from the we've-got-virtually-a-year-of-this dept.
Have you ever felt the burning desire to be in the same room with Presidential candidates during a 2-3 hour long debate? Now you can be there virtually from the comfort of your own home!
CNN and NextVR will make history on October 13th by hosting the first-ever live stream of a news event in virtual reality, giving viewers a front-row seat to CNN's 2016 election debates.
The network is partnering with virtual reality technology platform NextVR to stream the CNN Democratic Presidential Debate live, in full 3D immersive virtual reality, from Las Vegas, NV.
The live stream follows CNN and NextVR's first virtual reality experience at the CNN Ronald Reagan Debate, where it quietly filmed the highest rated event in CNN history in virtual reality to make it available to users on demand. This experience is now available to users who have a Samsung GearVR virtual reality headset by visiting the NextVR portal in the Oculus Store. Once downloaded, the debate can be seen from the perspective of an audience member at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
The October 13th debate will feature 5 candidates, along with Vice President Biden should he choose to enter the race. You can discuss the debate on my journal.
[Ed's Comment: Discuss the technology in the comments below, but please leave the political discussion for Takyon's journal.]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @01:38PM
We will discuss whatever the hell we wanna discuss. Loosen up.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday October 13 2015, @01:59PM
Many of our community complain that this site is becoming just like a thousand others. There are two topics here, the Virtual Reality story and the political story. To ensure that people can read what they want and not have to wade through the other parts in which they might not be interested, we have asked people to separate the two discussions. We have provided the means to do so, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask our community to try to help out.
The site is not being run so that we can all enjoy the discussions. We are trying to make that possible. The election is over a year away and for many people, particularly those outside the USA, the build up is of little interest. The final outcome will, no doubt, be of interest to us all.
(Score: 3, Funny) by janrinok on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:01PM
I must proof read more carefully - the site is being run so that we can all enjoy the discussions!
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:05PM
Yeah, but people tend to grate even more when they're told what they can say(even if what they'd prefer is to discuss the suggested subject) than when they have to put up with some on-topic discussion that isn't their favorite thing.
There's no winning answer to that dilemma.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:10PM
Well, the way to do it would be to ask a question specifically about what you think of this use of the technology, to seed the discussion in the desired direction without actually telling people what to discuss.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:19PM
I'm not trying to tell people to say anything - I'm giving them the opportunity to hold a decent conversation on either topic.
But, if this is not helpful, I'll go back to the drawing board.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:22PM
Nothing wrong with the story or TFS, some people just like to whine.
- different AC
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:19PM
Confusingly ethanolfueled's political topic is arguably more interesting. More so than in some previous years its a very reactive field, for various sexism reasons the gender of the first declared veep candidate will determine the other veep candidate's gender, for example. Likewise if one side puts up a semi-outsider FIRST, then the other side can afford to toss up an outsider, sorta kinda. If I phrased it poorly what I'm getting at is more than usual this election is going to be about the parties responding to each other, not the aristocracy or the general public, so a thread talking -D and -R is "better" this time around than a specific thread only talking about the -D. -D as in Democrat, just to make it clear.
https://soylentnews.org/~Ethanol-fueled/journal/1518 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:17PM
Don't really see that as the theme this season. On the GOP side, being an established politician is pretty much a death sentence right now. The only possible exception being Cruz who, by virtue of being considered an outcast by pretty much every other elected official, is managing to run more as an outsider despite being a sitting member of the U.S. Senate.
The Democrat side is more conflicted since it basically has the worship of the State as it's central organizing principle yet their base too has the hankering for an outsider bug and the conflict between the two impulses is causing Sanders. Even though I think (or at least hope) they realize that in a general election Sanders is far more unelectable than Trump, certainly more unelectable than either Dukakis or Mondale.
I'm going to be watching the debate tonite, but not in VR. That is pointless. There are a lot of events suitable for testing out VR, a political debate is just about the least interesting one imaginable. Some politicians talking? How exciting.
