You'll be able to get a cheap second hand one from parents selling the unit they bought for their kid, who ended up spray-painting the wall with spaghetti hoops.
Most VR sickness isn't caused by latency or frame rate, it's the conflict between what the vestibular system thinks is happening and what the visual system thinks is happening. It's like a reverse-engineered inner ear infection. I have found the symptoms reduce to almost zero in a game like Elite Dangerous, where most of the pixels on screen are black. The combination of dense occlusion and motion however, gives me intense nausea.
Note this was my experience with the DK II. I'm willing to believe the new version will be better but I very much doubt it'll alleviate the problem or make the symptoms go away simply because it cannot change basic physiology.
My experience with a DK II (sitting on my desk) is intense nausea in any scenario that includes a fairly high pixel density (half the screen isn't black) and motion. So for example, I'm fine playing Elite Dangerous until I go into one of those spinning stations but almost everything else makes me want to throw - and I remain in that state for a good few hours after use.
The problem is mostly to do with the Vestibular System, i.e. there's no frame-rate or head tracking latency solution (in other words, I don't believe the problem can be solved for a head mounted display alone). However, there are individual differences in susceptibility, which may explain your experience.
I wouldn't extend it to experimental physics, where the constraints are so strong. I would be sceptical by default with this study however, simply because there are cycles in the physical processes involved that can be longer than the lifetime of the researcher.
You'd be surprised how many don't think about these things in their rush to publish and get publicity (funding) for their work. The scientific world is full to overflowing with bullshit. I note with interest it's now thought that eating an egg for breakfast won't give me heart problems. Fantastic news.
How often has he flown over the trees and made these measurements? Just this once? Every year for the last ten years? Every year for the past 50 years? Every year for the past 500 years?
On the other hand, the point of this "pork barrel" may be to maintain an aerospace skills base and industrial capability. This is what defence R&D budgets are for and it's why so many pointless systems are paid for and then discarded by the military. A military industrial base in a vital interest.
How sweet. Also extremely naïve and a complete straw man. Science cannot have an agenda. It's a noun. However, people and institutions can have agendas which range from simply needing to pay their mortgage or gain tenure, to promoting a political position (activism). This is the basis of the complete misnomer that is the skepticalscience website. A real sceptic can be found here for example, or here. The former is the guy who debunked Michael Mann's statistical shenanigans that made the medieval warm period "disappear".
And Ted Cruz? He's a politician. Too slick by half. I doubt his authenticity. He has an agenda.
Who's going to study or publish papers rubbishing this stuff? Someone who wants tenure? Someone keen to attract government money to his institution? It's interesting, isn't it, that most sceptics (Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen are rare exceptions) are retired academics.
With respect to models not matching the actual temperature rise, here's a paper. Does that sate your lust, or are you going to find a reason to dismiss it because it goes against your already strongly held opinions?
I mean 10 years ago it stated a different, higher temperature increase in future for a doubling of CO2. Today that temperature is far lower. They lower it with each report. Why? Because actual data confounds their previous predictions. Eventually they'll find the minima and I expect that to be between 1 and 1.5C. Note: this is not a catastrophic temperature increase.
Now more importantly the debate is so political today especially in the US (I'm from the UK where although it is political, it's not quite so left-right) that it's very hard to disambiguate the truth from the gigantic wall of bullshit erected by every pressure group, vested interest (there are plenty on both sides), institutional press-release (spin) and outright fraud. Cook's 97% paper for example, was an absolute disgrace yet it's quoted by pretty much everyone from the President of the United States to the ignoramuses writing comment columns in national newspapers. When the truth eventually emerges, how much damage will have been done to public trust in scientific integrity? I suspect quite a lot.
I'm already reeling from being told eating a boiled egg every morning isn't going to kill me, or that over 75% of all psychology papers cannot be replicated.
Seriously? The idiotic study that didn't take into account tuning of the models with past data? How do the models do if you take today's data and hindcast? The Guardian, Post and SA are heavily vested in the paradigm. Of course they're going to big up that paper. Why wouldn't they?
Proof? A simple sanity check, comparing the ensembles to actual measured data is more than enough. The models run consistently hot. Of course they do. They're parametrized to run hot.
I have studied what the scientists say about this for ten years. But I've also made a point of studying what the sceptics say, looking at the model results compared to actual reality and squaring the science with the hyperbolic press and political statements. Let me tell you, there's a huge discrepancy here. It's almost as if the science is (on the whole) being manufactured to order. This isn't new. It happens in social "science" all the time.
A proper analogy would be to roll dice with hundreds of surfaces, only 3 of which you can actually see. You don't know how many surfaces there are or how big each surface is. You make predictions (getting government grants to do so of course) into the future and continually go back (hind cast) to make sure your model looks like it has skill) as actual results come in. When the model you made 10 years ago is compared to empirical data, you find it fails.
Caused by warming seas, not a warming atmosphere. Given the oceans have 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the idea that the latter is driving the former is kind-of laughable.
Government grants to institutions + the money available to speculators like Goldman Sachs through trading idiotic carbon credit schemes, makes it pretty one-sided. And then of course the energy companies themselves get in on the act, hovering up huge subsidises (again from the tax payer - notice how it's always muggins who pays the bill?) for "clean energy" and we have a winner.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll be able to get a cheap second hand one from parents selling the unit they bought for their kid, who ended up spray-painting the wall with spaghetti hoops.
Most VR sickness isn't caused by latency or frame rate, it's the conflict between what the vestibular system thinks is happening and what the visual system thinks is happening. It's like a reverse-engineered inner ear infection. I have found the symptoms reduce to almost zero in a game like Elite Dangerous, where most of the pixels on screen are black. The combination of dense occlusion and motion however, gives me intense nausea.
