Looking at the card: "Effortless movement between multiple applications". Really? Wow. That's a pretty wild product claim to make for 1MB of L3 cache.
Heck, I had decided to turn off Hyperthreading at my next reboot. For some things it's a net slowdown.
We might guess that the folks buying one of these stripped-down, crippled notebooks are likely to be students or otherwise budget-constrained. It's going to suck for them to get their expectations up and part with 50 hard-earned bucks just to find out it's not that all that big of a difference in performance. I suspect they might feel a teeny bit ripped-off even.
It'll be measurable on benchmarks, but like you said, it's not going to exactly breathe new life into a low-end laptop that's sucking wind because of malware, anti-malware scanning, general Windows bloat, and/or the 10 different applications that load themselves in the system tray and memory on startup.
This was not a good move for customer loyalty, Intel. Anyone want to bet they'll end up giving all the affected customers free un-downgrades and refunds?
The take-away here is that when I buy an Intel processor, I'm not getting the best performance, I'm not getting the best price, and I'm not getting the the best value. At best, I'll get crippleware. Crippleware sucked and I'm glad it died out of the marketplace back in the late 90s.
Some Intel products open security holes on your system with their defective DRM: http://extendedsubset.com/?p=30 . I just figured they couldn't get competent C programmers after what they did to Randal Schwartz http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/ . The HDCP leak was yet another example of fail. But now they want to bring this level of quality engineering directly into the CPU? Haha, no thanks guys.
Imagine the APT malware that would be possible if the CPU microcode update protections get busted wide-open like HDCP just did.
Now was it really such a good idea to hand the Elbonian Business Network a way to sell cracks for who-knows-how-many millions of CPUs for $50 each? Congratulations Intel, the black market value of a crack on your microcode just went from $100k to $M++. Did you stop to consider the fact that some of the top supercomputers on the planet are botnets? That's right: the adversary has the computational resources of a state actor and he doesn't even pay his own power bill.
I'm sitting right now within arm's reach of 14 Intel cores I've bought within the last year or two (from Atoms to i7's), never mind the stuff I have a voice in professionally. My next general purpose CPU is coming from AMD.
With all the complaints about the signal-to-noise ratio decrease (since the good old days), this kind of article is why I still follow Slashdot after all these years.
I'm usually just skimming, not reading TFA, or lurking.
But it got me to dig up my password and log in for once.
Thanks guys.
The argument that $x could be spent better by applying it to y is almost always false when it comes to the environment.
That generalizes nicely: "An arbitrary statement s about x and y is almost always false for arbitrary values of x and y." Or even "Most arbitrary statements are false."
It sure sounds like you're saying "we should not use logic when it comes to spending money on the envrionment."
The fact remains, environmental / ecological change happens on a thousand different fronts.
Perhaps, but that fact lends no support to your sweeping generalization.
Imagine if we had the most fuel efficient cars possible (zero carbon footprint) yet our factories poured carcinogenic effluent into the atmosphere, our houses ran as efficiently as a dead horse and leaked heat, cold, moisture, etc.
In such a situation you want to put your (finite) resources where they would provide the most benefit. In fact, the only plausible way you would get into such a situation is by not doing that.
If the technology proves to be something that can and will save money while at the same time benefiting the environment, economy of scale will come into effect and the cost will drop significantly. If not, it will fall flat like so many other things and we'll divert our attention elsewhere (like more fuel efficientcars).
If you actually have unlimited resources, well, problem solved.
If you don't have unlimited resources, you must carefully select which technologies should receive the economies of scale. If you attempted to invest in all technologies simultaneously, none will be developed sufficiently to reach significant economy of scale. If you choose a sub-optimal set of technologies to scale, you will end up less-better-off, or possibly even worse-off than had you invested optimally.
But if you had widespread adoption [...] being economical for society. Not if that $5k per window were better spent on something else. E.g., more fuel-efficient cars.
Sure, the ANSI/ISO C standard does not prohibit Valgrind from terminating your process, or gcc from issuing code that reformats your hard drive.
However, there's no law that says no programs can be written which do things not explicitly endorsed by that particular document. In reality, systems programming occasionally needs to use platform-specific functionality that comes from the the C language standard does not define.