However the more interesting thing than anything likely to be said will be the ratings when they are released. While beating the yuge numbers Trump has brought to the Republican debates is off the table, I do not rule out the Sanders effect getting numbers 50-75% the size of the CNN Republican debate. If that happens and is at the upper end of that range then Hillary is done.
More so than in some previous years its a very reactive field, for various sexism reasons the gender of the first declared veep candidate will determine the other veep candidate's gender, for example
Gotta give ya a WTF?? look on this one. If Hillary is the D choice at the top of the ticket then Carly will be the Veep choice on the R side because they really are that dumb. I am a Republican, I know how dumb our side can be. But there is zero chance of a female veep on the D side. If Hillary is tossed aside again the feminists will not be mollified by a token veep nomination who is not HIllary. No D would accept Hillary as their veep any more than Obama could be forced into it. A Clinton is simply far too dangerous to have that close. The only scenario that has even been floated is the Biden + Warren with Biden making a one term promise leaving Warren a clear path to hammering home a five term Democrat dynasty. But that is just fanboy yearning, not a very viable political plan. And Warren's gender isn't the central appeal of her candidacy like it is with Mrs. Clinton.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:52PM
Ah that was based on the polling observation that Any-R wins in November if they're up against Hillary so aside from some kind of viking funeral of pushing her off into the sunset to retire her for good and get her out of the way, there's no way she goes up as nominee. I agree she's not going to tolerate a vp spot.
The other observation is if the last one was about getting a black guy in office this one is about getting a woman and Hilary is un electable and none of the other female candidates stand a chance as nominee in the polls, HOWEVER theres binders full of women on both sides as veep possibilities.
I don't think Sanders really is all that un electable, polls show him more electable than Hillary, so I could see him and Warren. They might be the first -D I've ever voted for.
Meanwhile in Ethanol post I proposed a great female -R governor of OK running mate for Trump, former real estate / mgmt yet plenty of big gov experience... I could see it. The city slicker and the rural resident... it could work...
You know who's missing, both sides, this time around, is anyone with any foreign policy ideas or experience.
As a meta observation "supposedly it would be better not to mix tech and politics" but here we are, and I'm mystified how either The Debate or our little discussion here would benefit by wearing VR headsets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @03:40PM
You know who's missing, both sides, this time around, is anyone with any foreign policy ideas or experience.
I'm personally more concerned with domestic policy than foreign, but I believe one of the candidates was Secretary of State. That job may just involve a little bit of foreign policy experience...
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:58PM
political 'debates' don't happen in the US. not sure they ever did, but they certainly don't now.
100% waste of everyone's time.
no REAL important questions are allowed. this is all a 'polite' conversation where nothing real is introduced. nothing to shake up their true masters who are donating all the cash to this terrible waste of money called 'an election cycle'.
VR for this? oh come on! lipstick on a pig is more like it.
the 'candidates' will never be those that will do what is needed for the country. the 'candidates' are bought and sold by their masters and they will not talk about things that will displease their masters.
in the US, its all a farce. you guys DO know that, right? like wrestling, its fake. its not real and its certainly not honest.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @03:50PM
I look at it this way.
Think of the amount of time a candidate spends:
That tells you what kind of government we have.
My call is that it is a poorly governed Plutocracy tempered with some Democracy.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday October 13 2015, @09:19PM
I agree — while I'm short on time at the moment, I came in specifically to thank Soylent's staff for that decision. Sometimes I can enjoy political discussion, but most of the time it just devolves into frustrating exaggerations and inaccurate rhetoric... I love educating people, not arguing with individuals whose internal identities are too tied to their political affiliation or belief in how the world works to consider whether some of the information they have might be wrong. :-/
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 13 2015, @07:25PM
Get in line sheeple! Do as you're told!
And, uh, check out my new journal [soylentnews.org]!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday October 13 2015, @01:55PM
Once downloaded, the debate can be seen from the perspective of an audience member at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
The only way I'm loading up a VR of that, is if its the plot for a pr0n video. And no I don't want to see Hilary in my pr0n. Just sayin its creative in its own crazy way as quite possibly the last thing I ever would have thought I'd want to see in VR. I mean, the stuff on /b/ would be more appealing, at least on average.
