Exactly. I hope that the grandparent poster takes your post seriously, because you really got to the point of the whole matter.
There's a difference between science and religion, and science cannot allow the two to be mixed, or it will no longer be science. ID proponents are trying to combine science and religion for whatever political means, and the result, Intelligent Design, is nothing but a scientifically useless bastardization. The grandparent pushes the science/religion combo all the way back to the origins of the universe, but is still making the same mistake.
Yeah well, the religious acceptance of such an act is the least of the worries of anyone attempting to commune with the dead.
The much more difficult hurdle is the physical impossibility according to current theory. That doesn't stop a lot of charlatans from fooling people, but it does stop them from being a credible source of historical information.
Offtopic? How, exactly? Let me quote the poster's sig:
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
Excellent point, IMO. I guess there's a large group of people in this country that we don't need to stock up vaccine for. They certainly don't expect a new flu strain to arise via random processes and selective pressures, do they?
Yet another example of people taking advantage of scientific knowledge while simultaneously thumbing their noses at science itself. Fuck 'em. Let's take away their cars and electricity, too.
Wow! That is cool. It'll make those "hack your xbox" writeups so much more interesting!
Their problem is that for a lot of people hacking your xbox is more fun than playing the games designed for it. In reaction, Microsoft goes to extreme measures to prevent xbox owners from modding their own property -- with the ironic result that the more "tamper proofness" they put in the more fun the "hack your xbox" game becomes. I'll bet it gets "XBox Game of the Year" from some website.
please stop pretending scientists aren't a priesthood to most people. You admitted as much when you acknowleged the 'poor science education' that most people receive.
I'm not debating the fact that most people misunderstand science. I would argue, however, that it would be benficial to the human species if most people did understand science. Science isn't a religion, it's a tool. It's a lens that we've built that allows us to analyze the world for what it is. It's a set of tricks that prevent us from fooling ourselves.
Religion doesn't have any fail-safe mechanisms. If you're wrong, there's no way to tell, which explains the huge diversity of religions that manage to coexist. Most of them claim to be mutually exclusive, but none of them have any way of showing that their version of "truth" is the most accurate. That's not surprising, though, because in religion "truth" trumps accuracy. If the "truth" put forth by the religion disagrees with physical observations, then it is the physical observations that are wrong. Science has no such truths. Science has theories. Theories are good explanations, but they do not claim to be the truth.
Of course, this gets a bit confused because of the different meanings of "truth." When I say that theories don't claim to be the truth, I mean that they don't claim to be exact representations of reality. When you say that monks devote a lifetime to "know the truth," I think you're talking about a different kind of truth. Does a monk who knows the truth understand how gravity works? Does he understand more about the physical world than someone who didn't study in a monastery? I think you can agree that the answer is no. If you ask me, the "truth" that this person finds after years of "study" is all in his own head.
Your brain has evolved to create a simulation of the world around it, for the purposes of self preservation and propagation. It is also self modifying, and with enough work you can train it to view the input it recieves in whatever way you want. It's pretty easy to live in your own little world, and even more so if you spend years in seclusion convincing yourself of the "truth." Religion is all about giving in to such delusions, and science is all about shielding ourselves from them.
Except for observation of the fossil record, right?
does not mention how everything even formed into such an organized pattern of suns and planets in the first place
Are we discussing evolution or cosmology? I'm sure they'll be integrated into a single theory eventually, but we're not there yet. If you want to discuss cosmology I would be more than happy to, but let's not confuse it with evolutionary theory.
As for "the amount of hoaxes that people still think were real to this day," does that make the other pieces of evidence from the fossil record any less valuable? It's very important to recognize hoaxes and mistakes, but that doesn't mean discounting actual evidence.
OK, now for the big misunderstanding. You say that the author "does not discuss irreducable complexity in things like the eye or the bacterial flagellum." So? Why should anybody be discussing "irreducible complexity"? Is it a theory? What exactly is irreducible complexity, and how do you show that a particular physical entity exemplifies it? (Feel free to use mathematics or computational theory. If "irreducible compexity" is to become a theory, you'll have to go there anyway.) Are you aware that the development of the bacterial flagellum has been explained by showing that its component parts were useful for other purposes before the flagellum itself developed?
