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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Oh boy (Score 1) 384

But that's how it's =supposed= to work. As someone once pointed out, the Founders *designed* the system to promote legislative gridlock, under the theory that the less legislation gets passed, the less *stupid* legislation gets passed.

My feeling is that even if Trump sucks, it's better to have someone who will argue with Congress, rather than a rubberstamp for every lunacy that comes down the pike, as I expect would happen with Clinton in the office.


Ask Slashdot: Why Don't Graphics Cards For VR Use Real-Time Motion Compensation? 159

dryriver writes: Graphics cards manufacturers like Nvidia and AMD have gone to great pains recently to point out that in order to experience virtual reality with a VR headset properly, you need a GPU capable of pushing at least a steady 90 FPS per eye, or a total of at least 180 FPS for both eyes, and at high resolutions to boot. This of course requires the purchase of the latest, greatest high-end GPUs made by these manufacturers, alongside the money you are already plonking down for your new VR headset, and a good, fast gaming-class PC. This raises an interesting question: virtually every LCD/LED TV manufactured in the last 5 or 6 years has a 'Real-Time Motion Compensation' feature built in. This is the not-so-new-at-all technique of taking, say, a football match broadcast live at 30 FPS or Hz, and algorithmically generating extra in-between frames in real time, thus giving you a hyper-smooth 200-400 FPS/Hz image on the TV set with no visible stutter or strobing whatsoever. This technology is not new. It is cheap enough to include in virtually every TV set at every price level (thus the hardware that performs the real-time motion compensating cannot cost more than a few dollars total). And the technique should, in theory, work just fine with the output of a GPU trying to drive a VR headset. Now suppose you have an entry level or mid-range GPU capable of pushing only 40-60 FPS in a VR application (or a measly 20-30 FPS per eye, making for a truly terrible VR experience). You could, in theory, add some cheap motion compensation circuitry to that GPU and get 100-200 FPS or more per eye. Heck, you might even be able to program a few GPU cores to run the motion compensation as a real-time GPU shader as the rest of the GPU is rendering a game or VR experience.

So my question: Why don't GPUs for VR use real-time motion compensation techniques to increase the FPS pushed into the VR headset? Would this not make far more financial sense for the average VR user than having to buy a monstrously powerful GPU to experience VR at all?

Comment Re:Imagine a slashdot with better moderation? (Score 1) 801

Given how you explain it -- if it could be assured that it's one person, one share, one vote -- it sounds like a reasonable idea.

As to sockpuppets, I'd be rather more leery of Soros than Koch. Soros has openly stated his objective is to disrupt and destroy western civilization (without which we would not be having this conversation). If you support Soros' objective, by all means support Tides.

Comment Re:Earned reputation versus skilled propaganda? (Score 1) 801

Hell if I know what you watched; not everyone likes what Milo has to say, but I appreciate his advocacy for our Constitutional rights, in particular the rights of free speech and self-defense; admittedly I also enjoy his derision of special snowflakes. -- And since some disagree, we get people paid to disrupt his talks; frex, Trigglypuff.

Am I a bigot or a racist? Hmm. I'll have to think about that. Why can't I be both? -- I'm bigoted against stupid people, and I'm racist against anyone who comes to America and declines to become an American. (With no hyphen.)

I can't be arsed to particularly hate any of them, tho the term does make for a convenient shorthand, especially if the objective is to silence the opposition.

As to Islam, I direct your attention to this document:
Any faction which openly states its objective is to infiltrate my country is NOT my friend.

So long as anyone can shout "La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah" and become a Muslim, methinks the answer there is obvious.

I might have preferred Scott Walker or maybe Gary Johnson, but lacking those choices (voting for 3rd parties merely splits the vote and mathematically ensures that the candidate you like *least* wins), I became interested in Trump when I realised there was no filter between his mouth and his brain. I prefer my elected officials say what they think, however crazy that may sound, rather than tell carefully crafted lies.

But I agree with him about cutting back and becoming more selective about who we let immigrate, and about building the wall. First, the U.S. is the only country in the world that doesn't cherrypick; we let almost anyone immigrate, which is damn foolish. Let's just adopt Mexico's common-sense rules. Second, I grew up in Montana, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I used to believe in a borderless world and free immigration and all that. Then I spent 28 years in southern California, and experienced firsthand what uncontrolled immigration is doing to our country. Now I'm all for gun turrets at the border.

Comment Re:Earned reputation versus skilled propaganda? (Score 1) 801

I don't think she's being shafted; I think she's totally skating, and became convinced of that after reading even just a random dipping into the leaked emails. I didn't need and don't drink anyone else's koolaid.

As to my rationale about Trump, I'll let someone more articulate speak for me.

Comment Re:As it's been said... (Score 5, Insightful) 621

A parliament that cannot propose legislation is a parliament in name only. It's a check/balance, I'll give you that, but it's not where the power lies if it cannot propose and effect a change that it wants to.

In the UK, you elect an MP. That MP directly votes on, and can propose legislation. The "other" house, the House of Lords, can only delay any legislation that the House of Commons votes for by returning it with recommendations a maximum of 3 times. After the third time, if the House of Commons again votes it through, it becomes law (subject to Liz' royal assent, but that's not being withheld...).

This is effectively the inverse of the European "parliament". The EU commission decides what laws will be proposed, the parliament (the people who the people elected) then get to horse-trade the deal until the parliament and the commission agree, and then all countries must adopt the law. This is a significant reduction in the power of the people.

As a bonus, the commission are basically immunised against any effects of their political machinations, the only way for a member of the EU commission to be removed is if the parliament unanimously votes to remove all members of the commission at the same time. Yeah... Not gonna happen.

So to summarise: you have an un-sackable body that is the only group who can propose legislation, which gives them the ability to apply enormous pressure to the elected representatives (oh, you want X do you ? Well make sure you vote for our Y and Z and then we'll consider it). And then everyone is forced to accept the results of this as law.

Sorry. That sucks. Given the mission statement of ever closer union, the desire to raise an army etc., and the binding nature of EU law as supreme, the mismatch in democratic power within the EU *should* be concerning IMHO. Whether it's sufficiently concerning to brexit is a different argument, but I think it certainly played its part.

Slashdot Top Deals