Good, then I'm not the only one. The "bug" appears to be a typo (not advocating doing this at all, but...); it seems that the "merges" in the affected line should be "merge".
Strange that no one seems to have taken the tarball to another machine and tried compiling it first (an obscure module having this sort of problem, I can understand... but not something this _necessary_ is just plain sloppy to release).
Well, I guess, after the last twenty posts or so, it should be self-evident that Adam Sandler, or some 12 year-old spineless circus freak who has seen too many of his movies has flooded the thread. I guess this is the person who will benifit from the legos...
But seriously. The point of alternative tests is to try to provide a more fair evaluation of the academic abilities of someone. Clearly not everyone had the best math instructors in primary and secondary schools. The purpose of the tests is to allow people who have the potential to stand out above the rest _WHEN_ they receive the proper instruction. Some people can score 1500 or above on the SAT, but that is not entirely a function of their intelligence. It may be quite exclusively because of their environment. Some (let me stress : SOME ) people are the equivalent of closet geniuses; they have great mental aptitude and great social skills, but have not had access to a strong learning environment for whatever reason (excusable or otherwise).
Unfortunately, some (again, stress : SOME) alternative tests are nothing but a load of politically-correct diversification agendas which don't really make any honest attempt at evaluating the individual's real academic ability. These are the tests which the urban legends that have been the inspirations for many of the previous posts regarding the "dumbing down" of tests. But I imagine that the truth is that most of the people who have been trashing alternative tests are ones who did fine on the standard ones, and find some kind of pre-pubescent, smug hubris from considering themselves elite.
Although I cannot claim originality for the concept, it is worth noting that there was a definite progression of "Ashes" in the Evil Dead saga.
In the first movie, E.D.1, "Ashley" is clearly (as someone else stated) a whipping boy. He is a far cry from "Ash, Housewares" of Army of Darkness fame. He does significantly less ass-kicking, and is clearly more on the receiving end of the abuse [the exception to this being the "Full-body-bitchslap" that he delivers to Linda while she is... err... undead/possessed].
In the second movie, E.D.2, "Ash" has started to define his role as somewhat macho with the occasional one-liner, and the fact that he not only takes abuse, but really dishes it out as well [...Groovy...].
But clearly in Army of Darkness, in the regular theatrical release, "Ash, Housewares" is the "uber-macho" that was aforementioned as he shows "essentially" no fear [with notable exceptions]. There is no doubting that "Ash, Housewares" is the buccaneering hero that we are all used to seeing, and most of us generally think of. What is interesting though, is that the director's cut portrays Ash quite a bit more like "Ash" from ED2, showing a truly terrified side in several shots.
Patiently awaiting the arrival of my copy of the Limited edition Army of Darkness DVD (still available at www.cduniverse.com).
You make a good point, we really are doing it for ourselves.
People consider themselves above nature because we have a lot more power to destroy than most creatures. It is a ridiculous statement to consider ourselves simply part of nature. If you were to compare the effects that our actions would have had if we were any other species, we would have easily exterminated ourselves by now.
Most natural things do not have the destructive effect that we do. In fact, the only things that rival us are non-living forces such as natural disasters.
We are different from other species. We recognize our destructive effects [after it rains down on our heads], and sometimes take action to correct it.
Actually I've wondered the same thing. The problem is the extent to which you want it to behave like X. Again, the entire desktop would be that simple (a video driver), but you couldn't use that approach for a single app (considerably more complicated). Theoretically, you could run that process in a virtual environment that fools it into thinking it is running on a screen when it is really running in a framebuffer. Just hope the process doesn't go looking for a real desktop (like a drag and drop).
If you wanted it to translate in to X protocols, you'd have to be offloading the graphics processing to another machine (for example, I'm typing this up and reading slashdot on a Decstation 5000/25[an old dog] with netscape4.0 running remotely. The graphics scroll essentially instantaneously even though the copy of netscape is running on another machine [with probably 200 other users running processes] several busy switches and a router away. There is no way in hell this program is running on a framebuffer dumping raw or compressed images that far with this little latency).
No, what I meant is an "individual" app, not the entire desktop. Which is still different from running it over the X protocol where the local window manager and X server are handling the details of the interface, and passing messages about such back to the remote app. There is no way to just patch in and catch everything without significantly rewriting os code ( or running the program within a virtual environment). You can't just catch graphics code and magically make it [not] appear on the host machine and appear on the client machine and call that X protocol. That is a virtual framebuffer approach because NOTHING is taken care of locally ( other than tricks like copy rect that VNC uses).
That depends on how you are defining "displaying." Skipping the lecture about how X works, unless they are talking about seriously hacking into windows source code and/or rewriting major parts of the operating system ( ala Citrix ), displaying winapps remotely would be MINIMALLY faster than VNC [say if what they/you are talking about is something like a virtual framebuffer for an individual app, dumped over the network]. Windows apps _REALLY_ running over the X protocol would involve a LOT more OS hacking than I think they could reasonably conceive of doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Good, then I'm not the only one. The "bug" appears to be a typo (not advocating doing this at all, but...); it seems that the "merges" in the affected line should be "merge".
