I'll say that 3D movies in VR are actually really cool, but they aren't especially immersive for the reasons you mentioned, the best 3D movies that do check off all those boxes are scripted events in videogames with VR, so really, what needs to happen is we need some CGI VR movies, and that could be a logic next step but it's likely way too early for that

the Bigscreen VR headset also doesn't cost $3500 and isn't locked to a proprietary appstore that the Apple VR headset will undoubtedly be, not to mention that you can use Bigscreen VR with SteamVR which is an open platform with just about every VR game and program one could imagine, there's just nothing Apple is offering here that isn't done better by a dozen other companies. Ffs, Facebook's Quest setups are objectively better just because they come with controllers and can use SteamVR and cost between $300-700 and have decent specs for the cost, and that's not even mentioning other companies like Pimax or Varjo which offer headsets with specs that absolutely annihilate Apple's offering for a similar price.

Without SteamVR compatibility, this thing is going nowhere, they may get some niche userbase out of it, but it'll be a niche of a niche since VR users are already a small group to begin with. Apple choosing to create a walled garden out the gate will ensure it's DOA.

you'll spend over $3500 just to watch movies on a plane? How many other people will follow you? I can't imagine your demographic is large enough to support an entire product line long term, especially when there's already AR/VR glasses on the market that do the same thing for a fraction of the cost, granted not with all the bells and whistles, but if you can get a headset for $500 or less that does most of that, what would another $3000 get you that makes it worth it to an industry supporting demographic?

Apple's offering is $3500, and will almost assuredly be in a walled garden, the first is a massive problem on its own just because of the current existence of devices on the market that already excel what Apple is putting on the table in the same price category (the HoloLens works on SteamVR for example), but the latter is an absolute death sentence. VR is incredibly niche as it is specifically because it's so expensive and it's held back by a limited application base that's currently dominated by gaming but only with a small library of applications and games available. Apple keeps talking about AR here too, but the offerings for AR are even more dismal than VR, so I have no idea what they think people are going to use this for outside of development because there just is nothing on the AR front that's interesting that I have seen so far that would make this headset somehow worth getting. There's also the fact that SteamVR is the only reason VR has as large of a userbase as it does, even Facebook didn't lock down their Quest/Oculus line specifically because of this limited library, and exclusives on their platform hasn't done much to change that. If Apple tries to limit to just an AppleVR store, it will instantly die as a viable product, unless some corporate developers come and save it for media production or something. Coupled with the hard problems of nausea and motion sickness, I highly doubt all these issues put together are going to make Apple's VR ambitions get anywhere, unless they are smart and make it SteamVR compatible, because unlike a phone or a music player or a computer, VR's utility is incredibly small and only works under ideal circumstances and for a very specific variety of applications and a small amount of people without motion sickness.

I formatted it and it didn't take for some reason, I don't reply on slashdot often. That aside, I posted 2 links with references to studies, you just said "nuh uh" without any countering evidence to the cited links and walked away, seems like a real cowardly and lazy tactic to use bad formatting as an excuse to get out of an argument.

>It's low emission, not not zero emission. Similar to wind and solar, a lot of the emissions coming from the construction phase. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear has ongoing emissions from fuel mining, refining, processing and disposal. Wind and Solar require metals that need to be mined and processed as well(and it's very dirty), and construction, and disposal as well since the lifespan of solar varies a lot depending on the chemistry, currently there has been an issue with longevity with cells that's been long overestimated, even though experimental chemistries are being studied, currently the average is 20 years, that's not a lot of time. This also isn't including the horribly dirty mining and processing of lithium for batteries, these externalities are always handwaved while nuclear is dragged for being highly polluting (but but but Chernobyl) while ignoring the active and current pollution that exists for rare earth metals and lithium at this very moment(and just wait until lithium mining really kicks off). Nuclear has waste sure, but it at least can be reprocessed, and what can't be can be contained, the issue here is it's the least bad option currently for power generation to get us away from fossil fuels, it's a transition technology. https://www.pv-tech.org/built-... >Over the whole life of a typical power plant, nuclear's emissions are about on par with wind. Yet wind is being built in droves despite having problems with baseload, as well as requiring very large footprints in specialized areas to function. Right now the planet is heating up more and more, and as such more and more people are using air conditioning which is putting ever more strain on the grids, wind and solar suffer heavily from the Duck Curve and under performance at night, this is only going to get worse every year. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you want civilization to survive climate collapse, we need every tool in the box, we don't have the luxury of picking and choosing, and that includes nuclear. The unscientific stimga surrounding nuclear are really annoying but unsurprising, but I'm more surprised how it exists on Slashdot of all places when I'd assume people here would know about all the alternative nuclear tech that exists that could replace the existing infrastructure. For the amount of bloviating about unproven theoreticals in other areas in tech and society on Slashdot, for some reason people have the most suburban housewife attitudes about nuclear, and it's absolutely baffling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