On a slight tangent, with respect to Gorilla Arms, obviously I don't want a Hollywood VR hand controller, that has negative appeal to me. But is there an analogy with neck/back pain and a head mounted display? So I probably don't want a HMD either. With position sensors the same idiot UI designers that brought us 2015 apps and web pages and OSes are going to give us whiplash and concussions, or without sensors a HMD seems a recipe for seasickness. Once you get rid of inferior peripherals, you basically have a cam .torrent as opposed to a real rip of the debate. So why do I want a bad cam of the debate?
Something rather confusing about the marketing stunt is I googled around and the hardware isn't shipping... so they inked a deal years ago and shipping dates have been pushed back such that a couple dev kit owners might be able to use it, thats about it. So that is kinda funny.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:07PM
Wait, it can be seen only from one perspective? So that's not VR, that's just 3D. VR would mean you can walk around and watch the event from different places.
What about integrating a feedback mechanism, where you get a virtual gun to shoot down the candidates you don't like? The candidate getting the fewest shots then is declared the winner. ;-)
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:21PM
Its not even 3-d if they're far enough away that your vision can't do the parallax thing. Which is pretty nearby. The exact word you're probably looking for is panorama...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:45PM
As long as it works in 360 degrees so that I could look down at my lap when I invariably start to nod off.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:37PM
VR would mean you can walk around and watch the event from different places.
For a live event Spherical Video is as good as you're going to get until you come up with a volumetric video camera.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:35PM
That's no reason to mislabel it as virtual reality.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:55PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @01:05PM
Well, in that case I'm going to call my old CRT a 3D TV, because after all it behaves just like the 2D screen in a cinema, where the cinema itself is of course 3D even though the fils it shows are 2D.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday October 14 2015, @02:07PM
VR is about putting you somewhere, not about you flying around like a ghost.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @01:59PM
This application won't change your mind.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:39PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:16PM
How about a Bullshit Meter across the bottom of the screen?
Years ago, 1 of the networks gave some folks a gadget and told them to twist the dial to show how interested they were in what was being said at that moment.
The results were shown onscreen as a graph.
A Veracity Gauge, with the judging done by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR.org) would be even better.
Of course, with the Reds, the thing would be uninteresting, as it would be constantly pegged.
The Blues might be a bit more interesting--but I wouldn't put any money on that.
Watching Bernie talk about The Working Class[1] and the class war[1] and wealth distribution[1] and seeing how that was judged could be a whole new experience for many USAians who are used to Lamestream Media's stream of lies and who aren't even aware of LSM's omissions that go without comment by other "journalists".
[1] With CNN's panel of Reactionaries doing the questioning (not 1 Progressive in the bunch), it would be especially interesting to see how Bernie could work in those ideas in his responses.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday October 13 2015, @09:41PM
You'd be surprised. When I told my 64-year-old mother about it, she started excitedly talking about how cool it is and how she can't wait for prices to come down enough to get one, even though she's never expressed any interest in owning one before. There's probably a lot of people out there that are uninterested in gaming or online interaction that would love to be able to witness events related to their interests, especially if it's a major historic moment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:01PM
So the candidates are not actually real?
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday October 13 2015, @07:39PM
So the candidates are not actually real?
No they are not real. Their positions are not real (results of polls), their persona's are not real (result of focus groups), nothing about them is genuine. Maybe some "outsider" can have some genuine aspects, but years in Washington will take care of those soon enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @09:42PM
Their positions are not real [...]
Pepper's ghost?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:13PM
I hope they contain themselves. If the VR recording gets too accurate, everyone will scald to death from all the hot air.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:46PM
I guess this is the thread to comment on the audience.
1) Whats the point, if you look at who will be able to view, they're in a demographic that either always votes -D or doesn't vote at all, but they're small of a population that its not energizing the base or converting undecideds or really doing anything politically. So its a product advertisement, not a political strategy.
This is even weirder as the stereotypical VR fan or video game hardware buyer doesn't have much (any?) overlap with white male senior citizens who watch FOX and CNN. So I don't think Grandpa Simpson screaming at his TV is really in the market to buy a google glass goggle gadget or WTF its called anyway.