By your definition of "bug" one could not write an multithreaded application, OS kernel, debugger, or use a memory-mapped file.
How a cascade of small failings lead to a major disaster.
OpenSSL leave in an "uninitialized memory read" because it "doesn't matter and might help".
I think you're putting words in their mouth. The OpenSSL developers didn't lazily "leave it in" and dismiss legitimate concerns by saying "it doesn't matter". They wrote it that way intentionally.
This is a bug.
No, it's not a bug. In C, if someone you passes you a buffer of a stated minimum size, there's nothing wrong with you reading from it. There's no such thing as "write only" memory.
Sure, 99.5% of the time, mediocre C code reading such memory indicates an error. Most programs are not in the business of accumulating entropy. Tools like Valgrind pick up on that to warn about it, and as useful as they are, they're no "gold standard" of program correctness.
However, accumulating entropy for random number generation is an entirely valid use of such a technique. The OpenSSL developers knew exactly what they were doing, and this happen to be one of those 0.5% function which legitimately reads allocated-but-uninitialized memory.
The Debian developer appears to have been robotically following "policy" and changed code without fully understanding its consequences.
It does matter. The fact that all compilers will deal with this bug in a way that is OK is not sufficient in security critical code.
The security-critical code behaved correctly before the "fix".
Once you reach this point _anything_ can happen. If the compiler decides to flag this memory as read only and never modify it again then that is allowed. I can't imagine why a compiler or system would do something like this but it's allowed to. The OpenSSL code is non-portable and fragile.
I know OpenSSL to be a portable program by virtue of the fact that it has been ported to many platforms.
Perhaps it is a bit fragile, but considering how much effort has gone into providing so many algorithms with hand-tuned assembly for multiple processor architectures, I'm willing to overlook it a bit. And every common platform except those from Microsoft (and perhaps now Debian), I can expect that someone else has done a reasonable job of packaging it for me.
And many people will be using this library in places where the memory is guaranteed to be initialized a particular way. Either this doesn't matter (in which case it doesn't matter if the uninitialized memory is initialized to a known state at the start) or it does matter in which case OpenSSL is broken on platforms where this memory is not random.
It's not your false dichotomy of "does/doesn't matter". Entropy is accumulated when it is available, and is not decreased when it is not. Since there's not a source of perfect entropy available, we need to take what we can get, whenever we can get it.
Debian spots this uninitialized read and tries to fix it.
It's not a bug, and shouldn't be "fixed".
The proposed update is passed upstream but the email is ambiguous as to what exactly is required.
OpenSSL team do not jump on this.
That exchange looks like a beautiful example of miscommunication. I don't think it ever occurred to the OpenSSL developers that the Debian guy was thinking about commenting out all entropy mix-in for the production release!
If the email went to the wrong address then the right address should have been provided (and the email forwarded as a courtesy). If this was an update to sensitive, critical code (which it was) then someone should have said "hold on there, this is sensitive code and introducing bugs here is really serious. We need a precise patch, we need time to evaluate the patch, we need time to work out how to fix the underlying uninitialized memory bug."
I haven't looked but has the underlying bug in OpenSSL been fixed even now? We've got an "undefined behavio
I doubt that a malicious mole would have invited this exchange. But perhaps that makes it all-the-more brilliant, hmm?
Seriously, if one wanted to compromise the Debian codebase, there'd be far subtler places to do it. The fact that this gaping hole went undetected for two years suggests that there's probably little need to insert new ones.
https/ssl/tls/ssh etc use the certificates to agree on a conventional "session key" every time you connect. Session keys are typically chosen with strong random numbers... but if either the client or server is using the OpenSSL from Debian Etch, there's nearly no randomness in it.
Even if your certs are fine, individual transactions are likely vulnerable.
If someone has taken packet captures, they will likely be able to decrypt them retro-actively.
Here's a reason:
MS Dev Studio 6.0 doesn't even install cleanly on Windows XP with SP2, but I've heard there're workarounds.
The.NET editions are surely much better, but...
I'll consider VB when someone shows me its context-free grammar.
For physics reasons, it's easier to transmit AC over long distances; DC requires thick copper cables or bars, instead of comparatively lightweight wires.