you absolutely can change the law retroactively, have people already forgotten the NSA wiretapping with AT&T and other companies and how congress passed retroactive immunity for them(of which Obama voted for too), and then SCOTUS allowed to stand? https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... https://www.aclu.org/blog/nati...

If by "leg work", you mean getting billions in public funding and subsidies and tax-breaks only to turn around and demand an arm and a leg under "muh profits" argument. This vaccine, and every vaccine, is a matter of public health and should not under any circumstance be under the discretion of a private company to dispense, especially for profit, and even more so when said companies got public money for it. https://www.scientificamerican...

socialism isn't "when government does stuff", people keep saying this despite having the entire internet at their disposal. The books written by Marx, Lenin, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Richard Wolff, and even George Orwell are right there to read, yet people continue this myth of "government owns everything". Read a damn book that wasn't written by Ben Shapiro or Dennis Prager. https://www.goodreads.com/shel... And even if "socialism" isn't your cup of tea, Social Democracy exists within the framework of capitalism, FDR, John Maynard Keynes, and Bernie Sanders(including most of The Squad) are/were social democrats, people that push government programs and regulations onto capitalism to bring it to heel. the only problem with these systems is that inevitably they get worn down and destroyed by capitalists, as happened with the New Deal programs and everything Keynes and FDR, and even Eisenhower and Nixon supported.

The "developing world" is making all of our bullshit, why don't you grab a few random items in your house and see where they're made for proof, that CO2 is ours by proxy. Then there's the fact that you're basically ignoring the fact that almost all the CO2 up there right now is ours directly too. We spent the latter half of the 19th century, all of the 20th century, and the beginning of the 21st century spewing CO2 into the atmosphere to bring the western world up to the standards we enjoy, only for people like you to turn around, look a bunch of poorer nations in the face and say "you need to die so I can live in comfort". How about you do the world a favor and go live in a shack somewhere and eat only bugs because if the entire west did that, it will offset more CO2 than killing the entire developing world would, not to mention be more ethical.

Found the armchair expert, got any more personal anecdotes to share as data grandpa? How about I directly link to a climate scientist that uses actual data: https://twitter.com/ZLabe/stat... https://twitter.com/ZLabe/stat... https://twitter.com/ZLabe/stat... https://phys.org/news/2021-01-... https://www.sciencealert.com/h...

And how much carbon does it absorb for the carbon it uses and/or the carbon that was created to make the machine, build the machine, and run the machine? Does it take into consideration all the construction workers that built it? Does it factor in the engineers and workers running it? All those people driving to and from work are pumping out CO2, the construction tools and machinery to build it use diesel/gas etc, you have to factor in all of that, every single CO2 molecule. Energy ROI is frequently ignored or only partially considered, carbon is carbon, the context doesn't matter to the atmosphere, this is literally the law of thermodynamics but for carbon, so if it's not at the least carbon neutral in the short term(or can recoup the costs within a few years or sooner), then this is useless.

ok boomer...

The wisdom of a generation that voted a man like Trump into power and denies climate change and votes against any effort to combat it, and refuses to address the insane economic disparity in this nation is not one worth listening to, they had their chance to make the world a better place than they received it and they failed in nearly every measurable way. I know this because of statistics that Boomers ignore, such as the fact that Millennials and Gen-Z are worse off than Boomers were at the same ages, and are never going to catch up. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/0... https://i.imgur.com/Vexs8cZ.jp... https://i.imgur.com/02XAwG4.jp... https://i.imgur.com/knUeYg2.jp...