I'm willing to bet that it could be at least half that time. Even stuff like Cardboard/Daydream/Gear-VR provide some entertainment and those are at the lowest tier. The main obstacles for me would be not well enough performing hardware (considering the aforementioned devices use a cell phone) and second, lacking software.
I'd say within the next 3-5 years both of those areas will improve dramatically (as demand for VR increases) enough to make those platforms a viable VR entertainment system.
As for Desktop VR devices like Oculus and Vive 20 years is probably more reasonable as it's much more expensive. Many people get a smartphone every couple years through their phone plan but I'd wager most people do not currently posses a computer capable of running a VR headset with recommended requirements.
"Walmart employs an astounding 2.1 million people. In the United States alone, the company employs 1.4 million people. This is a staggering 1% of the U.S.'s 140 million working population."
While your statement is quite vague it is no less completely inaccurate. "Supporting violence" is subjective and ambiguous. Are action movies and video games supportive of violence? How about war documentaries?
Furthermore, while "hate" speech is not the best use of our ability to communicate it does fall under the protection of free speech - at least in the United States. In some groups hate speech (however it is you describe it) is acceptable.
Just as you are free to not associate with those groups the internet should be free to express the ideas you disagree with.
You don't have the freedom to interfere or disrupt the freedoms of others.
It absolutely is acceptable. There's a lot of hate being stirred towards ISIS, and violence is supported quite openly in the media, and also used in the real world.
The west has enemies and stirs up hate and uses violence to target them, adding to the mayhem in the middle east, killing 10s of thousands of people every year.
Violence is very acceptable for the western democracies. You have to be willfully ignorant not to see this, after the last two years and 70000 people killed by the coalition during that time.
You're confusing is with ought. Violence is only acceptable in very reasoned, measured manners, and only to achieve clear and decisive goals. Hate is not acceptable anywhere. Outrage, maybe.
edit: Anyway. There's a lot of hate towards real or believed enemies of the west. It's easily visible online in news websites' comment sections, on social media, etc. It is somewhat rare to see people standing up against it. Even on platforms, where you need to provide gov. ID to be able to discuss, and your name is visible to others, people feel perfectly fine to spew hate against muslims, ISIS, or whatever in very non-measured ways.
My point with the previous comment is, that it is important to realize the western hate and violence too and not to brush it away, because it's very significant in its effect on peoples lives.
I'm not from the US, so it might be different in different countries.
Snail mail letters are the oldest somewhat comparable format. Privacy of your envelope of hate speech is secured by law in most western nations.
However we have recently seen that principle degrade with all kinds of exceptions. It's weird given how little potential islamist terrorism has in the west compared to what communism, republicanism or protestantism had in the past.
Is Net Neutrality a 100% known quantity? I'm pretty sure it isn't. There are a lot of subjective considerations surrounding it and how it's perceived by both technical and non-technical people.
The current Title II framework allows the FCC to look at cases on a case by case basis exactly for this reason. If you are making all VoIP traffic faster, it's ok. If your ISP does consumer unfriendly behavior (low data caps, zero-rating some services, paid/unpaid prioritization) and enough people complain, Title II gives FCC the authority to fix it. Without it, it won't be up to FCC at all or FTC.
"A simpler
consumer protection solution exists. Congress should fully repeal the common carrier exemption
in the FTC Act, and enable both the FTC and FCC to protect consumers and the openness and
innovation of the internet."
"The FTC argued that if Congress really intended to divide jurisdiction along industry lines, it could have exempted from the FTC’s authority everything subject to the Communications Act or the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) jurisdiction."
Consumer unfriendliness can be at multiple levels, not just in a falsely advertised plan. The FTC sued AT&T over wrongful advertising and changes of a data plan, a consumer affair issue.
Figuring out whether your ISP is correctly being the common carrier it needs to be (correct or incorrect prioritization, 0-rating, caps, etc..) is definitely a Title 2-related communications & FCC issue. The FTC can continue enforcing what are consumer affairs issues related to ISPs being broadband providers. The FTC's legal reasoning is correct, getting rid of the exemption as I understand it would give them more authority if their current argument is rejected in court.
Dunno about "fearless concurrency," but "zero-cost abstractions" and "move semantics" are straight off the front page of rust-lang.org. So they're kind of marketing-ish in trying to make you go "hmm sounds intriguing" and click to find out more.
