It probably isn't. The article does kinda sorta make that claim, but has no evidence whatsoever to back up the link. It actually appears to be saying that someone is using the ATF's cameras to conduct a grease dumping investigation, not that the ATF is itself conducting the investigation.
The facts seem to be:
- The ATF, FBI, and other Federal agencies have set up the cameras.
- Someone (TFA says ATF, but that's not believable and they offer nothing to back that up) is conducting a grease dumping investigation. They have access to these cameras set up by the FBI and ATF.
- The ATF themselves say the cameras they've put up were originally for a single investigation. They have been linked to a gun violence program in Seattle, so it is more than likely their investigation is linked to that.
- The ATF has emphatically not claimed its doing a grease investigation anywhere, which makes no sense.
It's a confusing article, but it doesn't really make the claim the headline does.
Believe me, as an ex-Brit, "Stranger Danger" is not unique to the US. The UK has had an obsession with the concept (and child molestation in general) since the late 1980s/early 1990s (which I sincerely believe is damaging the concept of fatherhood there, but that's another topic) yet there's no problems with kids walking to school there. And, for reference, I was doing it on my own from 8-9 years old onwards.
One thing I have noticed is that suburbanization itself (in the US form) seems to be built on, and designed to encourage, fear. People are encouraged to leave the cities because somehow they're in mortal danger there. Once moved out, home invasions baby, they happen all the time (no, they don't) so you better get guns. Keep your car doors locked at all times. Walking through a parking lot? YOU COULD BE NEXT!
The entire concept seems to be to alienate people even more, and encourage them to fear other people. Which is why I suspect you start getting this dumb "You let your kids go to a park by themselves? OMG! You monster!" crap from.
It's "well known" because Edison himself ran a publicity campaign claiming that. His lightbulb was identical to Joseph Swan's. Swan was demonstrating practical life bulbs two years before Edison and was selling then at the time Edison made his announcement.
GIMP isn't harder to use than Photoshop, it's just both hard to use (in the same way Photoshop is because it's a large complex powerful application) and different from Photoshop, so people evaluating it as a Photoshop replacement inevitably find it "harder to use" because they have to learn how to use it all over again.
Believe me, if most people used GIMP and then had to evaluate Photoshop they'd be complaining about the Photoshop UI.
As someone above pointed out, simply cloning the competitors UI isn't going to help here - see Mozilla. Nor would "simplifying the UI", that would just mean users would desert the application in droves as it'd no longer do what they want - see GNOME 3 for a case study in how not to do it.
You can probably tweak the UI so it's a little easier to use, but I'm not sure such tweaking would ever solve the "People are used to Photoshops UI" problem.
So, just to be clear, it sometimes lets people who are using an Adblocker in. Which is hillarious, because I frequently find it won't let me in... after I've disabled my adblocker (or am using a browser that doesn't have one at all.)
I'm not entirely unsympathetic with Forbes' stand, but they need better programmers. Their blocking system is laughably incompetent.
Well, thanks for telling us what it's not, but TFA doesn't actually confirm that, if anything it says it could be literally anything. Essentially this malware creates a system by with other malware can be downloaded and installed.
So it could, actually, be ransomware. And, to be honest, I'm trying to think of malware that would be useful (to attackers) on expensive smart TVs except for ransomware. It can't exactly install keyloggers to grab your credit card numbers...
There certainly are ways in which it could be improved and the UI simplified in a way that would make sense, I'm just finding it improbable any of these will actually happen - or at least, if they do it'll be an accidental consequence of something more substantial being killed.
I like Outlook to a certain extent, albeit in its modern incarnation with the menu bar replaced by that stupid strip thing it's at its nadir, but for the longest time it was virtually the only email system anyone used that displayed incoming emails in real time, supported integrated calendars and tasks, and used a "proper" contacts system - not just a contacts system that was stored with the account, not the PC, but the ability to use LDAP address books etc. In fact, it was nice that virtually everything ran on the server, not the PC. The filters, for example, ran there. Which is where they should run.
All of which was nice but forced you to rely upon proprietary servers because IMAP and CalDAV et al weren't mature enough to make this work yet.
And now, with Outlook only reluctantly communicating with services like GMail (email only), it's looking less and less relevant.
That's where the work needs to be done. It might be justified in a way that it wasn't ten years ago when implementing better support for third party systems meant undermining sales of Exchange Server, but the landscape has changed dramatically since then.