Strange that no one seems to have taken the tarball to another machine and tried compiling it first (an obscure module having this sort of problem, I can understand... but not something this _necessary_ is just plain sloppy to release).
Well, I guess, after the last twenty posts or so, it should be self-evident that Adam Sandler, or some 12 year-old spineless circus freak who has seen too many of his movies has flooded the thread. I guess this is the person who will benifit from the legos...
But seriously. The point of alternative tests is to try to provide a more fair evaluation of the academic abilities of someone. Clearly not everyone had the best math instructors in primary and secondary schools. The purpose of the tests is to allow people who have the potential to stand out above the rest _WHEN_ they receive the proper instruction. Some people can score 1500 or above on the SAT, but that is not entirely a function of their intelligence. It may be quite exclusively because of their environment. Some (let me stress : SOME ) people are the equivalent of closet geniuses; they have great mental aptitude and great social skills, but have not had access to a strong learning environment for whatever reason (excusable or otherwise).
Unfortunately, some (again, stress : SOME) alternative tests are nothing but a load of politically-correct diversification agendas which don't really make any honest attempt at evaluating the individual's real academic ability. These are the tests which the urban legends that have been the inspirations for many of the previous posts regarding the "dumbing down" of tests. But I imagine that the truth is that most of the people who have been trashing alternative tests are ones who did fine on the standard ones, and find some kind of pre-pubescent, smug hubris from considering themselves elite.
Although I cannot claim originality for the concept, it is worth noting that there was a definite progression of "Ashes" in the Evil Dead saga.
... err... undead/possessed].
In the first movie, E.D.1, "Ashley" is clearly (as someone else stated) a whipping boy. He is a far cry from "Ash, Housewares" of Army of Darkness fame. He does significantly less ass-kicking, and is clearly more on the receiving end of the abuse [the exception to this being the "Full-body-bitchslap" that he delivers to Linda while she is
In the second movie, E.D.2, "Ash" has started to define his role as somewhat macho with the occasional one-liner, and the fact that he not only takes abuse, but really dishes it out as well [...Groovy...].
But clearly in Army of Darkness, in the regular theatrical release, "Ash, Housewares" is the "uber-macho" that was aforementioned as he shows "essentially" no fear [with notable exceptions]. There is no doubting that "Ash, Housewares" is the buccaneering hero that we are all used to seeing, and most of us generally think of. What is interesting though, is that the director's cut portrays Ash quite a bit more like "Ash" from ED2, showing a truly terrified side in several shots.
Patiently awaiting the arrival of my copy of the Limited edition Army of Darkness DVD (still available at www.cduniverse.com).
You make a good point, we really are doing it for ourselves.
People consider themselves above nature because we have a lot more power to destroy than most creatures. It is a ridiculous statement to consider ourselves simply part of nature. If you were to compare the effects that our actions would have had if we were any other species, we would have easily exterminated ourselves by now.
Most natural things do not have the destructive effect that we do. In fact, the only things that rival us are non-living forces such as natural disasters.
We are different from other species. We recognize our destructive effects [after it rains down on our heads], and sometimes take action to correct it.
Actually I've wondered the same thing. The problem is the extent to which you want it to behave like X. Again, the entire desktop would be that simple (a video driver), but you couldn't use that approach for a single app (considerably more complicated). Theoretically, you could run that process in a virtual environment that fools it into thinking it is running on a screen when it is really running in a framebuffer. Just hope the process doesn't go looking for a real desktop (like a drag and drop).
If you wanted it to translate in to X protocols, you'd have to be offloading the graphics processing to another machine (for example, I'm typing this up and reading slashdot on a Decstation 5000/25[an old dog] with netscape4.0 running remotely. The graphics scroll essentially instantaneously even though the copy of netscape is running on another machine [with probably 200 other users running processes] several busy switches and a router away. There is no way in hell this program is running on a framebuffer dumping raw or compressed images that far with this little latency).
No, what I meant is an "individual" app, not the entire desktop. Which is still different from running it over the X protocol where the local window manager and X server are handling the details of the interface, and passing messages about such back to the remote app. There is no way to just patch in and catch everything without significantly rewriting os code ( or running the program within a virtual environment). You can't just catch graphics code and magically make it [not] appear on the host machine and appear on the client machine and call that X protocol. That is a virtual framebuffer approach because NOTHING is taken care of locally ( other than tricks like copy rect that VNC uses).
That depends on how you are defining "displaying." Skipping the lecture about how X works, unless they are talking about seriously hacking into windows source code and/or rewriting major parts of the operating system ( ala Citrix ), displaying winapps remotely would be MINIMALLY faster than VNC [say if what they/you are talking about is something like a virtual framebuffer for an individual app, dumped over the network]. Windows apps _REALLY_ running over the X protocol would involve a LOT more OS hacking than I think they could reasonably conceive of doing.