I'm sure you can rattle off a list of biological developments that "haven't been explained," but that does not imply that they cannot be explained by current theory. If you found something that truly could not be explained by current theory (and nobody would be convinced until many many scientists had put in a lot of effort) then we could work on discovering a new theory. No, ID does not fit this scenario. ID is a half baked idea that its proponents want to shoehorn in even though it's not needed. We haven't found "irreducible complexity" that needs a new theory to explain it. Even if we did, ID would be the first idea to be thrown out for being a NON SCIENTIFIC conjecture. It doesn't even explain anything - it just passes the buck.
Really stand back and take a look at ID and the people that are pushing it. Look at their arguments. They're picking at all of the holes in our current scientific theories as if pointing out a missing piece will bring the whole thing tumbling down. That's just not true. Think of reality as a tall tower made of stones, and our current theories as a blueprint for the tower. Our problem is that we're making the blueprint after the fact, and we can only inspect the tower indirectly. If our blueprint only shows parts of the infinitely tall tower, does that mean that the parts that it does show are wrong? Maybe, but we can use certain criteria to determine which of the many possible blueprints is most accurate. We can make predictions based on the blueprint and test them to see if they are true. (For example, we can make predictions about the genetic makeup of different species based on their anatomical similarity. We can also make predictions about what we should find in the fossil record based on the genetic similarity of different species.) If the test results agree with the predictions, then it strengthens the blueprint. If the test results disagree, then the blueprint needs to be modified. ID proponents keep pointing out holes (many of which were filled in long ago, but they don't seem to be listening when they're told that) but they aren't pointing out any fundamental flaws in the existing parts of the blueprint. More importantly, they're not doing anything to strengthen their own blueprint - things like subjecting it to harsh criticism to see how it holds up. In fact, you never even see their blueprint, because all they do is attack the one that the scientific establishment is using. That will get them nowhere in the world of science (in fact by attacking evolutionary theory, they are only strengthening it), which is why they're using politics to push their bizarre agenda. It's disgusting.
Hence, many believers in the principles of Evolution are nothing more than than members of another religion.
Further example of the poor science education that students receive in this country.
The difference between "seeking the truth" through religion and "seeking the truth" through science is that science makes no assumption that the truth will ever be discovered. Science just seeks to constantly discover better approximations of the truth.
Religion, on the other hand, claims to already know the truth. Such an idea is obviously preposterous. Religion sticks at one idea with very little change, while the understanding of the universe that we gain through science constantly improves. They're so far apart now that it's ridiculous - science has confirmed detailed predictions about the earliest moments of the known universe, while we have religions that are still stuck on the idea that the big man in the sky made the earth and everything on it over the course of 6 days. That religion may be "seeking the truth," but they haven't made much progress over the past N millennium, have they?
Re:I agree, but think you disproved your own metap
on
PS3 To Run At 120 FPS?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, 24fps film drives me crazy during quick pans. I know you were being sarcastic, but I'm not. I don't know where the threshold lies, but it's higher than 24fps.
Obviously you haven't been following the Dovertrial. ID may make a superficial claim that it "doesn't explain who the designer is", but when its proponents are pressed on the matter it becomes immediately obvious that the "creator" they have in mind is the typical Christian God.
So, you say that the FSM "spoof" is flawed because they make reference to a specific creator? It's a more direct parody of religion itself rather than of the "Intelligent Design" shroud that creationists have created, but that's because ID is so thin that upon any brief inspection you discover that it is creationism in disguise. Anyway, the important thing about FSM is spurring discussion, like we have done here for instance. As long as we're talking about ID, do you recognize the fact that ID is not science? Have you ever heard an ID argument that wasn't merely an attack on the the theory of evolution? The reason people "keep talking about" FSM is because creationists are trying to force their supernatural beliefs into public science education! Do you realize how pissed off people are about that? We're talking about an attempt to undermine the very foundation of our society -- rational thought and logical argument!