But I have a feeling they'll focus on the UI. And if they dumb it down enough, I wonder if there'll be any point in using it over, say, Windows 8/Windows 10's Mail and Calendar apps.
While technically it's correct that mobile phone companies didn't charge for SMS messages at some point before unlimited plans, the way you've worded it - in particular the comment you're responded to - kinda implies that we went right from "free" to "unlimited plans" without a long, painful, period in between where every message was charged for. Remember too that "free SMS" only applied for a short period of time when you couldn't even message people off-network, and few operators allowed you to send messages via the web.
As far as SMS messages "creating no load", the packets going "in-between" other traffic, you appear to be confusing it with GPRS. SMS messages most certainly do have load in GSM, they occupy slots in the control channel - the channels used by the system to set up and tear down calls, ping phones, etc. That channel is actually fairly limited in bandwidth, and flooding a tower with SMS messages will prevent subscribers connected to the same tower from being able to make calls.
GPRS, the data system, was designed to use unused call channels for data exchange, but even it requires occasional use of the control channel, there's really no technical way to produce a mobile phone system with no bandwidth constraints, and GSM's SMS message system - far from being infinitely efficient in the way free SMS advocates claim - is actually increadibly inefficient for something that's just a way to send 160 character packets. It's only not a problem because relatively few messages are sent.
Charging for SMS was, in that context, entirely reasonable.
It has a very simple file layout. A more likely cause of the problem is that computers that ran CP/M typically had unusual disk drives - that is, the number of tracks, sectors per track, etc, varied tremendously between manufacturer.
The file system itself though? Not a problem. It's simpler than FAT. It's so simple it can be easily reverse engineered with a hexeditor, even if you don't have any documentation and have never heard of CP/M before (been a while, but from memory: first few sectors after boot are a directory, using 32 byte blocks - 12 bytes for file name and user number, then the remainder identify the sector clusters - called extents in CP/M jargon - the file occupies, with multiple entries used if the file used more than 20 extents.)
You're getting free downloads if you're streaming video from the providers T-Mobile has blessed. If you don't stream from them, you still "enjoy" lowered video quality (which, in this implementation, is almost certainly going to make some videos unwatchable), but you still pay.
The complaint is that they're throttling all videos, regardless of whether they come from the zero-rated providers or not. Also they're throttling rather than, as they claimed, "optimizing" them, which means, for example, that if the provider that's streaming it isn't using something like DASH or HLS to adapt the streaming rate to the current network conditions, your video is going to stutter and become unwatchable, rather than gracefully downgrade to a slower bitrate.
The only leg that T-Mobile has to stand on here is that the service is technically optional. But they've outright lied about what it is, even at one point claiming it wasn't throttling, and implied it only applied to a set of participating providers. They're claiming it's zero rating video in exchange for throttling, but as we can see here, that isn't the case. And with high profile non-participants non-zero-rated providers like YouTube being throttled, it's all the more absurd.
T-Mobile needs to step back and rethink this. At the very least, they should turn off throttling for everyone other than the named zero-rated providers. They have the germ of a good idea here, but they haven't been honest about the implementation, nor consistent.
He didn't "threaten" anything. And believing your career is over in the fact of criminal charges that can lead to imprisonment if successfully prosecuted is fairly normal. You think assaulting an officer is a trivial crime?
Well, in fairness, if we assume the opposite, and we assume they did read the summary, we're looking at a bunch of people who are saying "OMG! They're coming for hardline Islamic Terrorists! We anti-SJWs are obviously so similar to extremist religious fundamentalist anti-women anti-gay anti-people-not-like-us murderous nutjobs that we're obviously next!"
In which case it's a fairly revealing admission...
The term SJW, as used on Slashdot and elsewhere, is attached to any person who suggests that women and black people are frequently the subject of prejudice, discrimination, and harassment, and that their poorer circumstances cannot be explained by biological differences alone. You know that. Everyone here knows that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "Neo-Marxism" unless you seriously believe that observing and recognizing prejudice and harassment is "Neo-Marxist".
I get called an SJW all the time, and the only Marxist bone in my body is my general sense that the class system is a bad thing and that raw, unfettered, capitalism doesn't solve everything.
For example, do you implement factories in the same class or in a separate class. Do you use sub interfaces in Java
That depends on whether I've just learned about them or not. If so, yes. If it's been a while since I learned, I've weaned myself off them and I'm using the next fad^H^H^H uh cool feature.