Note this was my experience with the DK II. I'm willing to believe the new version will be better but I very much doubt it'll alleviate the problem or make the symptoms go away simply because it cannot change basic physiology.
My experience with a DK II (sitting on my desk) is intense nausea in any scenario that includes a fairly high pixel density (half the screen isn't black) and motion. So for example, I'm fine playing Elite Dangerous until I go into one of those spinning stations but almost everything else makes me want to throw - and I remain in that state for a good few hours after use.
The problem is mostly to do with the Vestibular System, i.e. there's no frame-rate or head tracking latency solution (in other words, I don't believe the problem can be solved for a head mounted display alone). However, there are individual differences in susceptibility, which may explain your experience.
Replaced? No. All 3 are valid.
Keep drinking the cool-aid and handing out the grant money.
I wouldn't extend it to experimental physics, where the constraints are so strong. I would be sceptical by default with this study however, simply because there are cycles in the physical processes involved that can be longer than the lifetime of the researcher.
You'd be surprised how many don't think about these things in their rush to publish and get publicity (funding) for their work. The scientific world is full to overflowing with bullshit. I note with interest it's now thought that eating an egg for breakfast won't give me heart problems. Fantastic news.
Of course people like you sneered at Lehrer's Decline Effect and let's not even mention the recent study showing that fewer than half of peer-reviewed psychology studies published in reputable journals could be replicated.
The absolutely most basic skill you apparently need to learn is how to think for yourself.
How often has he flown over the trees and made these measurements? Just this once? Every year for the last ten years? Every year for the past 50 years? Every year for the past 500 years?
He has no way of knowing what "normal" is.
The Plinkett Reviews of Star Wars are as long as the movies, far more entertaining and completely hilarious.
On the other hand, the point of this "pork barrel" may be to maintain an aerospace skills base and industrial capability. This is what defence R&D budgets are for and it's why so many pointless systems are paid for and then discarded by the military. A military industrial base in a vital interest.
How sweet. Also extremely naïve and a complete straw man. Science cannot have an agenda. It's a noun. However, people and institutions can have agendas which range from simply needing to pay their mortgage or gain tenure, to promoting a political position (activism). This is the basis of the complete misnomer that is the skepticalscience website. A real sceptic can be found here for example, or here. The former is the guy who debunked Michael Mann's statistical shenanigans that made the medieval warm period "disappear".
And Ted Cruz? He's a politician. Too slick by half. I doubt his authenticity. He has an agenda.
Who's going to study or publish papers rubbishing this stuff? Someone who wants tenure? Someone keen to attract government money to his institution? It's interesting, isn't it, that most sceptics (Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen are rare exceptions) are retired academics.
With respect to models not matching the actual temperature rise, here's a paper. Does that sate your lust, or are you going to find a reason to dismiss it because it goes against your already strongly held opinions?
I mean 10 years ago it stated a different, higher temperature increase in future for a doubling of CO2. Today that temperature is far lower. They lower it with each report. Why? Because actual data confounds their previous predictions. Eventually they'll find the minima and I expect that to be between 1 and 1.5C. Note: this is not a catastrophic temperature increase.
Now more importantly the debate is so political today especially in the US (I'm from the UK where although it is political, it's not quite so left-right) that it's very hard to disambiguate the truth from the gigantic wall of bullshit erected by every pressure group, vested interest (there are plenty on both sides), institutional press-release (spin) and outright fraud. Cook's 97% paper for example, was an absolute disgrace yet it's quoted by pretty much everyone from the President of the United States to the ignoramuses writing comment columns in national newspapers. When the truth eventually emerges, how much damage will have been done to public trust in scientific integrity? I suspect quite a lot.
I'm already reeling from being told eating a boiled egg every morning isn't going to kill me, or that over 75% of all psychology papers cannot be replicated.
What, you mean apart from the fact that the IPCC has continually adjusted its measure of sensitivity to Co2 downwards?
Seriously? The idiotic study that didn't take into account tuning of the models with past data? How do the models do if you take today's data and hindcast? The Guardian, Post and SA are heavily vested in the paradigm. Of course they're going to big up that paper. Why wouldn't they?
I honestly don't care who he is or what he believes. Is his graph correct or not?
Proof? A simple sanity check, comparing the ensembles to actual measured data is more than enough. The models run consistently hot. Of course they do. They're parametrized to run hot.
A recent paper shows the majority of psychological studies aren't replicable. So you know, jog on.
I have studied what the scientists say about this for ten years. But I've also made a point of studying what the sceptics say, looking at the model results compared to actual reality and squaring the science with the hyperbolic press and political statements. Let me tell you, there's a huge discrepancy here. It's almost as if the science is (on the whole) being manufactured to order. This isn't new. It happens in social "science" all the time.
A proper analogy would be to roll dice with hundreds of surfaces, only 3 of which you can actually see. You don't know how many surfaces there are or how big each surface is. You make predictions (getting government grants to do so of course) into the future and continually go back (hind cast) to make sure your model looks like it has skill) as actual results come in. When the model you made 10 years ago is compared to empirical data, you find it fails.
Oh dear.
Caused by warming seas, not a warming atmosphere. Given the oceans have 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the idea that the latter is driving the former is kind-of laughable.
Hurricane activity has fallen over the last 30 years. Unlucky.
You don't mean everything, you mean anything.
Government grants to institutions + the money available to speculators like Goldman Sachs through trading idiotic carbon credit schemes, makes it pretty one-sided. And then of course the energy companies themselves get in on the act, hovering up huge subsidises (again from the tax payer - notice how it's always muggins who pays the bill?) for "clean energy" and we have a winner.
Elite Dangerous is good with it except... don't put it on if you plan to go planetside. Two minutes of that and I was sick for hours.