realcoolguy

This is not always the case (some CEOs don't understand the company they're on-boarding with). However I'm never outraged by it, if a company wants to provide a massive salary, have a massive failure, then send off the CEO with a golden parachute more power to them.

However I may want to re-evaluate my future relationships with a company who is not very careful with their large investments.

As for the rules, it seems to be somewhere between class-warfare and fairness. Not sure we really need to know, but it might be useful information for some investors. It doesn't affect me so I have a hard time forming a strong opinion on this.

Today's VR still isn't there. Yesterday's VR didn't go anywhere.

However as someone who has only used the Devkit1 of the Rift I can really see this is the future of SOME entertainment. It is going to be amazing, eventually.

Games in 5-8 years made for VR are going to be mindblowingly immersive. Then again we're still going to have non-VR games. I think it's important to understand that this tech is really only useful in certain contexts.

Horror games (for VR) are going to be painful, adrenaline pumping, sweat inducing, monstrosities.

Huge possibilities exist for experiencing other perspectives in VR, too numerous to even count. Even basic things like experiencing what it's like to be taller/shorter will have an unexpectedly large impact on immersion.

VR is basically the DDR dancepad of the future. It's just an unusual interface device to increase immersion, but it's going to (eventually) be incredible. I'm very excited for the future of VR and non-VR alike.

Always found it odd that wind capture/generation shapes resembled centuries old windmills. Great to see some (expected) innovation in the space. With non-moving parts, no noise, and won't sent people into epileptic shock around sunrise/sunset, it looks like a winner. (if you've never driven past a windfarm in the morning or evening, the flashing is incredibly irritating).

I argue it's NOT laudable. What should happen instead is the road should be fixed more efficiently.

It's not fair for those commuting on the roads to have to wait longer. It's not fair to those paying to have the roads fixed to pay more.

If you want to do charity, then do charity. If you want to fix roads, then fix roads.

We could all be farmers. We'd all have jobs. Work the fields by hand. You quickly see the flaw in the logic of the argument for more jobs. (It's much better to pay a much smaller % of your income for a few specialized persons to do the work)

You always want more work being done by less people. Video rental? Automate it! Automated kiosks becoming too much of a hassle for someone to constantly restock? Online streaming instead.

This is what we call progress. It's what is allowing us to even debate this as a topic. I hope it continues because it does create much higher paying jobs for those that do have jobs and it frees up the workforce to innovate even more.