Just like everyone else, amiright?;-)
So that probably wouldn't help in terms of fingerprinting developers...
Given he was hospitalized that night - because of injuries from his confrontation with police - and given he was subsequently released, it seems improbable he was on some psychotic bender.
He committed suicide after being beaten up by police (requiring hospitalization as a result) and then charged with assaulting a police officer. I'm not sure where "going mentally unhinged on Twitter" comes from, but his last tweets were angry, not unhinged.
FWIW, in context, he was (after implying he had a fairly substantial confrontation with the SFPD) saying that police misbehavior might be taken more seriously now that a successful white male, rather than black person, was the victim of it.
It's poor wording, but I don't think the choice of word there was meant maliciously or in any racist sense, rather than a comment upon the SFPD's and general publics perceptions of whose word is worth taking seriously.
Even though even the summary says this is about Twitter making it easier for themselves to ban groups like ISIL, it does look as if that's the attitude most of Slashdot is taking today...
Oh, wow, so no more "Kill All Men" hashtag or "I Drink Male Tears" images? Because those are pretty damned hateful, even though it's apparently socially acceptable to hate men in a way that it's not for women...
I'm pretty sure Twitter will continue to have a better understanding of concepts like irony and satire than, apparently, you're showing here, and will allow people to make fun of the image those who hate them paint them as.
Surface Phone::Windows 10 For Phones = Nexus Phone::Android
Basically it's a phone from Microsoft, intended to show off its operating system as it imagines it should be implemented, rather than just one that runs a Microsoft Operating System.
And yeah, I appreciate that Lumia phones are designed by a division of Microsoft, but I suspect the former Nokia division is still run to a certain extent at arm's length.
Obnoxious as those examples are, they aren't a denial of the right to use air transportation. Only the No-Fly list does that, and it's of dubious constitutionality.
The Federal Government refusing to allow people from certain States to board airliners because those States don't use an ID system (itself a dubious restriction) the Feds approve of is going to result in some serious legal and political challenges, that I'd expect the Feds to ultimately lose, perhaps even with an affirmative right of free passage written into the law and possibly even the constitution. I actually hope they try.
I didn't just say immersive, no. I said it has to be so immersive it feels like RL. There's plenty of immersive media - including books* - out there, but little or nothing that's so good you could think you're actually in the world being described.
VR is sold as a level of immersion so good you could think it's real. That's an unattainable goal (at least, right now), which means it'll always disappoint as long as it's sold as VR. What's not unattainable is good immersion. Like I said, FPSes are pretty much the only technology that's made strides in that direction, and they've worked specifically because they weren't sold as VR (so not setting false expectations) and because they don't cause physical discomfort to the user.
I haven't seen it yet. That said, everything about Kylo Ren suggests he's a dark joke at the expense of Star Wars fans themselves. He (apparently, spoiler if this is true) kills his father (aka George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars and thus the father of all Star Wars fans) upset that Solo/Lucas is in favor of one side of the force (the lightweight version of Star Wars epitomied by the prequels) when he himself pines for Darth Vader and the myth he represents (aka the darker, "original", Star Wars where Han shoots first and doesn't stand on Jabba's tail.)
So rather than having a Darth Vader figure for the new Darth Vader, they have this kinda nerdy, anti-social geeky Darth-wannabe character instead.
If you've ever written the words "George Lucas destroyed my childhood" (or some equivalent replacing the word "destroyed" with something more obnoxious) then Kylo Ren may be intended to be you.
Which if true is pretty hilarious, in my opinion. The question I have is where did the idea come from? Lucas said his ideas were rejected for the new movie, so it's not one last middle finger from him. But I wonder how many involved in the film are sympathetic to him.
It'll always be "overhyped" because VR is, ultimately, never going to live up to expectations.
VR is supposed to be about an immersive environment that feels like RL. It takes about ten seconds with anything hyped as VR, be it 3D TV/movies, Doom/Quake/successors to the latter, a 3D headset, or whatever, to realize that you're nowhere near being in this immersive environment. All that's happened is someone has found a way to add depth perception and perhaps create a more innovative control system for how you view a moving picture.
Add to this the fact that virtually all forms of VR save for the basic "FPS on a big-ass monitor" cause physical discomfort to most users (be it motion sickness or just the discomfort of wearing some device on your body), and you're essentially looking at a technology that seems initially popular and then ends up going no where fast.
