There were no "bullets". Anti-gun nuts have no idea what they're talking about. There was only birdshot. Not a danger to anyone on the highway or on the property.
You obviously don't know anything about hunting or firearms. The hunters didn't have "rifles". You don't bring "rifles" to a pigeon shoot. You bring "shotguns", which are totally different from "rifles". You could shoot a shotgun at a person standing 100 yard away and it would do nothing to him but pepper him with birdshot. The only way they could have shot down this copter is with shotguns, obviously.
Yeah, the global warming is hitting the NorthEast pretty hard right now. They're supposed to get a few feet of global-warming before the storm is over. Thank god we've got the eco-terrorists to remind us that Cold = Weather, Heat = Global Warming, Drought = Global Warming-induced Weather Changes. Sure, they can't tell you what the temperature or the weather will be like 2 weeks from now. But what it will be like a hundred years from now? No problem. We've got that one nailed.;)
A 1.4 degree change in temperature over 100 years is within the margin of error of the instruments. It's is not a "statistically significant" change. This is a scientific term. This is the science you should choose to debate. Different that your mental masturbation and ad hominem attacks.
The IPCC has manipulated the temperatures. Claims to have lost the original data. Refuses to share their temperature data for independent evaluation. Created an illegal back-door communications channel to circumvent FOIA requests on taxpayer funded studies. Shut down thermometers in cooler locations. Deliberately attacked, ostracized, and excluded scientists with opposing views from publishing their results in journals.
And, in spite of all of this, they have a 1.4 degree increase over a hundred years which that cling to and claim the world is on the brink. This is beyond absurd. It's a religion. Not a science. Scientists are supposed to be skeptics. Global Warming alarmists are skeptics. They're Chicken Littles.
I think that's right. I mean, other than the fact that there is no global warming. The IPCC is a scam. Climate Gate exposed what the world already suspected...that they were deliberately manipulating the temperatures to achieve a desired result. That they place their thermometers in warmer locations (heat islands) and systematically remove the cooler thermometers. That, after manipulating the temperature data, they claim to have lost the original (unedited) temps. (Guffaw). That they deliberately smear and attempt to discredit any scientist that opposes them. That they got caught at all of the above. That they ignore and/or discredit anyone who disagrees with their sham and then claim there's a "consensus" and that the science is settled. That they get caught deliberately attempting to create a back-door communication channel to circumvent the pesky ole FOIA requests for work that is funded by taxpayer dollars. Yeah, I think you're right. Other than the fact that anthropogenic global warming/klimate change/ice age is a complete fraud and a poorly run sham, I don't have any real arguments. You got me.;)
Roger that. DIdn't mean to keep you up at night. I'm sure you've got to get up early to start your shift at McDonald's. My point was that you tree-huggers always claim that the "science is settled" and the "consensus" among scientists is that we have anthropomorphic Global Warming/Klimate Change / Ice Age coming, etc...insert fear factor of the hour term here. But the reality is that there is no "consensus". There's only a "consensus" if you ignore all of the dissenting opinions, which is absurd. But, I know. I'm wasting my time here. I'm not going to change our mind. You're not going to change mine. And you've got to get up early to start frying up those Egg McMuffins.
Oh, no. You're right. I'm well aware that it's somehow my fault that they do a bait-and-switch on the names, using whichever one is most convenient at the current moment. No doubt that's my fault somehow. I'm fully cognizant of that, obviously.
I'm talking about the scientific principles of "statistically significant" anthropogenic temperature changes. There are none. Thanks for playing. Go adjust your bifocals and study the tea leaves a little closer. Maybe burn some incense.
Derp! And don't forget...before Klimate Change...before Global Warming...it was The Coming Ice Age they were warning us about. You're right. Sounds like rock-solid conclusive inarguable science to me. Who am I to doubt the shifting predictions of the charlatans at the IPCC?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
No, you're right. The glassy-eyed liberals switched from "Global Warming" to "Klimate Change" to hedge their bets. The bet now is that "the climate, which has always changed, is going to continue to change". Brilliant. There's a prediction we can all agree with. The earth's average temperature has risen 1.4 degree F in the last 100 years. So, I'd call that remarkable stable. But, if you want to read the tea leaves instead of using science, which clearly says this change is easily within the margin of error and not statistically significant...then yeah...you're right. Global Warming is a religion, though, not a science. So, yeah, you can worship at the altar of Global Warming, just don't confuse your religion with Science. That's all. Because it doesn't even come close.