Gone are the days I guess where on every block was a buzz-cut 10-year-old who, while soldering his Heathkit, could easily master such new space-age concepts as Ohm's law.
Now for those of us who might relate better to power in terms of Makeup-mirror-equivalent (MME) units, who don't want to be bothered with such chores as multiplying by powers of 10:
For perspective, 15 kilowatts is the same amount of power used by 150 100-watt light bulbs.
"Look, I've got more experience in this field than most people will ever get, and I'd really only be interested if they're able to pay X dollars."
Hey, nothing wrong with that if you can back it up, but somehow I just don't get the sense that it's the best strategy for this guy writing in to "Dear Slashdot".
In conclusion, if you haven't asked for a raise yet, do it first thing Monday.
He'd be better off discussing compensation with an outside offer letter in hand. I think that'd be worth a delay of a few weeks to hear back from some of the places he's interviewed.
Given that businesses usually base the salaries of new hires on their previous job, how can one arrange a fair salary if they were badly underpaid?
Tell them your whole employment history up-front. Since you're currently under-market, you hardly have a position to negotiate from anyway. And they've certainly had plenty of their time wasted before by applicants who interviewed well but who's references didn't check out in the end.
You've stayed at that current position for several years because of the great learning environment, right? But now you're open to moving because your current employer doesn't have a path for you to grow much beyond it, or so I figure.
A business has two types of positions: those for which basic requirements or certifications are considered sufficient (you mentioned Windows System Administrator), and those for which the superior candidate will bring to the company strategic advantages (usually just sales, upper management, and sometimes development). The first get based on pay grades and local market conditions, whereas the latter are much more flexibly based mostly on how the company feels about it's profitability. I theorize that these correspond to Maslow's homeostatic and higherneeds, respectively.
Get them to say the first number. You currently have stable employment, and they're probably not hoping for someone who jumps ship anytime 10% comes along either. Since you're currently under market, any offer you get may be on the low end of their grade for the position. Take it without hesitation, if it gets you into the usual market range for your skills (you already mentioned that you liked the company).
Work hard, prove yourself valuable, and you can expect to be at correspondingly competitive compensation within a couple of years.
You could have a power supply that'll do 500 amps.. It's still not going to hurt your 2 volt LED if you only feed it 2 volts.
I believe that's also known as an arc welder. How do you think your mp3 player with in-ear headphones would behave in the (very common) dead-short failure mode?
Probably not likely to obtain UL certification for powering consumer electronics anytime soon.
Instead of showing real black, i'm now getting a red hue for black
That's the symptom to focus on.
Unfortunately, no externally-applied color correction can make your blacks blacker. Possibly gray instead of red, but you would lose serious amounts of contrast.
Loose/broken internal/external cable/connector. Very common problem for all electronics, but usually on monitors it shows up as a problem with white tints rather than black. A broken signal would usually tend towards zero volts (darker).
I would think it's probably not a backlight issue either because, again, you are complaining about black rather than white.
Does your monitor have DVI and VGA inputs? Have you tried the other one?
Does it have an on-screen display mode? Is that mode equally affected by the distortion?
Have hope, it might be possible to repair without surface-mount component-level repair.
I have a really good idea for an Ajax/Web2.0 website []
Due to my demanding job, []
It doesn't sound to me like you've got the cash or experience to quit your day job and manage a to complete a successful software project. Ask yourself honestly what great thing you would contribute to such an enterprise that your "development partners" couldn't do it without you (and "the great idea" and "non-disclosure contracts" don't count).
I'm not trying to be harsh here, but I think you should probably give whatever money you do have to someone else to invest.
Actual, practicing scientists (of which I am one) do not adhere to any cookbook "method", and in particular hypotheses (let alone their predictions) do not always precede data.
I guess that's kinda my point.
In fact, in this case the analysis method was decided upon before the data
I didn't get that from The Economist article.
(not that it has to be);
That's where we disagree.
it's just that the data collection method was screwed: it allowed respondents to give non-numerical answers ("infinity") when the analysis method required finite positive values.
Which suggests that they hadn't done a dry run of the analysis before conducting the survey. But the fact that we're discussing this based on a popular article before their actual publication is, to me, the larger issue.