In order to work, "VR" has to not be labelled VR in the first place (FPSes weren't, for example), and anything that causes discomfort needs to be removed before sale. It'll be a long time before we get a substantial jump that people actually find worth adopting.
Slashdot Mirror
It probably isn't. The article does kinda sorta make that claim, but has no evidence whatsoever to back up the link. It actually appears to be saying that someone is using the ATF's cameras to conduct a grease dumping investigation, not that the ATF is itself conducting the investigation.
The facts seem to be:
- The ATF, FBI, and other Federal agencies have set up the cameras.
- Someone (TFA says ATF, but that's not believable and they offer nothing to back that up) is conducting a grease dumping investigation. They have access to these cameras set up by the FBI and ATF.
- The ATF themselves say the cameras they've put up were originally for a single investigation. They have been linked to a gun violence program in Seattle, so it is more than likely their investigation is linked to that.
- The ATF has emphatically not claimed its doing a grease investigation anywhere, which makes no sense.
It's a confusing article, but it doesn't really make the claim the headline does.
Believe me, as an ex-Brit, "Stranger Danger" is not unique to the US. The UK has had an obsession with the concept (and child molestation in general) since the late 1980s/early 1990s (which I sincerely believe is damaging the concept of fatherhood there, but that's another topic) yet there's no problems with kids walking to school there. And, for reference, I was doing it on my own from 8-9 years old onwards.
One thing I have noticed is that suburbanization itself (in the US form) seems to be built on, and designed to encourage, fear. People are encouraged to leave the cities because somehow they're in mortal danger there. Once moved out, home invasions baby, they happen all the time (no, they don't) so you better get guns. Keep your car doors locked at all times. Walking through a parking lot? YOU COULD BE NEXT!
The entire concept seems to be to alienate people even more, and encourage them to fear other people. Which is why I suspect you start getting this dumb "You let your kids go to a park by themselves? OMG! You monster!" crap from.
It's "well known" because Edison himself ran a publicity campaign claiming that. His lightbulb was identical to Joseph Swan's. Swan was demonstrating practical life bulbs two years before Edison and was selling then at the time Edison made his announcement.
GIMP isn't harder to use than Photoshop, it's just both hard to use (in the same way Photoshop is because it's a large complex powerful application) and different from Photoshop, so people evaluating it as a Photoshop replacement inevitably find it "harder to use" because they have to learn how to use it all over again.
Believe me, if most people used GIMP and then had to evaluate Photoshop they'd be complaining about the Photoshop UI.
As someone above pointed out, simply cloning the competitors UI isn't going to help here - see Mozilla. Nor would "simplifying the UI", that would just mean users would desert the application in droves as it'd no longer do what they want - see GNOME 3 for a case study in how not to do it.
You can probably tweak the UI so it's a little easier to use, but I'm not sure such tweaking would ever solve the "People are used to Photoshops UI" problem.
So, just to be clear, it sometimes lets people who are using an Adblocker in. Which is hillarious, because I frequently find it won't let me in... after I've disabled my adblocker (or am using a browser that doesn't have one at all.)
I'm not entirely unsympathetic with Forbes' stand, but they need better programmers. Their blocking system is laughably incompetent.
Well, thanks for telling us what it's not, but TFA doesn't actually confirm that, if anything it says it could be literally anything. Essentially this malware creates a system by with other malware can be downloaded and installed.
So it could, actually, be ransomware. And, to be honest, I'm trying to think of malware that would be useful (to attackers) on expensive smart TVs except for ransomware. It can't exactly install keyloggers to grab your credit card numbers...
There certainly are ways in which it could be improved and the UI simplified in a way that would make sense, I'm just finding it improbable any of these will actually happen - or at least, if they do it'll be an accidental consequence of something more substantial being killed.
I like Outlook to a certain extent, albeit in its modern incarnation with the menu bar replaced by that stupid strip thing it's at its nadir, but for the longest time it was virtually the only email system anyone used that displayed incoming emails in real time, supported integrated calendars and tasks, and used a "proper" contacts system - not just a contacts system that was stored with the account, not the PC, but the ability to use LDAP address books etc. In fact, it was nice that virtually everything ran on the server, not the PC. The filters, for example, ran there. Which is where they should run.
All of which was nice but forced you to rely upon proprietary servers because IMAP and CalDAV et al weren't mature enough to make this work yet.
And now, with Outlook only reluctantly communicating with services like GMail (email only), it's looking less and less relevant.