In before the tree-huggers drop the "Klimate Change" protest signs and pick up the battered old "Global Warming" protest sign in the corner. ManBearPig is real!!! I"m Super Cereal!!!!!
there is no science behind "climate change", obviously. It's a pseudo-scientific scare tactic. The temperature of the earth has not risen. There is no global warming. And changing to "climate change" midstream is just hedging your bets, like "boxing" the "exacta" or the "frifecta". We're not sure if it will get warmer. Or colder. But we are sure that the weather, which is always changing, will continue to change. In an unpredictable manner. And...uh...so we've got to quit burning fossil fuels. Hahahahahaha. Science? Please. Please. Please. The religion that is "climate change" doesn't even come close to being backed up by an true "science". I don't know a ton about Yucca Mountain, but I seriously doubt that you want to try to improve your argument by holding up "climate change" as a serious scientific endeavor. That would be a ghastly mistake.
"Sellers could cut them out by raising their prices so that demand matches supply."
Ding! Ding! Ding! This is the correct answer. What most people don't understand is that the venues are charging less than people are willing to pay. Demand is greater than supply and so the price goes up. Scalpers are there to correct the situation.
The only way to "beat the scalpers" is to price the tickets appropriately, meaning to "auction" off the tickets to the highest bidder. Then, if the performers/venue feel the prices are too high, they can perform another show. This is the way the free market economy works.
One person said "The power of the antenna in this case is restricted by the larger number of cell phone users in the city." And, it is true that the radiation intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. I personally think that you should attempt to measure the radiation from the tower. Then, you could decide if you needed to turn the apartment into a Farraday cage.
I want more control over the O/S and less questioning of my actions by the O/S. For instance, I want the ability to kill a process without further interrogation. And when I kill a process, I don't want to see it lingering out there, requiring me to kill it 9 times. Actually, what the computer needs is a setting to tell it how advanced the computer user is, from say 1 - 10. Where a 1 is a housewife and a 10 is an XP kernel developer. Then, I would set my O/S to a 10, and it would do what I tell it to without question (deleting files, killing processes, etc.)
I've been a programmer/technical analyst in the IS/IT industry for 19 years.
It seems to me that most people aren't answering your question which is, "how do I become a manager in this field". They're all trying to talk you out of it because you're too young or you don't have the right experience or the right degree or the right training, or you won't like it, even if they do throw you a bone.
Let's address these common misconceptions. First of all, you don't need any more experience than what you already have. You don't need to be older, wiser, more educated, or more experienced. All you need is for a company to give you the opportunity. Only then will you know 1) if you like it and 2) if you're good at it, in that order.
If you want to get a job as an IS/IT manager, you can get it. And quickly. I would suggest that you should be able to get a job within the next month or two if you try hard. But, the catch is that you will have to leave the company you're at first of all.
One thing I've learned is that, to move up fast, you have to change jobs. Why? Just because. This is the way things are. It's always easier for a company to hire people from the outside than to promote from within. If you promote someone from within, then all the people that got passed over are going to p1ss and whine and moan and complain and call in sick and possibly quit. They'll always resent that they got passed over for promotion. Just like you're resenting it now. That's why you have to change companies. And the sooner the better.
I had my company tell me that they wouldn't be surprised if I could get a 50% raise by going to another company, but they couldn't give me more than an x% raise because of some HR policy. So, the lesson here is that you have to change jobs. Why? Because you do. You just have to. Plus, they've already passed you over for a promotion by hiring someone from outside, so go look around. Do it now.
Age - No one cares. No one cares. No one cares and it doesn't matter. Look. I've been programming for 30 years. OK. Think about that. 30 years. You know what it gets me? Nothing. It means my memory is fading and I can't learn the new stuff that the new generation soaks up in their sleep. I was working in Unix, but I used to work in DOS. You think that helps? No. What it means is I can't remember which way the slashes go. DOS slashes go like this \ and UNIX slashes go like this/. Having a lot of experience in the computer industry is as much of a detriment as it is a benefit because everything changes so fast. Trust me.
