it is necessary to come to $10,000,000, we will come to $10,000,000. We have worked the proposition out to guarantee a limit upon property (and no man will own less than one-third the average), and guarantee a reduction of fortunes and a reduction of hours to spread wealth throughout this country. We would care for the old people above 60 and take them away from this thriving industry and give them a chance to enjoy the necessities and live in ease, and thereby lift from the market the labor which would probably create a surplus of commodities. Those are the things we propose to do. "Every Man a King." Every man to eat when there is something to eat; all to wear something when there is something to wear. That makes us all a sovereign. You cannot solve these things through these various and sundry alphabetical codes. You can have the N. R. A. and P. W. A. and C. W. A. and the U. U. G. and G. I. N. and any other kind of dad-gummed lettered code. You can wait until doomsday and see 25 more alphabets, but that is not going to solve this proposition. Why hide? Why quibble? You know what the trouble is. The man that says he does not know what the trouble is is just hiding his face to keep from seeing the sunlight. God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America, that have got more control over things than all the 120,000,000 people together, you know what the trouble is. We had these great incomes in this country; but the farmer, who plowed from sunup to sundown, who labored here from sunup to sundown for 6 days a week, wound up at the end of the time with practically nothing. And we ought to take care of the veterans of the wars in this program. That is a small matter. Suppose it does cost a billion dollars a year—that means that the money will be scattered throughout this country. We ought to pay them a bonus. We can do it. We ought to take care of every single one of the sick and disabled veterans. I do not care whether a man got sick on the battlefield or did not; every man that wore the uniform of this country is entitled to be taken care of, and there is money enough to do it; and we need to spread the wealth of the country, which you did not do in what you call the N. R. A. If the N. R. A. has done any good, I can put it all in my eye without having it hurt. All I can see that the N. R. A. has done is to put the little man out of business—the little merchant in his store, the little Italian that is running a fruit stand, or the Greek shoe-shining stand, who has to take hold of a code of 275 pages and study it with a spirit level and compass and looking-glass; he has to hire a Philadelphia lawyer to tell him what is in the code; and by the time he learns what the code is, he is in jail or out of business; and they have got a chain code system that has already put him out of business. The N. R. A. is not worth anything, and I said so when they put it through. Now, my friends, we have got to hit the root with the ax. Centralized power in the hands of a few, with centralized credit in the hands of a few, is the trouble. Get together in your community tonight or tomorrow and organize one of our Share Our Wealth Societies. If you do not understand it, write me and let me send you the platform; let me give you the proof of it. This is Huey P. Long talking, United States Senator, Washington, D. C. Write me and let me send you the data on this proposition. Enroll with us. Let us make known to the people what we are going to do. I will send you a button, if I have got enough of them left. We have got a little button that some of our friends designed, with our message around the rim of the button, and in the center "Every Man a King." Many thousands of them are meeting through the United States, and every day we are getting hundreds and hundreds of letters. Share Our Wealth Societies are now being organized, and people have it within their power to relieve themselves from this terrible situation. Look at what the Mayo brothers announced this week, these greatest scientists of all the world today, who are entitled to have more money than all the Morgans and the Rockefellers, or anyone else, and yet the Mayos turn back their big fortunes to be used for treating the sick, and said they did not want to lay up fortunes in this earth, but wanted to turn them back where they would do some good; but the other big capitalists are not willing to do that, are not willing to do what these men, 10 times more worthy, have already done, and it is going to take a law to require them to do it. Organize your Share Our Wealth Society and get your people to meet with you, and make known your wishes to your Senators and Representatives in Congress. Now, my friends, I am going to stop. I thank you for this opportunity to talk to you. I am having to talk under the auspices and by the grace and permission of the National Broadcasting System tonight, and they are letting me talk free. If I had the money, and I wish I had the money, I would like to talk to you more often on this line, but I have not got it, and I cannot expect these people to give it to me free except on some rare instance. But, my friends, I hope to have the opportunity to talk with you, and I am writing to you, and I hope that you will get up and help in the work, because the resolutions and bills are before Congress, and we hope to have your help in getting together and organizing your Share Our Wealth Societies. Now, that I have but a minute left, I want to say that I suppose my family is listening in on the radio in New Orleans, and I will say to my wife and three children that I am entirely well and hope to be home before many more days, and I hope they have listened to my speech tonight, and I wish them and all of their neighbors and friends everything good that may be had. I thank you, my friends, for your kind attention, and I hope you will enroll with us, take care of your own work in the work of this Government, and share or help in our Share Our Wealth Societies. I thank you.

