Because mayonnaise is defined as "spicy sauce made from oil and egg yolk"? If it doesn't contain eggs, it's not a mayonnaise. If it doesn't contain oil, it's not a mayonnaise.
Especially cloud providers will be customers of other cloud providers - imagine them being new to some market niche and don't having the capacity to serve them all, cloud providers can rent clouds at other providers much more easily.
I don't know about the U.S. traffic laws, but here at least, you are only allowed to overtake if you keep a distance of at least a meter to the vehicle you are overtaking. This almost ever forbids passing cyclists in the same lane. You actually have to use another lane to overtake a cyclists. Anything else is considered dangerous driving (albeit it is still common). So cyclists are using their lane rightfully, and demanding of them to "not block the lane" is akin to admitting that you regularly endanger others in traffic and get angry if you are not allowed to do so.
Cycling culture has resorted to this because the normal traffic culture excludes cyclists. And if cyclists don't get any advantage from obeying traffic laws, what's the point in adhering to them?
Countries with a better integration of cyclists into the daily traffic routines have more disciplined cyclists.
And it's even legal! So why you don't become a politican? You get paid for doing nothing, if you are good. And you can do worse, and you will even be paid more! You know how it works, why don't you turn your knowledge into a steady income?
Actually, I beg to differ. When the situation pops up that you need that special knowledge, you can always ask someone for help, or you can (as the article describes) just google for a solution. No person since the Early Modern Times and the last polymaths is able to even know everything about what he is working with on a daily basis. No physicists knows all the engineering details of the instruments he is using to perform his experiments, and no engineer knows all about the experiments the physicist is working on with the instruments the engineer is working on. Not even the processor designer knows everything about the design of the south bridge that will connect to his CPU. He might be able to actually get that knowledge, but in most cases it will be more productive that he sits with the south bridge design team on the specs and later works with them on the bugs that appear in the simulator and the first silicon.
And that's the basic message of the article: Start with what you got, not even math skills are necessary, and whenever you hit a wall, you can always ask someone or teach yourself what you are missing. And no, it's not degrading your honor as a programmer when you google how to turn red the background of a web page.
Somehow people are messing up "knowing math" and "knowing enough about math for programming". She never claims that basic math wasn't a necessity, she also doesn't claim that knowing some calculus and linear algebra is superfluous.
But there is a whole world between being able to do the math necessary to rotate a 3D vector in a 4D space and the proof of the Poincaré-conjecture.
Also a plumber doesn't need to be able to do the math of the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation to find out when the laminar flow in a water tube turns chaotic. But he should know that changing one parameter (e.g. the length of the tube or the diameter or the flowing speed) will move the limit and can turn the actual flow back to laminar, even though he's not able to write down all the integrals.
So yes, knowing math is fine for programming, and there are many task in programming which require some special knowledge about some obscure math problem and its solutions, but it is not necessary to study the whole field of mathematics surrounding that math problem, nor is it necessary to be able to solve the math problem on your own.
Even the first ever described bubble does not fit your description: The Tulip mania of 1637. So your thesis seem to be somewhat flawed. Yes, in most economic conditions, you also find some governmental regulation. And most of them do not turn into bubbles. Some of them do. But even something out of the reach of governmental regulation can turn into a bubble (see Exhibit A). Thus your argument is similar to the argument that because you find water in about any carcinoma, water causes cancer.
* Porche SUV - huh? Doesn't do either job all that well.
To be fair: A SUV does only one job well, and that is aggrandizing its owner, and the Porsche SUV is perfect for the job. If it was for the smooth ride at long distances, each car can do better, for less fuel. If it was for the space and driving position, a van would could do that for less fuel, if it was for the loading and hauling capacity, a truck would do better with less maintenance required, and if it was for the offroad capabilities, each dedicated 4WD would beat it hands down.
All a SUV can is telling the world, that you don't want to drive a van or station wagon and will pay a premium not to have to.
And now we compare that with the tax breaks, subsidaries and profits for the oil and coal industry between 1989 and 2009. And suddenly we are talking about pocket change. They get $2.4 billion per year in tax breaks only, while the whole money spent on climate research (which includes weather forecasts, which people like to forget) is just $1.6 billion per year. And this does not include the $6.5 billion in subsidies per year for oil and gas. And the $14 billion per year subsidies for Nonconventional fuels (e.h. oil from shale, from tar sands, coal seams and coal based synthetic fuels). And the tax break of about $1 billion per year by declaring Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains.
So where are the government founded profits, in launching satellites and building expensive computers for weather forecasts and climate modelling at $1.6 billion per year and which aren't profitable to sell, or in mining coal and oil and gas for $25 billion in subsidies, and which you can then sell for a profit on the market?
