3 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: 1349437231329.jpg]
A factory produces plate glass with a mean thickness of mu = 4mm and a standard deviation of sigma = 1.1 mm. For quality control, a simple random sample of n = 100 sheets of glass is to be measured, and the sample mean thickness (i.e., x-bar) of the 100 sheets is to be computed.
The Central Limit Theorem
For the factory described above, what is the probability that the average thickness, x-bar, of the 100 sheets of glass is less than 4.1 mm? That is, find P(x-bar< 4.1).
53 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: tyson.jpg]
Does Neil Degrasse Tyson owe his success to Affirmative Action?
Has he even done much for science? He strikes me as a guy who can make himself appear much smarter than he actually is by speaking eloquently and using sophisticated vocabulary. When I watch videos of him he's usually talking about some relatively simple scientific (or other) concept that even a non-science person (such as myself) can easily understand, but he makes it seem like he's really smart for knowing it.
I think the media is just touting him as some extraordinary genius because he's black. As if to say, "See? Blacks are just as capable as whites!" Or to give blacks a scientific figure that they can flaunt in front of whites and say "what now, whitey? We scientist now." Just like how blacks often rub Obama in the face of whites as a way to say that they're in control now.
He reminds me a lot of his mentor Sagan i.e. a good speaker w/ a moderate understanding of science, but with very little new things to add. A lot of my peers and people online seem to think Sagan is among the smartest men in history, but I've personally always felt he was extremely overrated. I hope I'm not alone in that opinion. I just can't help but think Sagan would be almost unknown today if he hadn't made Cosmos or whored himself out to the media like he did.
I don't browse /sci/ much and I've never seen threads about Tyson or Sagan. I just wanted to get your opinions. Forgive me if it's already been asked.
8 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: aristotle1.jpg]
/sci/, I need some help. Next semester I'm going to be taking a Math course, Calculus course, and physics course. The thing is that I suck at math, and I don't even know what calculus is. Can anyone give me some advice on how to learn this, I have to get at least 85% in these three classes.
Looking for some info on the most basic calculus you can think of.
In Math we're going to be learning: Trigonometry
Relations and Functions, Permutations, Combinations and Binomial Theorem
In physics we're going to be learning: Momentum and Impulse, Electric Forces and Fields, Magnetic Forces and Fields, Electromagnetic Radiation, Atomic Structure, Atomic Nucleus
I really don't know anything about these, and I can use all the help I can get. I don't want to live the rest of my life as a pleb. I'm going into engineering next year if anyone was wondering, and can give me any information that would help me out with that.
51 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: wtc-911.jpg]
I've been reading the 9/11 wiki, it's fascinating, especially to learn how the people died.
I've been thinking, it says here "More than 90% of the workers and visitors who died in the towers had been at or above the points of impact. The destruction of all three staircases in the tower when Flight 11 hit made it impossible for anyone above the impact zone to escape."
If hitting the staircases prevented people above from evacuating, why didn't the terrorists strike lower parts of the buildings?
Keep in mind that the twin towers had 10,000-15,000 people in them when the planes hit and only 2500 or so actually died.
TLDR; could the 9/11 attacks have been more effective and killed more?