Degree - You have to have a college degree? In what? Marine Weavology? B.S. Total B.S. OK, true, I have a degree in Mathematics and a minor in Computer Science. So what? Who cares? I've worked for at least three different managers in IT that never had college degrees and you know what? I didn't care. They didn't care. And it didn't matter. If there ever was a field where college degrees were meaningless, IT is that field. You need to know how computers and networks and programs and databases work and outside of that, no one gives a fark what you know. The IT/IS department is all about back-office applications anyway. As long as it runs smoothly, no one cares. No one cares.
Qualifications - Please. Puhleeze. I have worked for people that didn't even come into work. Women that ride motorcycles and don't know a database from a screensaver. I worked for an IT manager that rolled his Toyota 4Runner in downtown Denver and snapped his neck diving into shallow water. I've worked for IT managers that were accused of stealing or misappropriating millions of dollars. You don't need to know anything to be an IT manager except how to schmooze the people that are doing the hiring.
Experience - They say you don't have the right experience. This is B.S. How does anyone ever get experience? At some point, they have to put you in a position where you have no experience in order to gain experience.
Yeah, this makes sense to me. I thought of this after I posted the question. The applet is probably adjusting for the fact that it might be daylight at my location when the meteor shower peak intensity for the planet. So, even though the two predictions for peak activity are 4 hours and 40 minutes apart, the different peaks at my location are only 24 minutes apart. Thanks for the feedback.
Can someone help me with these two applets? They make no sense to me.
There's two little Java web applets called FLUXTIMATOR that allow you to put in your location and it will show you the expected number of shooting stars per hour for a ten hour time frame. However, because the experts can't agree on exactly when the peak will occur, there are two different little FLUXTIMATOR applets. The first one is based on the assumption that the peak occurs at 2h00m UT. The second one is based on the assumption that the peak occurs at 6h40m UT.
I live in the mountains outside of Denver Colorado. Our time zone here is Mountain Standard Time(MST). MST is seven hours behind Coordinated Universal Time(UTC). So, MST = UTC - 7.
First, I put in "10 Quadrantis 02:00" - "Denver, US" - "Mountaintop" - "Jan 3-4, 2008" - "DST=No". In this case, the graph indicates that the "Peak Time: 04:16" and the peak rate is about 28.8 meteorites per hour. This is a little confusing to me, however, as I would expect that if the we are "Assuming the peak is at 2h00m UT", then I would back 7 hours out of that and I would assume that the peak time in Denver would be 7:00 p.m. MST on Jan 3rd.
Secondly, I put in "10 Quadrantis 06:40" - "Denver, US" - "Mountaintop" - "Jan 3-4, 2008" - "DST=No". In this case, the graph indicates that the "Peak Time:03:52" and the peak rate is about 52.7 meteorites per hour. In this second case, where we are "Assuming the peak is at 6h40m UT", I would assume that the peak would occur at 11:40 MST.
This won't work for a variety of reasons. Mainly, though, it won't work because they picked one organization and handed them $14 million dollars. They should learn from NASA or other DARPA challenges and just open it up and say "create an autonomous tank and the winner gets $14 million dollars." That's a much better investment of the money, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. I predict this project goes the way of the ill-fated M247 Sargeant York.
OK. My point in posting was that, there really is no math you would be using on a daily basis above what they teach at a high school level. So, I do have a degree in math, and I am a computer programmer. Have been for 20 years, but who's counting. My point is that, the math he needs is rudimentary math. Geometry and Algebra, possibly. There just is no use for higher level math than that, unless he's going into cryptography at the NSA, or possibly a statistics related field, like an actuary at an insurance company. So, that's what I'm trying to convey here is that, many people think they need skills/knowledge, that they really don't need. Excel can solve most any math problem you have on a daily basis. And I can promise you that you won't need any higher math than algebra for most business applications. I've been coding in HR/Payroll/General Ledgers, etc. for 20 years all over North America, and I've never felt like I needed to crack open my college books for a quick refresher in Calculus, Discrete Math, etc. He may think his math is holding him back, but I would suggest that, if he has a solid understanding of high-school algebra, then what's holding him back is not his math, but something else.
Slashdot Mirror
There were no "bullets". Anti-gun nuts have no idea what they're talking about. There was only birdshot. Not a danger to anyone on the highway or on the property.
You obviously don't know anything about hunting or firearms. The hunters didn't have "rifles". You don't bring "rifles" to a pigeon shoot. You bring "shotguns", which are totally different from "rifles". You could shoot a shotgun at a person standing 100 yard away and it would do nothing to him but pepper him with birdshot. The only way they could have shot down this copter is with shotguns, obviously.