Religious types try to blow off FSM because it cuts so close to the bone. It's a ridiculous explanation for the way the world works, and it's just as definsible as any other religion on the planet. In other words, not very.
Sorry if I sound accusatory, but I'm pretty riled up over the state of education in our country. I don't know what your position is on this whole debate, other than your opinion that the FSM parody misses the point. If you don't know much about the scientific theory of evolution, or if you end up in an argument with someone who doesn't understand it, you might find this FAQ to be very useful.
Here's to open mindedness and rational argument! May the best supported ideas win!
A:Hey, you dropped your serial in my cereal! B:Dammit, you got cereal on my serial. A:Hey... this shit is good!
Seriously, though, I remember that commercial. I also remember getting the Nintendo cereal a couple of times -- it was cool, but it wasn't very good. Couldn't compete with Apple Jacks.
I usually don't mind print ads. I never listen to radio ads (I change the station when ads come on, which means I usually settle in on NPR). I don't generally watch TV, but when I do I never watch the commercials.
When it comes to web advertising, I don't generally mind the stuff that's similar to print - the non animated ads that don't cover up the actual content. Animated GIFs and flash ads, on the other hand, are destroyed with extreme prejudice by a combination of flashblock and nuke anything. I hate trying to read while something flickers on the edge of the screen.
Exactly. You can take it home, play it, copy it, play it backwards, remix it, etc. You don't need a *contract* unless you want to do something prohibited by copyright law - like, say, distributing copies.
DRM is intended to stop the consumer from exercising many of his/her fair use rights (see "copy it" and "remix it" above). DRM does *not* stop the distribution of copies, which is actually illegal.
The last paragraph nailed it, but you missed his point. Yes, DRM does work for preventing Joe Schmo from making a copy of a movie that he bought - but it does not stop the professional criminal who wants to make 10000 copies and sell them on the black market.
Joe Schmo should be able to make copies, but can't. In fact, the black market pirate should also be allowed to make copies, but is not allowed to sell or otherwise distribute them. Trying to prevent the crime from happening is the wrong approach in this case. The individual is responsible for obeying the law, and it's up to the law to catch him if he commits a crime.
We don't have governors in our cars to prevent us from speeding, so why should we have DRM on our media to prevent us from copying it? In the end, DRM prevents legitimate use of data, but does nothing to stop the illegal sale of that data by criminals with the means (and motivation) to break the DRM.
So the problem is that you can win via modernized button mashing? Sounds like the game just needs some better enemy AI.
Think of sparring with a wiffle ball bat. It basically has no mass, so you can flail it just as fast as a bladeless controller. Are you guaranteed to win if you just flail it at a skilled opponent, or are they just going to knock your bat aside and smack you in the head?
Sure, you're not going to have the realistic feeling of mass in a swordfighting game, but if the game is properly designed then you'll still have to use some skill to hit the enemy.
Well, I forged my entry since I'm from the US. Not much luck that they'll figure out that I'm Zaphod Beeblebrox and get my prize to me.
Oh well, maybe I won't win anyway, although I think "Xbox 360 is the best thing since the previous giant scavengers roamed the Earth" was a pretty good entry.
Yeah I was counting the nunchuck buttons in my 4 button count. The small a and b buttons can't be very accessible when the controller is held vertically.
I agree with your original post, that this controller will be excellent for the casual gamer, and that you can create all kinds of really fun games that use only the main controller held in one hand.
The point that I was trying to make is that the setup shouldn't be discounted for more complex games. With the analog stick addon, I really do think you could have an exceptional FPS control setup. I also think that there is a ton of room for future improvement. You could add some more buttons to the main controller as necessary. Better yet, you could add orientation sensitivity to the secondary controller (basically a second controller with an analog stick). This would allow you to move your off hand controller (which also has your analog movement control) to position your shield or aim/fire a second weapon. Very promising, in my opinion.
