Why? What's so special about states? They're just lines on a map.
Why? What's so special about states? They're just lines on a map.
How much profit can you make off a kindergartner?
Are you aware of the origin of the word "pilot"? It refers to steering an oar or a rudder - not ailerons or flaps. It is of nautical origin.
I did work for Google and have since retired. So point not invalid.
As someone who has interviewed nearly 200 people to do work like mine, I'm very much aware how rare my skills are. And I'm also aware how many CVs and phone screens happened before I saw those people. So no, not confirmation bias.
I'm also aware that it's not a huge amount of work to acquire those skills. Particularly now with loads of free resources one can use to learn more. Invest a little money and you could have your own rpi kubernetes cluster for a few hundred bucks. You can run hadoop or spark or hbase or mesos on a cloud provider. Learn ansible, prometheus, go, python or loads of other things in your browser. You can show off your skills outside your job on github or bitbucket and contribute to loads of projects to build up a real, viewable CV.
There are companies out there that value their engineering staff. For starters, they're usually not calling them "IT staff." You should look for those companies. You should also look at the job you do. Is it worth what they pay you? If you ran the company, would you keep that position? If either answer is no, go find a company where both those answers are yes - and your career will be the better for it.
You're working in a change-averse industry - your skills will ossify.
I've been hearing about H1-B visa issues on slashdot since I joined and my uid is 5000. And quite honestly, I've never understood it. If you keep up your skills and progress beyond basic tech support or other low-level paper-pushing jobs this is never an issue.
In my experience, people with H1-B visas fill one of two scenarios: needs and costs.
The first is where a company needs more staff because they are always hiring. This would be like a Google or Facebook where they need smart, capable staff and can't find enough of them. Even with H1-Bs they can't. So there's no threat to "native" workers.
The second is to replace low-skilled staff with cheaper workers. And yeah, I get that sucks. But the solution is to learn more skills so you can get the first type of job.
I'm a 45 year old developer. I've learned more programming languages post-college than I learned in college. I've taken courses on managing development teams. I've read tons of books on various aspects of tech. I have skills that are useful and hard to find.
That's the answer - and it's actually part of the point Hillary Clinton was making.
Publishing an algorithm doesn't imply publishing all possibline input to the algorithm. You can publish an algorithm that, say, contains functionality to scan an exclusion list, without ever needing to publish any exclusion list that might exist.
For some sustained period of your life, your calorifie intake exceeded your energy expenditure and you put on weight. You may have reduced your calorie intake since then and stabilised your weight gain, however you have not reduced your calorie intake and/or increased your energy expenditure sufficiently to
At core, it is that simple.
There are details that matter though. E.g., different foods are digested and metabolised in different ways, and can produce different hormonal and neurological responses. E.g., sugar is processed quickly, alters insulin levels quickly, and your brain tends to crave it - so it doesn't fill you up. Higher fibre, less processed, and lower glycaemic index foods tend to be better for weight control. They make you feel full for longer, take more energy to digest, and your body responds more slowly. E.g., fresh fruit is great in that respect. Indeed, even *fats* aren't a bad thing per se - probably better to get your energy from fats than sugary things. Particularly, unprocessed (esp, never significantly heated) plant fats and oils from nuts, legumes, avocados, etc., seem to be good for us.
Also, not all exercise is equal either. You see people in gyms doing weights trying to lose weight - completely wrong. Sustained, aerobic exercise using the biggest muscles in your body: your legs and your stomach muscles (for breathing - not sit-ups). Doesn't have to be super-hard either, you actually burn more fat at *lower* intensity aerobic exercise. At higher intensities of aerobic exercise (i.e. the kind you can only sustain for ten or twenty minutes), your body uses sugars as they're easier to convert to energy. If you reduce the intensity a bit, down to a level you could sustain for an hour+, you should get to a zone where your body can meet the energy demands by burning fat stores - and your body usually will prefer to burn fat stores when it can (carbohydrate stores being more limited and precious).
The biggest issue is finding time for exercise. I hate the gym myself. To get exercise, I need to build it into my life so it's simply unavoidable. For me, that means relying on a bicycle to get to/from work. Cycling has worked for others. E.g., see: https://theamazing39stonecycli... - he lost 170 kilogrammes (~376 lbs) in a couple of years, by cycling.
If you review your life, make changes to how and what you eat, and exercise, it is possible to get to a healthy weight. Not easy, but you can make it happen.
Multivitamins are pretty useless. You need a far more diverse range of proteins and other elements, than you can get from McMuffins, McBurgers, McSalads and pizza.
Oh, and also, it sounds like you eat at McDonalds for breakfast and dinner. I wonder if even the salad is McDonalds? (McDonalds amazingly can make a salad be as calorific as a burger btw!). That doesn't sound good at all.
There was an excellent programme in the UK called "Secret eaters". They would have obese people - often a set from same household - who couldn't understand why they weren't losing weight, despite eating all healthy, compile a food diary. These food diaries would nearly always show the person was eating well, and should be losing weight.
The good bit was they'd then put the person under surveillance, with cameras in the house and (unbeknownst to the people) detectives following them around. Then they would compile a list of what the people were _actually_ eating. Pretty much universally, the obese people in their programmes were self-delusional about their eating. E.g., they'd tell themselves "But I only eat a salad for lunch" while ignoring all the sugary and/or fatty snacks they were eating at their desk or on breaks before other, and/or ignoring various calorie-rich sauces or other sides they were having with the salad - that type of thing.
So, I don't believe you.
Cycle more slowly. Bring wet wipes, and wipe yourself down in the toilet.
Look at what you're citing "light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality" - not "no effect" but "no direct _protective_ effect". I.e. it is saying there is no evidence for the hypothesis that drinking _helps_ your health.
The system is subverted, e.g. command.com has been modified, so that when Borland Turbo is loaded into memory it too is subverted. Alternatively, DOS 22h is replaced with a version that checks every disk write to see if it is the beginning of a DOS executable, and if so, subverts it. Alternatively,
There are surely many ways. Otherwise, you are arguing that DOS is not vulnerable to a broad range of all-powerful subversions, which is patently untrue.
Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie