Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:GPU's are not just for Graphics anymore (Score 1) 291

Well, the OP is wrong anyway. I don't need to point out how - there's hundreds of posts here that are on the mark. It's the idiot moderators that though this kind of post was worthy of being on /. that severely disappoints me. No wonder I've been frequenting this site less and less.

Comment C'mon, who let this crap get posted? (Score 1) 291

Wow, how can something so stupid get chosen as a post? Seriously. Even at 1080p, even the high end GPUs fall below 60fps on the most demanding games out there. People to buy high-end GPUs often do so to pair them up with 3 1080p monitors, or a 1440p monitor, or even a 1600p monitor. In fact, these people need to buy 2 to 4 of these top-end GPUs to drive that many pixels and triangles.
Displays

GPUs Keep Getting Faster, But Your Eyes Can't Tell 291

itwbennett writes "This brings to mind an earlier Slashdot discussion about whether we've hit the limit on screen resolution improvements on handheld devices. But this time, the question revolves around ever-faster graphics processing units (GPUs) and the resolution limits of desktop monitors. ITworld's Andy Patrizio frames the problem like this: 'Desktop monitors (I'm not talking laptops except for the high-end laptops) tend to vary in size from 20 to 24 inches for mainstream/standard monitors, and 27 to 30 inches for the high end. One thing they all have in common is the resolution. They have pretty much standardized on 1920x1080. That's because 1920x1080 is the resolution for HDTV, and it fits 20 to 24-inch monitors well. Here's the thing: at that resolution, these new GPUs are so powerful you get no major, appreciable gain over the older generation.' Or as Chris Angelini, editorial director for Tom's Hardware Guide, put it, 'The current high-end of GPUs gives you as much as you'd need for an enjoyable experience. Beyond that and it's not like you will get nothing, it's just that you will notice less benefit.'"
Science

How an Astronaut Falling Into a Black Hole Would Die Part 2 263

First time accepted submitter ydrozd writes "Until recently, most physicists believed that an observer falling into a black hole would experience nothing unusual when crossing its event horizon. As has been previously mentioned on Slashdot, there is a strong argument, initially based on observing an entangled pair at the event horizon, that suggests that the unfortunate observer would instead be burned up by a high energy quanta (a.k.a "firewall") just before crossing the black hole's event horizon. A new paper significantly improves the argument by removing reliance on quantum entanglement. The existence of black hole "firewalls" is a rare breakthrough in theoretical physics."

Comment Re:Sorry, But He's a Douche (Score 1) 479

Incidentally, lithium in the tesla batteries is scraped up from salt in the salt flats. Most of it comes from Bolivia, and the worker make good money, and work in pretty good conditions. The rest of the car is made out of metal and fiberglass, much like any other car. Perhaps you're mistaking it for a prius.

Comment Re:Sorry, But He's a Douche (Score 1) 479

Is Elon any worse than any of the other Car CEOs out there? You know, the ones who push out the same overcomplicated machines with slight year-over-year refreshes, and put in place schemes to keep people wanting more, and which use a black, tar-like substance which is mainly gained from drilling under the ocean, or in war-torn countries, or by strip-mining the countryside? Every time I see any care I see a big-ass pile of heavily polluting blood minerals, and gasses, and damage, and that damage continues as long as those cars operate.

Comment Re:Well, he's not wrong (Score 1) 479

The infrastructure for charging stations is there: The electrical grid has more than enough capacity. As for all electricity coming from fossil fuels, that's just a red herring: Electrons don't care where they come from. Just because there is a lot of fossil fuel generation right now (in my area, btw, it's all hydro-electric - so my electric car wouldn't be charged by fossil fuels), it doesn't mean that it will always be that way. It's actually a strength of the electric car: It won't care if you ditch fossil fuel generation for something else - you don't have to change your car because the generation technology has changed.

Comment Re:Well, he's not wrong (Score 1) 479

Charing rate is now down to 30 minutes for a 50% recharge (granted, this is at tesla stations, but it's just as real), and will only get faster. Range on a p85 tesla is over 400 km. Where I live, the presence of charging stations is within a few hours drive in every direction. I can get to the major centers around me with 0 or 1 stops at a charging station on the way. In 5 years, batteries will probably grow sufficiently in capacity to negate the need to charge before I get to any major center. At the end of the day, we will run out of fuel one day, I don't really see the point of making it happen as fast as possible.

Comment Re:Well, he's not wrong (Score 1) 479

First it has to get out of just being in one laboratory before it's worth a look. After science actually vets it, we'll see. But, again, at the end of the day you'll still have to have fuel cells actually come to market. They are massive, hot, and complicated. They are used on busses because of all the extra machinery they need to maintain their temperature - oh, and they are high-temperature.

Slashdot Top Deals

I don't want to be young again, I just don't want to get any older.

Working...