ion. Given the student weighs 374 kg and wants to travel 15 m/s second in the upward direction fighting gravity. How much power in watts would the propulsion system need to deliver? I just dont know what equations would be appropriate to use or if this problem is even solvable

t way to do that would be to investigate her students’ test performance in a number of ways. The first thing she did was separate her students’ test scores based on the time of day she held her lectures (morning vs evening). Next she recorded the type of test students were writing (multiple choice vs short answer). She selected a random sample of students from her morning (n = 6) and evening (n = 7) classes (total of 13) and recorded scores from two of their tests as shown below. Morning Evening Multiple Choice Short Answer Multiple Choice Short Answer 66 74 70 45 64 55 80 55 72 77 78 55 70 57 84 60 61 58 64 70 67 69 84 60 70 63 DATA Set 1: Good morning sunshine. Is Time of Day important? 1. Prof. Maya recently read an article that concluded students retained more information when attending classes in the morning. Based on this finding she thought students in her morning class might have performed differently on their Short Answer test scores when compared to students in her evening class. Does the data support her hypothesis? [15 points] Multiple Guess! Does Exam Type matter? 2. Prof. Maya also knew that students often did better on multiple-choice tests because they only have to recognize the information (rather than recall it). Given this, she thought students attending the morning class might perform differently on the Multiple-Choice test when compared to the Short Answer test. Does the data support her hypothesis? [15 points] DATA Set 2: We’ll try anything once. Does the new Tutorial Plan work? 3. Combining all of her students (and ignoring time of day), Prof. Maya asked her TAs to try a new – and very expensive - tutorial study plan. She then chose a random sample of 20 students to receive the new study plan and another sample of 30 to continue using the old study plan. Following an in-class quiz, she divided the students into 3 levels of achievement (below average, average, and above average), and then created the frequency table below. Does the new expensive tutorial study plan improve student performance? [15 points] Below average Average Above Average New plan 7 7 6 Old plan 6 15 9 DATA Set 3: How are YOU doing? 4. Finally, Prof. Maya thinks that her 2018 class is doing better than her 2017 class did. She decided to collect a sample of test scores from the students in her course this year (combining all of the groups) and compare the average with her previous year’s class average. Does the data support her hypothesis? [15 points] The 2017 class average = 63% The 2018 sample size = 25 The 2018 sample standard deviation = 11 The 2018 sample average = use your actual midterm mark (yes, you the student reading this :) Bonus: What does it all mean? 5. Bonus: IF Prof. Maya had complete control of how and when she ran her course in 2018, considering all the info you just found in the 3 data sets, write a brief statement of how you would recommend she set-up the course next year – and explain why. [5 points]

t way to do that would be to investigate her students’ test performance in a number of ways. The first thing she did was separate her students’ test scores based on the time of day she held her lectures (morning vs evening). Next she recorded the type of test students were writing (multiple choice vs short answer). She selected a random sample of students from her morning (n = 6) and evening (n = 7) classes (total of 13) and recorded scores from two of their tests as shown below. DATA Set 1: Good morning sunshine. Is Time of Day important? 1. Prof. Maya recently read an article that concluded students retained more information when attending classes in the morning. Based on this finding she thought students in her morning class might have performed differently on their Short Answer test scores when compared to students in her evening class. Does the data support her hypothesis? [15 points] Multiple Guess! Does Exam Type matter? 2. Prof. Maya also knew that students often did better on multiple-choice tests because they only have to recognize the information (rather than recall it). Given this, she thought students attending the morning class might perform differently on the Multiple-Choice test when compared to the Short Answer test. Does the data support her hypothesis? [15 points] DATA Set 2: We’ll try anything once. Does the new Tutorial Plan work? 3. Combining all of her students (and ignoring time of day), Prof. Maya asked her TAs to try a new – and very expensive - tutorial study plan. She then chose a random sample of 20 students to receive the new study plan and another sample of 30 to continue using the old study plan. Following an in-class quiz, she divided the students into 3 levels of achievement (below average, average, and above average), and then created the frequency table below. Does the new expensive tutorial study plan improve student performance? [15 points] Below average Average Above Average New plan 7 7 6 Old plan 6 15 9 DATA Set 3: How are YOU doing? 4. Finally, Prof. Maya thinks that her 2018 class is doing better than her 2017 class did. She decided to collect a sample of test scores from the students in her course this year (combining all of the groups) and compare the average with her previous year’s class average. Does the data support her hypothesis? [15 points] The 2017 class average = 63% The 2018 sample size = 25 The 2018 sample standard deviation = 11 The 2018 sample average = use your actual midterm mark (yes, you the student reading this :) Bonus: What does it all mean? 5. Bonus: IF Prof. Maya had complete control of how and when she ran her course in 2018, considering all the info you just found in the 3 data sets, write a brief statement of how you would recommend she set-up the course next year – and explain why. [5 points]