Yeah, the global warming is hitting the NorthEast pretty hard right now. They're supposed to get a few feet of global-warming before the storm is over. Thank god we've got the eco-terrorists to remind us that Cold = Weather, Heat = Global Warming, Drought = Global Warming-induced Weather Changes. Sure, they can't tell you what the temperature or the weather will be like 2 weeks from now. But what it will be like a hundred years from now? No problem. We've got that one nailed. ;)
A 1.4 degree change in temperature over 100 years is within the margin of error of the instruments. It's is not a "statistically significant" change. This is a scientific term. This is the science you should choose to debate. Different that your mental masturbation and ad hominem attacks. The IPCC has manipulated the temperatures. Claims to have lost the original data. Refuses to share their temperature data for independent evaluation. Created an illegal back-door communications channel to circumvent FOIA requests on taxpayer funded studies. Shut down thermometers in cooler locations. Deliberately attacked, ostracized, and excluded scientists with opposing views from publishing their results in journals. And, in spite of all of this, they have a 1.4 degree increase over a hundred years which that cling to and claim the world is on the brink. This is beyond absurd. It's a religion. Not a science. Scientists are supposed to be skeptics. Global Warming alarmists are skeptics. They're Chicken Littles.
I think that's right. I mean, other than the fact that there is no global warming. The IPCC is a scam. Climate Gate exposed what the world already suspected...that they were deliberately manipulating the temperatures to achieve a desired result. That they place their thermometers in warmer locations (heat islands) and systematically remove the cooler thermometers. That, after manipulating the temperature data, they claim to have lost the original (unedited) temps. (Guffaw). That they deliberately smear and attempt to discredit any scientist that opposes them. That they got caught at all of the above. That they ignore and/or discredit anyone who disagrees with their sham and then claim there's a "consensus" and that the science is settled. That they get caught deliberately attempting to create a back-door communication channel to circumvent the pesky ole FOIA requests for work that is funded by taxpayer dollars. Yeah, I think you're right. Other than the fact that anthropogenic global warming/klimate change/ice age is a complete fraud and a poorly run sham, I don't have any real arguments. You got me. ;)
Roger that. DIdn't mean to keep you up at night. I'm sure you've got to get up early to start your shift at McDonald's. My point was that you tree-huggers always claim that the "science is settled" and the "consensus" among scientists is that we have anthropomorphic Global Warming /Klimate Change / Ice Age coming, etc...insert fear factor of the hour term here. But the reality is that there is no "consensus". There's only a "consensus" if you ignore all of the dissenting opinions, which is absurd. But, I know. I'm wasting my time here. I'm not going to change our mind. You're not going to change mine. And you've got to get up early to start frying up those Egg McMuffins.
Well, at least you're comfortable resorting to Ad Hominem attacks instead of debating the validity of the science. Thanks for playing.
Except for the 700+ climatologists that came out after Climate Gate and announced that they thought anthropogenic Klimate Change and Global Warming were a bunch of hooey. I'm a podiatrist. You're a pederast. We've all got our issues. Call me a fool. But 700+ scientists? Probably not so much. ;)
http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-cleveland/more-than-700-scientists-discredit-man-made-global-warming-fears
Oh, no. You're right. I'm well aware that it's somehow my fault that they do a bait-and-switch on the names, using whichever one is most convenient at the current moment. No doubt that's my fault somehow. I'm fully cognizant of that, obviously.
Wow. You managed to work your hobby into the reply. Clever.
I'm talking about the scientific principles of "statistically significant" anthropogenic temperature changes. There are none. Thanks for playing. Go adjust your bifocals and study the tea leaves a little closer. Maybe burn some incense.
Derp! And don't forget...before Klimate Change...before Global Warming...it was The Coming Ice Age they were warning us about. You're right. Sounds like rock-solid conclusive inarguable science to me. Who am I to doubt the shifting predictions of the charlatans at the IPCC? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
No, you're right. The glassy-eyed liberals switched from "Global Warming" to "Klimate Change" to hedge their bets. The bet now is that "the climate, which has always changed, is going to continue to change". Brilliant. There's a prediction we can all agree with. The earth's average temperature has risen 1.4 degree F in the last 100 years. So, I'd call that remarkable stable. But, if you want to read the tea leaves instead of using science, which clearly says this change is easily within the margin of error and not statistically significant...then yeah...you're right. Global Warming is a religion, though, not a science. So, yeah, you can worship at the altar of Global Warming, just don't confuse your religion with Science. That's all. Because it doesn't even come close.