That's not because the statistical analysis method was made after the data was collected, it's because the statistical analysis method (p-values) are bogus; the inference method they're based on is not logically coherent. You can mathematically prove that the Bayesian method is coherent, and that p-values can grossly overestimate "significance".
Those statistical tools work fine for what they are, they're just meaningless outside a correct experimental framework. I don't see how any additional tools are going to prevent a creative statistician from retrospectively pulling bogus, irreproducible correlations out of the data.
Really the accessibility of automated analysis tools has often made things worse. Consider the case of a company that funds 20 studies to test the hypothesis that their product is better. They then proceed to throw out 19 of them and hold up the one that shows their product in the best light. I think most people will recognize that as an unfair application of statistics. Now using software, you can easily run through hundreds of analyses in an afternoon! ("After controlling for age and living nearby electric streetlamps, non-smoking females between the ages of 23.2 and 31.4 who ate broccoli had a 6% lower incidence of insomnia...")
If someone in the social sciences wants to conduct a survey, then sift through their data to find something interesting to say so they have something to present at an international conference, that's fine with me because they usually can't claim a lot more than it "warrants more money for further research". But I'd certainly rather fly in an airliner for which Bacon's and Newton's "method" was used to develop the acceptance critera for things like cracks on the airframe.
My school-age children and I live in Kansas. We're counting on scientists to take the logical high ground here.
"If you don't settle your statistical methods before starting to analyze the data, then it ain't science."
You misunderstand the nature of Bayesian statistics. The data and the initial prior determine the analysis, the analysis generates a prediction, which becomes the new prior. It not only tests hypotheses but generates new hypotheses. You can construct an accurate Bayesian model from nearly any initial prior given sufficient data.
Actually, I don't know anything about Bayesian statistics. However, from TFA:
Dr Griffiths and Dr Tenenbaum conducted their experiment by giving individual nuggets of information to each of the participants in their study (of which they had, in an ironically frequentist way of doing things, a total of 350), and asking them to draw a general conclusion.
The Scientific Method requires that the hypothesis makes the predictions before they are tested. This is an essential requirement regardless the actual statistical methods used. For example, consider that an arbitrary amount of completely random data of just 6 variables is likely to yield at least one "statistically significant" correlation for the determined data-miner to write his paper about.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with what the authors did (except maybe being in the popular press before publication) it's just not the kind of thing that the FDA would let you go to market with.
In most situations communications would improve the estimates.
I dunno, I'd guess any kind of "consensusing" would destroy this magic distribution-detecting ability. Anecdotally, the one time I was on a jury this one young male juror worked hard to score the phone number of a young female juror, who's ex was a cop, etc..
If you want to put a small group of people to work on a problem, you'd better separate them, otherwise Bayes's rule is not strictly applicable.
I think that is a really good point.
No doubt, someone is hurredly working out a new astrology^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpersonality inventory to sell to Human Resources departments.
From TFA:
And "forever" is not a mathematically tractable quantity, so Dr Griffiths and Dr Tenenbaum abandoned their analysis of this set of data.
They should have thought of that before they posed the question. If you don't settle your statistical methods before starting to analyze the data, then it ain't science.
Slashdot Mirror
So, did you create that account today or was your mom really Mrs. Goodforusers?
Yep.
Looks like the retailer's got a piece of the action too: http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/404392.htm "You will be eligible for a revenue share from Intel if/when your reseller customer installs an upgrade."
Looking at the card: "Effortless movement between multiple applications". Really? Wow. That's a pretty wild product claim to make for 1MB of L3 cache.
Heck, I had decided to turn off Hyperthreading at my next reboot. For some things it's a net slowdown.
We might guess that the folks buying one of these stripped-down, crippled notebooks are likely to be students or otherwise budget-constrained. It's going to suck for them to get their expectations up and part with 50 hard-earned bucks just to find out it's not that all that big of a difference in performance. I suspect they might feel a teeny bit ripped-off even.
It'll be measurable on benchmarks, but like you said, it's not going to exactly breathe new life into a low-end laptop that's sucking wind because of malware, anti-malware scanning, general Windows bloat, and/or the 10 different applications that load themselves in the system tray and memory on startup.
This was not a good move for customer loyalty, Intel. Anyone want to bet they'll end up giving all the affected customers free un-downgrades and refunds?