I'm just speculating for fun here, but what I'm concerned about is that everybody is going to get stuck in the old-school controller mentality and try to design everything around a shell, which defeats the purpose of the new controller. I can't really judge it until I've tried it, but the idea of a radically new control standard has me pretty excited. What separates a gimmick from a revolution is software support -- now if only Nintendo would hand out dev kits to hobbyists...
If you need 27 buttons and 3 analog sticks to feel "right" playing a game, then the Revolution is not for you... and it also isn't targeted toward you.
Well, I agree with most of what you said, except for the quote above. Maybe I'm wrong, since almost all of the discussion that I've seen disagrees with my opinion, but this controller looks like a "hardcore" gamer's dream come true. Seriously, compare it to a dual shock, for example. The dual shock has 2 analog sticks, a d-pad, and 10 buttons (i'm not counting start). In the standard, out of the box config, the rev controller has 1 analog stick, 6 buttons (counting the 2 on the nunchuck, but not counting start, select, home), a d-pad, and the new position/orientation functionality.
First observation is that it has less buttons. Does it make a difference? I don't know - most ps2 games don't use all of the buttons on the controller. Nintendo could add more buttons before release, and you could certainly have a "shell" or a nunchuck with more buttons. Assuming that they don't do those things, dock them a point for number of buttons. Dock them another one because the small a and b buttons don't look very accessable when holding the controller vertically. They might only be usable when in certain "modes" - like you jump in a vehicle and turn the controller on its side to use as a steering wheel.
Now the big difference - 2nd analog stick vs. position/orientation. Will it work? I say yes. In fact, I think it will blow existing control setups out of the water completely. There's a lot of speculation about new kinds of games that you could play with the controller, but it looks like the perfect controller for existing games - especially the FPS. I think a lot of people are hesitant to try something new, but this thing could revolutionize the console FPS. If you have a hard time picturing it, here's my imagination of how it would work:
1. Analog stick is WASD, basically your move forward/back/left/right/diagonal. Just like WASD on a keyboard/mouse setup, only analog. 2. You use the revolution controller to freelook, but it works differently from a mouse. Assume you have a crosshair on the screen. There's a region that takes up most of the center of the screen where pointing the controller moves the crosshair without moving your view. Your character's hand moves to point to the target, but the torso does not rotate. 3. When you point outside of that region (including completely off of the screen), your view rotates at a rate proportional to how far from the center you're pointing. The crosshair, however, never moves outside of the center region. In other words, you can still shoot at things on the screen while your view is rotating. This allows you to immediately point and shoot at anything on the screen, and also to circle strafe, which is an absolute requirement for the modern FPS. 4. The best part, though, and the huge advantage over the dual shock, is when using melee weapons. Hold down the melee button (say A, maybe - B is obviously the Fire button) and your controller is your melee weapon. You go from a 1 button control that makes your character take a swing, to a piece of plastic in your hand that you can whack somebody with!
I don't know if you can see it, but I can picture kicking some major ass with that setup... it's all in my imagination, though, so if you see any flaws in the setup then point them out. As you can tell I'm pretty stoked about the controller, but I'm not a fanboy that can't discuss the tradeoffs. It certainly has room to grow, but that just makes it that much more exciting - think of what this kind of controller could do in a generation or two!
Yeah circle strafing would be the trick. I bet you could have the crosshair stop short of the edge of the screen, so you could still fire while rotating (and using the analog stick for WASD).
This could be a kickass FPS machine -- especially when you hold down the "melee" trigger and smack people around with the controller.
Exactly. Top it all off with the fact that the Revolution graphics will probably be just as good anyway -- they're just not lying about the console's performance like MS and Sony are... take this, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between science and religion, and science cannot allow the two to be mixed, or it will no longer be science. ID proponents are trying to combine science and religion for whatever political means, and the result, Intelligent Design, is nothing but a scientifically useless bastardization. The grandparent pushes the science/religion combo all the way back to the origins of the universe, but is still making the same mistake.