he mining ship has a mass of 10,000 kg. The first rocket stage provides a thrust of 80 kN and is used over a distance of 100,000 km. The second rocket stage provides a thrust of 40 kN and is used over a distance of 200,000 km. The third rocket stage provides a thrust of 30 kN and is used over a distance of 400,000 km. 1) Calculate the final velocity of the rocket using two methods: a. Using the work-energy theorem. b. Using kinematics and Newton’s laws of motion. Hint: You might need to use the quadratic formula to solve for t: 2) Calculate the total amount of time it takes for the mining ship to reach the other asteroid. 3) If the ship has a reverse thruster that provides 200 kN of thrust, how many km before reaching the destination should the mining ship engage the reverse thrusters?

You will use a single backing array(instead of two) and two hash functions (both MultiplicativeHashFunction objects), h1 and h2. The z values for your hash functions (and all subsequent hash functions needed when resizing or rehashing) will be taken from an array of integers passed to the CuckooHashTable constructor. The first value in the array will be used for the first incarnation of h1, the second value for the first incarnation of h2, the next two values will be used for the next incarnations of h1 and h2, etc. Note: be careful to follow this. We will be checking your array (via toString()) and correctness will depend on using the same values of z as we do when generating the test code. The MultiplicativeHashFunction objects you will use also have a getParams() method to show the value of z,w,d when that hash function is used. When adding an item, x, that is not in the hash table already, always add it to t[h1(x)] (even if t[h1(x)] is already taken and t[h2(x)] is available). The load factor must always satisfy α=n/t.length≤1/2. If adding an item will violate this then resize the table (doubling its size) and rehash everything (before doing the add). After removing an item, if the load factor satisfies α=n/t.length<1/8 AND the dimension satisfies d≥5 then resize by reducing the size of the bucket table by a factor 2 and rehash everything. Each time you resize you will create two new hash functions using the next two z values (that were initially passed to the constructor). Your constructor should initialize an empty bucket array of size 16 (i.e., d=4). This is the minimum size your bucket array should ever be. Never let the dimension be smaller then 4.

orresponding angles as a reason? why not, and what can you use? how am i suppose to know how many steps to have? whats the difference if i have "m" (measure) before the angle and if i dont have it before the angle? ex. m<4 congruent to m<2 <4 congruent to <2

et loans (he doesn't "earn" income). With the loans (L) he needs to decide between first period consumption (C1) and investment (I). The amount invested will allow him to get a second period income Y with probability P which is increasing in I (therefore, P(I)), In case of success and the person obtain Y, the individual should use Y to repay the loan (L) that he requested in the first period and consume in the second period (C2). However, with probability 1 - P(I), the person don't get Y and therefore only consume C1. Note that if the individual only invest the loan (L=I) and don't obtain Y, he can't consume anything. That motivates him not to invest the whole loan and keep part of the loan in order to warrant at least first period consumption. Therefore, considering B the parameter for the time preference, the problem would be: max U=ln(C1) + Bln(C2) s.t: L = I + C1 Y(I) = L(1+r) + C2 with Probability P(I) or s.t: L = I + C1 with probability 1 - P(I) My question is, Have you ever seen something like this? If yes, how to proceed? What is more important, I really need a bibliography (a book or article talking about this)