The take-away here is that when I buy an Intel processor, I'm not getting the best performance, I'm not getting the best price, and I'm not getting the the best value. At best, I'll get crippleware. Crippleware sucked and I'm glad it died out of the marketplace back in the late 90s.
Some Intel products open security holes on your system with their defective DRM: http://extendedsubset.com/?p=30 . I just figured they couldn't get competent C programmers after what they did to Randal Schwartz http://www.lightlink.com/spacenka/fors/ . The HDCP leak was yet another example of fail. But now they want to bring this level of quality engineering directly into the CPU? Haha, no thanks guys.
Imagine the APT malware that would be possible if the CPU microcode update protections get busted wide-open like HDCP just did.
Now was it really such a good idea to hand the Elbonian Business Network a way to sell cracks for who-knows-how-many millions of CPUs for $50 each? Congratulations Intel, the black market value of a crack on your microcode just went from $100k to $M++. Did you stop to consider the fact that some of the top supercomputers on the planet are botnets? That's right: the adversary has the computational resources of a state actor and he doesn't even pay his own power bill.
I'm sitting right now within arm's reach of 14 Intel cores I've bought within the last year or two (from Atoms to i7's), never mind the stuff I have a voice in professionally. My next general purpose CPU is coming from AMD.
With all the complaints about the signal-to-noise ratio decrease (since the good old days), this kind of article is why I still follow Slashdot after all these years. I'm usually just skimming, not reading TFA, or lurking. But it got me to dig up my password and log in for once. Thanks guys.
That generalizes nicely: "An arbitrary statement s about x and y is almost always false for arbitrary values of x and y." Or even "Most arbitrary statements are false."
It sure sounds like you're saying "we should not use logic when it comes to spending money on the envrionment."
The fact remains, environmental / ecological change happens on a thousand different fronts.Perhaps, but that fact lends no support to your sweeping generalization.
Imagine if we had the most fuel efficient cars possible (zero carbon footprint) yet our factories poured carcinogenic effluent into the atmosphere, our houses ran as efficiently as a dead horse and leaked heat, cold, moisture, etc.In such a situation you want to put your (finite) resources where they would provide the most benefit. In fact, the only plausible way you would get into such a situation is by not doing that.
If the technology proves to be something that can and will save money while at the same time benefiting the environment, economy of scale will come into effect and the cost will drop significantly. If not, it will fall flat like so many other things and we'll divert our attention elsewhere (like more fuel efficientcars).
If you actually have unlimited resources, well, problem solved.
If you don't have unlimited resources, you must carefully select which technologies should receive the economies of scale. If you attempted to invest in all technologies simultaneously, none will be developed sufficiently to reach significant economy of scale. If you choose a sub-optimal set of technologies to scale, you will end up less-better-off, or possibly even worse-off than had you invested optimally.
It might be worth checking out just for that!
Sure, the ANSI/ISO C standard does not prohibit Valgrind from terminating your process, or gcc from issuing code that reformats your hard drive. However, there's no law that says no programs can be written which do things not explicitly endorsed by that particular document. In reality, systems programming occasionally needs to use platform-specific functionality that comes from the the C language standard does not define. By your definition of "bug" one could not write an multithreaded application, OS kernel, debugger, or use a memory-mapped file.
How a cascade of small failings lead to a major disaster. OpenSSL leave in an "uninitialized memory read" because it "doesn't matter and might help".
I think you're putting words in their mouth. The OpenSSL developers didn't lazily "leave it in" and dismiss legitimate concerns by saying "it doesn't matter". They wrote it that way intentionally.
This is a bug.
No, it's not a bug. In C, if someone you passes you a buffer of a stated minimum size, there's nothing wrong with you reading from it. There's no such thing as "write only" memory.
Sure, 99.5% of the time, mediocre C code reading such memory indicates an error. Most programs are not in the business of accumulating entropy. Tools like Valgrind pick up on that to warn about it, and as useful as they are, they're no "gold standard" of program correctness.
However, accumulating entropy for random number generation is an entirely valid use of such a technique. The OpenSSL developers knew exactly what they were doing, and this happen to be one of those 0.5% function which legitimately reads allocated-but-uninitialized memory.