Sombebody mod the parent up, please.
The much more difficult hurdle is the physical impossibility according to current theory. That doesn't stop a lot of charlatans from fooling people, but it does stop them from being a credible source of historical information.
Yet another example of people taking advantage of scientific knowledge while simultaneously thumbing their noses at science itself. Fuck 'em. Let's take away their cars and electricity, too.
When the data is parsed by humans, you can sometimes leave out the opening tag to build suspense and/or humor.
</smarm>
Their problem is that for a lot of people hacking your xbox is more fun than playing the games designed for it. In reaction, Microsoft goes to extreme measures to prevent xbox owners from modding their own property -- with the ironic result that the more "tamper proofness" they put in the more fun the "hack your xbox" game becomes. I'll bet it gets "XBox Game of the Year" from some website.
That's been my strategy, but I'm afraid that a lot of "less careful" gamers are being lured in by the bait.
Religion doesn't have any fail-safe mechanisms. If you're wrong, there's no way to tell, which explains the huge diversity of religions that manage to coexist. Most of them claim to be mutually exclusive, but none of them have any way of showing that their version of "truth" is the most accurate. That's not surprising, though, because in religion "truth" trumps accuracy. If the "truth" put forth by the religion disagrees with physical observations, then it is the physical observations that are wrong. Science has no such truths. Science has theories. Theories are good explanations, but they do not claim to be the truth.
Of course, this gets a bit confused because of the different meanings of "truth." When I say that theories don't claim to be the truth, I mean that they don't claim to be exact representations of reality. When you say that monks devote a lifetime to "know the truth," I think you're talking about a different kind of truth. Does a monk who knows the truth understand how gravity works? Does he understand more about the physical world than someone who didn't study in a monastery? I think you can agree that the answer is no. If you ask me, the "truth" that this person finds after years of "study" is all in his own head.
Your brain has evolved to create a simulation of the world around it, for the purposes of self preservation and propagation. It is also self modifying, and with enough work you can train it to view the input it recieves in whatever way you want. It's pretty easy to live in your own little world, and even more so if you spend years in seclusion convincing yourself of the "truth." Religion is all about giving in to such delusions, and science is all about shielding ourselves from them.
As for "the amount of hoaxes that people still think were real to this day," does that make the other pieces of evidence from the fossil record any less valuable? It's very important to recognize hoaxes and mistakes, but that doesn't mean discounting actual evidence.
OK, now for the big misunderstanding. You say that the author "does not discuss irreducable complexity in things like the eye or the bacterial flagellum." So? Why should anybody be discussing "irreducible complexity"? Is it a theory? What exactly is irreducible complexity, and how do you show that a particular physical entity exemplifies it? (Feel free to use mathematics or computational theory. If "irreducible compexity" is to become a theory, you'll have to go there anyway.) Are you aware that the development of the bacterial flagellum has been explained by showing that its component parts were useful for other purposes before the flagellum itself developed?
I'm sure you can rattle off a list of biological developments that "haven't been explained," but that does not imply that they cannot be explained by current theory. If you found something that truly could not be explained by current theory (and nobody would be convinced until many many scientists had put in a lot of effort) then we could work on discovering a new theory. No, ID does not fit this scenario. ID is a half baked idea that its proponents want to shoehorn in even though it's not needed. We haven't found "irreducible complexity" that needs a new theory to explain it. Even if we did, ID would be the first idea to be thrown out for being a NON SCIENTIFIC conjecture. It doesn't even explain anything - it just passes the buck.
