>Yep, the date on the one I cited being 4 years more recent has nothing at all to do with it.

Still no acknowledgment that the companies have, in fact, disclosed what is in their fluids.

>In my experience it's not just a head tracking issue. Just the feeling of seeing your avatar walking around in the virtual world, while your real body is stationary, was enough to cause nausea in a lot of people.

Well. You shouldn't be seeing your own avatar. Other than that, there's nothing inherently sim sickness-causing about moving around a world. You could be a tank or an airplane or a person as far as your inner ear is concerned. What *does* cause a massive amount of nausea is when you are in a FPS and you're constantly snapping your neck around to see if someone is behind you, above you, besides you, etc. But that's not necessarily sim sickness - you'll get nausea in real life if you made the same head movements. You'll also wear our your neck muscles, which is another big issue... once VR headsets weigh past a certain amount, they cause neck problems.

>Actually most of what you describe is solved. the head tracking latency is a solved problem, or at least well understood what is required to remove it as a cause for sickness

Well. A problem can be (and is) well understood without necessarily having a good solution for it.

I recall talking to Michael Abrash about how we quasi-solved it back in the day when he asked about it a couple years ago. And he was working on VR for Valve. So maybe, yeah, they solved it. But at the time he thought it was pretty much impossible to do right.

>In your experience would you say that people can adapt to sickness caused by VR over time? Does it vary?

For some people, yes. They get used to it.

For me, I actually got more nauseous over time. But we also moved between software products and switched the prediction software, which was also part of it.

The interesting thing is that the people who are most in tune with their bodies get the most sick. My boss had a friend who was a pole vaulter who put it on and got instantly sick. Whereas people who aren't really physical have an easier time with it on average.

If you have enough assets/income to worry about, you can probably afford a tax attorney, or at least an accountant who specializes in such situation. They are not terribly expensive (the people I know with oddball business situations pay a specialist accountant about $100/year to handle their taxes).

They already go through trash looking for evidence. Indeed, this is why anyone can root through trash that's in a publicly-accessable space -- because courts so ruled.

But more of a problem is -- how accurate is that DNA analysis? I knew a biologist who worked in a lab that does DNA sampling, and she said the accuracy leaves a lot to be desired. (The topic was ID'ing carriers of genetic defects in dogs, but the same principle applies.)

Source: I worked in VR 20 years ago for a defense contractor.

Sim Sickness is caused by a disconnect between what your eyes see and what your inner ear is telling you is happening. Your eyes are extremely sensitive to latency. If you snap your head quickly, even a small lag will cause a certain percentage of people to get nauseous. Having a fast and accurate motion tracking system is crucial, but you also need to have an extremely fast rendering engine and a headset capable of updating quickly as well. Motion prediction helps, also, but does not eliminate the problem. As does making sure your program doesn't require you to spin around a lot.

We can only put up with the horribly slow latencies on flat screen displays because they're not attached to our heads.

>First, there is no reason to believe that list is exhaustive. According to the page itself, it is "a partial list of the chemical constituents in additives that are used or have been used in fracturing operations."

It a comprehensive list provided by the major fracking companies as to the compounds used in the last five years.

> It was only released in 2011 in response to a congressional investigation, having been held secret for 60 years.

Yeah. Four years ago. And yet you're defending people who made these claims:

"Like the fracking example parent mentioned; nobody is able to research their methods and the compounds used, because trade secrets"

"There is no scientific literature on how nasty fracking fluid is (blatantly not just inert chemicals) because the companies using it refuse to disclose what's in it."

My purpose in posting here is to note that these claims are, in fact, factually wrong.

>Perhaps you are willing to have your dinner grown next to a factory that can hold its chemical waste secret for 60 years, and then be unable to regulate that waste for another few years or decades, waiting for someone to bother to measure their health effects.

Clearly, your logic is, "Well, ShakaUVM corrected a factual error in two posters, therefore he must hate the environment and want everyone to get cancer."

Perhaps you should think that through a little more next time.

>The point is they were widely being used before being scrutinized.

No, the point is you watched Gasland back in 2010, and thought your claim was still true today in 2015.

>Some of the compounds listed in that report (which I don't think claims to be exhaustive) are known or suspected carcinogens.

No kidding. I didn't say they were safe. I said your claim that nobody knows what is in them is wrong.

>Read: http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]

Welcome to Slashdot, where a vote by a state legislature gets moderated up higher than a congressional report detailing all the chemicals used in fracking.

>http://www.newsweek.com/theres...

Or where a person tries to cover up the fact that he got proved wrong because he hasn't checked his facts since Gasland came out in 2010 by stating, "Well, there's still more stuff we can know."

Shall we take a peek at what you originally claimed? Ah yes - "because the companies using it refuse to disclose what's in it."

Bullshit. And you know it's bullshit. Don't try to cover it up by saying, "Well, we don't know *everything* about all the chemicals". This is not the same, and you know it.

If you appear fit and nothing can be found wrong yet minimal exercise causes pounding heart and shortness of breath -- get your thyroid checked. Hypothyroidism can cause low blood sugar that's only evident during exercise.

>There is no scientific literature on how nasty fracking fluid is (blatantly not just inert chemicals) because the companies using it refuse to disclose what's in it.

That's quite simply not true.

Read: http://democrats.energycommerc...

>Like the fracking example parent mentioned; nobody is able to research their methods and the compounds used, because trade secrets.

You mean the compounds so secret that there's a wikipedia page listing them all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

They were disclosed back in 2011.

Well, I'm a copyright lawyer, so I doubt I'm "completely and totally ignorant of the law." Have you considered the possibility that your analysis is wrong?

Just thought I'd mention it, since you did make a rather broad statement suggesting that works cannot enter the public domain unless deliberately placed there by the copyright holder. While copyright holders can put works into the public domain, it's not true that that is the only way for works to enter the public domain.

"Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine."

The scenes a faire doctrine, which I don't have to google for, thanks, permits people to copy without fear of infringement, stock elements from works, which are typical, if not indispensible, for works that have a particular setting, genre, theme, etc.

In this case, where you have a show about teenagers fighting monsters with martial arts and giant robots, it would not infringe if you had a five person team, each member of which had personalities as described above, and where the members of the team were color-coded. It's simply expected of the genre, and therefore fair game, even if you copied it from another copyrighted work.

Now if the specific thing you copied was a very detailed example, and you kept all the details, you might then have a problem. So it depends on how much Power Rangers embellished on this standard device, if they did, and if so, how much of that embellishment, if any, was used in this case.

If you disagree as to my explanation, please feel free to actually say what you think the scenes a faire doctrine is.

I didn't say Disney's Peter Pan. I was talking about JM Barrie's Peter Pan, which Disney's Peter Pan is based on.

A new version of Peter Pan, based on Barrie's, could still tarnish the character well enough (if done right, and if widely published) so as to harm Disney's Peter Pan merely by association. But it would be lawful to do this. Disney's copyright on their version of Peter Pan does not extend to stopping other people from making their own derivatives of Barrie's work, even if they're very unwholesome derivatives.