The Debian developer appears to have been robotically following "policy" and changed code without fully understanding its consequences.
It does matter. The fact that all compilers will deal with this bug in a way that is OK is not sufficient in security critical code.
The security-critical code behaved correctly before the "fix".
Once you reach this point _anything_ can happen. If the compiler decides to flag this memory as read only and never modify it again then that is allowed. I can't imagine why a compiler or system would do something like this but it's allowed to. The OpenSSL code is non-portable and fragile.
I know OpenSSL to be a portable program by virtue of the fact that it has been ported to many platforms.
Perhaps it is a bit fragile, but considering how much effort has gone into providing so many algorithms with hand-tuned assembly for multiple processor architectures, I'm willing to overlook it a bit. And every common platform except those from Microsoft (and perhaps now Debian), I can expect that someone else has done a reasonable job of packaging it for me.
And many people will be using this library in places where the memory is guaranteed to be initialized a particular way. Either this doesn't matter (in which case it doesn't matter if the uninitialized memory is initialized to a known state at the start) or it does matter in which case OpenSSL is broken on platforms where this memory is not random.
It's not your false dichotomy of "does/doesn't matter". Entropy is accumulated when it is available, and is not decreased when it is not. Since there's not a source of perfect entropy available, we need to take what we can get, whenever we can get it.
Debian spots this uninitialized read and tries to fix it.
It's not a bug, and shouldn't be "fixed".
The proposed update is passed upstream but the email is ambiguous as to what exactly is required. OpenSSL team do not jump on this.
That exchange looks like a beautiful example of miscommunication. I don't think it ever occurred to the OpenSSL developers that the Debian guy was thinking about commenting out all entropy mix-in for the production release!
If the email went to the wrong address then the right address should have been provided (and the email forwarded as a courtesy). If this was an update to sensitive, critical code (which it was) then someone should have said "hold on there, this is sensitive code and introducing bugs here is really serious. We need a precise patch, we need time to evaluate the patch, we need time to work out how to fix the underlying uninitialized memory bug." I haven't looked but has the underlying bug in OpenSSL been fixed even now? We've got an "undefined behavio
I doubt that a malicious mole would have invited this exchange. But perhaps that makes it all-the-more brilliant, hmm?
Seriously, if one wanted to compromise the Debian codebase, there'd be far subtler places to do it. The fact that this gaping hole went undetected for two years suggests that there's probably little need to insert new ones.
https/ssl/tls/ssh etc use the certificates to agree on a conventional "session key" every time you connect. Session keys are typically chosen with strong random numbers... but if either the client or server is using the OpenSSL from Debian Etch, there's nearly no randomness in it.
Even if your certs are fine, individual transactions are likely vulnerable.
If someone has taken packet captures, they will likely be able to decrypt them retro-actively.
Those editors sure have an interesting profile of their target readers!
Here's a reason: MS Dev Studio 6.0 doesn't even install cleanly on Windows XP with SP2, but I've heard there're workarounds. The .NET editions are surely much better, but...
I'll consider VB when someone shows me its context-free grammar.
Gone are the days I guess where on every block was a buzz-cut 10-year-old who, while soldering his Heathkit, could easily master such new space-age concepts as Ohm's law.
Now for those of us who might relate better to power in terms of Makeup-mirror-equivalent (MME) units, who don't want to be bothered with such chores as multiplying by powers of 10:
Hey, nothing wrong with that if you can back it up, but somehow I just don't get the sense that it's the best strategy for this guy writing in to "Dear Slashdot".
He'd be better off discussing compensation with an outside offer letter in hand. I think that'd be worth a delay of a few weeks to hear back from some of the places he's interviewed.
Tell them your whole employment history up-front. Since you're currently under-market, you hardly have a position to negotiate from anyway. And they've certainly had plenty of their time wasted before by applicants who interviewed well but who's references didn't check out in the end.
You've stayed at that current position for several years because of the great learning environment, right? But now you're open to moving because your current employer doesn't have a path for you to grow much beyond it, or so I figure.