So whoever brings up the financial gain argument against the climate scientists, has to honestly conclude that the financial interest on the anti-climate-scientist-stance is much more plausible. If you want to follow the money, the big stinking trace goes to oil and gas, and not to climate research and renewables.
On the other hand: The most cited papers are those that describe some research method, which is often highly specialized, e.g. some test, some experiment, some analysis method. But if you use their methodology in your paper, you cite them because they describe in detail what you are doing. If you are doing some gene manipulation, you will cite some papers which describe how to detect and isolate genes. If you are doing geology, you will cite some papers about how to determine the age of stones. If you are counting species, you will cite the papers which describe how to tell two quite similar species apart etc.pp.
Normally this should give papers with long names some push.
No, Teddy Roosevelt would definitely not be a T-Party supporter. The T-Party is the reincarnation of the Eternal Puberty, where the parents, represented by the government are guilty of constantly interferring with your life, messing it up and at the same time not supporting you and your great ideas, instead expecting you to clean your room, and especially stocking up the fridge with the wrong type of soda, even though you grumpily sat in your room when they made the error the last time.
I never understood why this law should be only valid on the Internet. In fact, I know of many examples of non-internet parodies which were, even though they were clearly recognizable as parodies, taken as the thing they were mocking. Most prominent example would be the Illuminatus! trilogy by Shea and Wilson.
No, he's thinking more along Ulysses Grant; "I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution."
If you never test bad laws or laws with unintended consequences in court, no one will ever see the bad outcomes and unintendend consequences.
Actually, no, they don't. And yes, I have been present at a child's birth, and because my wife was sedated and lost huge amounts of blood during the sectio, for the first few hours, I was holding the child. And no, he didn't start to search for a nipple all by himself, I actually had to hold the baby bottle right to his mouth until he grabbed it with his lips and was starting to suck on it.
According to the chart, there was not a single day in 2015 yet when Poland net-exported electricity to Germany, but every day, there was some significant net-export of electricity from Germany to Poland. So when does the big business for polish coal plants happen?
Poland exports just 0.1 TWh to Germany per year, while Germany itself was importing 38 TWh. Thus even in situations of dire need (when Germany was importing electricity), Poland supplied only 0.3 percent of Germany's imported electricity, which renders your argument somewhat dubious. I guess Germany can do just fine if 0.3 percent of the imported capacity (non-withstanding the capacity Germany itself still has) are missing.
But I'll still be willing to listen to reasonable follow-up experiments instead of dismissing out of hand. So we get to Martin Tajmar and his claims (also not peer reviewed, but at least it's at a conference). Tajmar is not the guy I'd choose as the most reputable source. He has a history of claims about...creative physics from poor experimental setups. That is, he claims to observe new physics, but people have consistently had a hard time reproducing his results. Go ahead and google the guy.
I did, and appearantly it was Martin Tajmar himself, who found the flaw in his gravitational gyroscope thesis, and published it: FiberOpticGyroscope Measurements Close to Rotating Liquid Helium. So whatever you think about the guy, a superficial Google result seems to put him at least as honest. If he makes a mistake, he is able to admit it.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about the Bering sea? It was named for the danish explorer Vitus Bering.
Then the travel to the six month's project site is up to the employer.
Because mayonnaise is defined as "spicy sauce made from oil and egg yolk"? If it doesn't contain eggs, it's not a mayonnaise. If it doesn't contain oil, it's not a mayonnaise.
Especially cloud providers will be customers of other cloud providers - imagine them being new to some market niche and don't having the capacity to serve them all, cloud providers can rent clouds at other providers much more easily.
I don't know about the U.S. traffic laws, but here at least, you are only allowed to overtake if you keep a distance of at least a meter to the vehicle you are overtaking. This almost ever forbids passing cyclists in the same lane. You actually have to use another lane to overtake a cyclists. Anything else is considered dangerous driving (albeit it is still common). So cyclists are using their lane rightfully, and demanding of them to "not block the lane" is akin to admitting that you regularly endanger others in traffic and get angry if you are not allowed to do so.
Countries with a better integration of cyclists into the daily traffic routines have more disciplined cyclists.
No, that was not a consensus, that was just one idea put forward and being contested for instance by Robert Boyle.
And it's even legal! So why you don't become a politican? You get paid for doing nothing, if you are good. And you can do worse, and you will even be paid more! You know how it works, why don't you turn your knowledge into a steady income?
Ask Al Gore the king of carbon cap trading.
Ask the people made out like bandits on ethanol mandates.
You sound as if you don't like it when people turn their knowledge into money.
And that's the basic message of the article: Start with what you got, not even math skills are necessary, and whenever you hit a wall, you can always ask someone or teach yourself what you are missing. And no, it's not degrading your honor as a programmer when you google how to turn red the background of a web page.
