I can't speak for VR, but AR definitively has a future.

You already see practical use of this technology with HUD-tech (Heads up display) in cars, but beyond that you'll find great applications for it within medicine/operations, transportation (directions), marketing (product information, authenticity verification), and the list goes on and on...

Yes, AR has some potential as an industrial or otherwise specialized technology. It won't be revolutionary or change the world in any way, but it will probably improve several kinds of processes, a background tech.

VR is much more likely to either become the new TV or to die an obscure death, like 3D movies.

VR becoming the new TV is highly unlikely because many people multitask while watching TV. this is very difficult to do with VR.

I was thinking more of TV in the way it captured audiences in the 50s, 60s, 70s. You're probably right though that AR has a bigger chance of capturing something like the way TV is interacted with today (a background activity).

You could multitask in VR, without even anyone noticing?

How can you wash dishes while your entire view field is covered by some movie?

I was more thinking about the "second screen" multitasking that's quite common. With VR, the second screen is like build-in.

3D movies will come back and die again. And again, forever

I don't understand how you ended up with such an interpretation of what she said.

As I understand it, she's saying that the current "politically correct" environment is hurting women more than it helps.

A better way would be to start excluding MPA and their behaviour in our open source licenses.

>A better way would be to start excluding MPA and their behaviour in our open source licenses.

This is a remarkably good idea. Add an explicit clause to major open source project licenses that disallow use by the MPAA and similar groups, along with enough explicit damages spelled out to give it teeth.

Then those licenses would no longer be open source licenses.