That's where the work needs to be done. It might be justified in a way that it wasn't ten years ago when implementing better support for third party systems meant undermining sales of Exchange Server, but the landscape has changed dramatically since then.
But I have a feeling they'll focus on the UI. And if they dumb it down enough, I wonder if there'll be any point in using it over, say, Windows 8/Windows 10's Mail and Calendar apps.
While technically it's correct that mobile phone companies didn't charge for SMS messages at some point before unlimited plans, the way you've worded it - in particular the comment you're responded to - kinda implies that we went right from "free" to "unlimited plans" without a long, painful, period in between where every message was charged for. Remember too that "free SMS" only applied for a short period of time when you couldn't even message people off-network, and few operators allowed you to send messages via the web.
As far as SMS messages "creating no load", the packets going "in-between" other traffic, you appear to be confusing it with GPRS. SMS messages most certainly do have load in GSM, they occupy slots in the control channel - the channels used by the system to set up and tear down calls, ping phones, etc. That channel is actually fairly limited in bandwidth, and flooding a tower with SMS messages will prevent subscribers connected to the same tower from being able to make calls.
GPRS, the data system, was designed to use unused call channels for data exchange, but even it requires occasional use of the control channel, there's really no technical way to produce a mobile phone system with no bandwidth constraints, and GSM's SMS message system - far from being infinitely efficient in the way free SMS advocates claim - is actually increadibly inefficient for something that's just a way to send 160 character packets. It's only not a problem because relatively few messages are sent.
Charging for SMS was, in that context, entirely reasonable.
It has a very simple file layout. A more likely cause of the problem is that computers that ran CP/M typically had unusual disk drives - that is, the number of tracks, sectors per track, etc, varied tremendously between manufacturer.
The file system itself though? Not a problem. It's simpler than FAT. It's so simple it can be easily reverse engineered with a hexeditor, even if you don't have any documentation and have never heard of CP/M before (been a while, but from memory: first few sectors after boot are a directory, using 32 byte blocks - 12 bytes for file name and user number, then the remainder identify the sector clusters - called extents in CP/M jargon - the file occupies, with multiple entries used if the file used more than 20 extents.)
You're getting free downloads if you're streaming video from the providers T-Mobile has blessed. If you don't stream from them, you still "enjoy" lowered video quality (which, in this implementation, is almost certainly going to make some videos unwatchable), but you still pay.
The complaint is that they're throttling all videos, regardless of whether they come from the zero-rated providers or not. Also they're throttling rather than, as they claimed, "optimizing" them, which means, for example, that if the provider that's streaming it isn't using something like DASH or HLS to adapt the streaming rate to the current network conditions, your video is going to stutter and become unwatchable, rather than gracefully downgrade to a slower bitrate.
The only leg that T-Mobile has to stand on here is that the service is technically optional. But they've outright lied about what it is, even at one point claiming it wasn't throttling, and implied it only applied to a set of participating providers. They're claiming it's zero rating video in exchange for throttling, but as we can see here, that isn't the case. And with high profile non-participants non-zero-rated providers like YouTube being throttled, it's all the more absurd.
T-Mobile needs to step back and rethink this. At the very least, they should turn off throttling for everyone other than the named zero-rated providers. They have the germ of a good idea here, but they haven't been honest about the implementation, nor consistent.
He didn't "threaten" anything. And believing your career is over in the fact of criminal charges that can lead to imprisonment if successfully prosecuted is fairly normal. You think assaulting an officer is a trivial crime?
Well, in fairness, if we assume the opposite, and we assume they did read the summary, we're looking at a bunch of people who are saying "OMG! They're coming for hardline Islamic Terrorists! We anti-SJWs are obviously so similar to extremist religious fundamentalist anti-women anti-gay anti-people-not-like-us murderous nutjobs that we're obviously next!"
In which case it's a fairly revealing admission...
The term SJW, as used on Slashdot and elsewhere, is attached to any person who suggests that women and black people are frequently the subject of prejudice, discrimination, and harassment, and that their poorer circumstances cannot be explained by biological differences alone. You know that. Everyone here knows that. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "Neo-Marxism" unless you seriously believe that observing and recognizing prejudice and harassment is "Neo-Marxist".
I get called an SJW all the time, and the only Marxist bone in my body is my general sense that the class system is a bad thing and that raw, unfettered, capitalism doesn't solve everything.
That depends on whether I've just learned about them or not. If so, yes. If it's been a while since I learned, I've weaned myself off them and I'm using the next fad^H^H^H uh cool feature.