But there is a whole world between being able to do the math necessary to rotate a 3D vector in a 4D space and the proof of the Poincaré-conjecture.
Also a plumber doesn't need to be able to do the math of the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation to find out when the laminar flow in a water tube turns chaotic. But he should know that changing one parameter (e.g. the length of the tube or the diameter or the flowing speed) will move the limit and can turn the actual flow back to laminar, even though he's not able to write down all the integrals.
So yes, knowing math is fine for programming, and there are many task in programming which require some special knowledge about some obscure math problem and its solutions, but it is not necessary to study the whole field of mathematics surrounding that math problem, nor is it necessary to be able to solve the math problem on your own.
Even the first ever described bubble does not fit your description: The Tulip mania of 1637. So your thesis seem to be somewhat flawed. Yes, in most economic conditions, you also find some governmental regulation. And most of them do not turn into bubbles. Some of them do. But even something out of the reach of governmental regulation can turn into a bubble (see Exhibit A). Thus your argument is similar to the argument that because you find water in about any carcinoma, water causes cancer.
* Porche SUV - huh? Doesn't do either job all that well.
To be fair: A SUV does only one job well, and that is aggrandizing its owner, and the Porsche SUV is perfect for the job. If it was for the smooth ride at long distances, each car can do better, for less fuel. If it was for the space and driving position, a van would could do that for less fuel, if it was for the loading and hauling capacity, a truck would do better with less maintenance required, and if it was for the offroad capabilities, each dedicated 4WD would beat it hands down.
All a SUV can is telling the world, that you don't want to drive a van or station wagon and will pay a premium not to have to.
So where are the government founded profits, in launching satellites and building expensive computers for weather forecasts and climate modelling at $1.6 billion per year and which aren't profitable to sell, or in mining coal and oil and gas for $25 billion in subsidies, and which you can then sell for a profit on the market?
So whoever brings up the financial gain argument against the climate scientists, has to honestly conclude that the financial interest on the anti-climate-scientist-stance is much more plausible. If you want to follow the money, the big stinking trace goes to oil and gas, and not to climate research and renewables.
Normally this should give papers with long names some push.
No, Teddy Roosevelt would definitely not be a T-Party supporter. The T-Party is the reincarnation of the Eternal Puberty, where the parents, represented by the government are guilty of constantly interferring with your life, messing it up and at the same time not supporting you and your great ideas, instead expecting you to clean your room, and especially stocking up the fridge with the wrong type of soda, even though you grumpily sat in your room when they made the error the last time.
I never understood why this law should be only valid on the Internet. In fact, I know of many examples of non-internet parodies which were, even though they were clearly recognizable as parodies, taken as the thing they were mocking. Most prominent example would be the Illuminatus! trilogy by Shea and Wilson.
If you never test bad laws or laws with unintended consequences in court, no one will ever see the bad outcomes and unintendend consequences.
Actually, no, they don't. And yes, I have been present at a child's birth, and because my wife was sedated and lost huge amounts of blood during the sectio, for the first few hours, I was holding the child. And no, he didn't start to search for a nipple all by himself, I actually had to hold the baby bottle right to his mouth until he grabbed it with his lips and was starting to suck on it.
According to the chart, there was not a single day in 2015 yet when Poland net-exported electricity to Germany, but every day, there was some significant net-export of electricity from Germany to Poland. So when does the big business for polish coal plants happen?
Here is the daily, monthly and yearly balance for energy export from and to Germany: Energy Chart Please elaborate.
Most of them being Adenovirus-strains and Rhinovirus-strains.
Poland exports just 0.1 TWh to Germany per year, while Germany itself was importing 38 TWh. Thus even in situations of dire need (when Germany was importing electricity), Poland supplied only 0.3 percent of Germany's imported electricity, which renders your argument somewhat dubious. I guess Germany can do just fine if 0.3 percent of the imported capacity (non-withstanding the capacity Germany itself still has) are missing.
But I'll still be willing to listen to reasonable follow-up experiments instead of dismissing out of hand. So we get to Martin Tajmar and his claims (also not peer reviewed, but at least it's at a conference). Tajmar is not the guy I'd choose as the most reputable source. He has a history of claims about...creative physics from poor experimental setups. That is, he claims to observe new physics, but people have consistently had a hard time reproducing his results. Go ahead and google the guy.
I did, and appearantly it was Martin Tajmar himself, who found the flaw in his gravitational gyroscope thesis, and published it: FiberOpticGyroscope Measurements Close to Rotating Liquid Helium. So whatever you think about the guy, a superficial Google result seems to put him at least as honest. If he makes a mistake, he is able to admit it.
If you are already an employee and negotiating for a raise, you don't have an agency. But your employer still has perfect information.