Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 2) 223

by TeknoHog (#48172569) Attached to: Lead Mir Developer: 'Mir More Relevant Than Wayland In Two Years'
IMHO, the point of X network transparency is a no-brainer in the same way as local OpenGL acceleration. Instead of wasting bandwidth on raw bitmaps, you just send the drawing commands, whether over the network or PCIe. (It's like MIDI vs. raw audio for the keyboardists out there.) I don't know all the programming details, but I've done 3D modelling over 2 MB/s cable this way, and I can't imagine it would have worked as smoothly using raw video.

Comment: Re:ITER scuppered? (Score 1) 564

by TeknoHog (#48154241) Attached to: Lockheed Claims Breakthrough On Fusion Energy Project

So where does this leave ITER, the European project. There's little point building a 500MW experiment if 5 of these babies will work and produce useable power.

That's a big if. Having done my master's thesis on plasma physics, it's great to see multiple different avenues towards fusion in action.

Comment: Re:What about BSD derivatives (Score 1) 221

by TeknoHog (#47988335) Attached to: Outlining Thin Linux

I used NetBSD for a while back in the day, and I loved the Real Unix purity and simplicity after years of desktop Linux distros, but I missed some of the userland idiosyncracies and hardware support. Then I found out about Gentoo, and to me it's been the best of both worlds, starting with Portage which obviously owes a lot to BSD Ports.

Of course, I don't recommend Gentoo to anyone, because the collective wisdom of /. says it is only for ricers. All those oldskool BSD users must be ricers too, for doing all that compiling. (Pro tip: you can share your once-built binaries across several machines...)

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 795

by TeknoHog (#47988181) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

"Why?" is still a valid question; and science says we lack the tools to gather evidence of "why?".

IMHO, "why" questions either form an endless chain or are completely subjective, so they are far from valid in any scientific setting. For example, some say the reason god created the universe is love. Why love? What's the point of love? What's the point of that point? The only way to end this chain is by invoking some value, which is inherently subjective (even if a great number of peole share values).

Of course, the same can be said about the "what" and "how" questions of science. You can always dig deeper into nature and never find out how everything really works. However, we still do it because it's fun to know and understand things.

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.