In before the tree-huggers drop the "Klimate Change" protest signs and pick up the battered old "Global Warming" protest sign in the corner. ManBearPig is real!!! I"m Super Cereal!!!!!
there is no science behind "climate change", obviously. It's a pseudo-scientific scare tactic. The temperature of the earth has not risen. There is no global warming. And changing to "climate change" midstream is just hedging your bets, like "boxing" the "exacta" or the "frifecta". We're not sure if it will get warmer. Or colder. But we are sure that the weather, which is always changing, will continue to change. In an unpredictable manner. And...uh...so we've got to quit burning fossil fuels. Hahahahahaha. Science? Please. Please. Please. The religion that is "climate change" doesn't even come close to being backed up by an true "science". I don't know a ton about Yucca Mountain, but I seriously doubt that you want to try to improve your argument by holding up "climate change" as a serious scientific endeavor. That would be a ghastly mistake.
"Sellers could cut them out by raising their prices so that demand matches supply."
Ding! Ding! Ding! This is the correct answer. What most people don't understand is that the venues are charging less than people are willing to pay. Demand is greater than supply and so the price goes up. Scalpers are there to correct the situation. The only way to "beat the scalpers" is to price the tickets appropriately, meaning to "auction" off the tickets to the highest bidder. Then, if the performers/venue feel the prices are too high, they can perform another show. This is the way the free market economy works.
One person said "The power of the antenna in this case is restricted by the larger number of cell phone users in the city." And, it is true that the radiation intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. I personally think that you should attempt to measure the radiation from the tower. Then, you could decide if you needed to turn the apartment into a Farraday cage.
The intensity of the radiation varies inversely with the square of the distance, not the cube of the distance.
You're going to "put a man (and woman) back on the moon?" Not possible. No woman has ever been to the moon.
I want more control over the O/S and less questioning of my actions by the O/S. For instance, I want the ability to kill a process without further interrogation. And when I kill a process, I don't want to see it lingering out there, requiring me to kill it 9 times. Actually, what the computer needs is a setting to tell it how advanced the computer user is, from say 1 - 10. Where a 1 is a housewife and a 10 is an XP kernel developer. Then, I would set my O/S to a 10, and it would do what I tell it to without question (deleting files, killing processes, etc.)
I've been a programmer/technical analyst in the IS/IT industry for 19 years.
/. Having a lot of experience in the computer industry is as much of a detriment as it is a benefit because everything changes so fast. Trust me.
It seems to me that most people aren't answering your question which is, "how do I become a manager in this field". They're all trying to talk you out of it because you're too young or you don't have the right experience or the right degree or the right training, or you won't like it, even if they do throw you a bone.
Let's address these common misconceptions. First of all, you don't need any more experience than what you already have. You don't need to be older, wiser, more educated, or more experienced. All you need is for a company to give you the opportunity. Only then will you know 1) if you like it and 2) if you're good at it, in that order.
If you want to get a job as an IS/IT manager, you can get it. And quickly. I would suggest that you should be able to get a job within the next month or two if you try hard. But, the catch is that you will have to leave the company you're at first of all.
One thing I've learned is that, to move up fast, you have to change jobs. Why? Just because. This is the way things are. It's always easier for a company to hire people from the outside than to promote from within. If you promote someone from within, then all the people that got passed over are going to p1ss and whine and moan and complain and call in sick and possibly quit. They'll always resent that they got passed over for promotion. Just like you're resenting it now. That's why you have to change companies. And the sooner the better.
I had my company tell me that they wouldn't be surprised if I could get a 50% raise by going to another company, but they couldn't give me more than an x% raise because of some HR policy. So, the lesson here is that you have to change jobs. Why? Because you do. You just have to. Plus, they've already passed you over for a promotion by hiring someone from outside, so go look around. Do it now.