A business has two types of positions: those for which basic requirements or certifications are considered sufficient (you mentioned Windows System Administrator), and those for which the superior candidate will bring to the company strategic advantages (usually just sales, upper management, and sometimes development). The first get based on pay grades and local market conditions, whereas the latter are much more flexibly based mostly on how the company feels about it's profitability. I theorize that these correspond to Maslow's homeostatic and higher needs, respectively.
Get them to say the first number. You currently have stable employment, and they're probably not hoping for someone who jumps ship anytime 10% comes along either. Since you're currently under market, any offer you get may be on the low end of their grade for the position. Take it without hesitation, if it gets you into the usual market range for your skills (you already mentioned that you liked the company).
Work hard, prove yourself valuable, and you can expect to be at correspondingly competitive compensation within a couple of years.
No, they just made everybody buy the same gadgets all over again. Although, IMHO, for good reasons.
I believe that's also known as an arc welder. How do you think your mp3 player with in-ear headphones would behave in the (very common) dead-short failure mode?
Probably not likely to obtain UL certification for powering consumer electronics anytime soon.
That's the symptom to focus on.
Unfortunately, no externally-applied color correction can make your blacks blacker. Possibly gray instead of red, but you would lose serious amounts of contrast.
Loose/broken internal/external cable/connector. Very common problem for all electronics, but usually on monitors it shows up as a problem with white tints rather than black. A broken signal would usually tend towards zero volts (darker).
I would think it's probably not a backlight issue either because, again, you are complaining about black rather than white.
Does your monitor have DVI and VGA inputs? Have you tried the other one?
Does it have an on-screen display mode? Is that mode equally affected by the distortion?
Have hope, it might be possible to repair without surface-mount component-level repair.
It doesn't sound to me like you've got the cash or experience to quit your day job and manage a to complete a successful software project. Ask yourself honestly what great thing you would contribute to such an enterprise that your "development partners" couldn't do it without you (and "the great idea" and "non-disclosure contracts" don't count).
I'm not trying to be harsh here, but I think you should probably give whatever money you do have to someone else to invest.
I guess that's kinda my point.
I didn't get that from The Economist article.
That's where we disagree.
Which suggests that they hadn't done a dry run of the analysis before conducting the survey. But the fact that we're discussing this based on a popular article before their actual publication is, to me, the larger issue.
Those statistical tools work fine for what they are, they're just meaningless outside a correct experimental framework. I don't see how any additional tools are going to prevent a creative statistician from retrospectively pulling bogus, irreproducible correlations out of the data.
Really the accessibility of automated analysis tools has often made things worse. Consider the case of a company that funds 20 studies to test the hypothesis that their product is better. They then proceed to throw out 19 of them and hold up the one that shows their product in the best light. I think most people will recognize that as an unfair application of statistics. Now using software, you can easily run through hundreds of analyses in an afternoon! ("After controlling for age and living nearby electric streetlamps, non-smoking females between the ages of 23.2 and 31.4 who ate broccoli had a 6% lower incidence of insomnia...")
If someone in the social sciences wants to conduct a survey, then sift through their data to find something interesting to say so they have something to present at an international conference, that's fine with me because they usually can't claim a lot more than it "warrants more money for further research". But I'd certainly rather fly in an airliner for which Bacon's and Newton's "method" was used to develop the acceptance critera for things like cracks on the airframe.
My school-age children and I live in Kansas. We're counting on scientists to take the logical high ground here.
Actually, I don't know anything about Bayesian statistics. However, from TFA:
The Scientific Method requires that the hypothesis makes the predictions before they are tested. This is an essential requirement regardless the actual statistical methods used. For example, consider that an arbitrary amount of completely random data of just 6 variables is likely to yield at least one "statistically significant" correlation for the determined data-miner to write his paper about.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with what the authors did (except maybe being in the popular press before publication) it's just not the kind of thing that the FDA would let you go to market with.
I dunno, I'd guess any kind of "consensusing" would destroy this magic distribution-detecting ability. Anecdotally, the one time I was on a jury this one young male juror worked hard to score the phone number of a young female juror, who's ex was a cop, etc..
I think that is a really good point.
No doubt, someone is hurredly working out a new astrology^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpersonality inventory to sell to Human Resources departments.
From TFA:
They should have thought of that before they posed the question. If you don't settle your statistical methods before starting to analyze the data, then it ain't science.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/uberman/