"One example of such a thing is temp change in air/sea. Since the industrial revolution, we humans have put more CO2 in the air (and, therefore, sea) than ever before."
...and? This is a statement. This is not a conclusion. Show me the data that indicates that, without a doubt, more CO2 in the atmosphere is worse than less. If that's the case, then shouldn't we eliminate ALL CO2? No? So there should be SOME CO2 in the air? How much? What amount is the magic perfect amount of CO2 in the air? How do we know that the "best" amount of CO2 doesn't change with the changing ecosystem?
You made a single statement and all it did was raise at least half a dozen questions, so I fail to see how this furthers your argument at all.
I didn't imply anything of the sort. In fact, I didn't imply anything at all, I very clearly stated that the changing of climate due to natural causes will be far greater than the changing of climate due to man-made causes. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote.
It's scary that many people think humans can control the weather, and that AGW is more of a threat than natural global warming, and that our time and money and manpower is better spent counting carbon molecules instead of figuring out how to weather the inevitable natural climate change.
Why do you call it "climate change?" Only a moron would suggest that the climate is not changing. It seems to me that people call it "climate change" in order to suggest that anyone who denies the concept is a buffoon.
But the ACTUAL argument is about anthropogenic global warming, the rising of global temperature due to man-made causes. I'm not going to argue whether it's a real phenomenon or not, but I will say that there are dozens of possible natural causes for increases in global temperature to FAR greater effect than AGW, like increased solar activity, and I'd say our time and energy would be much better spent figuring out how to weather those changes than by counting how many molecules of carbon our tailpipes are emitting. "Climate change" is a natural inevitability, whether man is causing it or not.
Yes, what's your point? Do you know how many times Edison had to fail in order to find the right filament for his light bulb? Failure is ESSENTIAL to success.
If nobody innovates, then no new products get made. I don't know why you're equating innovation to low quality or lack of support. That's a false dichotomy. Nothing says that Oculus can't operate successfully while being owned by Facebook.
"The deal went through in record time without other execs even knowing about it. The only 'vision' he saw was dollar signs floating in front of his eyes."
Now you're just making baseless assumptions about his character. I suggest you listen to the conference call where Facebook announced the deal. If you listen to what Mark Zuckerberg says about the technology, it's pretty much exactly what Palmer has been saying about his vision for it from day one. Realizing that, it's pretty easy to see why Palmer would be willing to do the deal: because their visions are the same.
Don't forget that Palmer and Oculus had already raised over $75 million. They didn't need the Facebook deal to continue their work, and considering that this entire project came out of Palmer's passion for creating a real VR experience, I don't think it's likely that he would just jump at an arbitrary amount of money before even completing the thing. The Facebook deal just gives them greater resources to work with and frees them from the control of private investors.
There a lot of business factors that many people, yourself included, are ignoring.
"Because a lot of gamers are idiots and have zero understanding of economics."
That is one of the most accurate things that I've read in the comments of any Oculus/Facebook story yet. We've got morons complaining left and right that their paltry Kickstarter donations didn't entitle them to total control of the company. We've got people demanding their money back claiming that Palmer screwed them even though the Kickstarter's purpose was the creation of the dev kit, which is exactly what they did. We've got people claiming that they've sold out, that Facebook has already ruined the Rift even though Oculus is still operating independently and is benefiting from the additional resources.
I'll be the first to admit that I complained when I first heard about the deal. Facebook? Ugh! Anyone but them! But then I started reading Palmer's comments about it, and I listened to the conference call, and it started to make sense. A ton of sense, actually. It even made me realize that maybe I don't really hate Facebook, I just hate their stupid social networking web site. Actually, I hate the people on Facebook more than I do Facebook itself. I don't care what the people who I never talk to ate for dinner. That's why I don't use it.
But ironically enough, I still can agree with a lot of what they're doing. I had a knee-jerk reaction to the Facebook deal because I was ignorant about the company and what they were doing. Now that I know a little more, I feel a lot better.
I imagine Carmack's vision, if he has one, is some kind of software project, so I really doubt Facebook would get in the way of that. It seems Facebook's plan for the Rift, to expand it beyond gaming, is probably more like 5 years down the line, well after it has become an established platform for gaming (even though the Rift isn't a platform per se, the experience is unique and as such there will be titles published specifically for it).
I could certainly see Carmack leaving in 5-10 years, after the focus shifts away from gaming or Facebook starts stepping in to guide the product (if they even really have to, since it sounds like Oculus was down with the non-gaming from day one), but I don't see him leaving any time soon.
If you listen to the conference call, most of what Mark was saying about the Rift is exactly what Palmer has been saying all along. Consider that, and it makes perfect sense why he'd be willing to do a deal with Facebook. Their visions for the Rift are almost exactly the same. It'll be really exciting to see what Oculus can do now that they have the resources of Facebook at their fingertips.
Now that the HD version is out, I think I might buy a DK2 once they start shipping. For two reasons: because I can't wait for the consumer version, and because it'll be a cool piece of VR history ten years from now. Wait, make that three reasons: because I'd like to try my hand at developing something for the Rift. Not that I intend to become a developer, I just want to create something.
rarson's comments