201–210 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather be stoked to do what I do every day and have $2 billion in the bank than be stoked but not have a massive pile of cash. It's not as if there's only one thing in life that I could possibly enjoy.
A strawman. I never stated this. Merely was stating that if you consider your daily profession a "grind" it might not be the one for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said my interests were narrow? I enjoy a multitude of hobbies including hiking, biking, homebrewing, reading, cooking/grilling, etc... I just said that it is a shame you do not enjoy your daily work (i.e. the grind as you call it).
So if you had a billion dollars sloshing around in your bank account...and you could do the things that interested you the most , it would be having a job to go to? I'm not knocking that, I know lots of people who hit retirement and literally don't know what to do with themselves. So work gives their day structure and meaning. I'm not one of those people. For me, work gets in the way of what I want to do. I personall…
I think that this quote is very much true. Take it how you wish to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not even angry. I'm just not going to buy a VR device with a Facebook connection, Facebook being involved in platform management, etc. I might consider it if it were an unlocked piece of hardware, but I suspect that's so unlikely, I don't actually need to make up my mind about that possibility. I've also had a couple friends cancel projects they were planning for the Oculus platform, because they're no longer sur…
> I've also had a couple friends cancel projects they were planning for the Oculus platform This sort of reaction is such an embarrassing load of nonsense. People have cancelled some nebulous 'projects' that they might have carried out? To be honest, the whole 'anger' thing seems like a bunch of gamers and similar people are just upset that all the 'normal' people might get to experience VR technology at the same tim…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why is VR inevitable? Good point, I agree that I am making a big assumption. That said, I don't think the argument that "it didn't work before" is valid. I don't think people want face-covering headsets that _suck_. If I can wear an _awesome_ headset and have a virtual conversation with my family across the country, I'd purchase one in a heartbeat.
Who would you be conversing with? A video of your family with screens attached to their faces or some avatars representing your family members? I don't understand why so many people have trouble understanding that you can't see the faces of people who have something blocking their faces. So if it's avatars, what are those avatars going to be? Some off the shelf selection of Mii/Second Life/WoW avatars? But you'll say…
Other people are thinking about the future. You are stuck in the present.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who would you be conversing with? A video of your family with screens attached to their faces or some avatars representing your family members? I don't understand why so many people have trouble understanding that you can't see the faces of people who have something blocking their faces. So if it's avatars, what are those avatars going to be? Some off the shelf selection of Mii/Second Life/WoW avatars? But you'll say…
You are experiencing a fundamental failure of imagination. VR goggles do not necessarily have to remain large, face-blocking objects forever, nor do high-resolution 3D scanners have to remain large, expensive items. Other people are thinking about the future. You are stuck in the present.
Okay. Sure. I can't argue against arbitrary hypotheticals composed of arbitrarily defined technological sophistication measured against some indefinite point in the future with an unspecified price point that will always fit the future you happen to want.
Just like when I was six, and my friend kept changing the rules of the game we were playing so he always won, you got me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are experiencing a fundamental failure of imagination. VR goggles do not necessarily have to remain large, face-blocking objects forever, nor do high-resolution 3D scanners have to remain large, expensive items. Other people are thinking about the future. You are stuck in the present.
So your premise is that something you need to put in front of your eyes to see, won't be in front of your eyes at some point imaginary point in the future, and it doesn't matter if they are blocking your face because 3d face scanners, for which people will use them approximately once, will also become so cheap that people won't mind buying them in some imaginary point in the future. Okay. Sure. I can't argue against…
Your statement about when you were six is unwittingly apt. Such a concern with "rules" rather than nuance and discourse is befitting of a six year old, not the adult I optimistically presumed you to be.
I suppose this was inexcusably optimistic, given that I'd already read your statement that you would, seemingly regardless of circumstance, take a $2 billion offer and "retire to Malta", and feel no remorse for what effect that might have on anyone else.
Your worldview is sad. Sufficiently so that you have literally ruined my day. It's hard to forget having encountered such cynicism and conscious disdain for the possibilities open to us through technological and social advancement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your premise is that something you need to put in front of your eyes to see, won't be in front of your eyes at some point imaginary point in the future, and it doesn't matter if they are blocking your face because 3d face scanners, for which people will use them approximately once, will also become so cheap that people won't mind buying them in some imaginary point in the future. Okay. Sure. I can't argue against…
I have many possible answers to your statements, such as an observation that we already have head-mounted displays that do not block faces, or that real-time 3d face scanning is a potential advancement, but you're such a depressingly cynical person to try and converse with, I don't know why I'd bother. Your statement about when you were six is unwittingly apt. Such a concern with "rules" rather than nuance and discou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You and I can be in different locations. But, with the goggles on, we can be face to face inside VR.
Looking at some avatar that distinctly isn't you I presume? Because a video (no matter how good) of you wearing a pair of displays on your face is decidedly not as good as just video chatting. What specific experience is benefited by communicating in this way over just video or voice chat?
Facebook have lost 7% share value since the announcement, that's $10bn off the market cap. http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/facebook-share-price-continue...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame. This was the slashdot editor's byline when Apple released the iPod. Just because a technology exists at one point and failed, doesn't mean that sort of technology can never work. Apple released the Newton ages ago, and we didn't switch to touch screen mobile devices till the iPhone.
Speak for yourself. Many many people were using touch screens on Palm devices throughout the late 90s and early 2000s.