2) Lots of commentary for a couple generations about how blurry analogy 2-D TV changed debates and politics forever when bearded sweaty Nixon tried to debate metrosexual JFK on TV and the liberated women voters were only interested in who looked more Alpha on TV. I'm sure VR or 3-d panoramas or WTF will have some gut level of impact along those lines. I'm not even sure what to say about it beyond its more likely to drag the intellectual level of the debate lower rather than higher, at least based on past history. Would seeing Hillary in 4K tomorrow make me even less likely to vote for her than in HDTV today vs old fashioned NTSC SD video the last time I wouldn't vote for her? Just.... ugh. It just seems inappropriate, like having a smell-o-vision feed of the lincoln memorial is supposed to mean something, well, no, really it means nothing, or nothing good.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:07PM
Don't worry so much about it. Every aspect of American elections are broken, not just the debates.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:43PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:26PM
That's the easiest thing in the world: If they are a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate, they are corrupt. Full stop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:52PM
If you see a television ad for them, they're corrupt.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:38PM
But then, voting is easy: Just look for the name you don't know, and vote for that one.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:28PM
they're in a demographic that either always votes -D
Then it actually is an argument for this being a good test. You are saying that a large percentage of the installed base would be interested in watching it and that as it is a primary debate they would possibly be the ones picking a candidate based on the performance instead of watching it with a view of live tweeting snarky comments.
But really. Who is going to watch this thing live with a VR headset on for two hours? With the headset on you will pretty much be trapped there for the duration with no distractions. I'll watch but 'tape delayed' on my MythTV so as to be able to minimize my expose to the toxic levels of stupid all of these debates release. At least CNN won't be running this one as a demolition derby or WWE match. If you had watched that last one with take a drink every time a moderator began with "Trump said..." and ended with "..would you like to respond to him now." you would have passed out in the first half.
(Score: 1) by hojo on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:20PM
I picked up a Cardboard headset (a holder for my Galaxy S4 phone) for $15 from Amazon and it works fine.
If they made this stream compatible with that, I would give it a whirl. No way am I shelling out significant bucks for a Samsung specific headset to watch CSPAN type stuff, though.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @02:34PM
In Smell-O-Vision. But all you will smell is B.S. with an occasional whiff of vodka.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @03:37PM
Finally, convergence of the US and Russian political systems
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 13 2015, @05:58PM
Arguably we crossed paths around the turn of the century and we're more socially progressive and state controlled than the commies were when I was a kid, whereas Russia is now freer and more capitalist than we are. Certainly Communist China is. Definitely the current Russian leader is a stronger more masculine rugged individualist than we've had in power for some long time. Crazy huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @08:57PM
Hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 13 2015, @04:34PM
I dunno, this article does seem like fair game to me on Soylent, without even needing to go to the "Stuff That Matters" we usually cite when people complain about non-tech articles. Technology is a human construct, and how humanity uses technology should be interesting to every technologist who wants to design and create useful technology. Seeing VR employed in an American presidential debate is definitely a golden opportunity for that, because it doesn't get any more high profile than that.
Do I personally give a crap about seeing Hillary Clinton in VR? No, because I have spoken to her in person and that was plenty, thank you very much. Do I care about anything she or the other candidates say? Nope, I've stopped caring because they are irrelevant. But I am interested in watching the reaction of non-technical people to the use of VR. Will it be a giant 'meh,' or a Wizard of Oz moment when Dorothy emerges from the tornado-deposited house into a world of color?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13 2015, @10:10PM
If it were in real time, it would be possible, technically, for members of the VR-equipped audience to be provided with a telepresence [soylentnews.org] so they could speak with the candidates. Edward Snowden [soylentnews.org] could join in.
Of course my fantasy is very different from what really happens [democracynow.org] at these debates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:32AM
I checked it out. The potential was there for it to be interesting. As much for the audience and other behind the scenes action as for the actual debate itself.
Live stream cutting out to catch up kills VR more than regular video. The camera angles were too far away and the candidates were pixel blobs. I didn't bother sticking around for long, but it was an interesting moment.