Sorry if I expand on the question a little bit.

It is true I do not have math skills, I could not creates new paradigmes, ...

I have physics skills. Which include solving problems using physics and math.

IT skills includes solving problems using IT knowledge and sometimes, some maths.

Solving problem is not a mathematical skill.

Math is a vast field. most of which is useless for any IT people.

For mostly anybody really. as most mathematical knowledge is in deep very specialized fields that only a few people used to make research.
And that's true to all research domain nowadays.

Most fields use the math language and a subset of the research domaine. e.g. Linguistics will use statistics but not topology.

.

To develop algorithms, Yes, you will need math skills but that will not be sufficient. you will need also the knowledge of the dataset you want to process. You do not analyse Facebook data the same way as Afganistan images from UAVs or LHC events.

So you will have specialists that will tell you how the data need to be analysed.
You as IT specialist will need the basic math skills to apply what they told you to.

Math is not sufficient in most cases.
The best mathematician in the world will not be able to tell you how to simulate a galaxy or how to go from a diffraction pattern to the structure of a protein.

If it is these stuff that you want to code. CS is not the major you should have chosen.

You better learn to be a brewer directly.

Had a friend that study to become a Brewer after studying physics. I think there is more to it than chemistry/microbiology.

Tasting is probably a big part of the job.

all the one that would have been interested and would have been in need to know more on the subject have blown themselves up?

Unfortunately the universe is not flat, it is curved

So Mathematics is close to Philosophy in such graph like genius are close to madness in an intelligence graph.

You may say whatever you want in mathematics.

http://xkcd.com/378/

Go find an apartment that have a poor cell phone coverage.
Then to improve the situation, you buy a femtocell or your neighbor buy one and install next to the wall closest to your bed.

Legislation define maximum exposure allowed.
The distance from an antena is not the main factor; you also have to factor the power of the antenna.
In a city with lots of people to connect, you will have lots of low power antenna. While in the suburb, you will have more powerful antenna. The exposition of a nice house surrounded by trees from an antena a block away may be higher than in your apartment.

The fact that you can see the antena just show that you don't have a nice view. Next apartment you visit, the view may be better, the antena may be fixed on your building around the corner of your windows.

Eating less would also be good for the most people in industrialized countries.
Better/less use of fertilizer would be good for the environment.
That's two benefits in addition to less CO2 emission.

But Imostly agree with the above post. I put it in this way:"All the fuel that is taken out of the ground will be burn or used". So if you want to reduce the total CO2 emissions, you have to reduce the production of oil, gas, coal, tar sands, ...

Let's reduce the production by 10% and reduce the importation of the rich countries by 20%. That way, we are sure that there will be less CO2 in the atmosphere and that would leave some fuels for the poor countries to improve their economies. You can put some rule for long term CO2 capture scheme (i.e. guarantee > 200 years).

As an additional benefits, the reserves will last longer too. That can push the oil peak by a few years.

As the price would go up, you will be happy to use less.

Isolating apparatus from vibration is not the same thing as making telescope earthquake proof.

Telescopes in Scotland could detect the earthquake in Chile.
The VLT may not resist a mid-level earthquake at close range, I don't know

How the individuals changes ( horizontal or vertical gene modification, OGM) is separate from the selection effects that drives evolution.

In his lab, a scientist may come up with lot of gene modification but only the one he will be able to sell (one selection effect, Darwin may not have though about)) will go into the fields where they can breed with the wild flora.

After all, the company behind the ads are paying for the website.

If you do not respond positively to the ad, than you make the company loose money.

So to read an article on the web, you should be buying cars, shampoo, computers, as advertised on the website you visit even if you would have prefer a Toyota than the Humvee you had to buy according to the ads on the website you just visited.

I decide not to see the ads.

You decide to see the ads but ignore them. If you click on the ads, that do not interest you, just to give money to the site, is kind of fraudulent. The company that pay for the ads displayed want people that are interested in their product to visit their own website.