Really stand back and take a look at ID and the people that are pushing it. Look at their arguments. They're picking at all of the holes in our current scientific theories as if pointing out a missing piece will bring the whole thing tumbling down. That's just not true. Think of reality as a tall tower made of stones, and our current theories as a blueprint for the tower. Our problem is that we're making the blueprint after the fact, and we can only inspect the tower indirectly. If our blueprint only shows parts of the infinitely tall tower, does that mean that the parts that it does show are wrong? Maybe, but we can use certain criteria to determine which of the many possible blueprints is most accurate. We can make predictions based on the blueprint and test them to see if they are true. (For example, we can make predictions about the genetic makeup of different species based on their anatomical similarity. We can also make predictions about what we should find in the fossil record based on the genetic similarity of different species.) If the test results agree with the predictions, then it strengthens the blueprint. If the test results disagree, then the blueprint needs to be modified. ID proponents keep pointing out holes (many of which were filled in long ago, but they don't seem to be listening when they're told that) but they aren't pointing out any fundamental flaws in the existing parts of the blueprint. More importantly, they're not doing anything to strengthen their own blueprint - things like subjecting it to harsh criticism to see how it holds up. In fact, you never even see their blueprint, because all they do is attack the one that the scientific establishment is using. That will get them nowhere in the world of science (in fact by attacking evolutionary theory, they are only strengthening it), which is why they're using politics to push their bizarre agenda. It's disgusting.
The difference between "seeking the truth" through religion and "seeking the truth" through science is that science makes no assumption that the truth will ever be discovered. Science just seeks to constantly discover better approximations of the truth.
Religion, on the other hand, claims to already know the truth. Such an idea is obviously preposterous. Religion sticks at one idea with very little change, while the understanding of the universe that we gain through science constantly improves. They're so far apart now that it's ridiculous - science has confirmed detailed predictions about the earliest moments of the known universe, while we have religions that are still stuck on the idea that the big man in the sky made the earth and everything on it over the course of 6 days. That religion may be "seeking the truth," but they haven't made much progress over the past N millennium, have they?
So, you say that the FSM "spoof" is flawed because they make reference to a specific creator? It's a more direct parody of religion itself rather than of the "Intelligent Design" shroud that creationists have created, but that's because ID is so thin that upon any brief inspection you discover that it is creationism in disguise. Anyway, the important thing about FSM is spurring discussion, like we have done here for instance. As long as we're talking about ID, do you recognize the fact that ID is not science? Have you ever heard an ID argument that wasn't merely an attack on the the theory of evolution? The reason people "keep talking about" FSM is because creationists are trying to force their supernatural beliefs into public science education! Do you realize how pissed off people are about that? We're talking about an attempt to undermine the very foundation of our society -- rational thought and logical argument!
Religious types try to blow off FSM because it cuts so close to the bone. It's a ridiculous explanation for the way the world works, and it's just as definsible as any other religion on the planet. In other words, not very.
Sorry if I sound accusatory, but I'm pretty riled up over the state of education in our country. I don't know what your position is on this whole debate, other than your opinion that the FSM parody misses the point. If you don't know much about the scientific theory of evolution, or if you end up in an argument with someone who doesn't understand it, you might find this FAQ to be very useful.
Here's to open mindedness and rational argument! May the best supported ideas win!
Total assholes, I tell you.
B:Dammit, you got cereal on my serial.
A:Hey... this shit is good!
Seriously, though, I remember that commercial. I also remember getting the Nintendo cereal a couple of times -- it was cool, but it wasn't very good. Couldn't compete with Apple Jacks.
When it comes to web advertising, I don't generally mind the stuff that's similar to print - the non animated ads that don't cover up the actual content. Animated GIFs and flash ads, on the other hand, are destroyed with extreme prejudice by a combination of flashblock and nuke anything. I hate trying to read while something flickers on the edge of the screen.
OK, maybe that was 5c.
DRM is intended to stop the consumer from exercising many of his/her fair use rights (see "copy it" and "remix it" above). DRM does *not* stop the distribution of copies, which is actually illegal.
Down with the DMCA!!!
Joe Schmo should be able to make copies, but can't. In fact, the black market pirate should also be allowed to make copies, but is not allowed to sell or otherwise distribute them. Trying to prevent the crime from happening is the wrong approach in this case. The individual is responsible for obeying the law, and it's up to the law to catch him if he commits a crime.