Age - No one cares. No one cares. No one cares and it doesn't matter. Look. I've been programming for 30 years. OK. Think about that. 30 years. You know what it gets me? Nothing. It means my memory is fading and I can't learn the new stuff that the new generation soaks up in their sleep. I was working in Unix, but I used to work in DOS. You think that helps? No. What it means is I can't remember which way the slashes go. DOS slashes go like this \ and UNIX slashes go like this
Degree - You have to have a college degree? In what? Marine Weavology? B.S. Total B.S. OK, true, I have a degree in Mathematics and a minor in Computer Science. So what? Who cares? I've worked for at least three different managers in IT that never had college degrees and you know what? I didn't care. They didn't care. And it didn't matter. If there ever was a field where college degrees were meaningless, IT is that field. You need to know how computers and networks and programs and databases work and outside of that, no one gives a fark what you know. The IT/IS department is all about back-office applications anyway. As long as it runs smoothly, no one cares. No one cares.
Qualifications - Please. Puhleeze. I have worked for people that didn't even come into work. Women that ride motorcycles and don't know a database from a screensaver. I worked for an IT manager that rolled his Toyota 4Runner in downtown Denver and snapped his neck diving into shallow water. I've worked for IT managers that were accused of stealing or misappropriating millions of dollars. You don't need to know anything to be an IT manager except how to schmooze the people that are doing the hiring.
Experience - They say you don't have the right experience. This is B.S. How does anyone ever get experience? At some point, they have to put you in a position where you have no experience in order to gain experience.
Yeah, this makes sense to me. I thought of this after I posted the question. The applet is probably adjusting for the fact that it might be daylight at my location when the meteor shower peak intensity for the planet. So, even though the two predictions for peak activity are 4 hours and 40 minutes apart, the different peaks at my location are only 24 minutes apart. Thanks for the feedback.
Can someone help me with these two applets? They make no sense to me.
.
There's two little Java web applets called FLUXTIMATOR that allow you to put in your location and it will show you the expected number of shooting stars per hour for a ten hour time frame. However, because the experts can't agree on exactly when the peak will occur, there are two different little FLUXTIMATOR applets. The first one is based on the assumption that the peak occurs at 2h00m UT. The second one is based on the assumption that the peak occurs at 6h40m UT
I live in the mountains outside of Denver Colorado. Our time zone here is Mountain Standard Time(MST). MST is seven hours behind Coordinated Universal Time(UTC). So, MST = UTC - 7.
First, I put in "10 Quadrantis 02:00" - "Denver, US" - "Mountaintop" - "Jan 3-4, 2008" - "DST=No". In this case, the graph indicates that the "Peak Time: 04:16" and the peak rate is about 28.8 meteorites per hour. This is a little confusing to me, however, as I would expect that if the we are "Assuming the peak is at 2h00m UT", then I would back 7 hours out of that and I would assume that the peak time in Denver would be 7:00 p.m. MST on Jan 3rd.
Secondly, I put in "10 Quadrantis 06:40" - "Denver, US" - "Mountaintop" - "Jan 3-4, 2008" - "DST=No". In this case, the graph indicates that the "Peak Time:03:52" and the peak rate is about 52.7 meteorites per hour. In this second case, where we are "Assuming the peak is at 6h40m UT", I would assume that the peak would occur at 11:40 MST.
Can somebody tell me what I'm missing here?
This won't work for a variety of reasons. Mainly, though, it won't work because they picked one organization and handed them $14 million dollars. They should learn from NASA or other DARPA challenges and just open it up and say "create an autonomous tank and the winner gets $14 million dollars." That's a much better investment of the money, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. I predict this project goes the way of the ill-fated M247 Sargeant York.
OK. My point in posting was that, there really is no math you would be using on a daily basis above what they teach at a high school level. So, I do have a degree in math, and I am a computer programmer. Have been for 20 years, but who's counting. My point is that, the math he needs is rudimentary math. Geometry and Algebra, possibly. There just is no use for higher level math than that, unless he's going into cryptography at the NSA, or possibly a statistics related field, like an actuary at an insurance company. So, that's what I'm trying to convey here is that, many people think they need skills/knowledge, that they really don't need. Excel can solve most any math problem you have on a daily basis. And I can promise you that you won't need any higher math than algebra for most business applications. I've been coding in HR/Payroll/General Ledgers, etc. for 20 years all over North America, and I've never felt like I needed to crack open my college books for a quick refresher in Calculus, Discrete Math, etc. He may think his math is holding him back, but I would suggest that, if he has a solid understanding of high-school algebra, then what's holding him back is not his math, but something else.