Just like everyone else, amiright? ;-)
So that probably wouldn't help in terms of fingerprinting developers...
This is based upon what exactly?
Given he was hospitalized that night - because of injuries from his confrontation with police - and given he was subsequently released, it seems improbable he was on some psychotic bender.
He committed suicide after being beaten up by police (requiring hospitalization as a result) and then charged with assaulting a police officer. I'm not sure where "going mentally unhinged on Twitter" comes from, but his last tweets were angry, not unhinged.
FWIW, in context, he was (after implying he had a fairly substantial confrontation with the SFPD) saying that police misbehavior might be taken more seriously now that a successful white male, rather than black person, was the victim of it.
It's poor wording, but I don't think the choice of word there was meant maliciously or in any racist sense, rather than a comment upon the SFPD's and general publics perceptions of whose word is worth taking seriously.
Even though even the summary says this is about Twitter making it easier for themselves to ban groups like ISIL, it does look as if that's the attitude most of Slashdot is taking today...
I'm pretty sure Twitter will continue to have a better understanding of concepts like irony and satire than, apparently, you're showing here, and will allow people to make fun of the image those who hate them paint them as.
Surface Phone::Windows 10 For Phones = Nexus Phone::Android
Basically it's a phone from Microsoft, intended to show off its operating system as it imagines it should be implemented, rather than just one that runs a Microsoft Operating System.
And yeah, I appreciate that Lumia phones are designed by a division of Microsoft, but I suspect the former Nokia division is still run to a certain extent at arm's length.
Obnoxious as those examples are, they aren't a denial of the right to use air transportation. Only the No-Fly list does that, and it's of dubious constitutionality.
The Federal Government refusing to allow people from certain States to board airliners because those States don't use an ID system (itself a dubious restriction) the Feds approve of is going to result in some serious legal and political challenges, that I'd expect the Feds to ultimately lose, perhaps even with an affirmative right of free passage written into the law and possibly even the constitution. I actually hope they try.
I didn't just say immersive, no. I said it has to be so immersive it feels like RL. There's plenty of immersive media - including books* - out there, but little or nothing that's so good you could think you're actually in the world being described.
VR is sold as a level of immersion so good you could think it's real. That's an unattainable goal (at least, right now), which means it'll always disappoint as long as it's sold as VR. What's not unattainable is good immersion. Like I said, FPSes are pretty much the only technology that's made strides in that direction, and they've worked specifically because they weren't sold as VR (so not setting false expectations) and because they don't cause physical discomfort to the user.
I haven't seen it yet. That said, everything about Kylo Ren suggests he's a dark joke at the expense of Star Wars fans themselves. He (apparently, spoiler if this is true) kills his father (aka George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars and thus the father of all Star Wars fans) upset that Solo/Lucas is in favor of one side of the force (the lightweight version of Star Wars epitomied by the prequels) when he himself pines for Darth Vader and the myth he represents (aka the darker, "original", Star Wars where Han shoots first and doesn't stand on Jabba's tail.)
So rather than having a Darth Vader figure for the new Darth Vader, they have this kinda nerdy, anti-social geeky Darth-wannabe character instead.
If you've ever written the words "George Lucas destroyed my childhood" (or some equivalent replacing the word "destroyed" with something more obnoxious) then Kylo Ren may be intended to be you.
Which if true is pretty hilarious, in my opinion. The question I have is where did the idea come from? Lucas said his ideas were rejected for the new movie, so it's not one last middle finger from him. But I wonder how many involved in the film are sympathetic to him.
It'll always be "overhyped" because VR is, ultimately, never going to live up to expectations.
VR is supposed to be about an immersive environment that feels like RL. It takes about ten seconds with anything hyped as VR, be it 3D TV/movies, Doom/Quake/successors to the latter, a 3D headset, or whatever, to realize that you're nowhere near being in this immersive environment. All that's happened is someone has found a way to add depth perception and perhaps create a more innovative control system for how you view a moving picture.
Add to this the fact that virtually all forms of VR save for the basic "FPS on a big-ass monitor" cause physical discomfort to most users (be it motion sickness or just the discomfort of wearing some device on your body), and you're essentially looking at a technology that seems initially popular and then ends up going no where fast.
In order to work, "VR" has to not be labelled VR in the first place (FPSes weren't, for example), and anything that causes discomfort needs to be removed before sale. It'll be a long time before we get a substantial jump that people actually find worth adopting.