We don't have governors in our cars to prevent us from speeding, so why should we have DRM on our media to prevent us from copying it? In the end, DRM prevents legitimate use of data, but does nothing to stop the illegal sale of that data by criminals with the means (and motivation) to break the DRM.
In that sense, DRM does not work.
Think of sparring with a wiffle ball bat. It basically has no mass, so you can flail it just as fast as a bladeless controller. Are you guaranteed to win if you just flail it at a skilled opponent, or are they just going to knock your bat aside and smack you in the head?
Sure, you're not going to have the realistic feeling of mass in a swordfighting game, but if the game is properly designed then you'll still have to use some skill to hit the enemy.
Oh well, maybe I won't win anyway, although I think "Xbox 360 is the best thing since the previous giant scavengers roamed the Earth" was a pretty good entry.
I agree with your original post, that this controller will be excellent for the casual gamer, and that you can create all kinds of really fun games that use only the main controller held in one hand.
The point that I was trying to make is that the setup shouldn't be discounted for more complex games. With the analog stick addon, I really do think you could have an exceptional FPS control setup. I also think that there is a ton of room for future improvement. You could add some more buttons to the main controller as necessary. Better yet, you could add orientation sensitivity to the secondary controller (basically a second controller with an analog stick). This would allow you to move your off hand controller (which also has your analog movement control) to position your shield or aim/fire a second weapon. Very promising, in my opinion.
I'm just speculating for fun here, but what I'm concerned about is that everybody is going to get stuck in the old-school controller mentality and try to design everything around a shell, which defeats the purpose of the new controller. I can't really judge it until I've tried it, but the idea of a radically new control standard has me pretty excited. What separates a gimmick from a revolution is software support -- now if only Nintendo would hand out dev kits to hobbyists...
First observation is that it has less buttons. Does it make a difference? I don't know - most ps2 games don't use all of the buttons on the controller. Nintendo could add more buttons before release, and you could certainly have a "shell" or a nunchuck with more buttons. Assuming that they don't do those things, dock them a point for number of buttons. Dock them another one because the small a and b buttons don't look very accessable when holding the controller vertically. They might only be usable when in certain "modes" - like you jump in a vehicle and turn the controller on its side to use as a steering wheel.
Now the big difference - 2nd analog stick vs. position/orientation. Will it work? I say yes. In fact, I think it will blow existing control setups out of the water completely. There's a lot of speculation about new kinds of games that you could play with the controller, but it looks like the perfect controller for existing games - especially the FPS. I think a lot of people are hesitant to try something new, but this thing could revolutionize the console FPS. If you have a hard time picturing it, here's my imagination of how it would work:
1. Analog stick is WASD, basically your move forward/back/left/right/diagonal. Just like WASD on a keyboard/mouse setup, only analog.
2. You use the revolution controller to freelook, but it works differently from a mouse. Assume you have a crosshair on the screen. There's a region that takes up most of the center of the screen where pointing the controller moves the crosshair without moving your view. Your character's hand moves to point to the target, but the torso does not rotate.
3. When you point outside of that region (including completely off of the screen), your view rotates at a rate proportional to how far from the center you're pointing. The crosshair, however, never moves outside of the center region. In other words, you can still shoot at things on the screen while your view is rotating. This allows you to immediately point and shoot at anything on the screen, and also to circle strafe, which is an absolute requirement for the modern FPS.
4. The best part, though, and the huge advantage over the dual shock, is when using melee weapons. Hold down the melee button (say A, maybe - B is obviously the Fire button) and your controller is your melee weapon. You go from a 1 button control that makes your character take a swing, to a piece of plastic in your hand that you can whack somebody with!
I don't know if you can see it, but I can picture kicking some major ass with that setup... it's all in my imagination, though, so if you see any flaws in the setup then point them out. As you can tell I'm pretty stoked about the controller, but I'm not a fanboy that can't discuss the tradeoffs. It certainly has room to grow, but that just makes it that much more exciting - think of what this kind of controller could do in a generation or two!
This could be a kickass FPS machine -- especially when you hold down the "melee" trigger and smack people around with the controller.
Even better!