on questions assignment. First, if you have not already done so, read pages 381-382 in the textbook. Second, complete the discussion questions that appear below. Please copy and paste the questions onto a Word document; then, type your responses after each question. To view the questions, please scroll down. Third, in the textbook, read “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift (pages 214-222) and “How to Raise a Pimp” by Darryl L. Fortson, M.D. (pages 231-233). Fourth, complete the discussion questions regarding “A Modest Proposal” and “How to Raise a Pimp.” Again, please copy and paste the questions onto a Word document; then, type your responses after each question. To view the questions, please scroll down. Due Date: Please see the Canvas announcement regarding this assignment. Final Thoughts: Good luck with this assignment. You do not need to write an essay response to each question, so please do not do so. In fact, you should be able to successfully respond to each question in several sentences or a paragraph at most. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to e-mail or call me. Discussion Questions Pages 381-382 1. On pages 381-382, there is paragraph about tropical fish. Please quote the author’s stated claim exactly as it appears in the paragraph. (Hint: the stated claim is one sentence long.) 2. On pages 381-382, there is paragraph about tropical fish. Since this paragraph is a satire, you know that the stated claim is not what the author truly believes, so please paraphrase the author’s implied claim. (Hint: the implied claim should be one sentence in length.) 3. On page 382, there is paragraph about circuses. Please quote the author’s stated claim exactly as it appears in the paragraph. (Hint: the stated claim is one sentence long.) 4. On pages 381-382, there is paragraph about circuses. Since this paragraph is a satire, you know that the stated claim is not what the author truly believes, so please paraphrase the author’s implied claim. (Hint: the implied claim should be one sentence in length.) Discussion Questions “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift 1. The author of the work is not the same individual who is making the claim. In fact, Swift assumes a persona, the persona of someone he, hopefully, is not. List some of the characteristics of his alter-ego. 2. What is the proposer’s (we will use the word proposer to identify the individual making the claims) attitude toward the beggars he describes in the opening paragraphs? 3. In one sentence, paraphrase the proposer’s stated claim. 4. In one sentence, paraphrase the proposer’s implied claim. 5. According to the proposer, what are some of the issues that need correcting? 6. How does the use of facts and statistics help to bolster the proposer’s credibility? 7. Who will be the beneficiaries of this modest proposal? 8. Identify at least four good things that will come from this modest proposal. 9. Does the proposer address any arguments that might be raised against his modest proposal? If so, how does he address them? 10. Looking at the final paragraph, why does the proposer end his modest proposal in this manner? 11. Who is the intended audience of this satire? 12. Did you enjoy this satire? Why? 13. Does this satire have any relevance for us reading it today? If so, what is it? Discussion Questions “How to Raise a Pimp” by Darryl L. Fortson, M.D. 1. In one sentence, paraphrase the author’s stated claim. 2. In one sentence, paraphrase the author’s implied claim. 3. According to the author, what are the four things that one must do in order to raise a pimp? 4. Who is the intended audience of this satire? 5. What is the author trying to accomplish with his satire? 6. Did you enjoy this satire? Why? 7. Do you think this satire is effective? Why?

with a mean of 25 gm and a standard deviation of 5 gm. (a) If the machine is used 500 times, approximately how many times will it be expected to dispense 30 gm or more of chilli sauce? (b) How can you decrease this number to half? Give a numerical answer. 2. StarTech manufactures re sensors. They use a protective screen for their sensors to protect it from dust. The sensor becomes useless if the thickness of the screen exceeds 0.5 mm. They outsource the production of the screen to a di erent company that claims to manufacture screens with a mean thickness of 0.3 mm and a standard deviation of 0.1 mm. (a) If 10000 screens are manufactured how many will be discarded because they are too thick? (b) If screens less than 0.2 mm are too thin to be used, what is the probability that screens manufactured by the above company will be discarded because they are too thick or too thin? Show the result on a graph. 3. The amount of time that Sam spends playing the guitar is normally distributed with a mean of 15 hours and a standard deviation of 3 hours. (a) Find the probability that he spends between 15 and 18 hours playing the guitar during a given week. (b) What is the probability that he spends less than 3 hours playing the guitar during a given week? 4. Soon after he took oce in 1963, President Johnson was approved by 160 out of a sample of 200 Americans. With growing disillusionment over his Vietnam policy, by 1968 he was approved by only 70 out of a sample of 200 Americans. (a) What is the 90% con dence interval for the percentage of all Americans who approved of Johnson in 1963? In 1968? (b) What is the 90% con dence interval for the change?