I use tvrss (which aggregates EZTV and others), but otherwise same here.
XBMC FTW.
I would pay for this service, but I can't find anyone providing it legally. Won't anyone provide it for me? Someone smart stands to make a lot of money here.
I feel ripped off when I can beat the whole game, and there is nothing left offered. Do I get mad that I can't beat Ninja Gaiden Black on master? No, because I can beat it on normal, and given enough time, probably even on hard.
Games these days are unequivocally too easy because they want to appeal to the largest audience possible. But a game that doesn't offer more to an advanced player above and beyond the standard game, THAT'S the game that's ripping you off, not the other way around. A game should offer enjoyment to people of all skill levels, savant included.
Plus, many areas don't even have the choice between DSL and cable. When there are so few competitors (and there will never be a ton of competitors in typical suburban America, just due to the difficulty of laying a network), regulation is necessary to keep companies honest.
Also, it should be noted, even though its probably obvious, that the bill does appear to specifically allow broadband companies to continue "tiered access" so far as speed and bandwidth is concerned (charging more for more bandwidth).
Another clause I found interesting is the specific prohibition of forcing a customer to purchase another service in order to get broadband.
Yes. Half of my current enjoyment of FF:XII is wandering around and finding the areas that will level my characters fastest so I can always be a little overpowered for the main story line.
I don't know if they're reacting to the game itself or to its (most definitely misinformed) reaction in the public. But misinformed or not, the reason they state for not carrying this game just happens to be true. I played 4 hours or so of the game last night and it most certainly "touches on a sensitive issue -- violence in school." Overblown in the media? You bet. But the simple fact of it is this game has plenty of violence in it. No guns, sure. No one dies, sure. But I've beat up like 20 kids already with pretty much no consequences. Some people in the community might, and justifiably so, take offense to that.
It should also be noted that a good number of these beatings were required to progress in the game.
That said, I don't feel as if the US rating of "T for Teen" is wrong. I understand the rating is even a little stiffer in the UK.
The concepts you've listed are just example of unfair, poorly implemented, or downright Orwellian DRM. You fail to discredit concept of DRM itself. Are you saying that because DRM has potential for abuse, it should be banned altogether?
You, and all of the other detractors I've heard, fail to address the rights of the company to protect their own intellectual property. Do they not have that right? That's the real issue I would like some answers on.
(Sorry to play such devil's advocate here, but I really don't think anyone's thinking this through.)
You cannot technically DRM protect content in a way which will allow legal fair use for the purchaser of the product.....period.
That's true only if "fair use" can't be specifically defined. If you think "fair use" is this nebulous concept that is different for every person out there, then sure DRM is an impossible concept. But by saying "fair use" can't be specifically defined you're saying: "Hey copyright holders! You can't enforce your <distain>laws</distain> because you don't know if 'fair use' for me means 10 copies or 1,000 copies or 1,000,000 copies."
You're basically invalidating the copyright altogether by refusing to put definate numbers on "fair use". If you do, then DRM becomes very possible indeed.
So far as being able to play music on a "device of [one's] choosing", I would say that if a content provider that alows you to convert your purchased product to a standard, DRM free medium (audio CD), they're being more than fair. They can't be expected to accommodate every device out there. Not to mention the argument that you are agreeing to their terms of purchace, and they can tell you to use whatever device they damn well please. Again, the free market agument comes into play. If you don't like it you're welcome to go to a competitor. None of this is really about the inherent concept of DRM though. Its all about whether a company is using DRM fairly or not.
See, to me, the senario you put forth would be a clear case of abuse of DRM. It's true people need to be aware of systems that are so unfaily restrictive. But this isn't a problem with DRM itself. The problem is the company abusing a technology to try and screw the consumer. This is a free market after all, and there are companies out there that treat you much better than that. Consumers know this and there's a reason Apple is the runaway leader in the digital music market.
Would some one please explain...
on
The Day Against DRM
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Would some one please explain what exactly it wrong with DRM? If you have a problem with concept of copyrights in general, then I can understand. But is there anyone out there that is cool with copyrights, but thinks DRM is bad?
I'm not trying to be an apologist for the corporations. I know they don't care about the art or the artist, only money. That's given. But do they not have a right to protect their intellectual property? Are the detractors of DRM against the concept of intellectual property altogether?
The way I see it is there is nothing wrong with the concept of DRM, only with the abuse of DRM. Is this a "slippery slope" argument?
I'm serious in my plea here. Someone please fill me in on what I am missing!
The only reason you say that is you are a graphics nut.
No. Eye candy doesn't matter for shit. The interface could be all in text and keyboard based for all I care. The only thing that matters is presenting the user with an intuitive toolset that makes performing their day to day tasks simple and non-intrusive. Its not about being a "graphics nut," its about presenting things in the best way possible to your audience. A UI should be natural.
The UI doesn't make the OS, the experience does and part of the experience is performance, stability, reliability, trust, installation, safety and overall getting the job done and making it easy to do so.
I agree with performance and stability, but those are givens aren't they? If a UI runs slowly, taking up all the CPU cycles, and blocks the user from performing their task, it fails as a UI. If the system crashes, well, I mean that's a failure of the OS altogether isn't it? No feature in the world matters at that point. Whether your installation process is good or not, again, all comes down to UI. Does the user have to type a bunch of commands to install? No? It's a pleasent looking series of screens that guides them throught the process you say? Again, UI is key. If its confusing, or conveluded, the user simply isn't going to care how fast it runs, because they won't be able to figure out how to run it!
Vista has all of the eye candy you can want and if you don't like it, it is entirely replaceable now that there is an actual window manager.
Again, its not about eye candy, its about how well the system allows me to access my applications and documents. Thats it. Thats the purpose of a computer.
So to discount the OS on the default GUI is to falsely discount the OS because out of the factory it doesn't give you a woody and to also say the bling is all that matters is to discount what computers are designed to do in the first place, get the job done and i'm sorry eye candy doesn't get the job done, just makes it more appealing.
Again, you miss my entire point. But I've reiterated it several times already. UI is not bling nor is it about inducing erections. Its about getting the hell out of my way while I try to get my work done. If its really good, it might even help me get my work done.
Ok, sure, there's tons of new stuff in Vista. Cool. But I'm so sick of people discounting UI like its just one among many feature. UI is the only feature that matters. I think techies loose sight of the fact that most people don't care about "features" like "Service hardening" or "Windows Defender." That stuff is just confusing and people wonder why they need to be bothered with it. All people want is a way to get to thier applications and a way to find, organize, and work with their documents. You know. Work. Productivity. What most people use a computer for. UI is 99% of the story when it comes to those functions.
Additional, built in apps are great. But they're just that: apps. OSX has great ones, and it looks like Vista is adding a bunch of new/upgraded ones. But for people (most of us) who just do Photoshop, or Dreamweaver, or MS Word, or whatever it is we do all day, all these little apps are just icing and not really part of the core computer-using experience.
I'll say it again, because it can't be said enough: UI is the only really important thing in an operating system. If you fail there, your OS is all icing and no cake.
Its impossible to speak about something like this in any sort of definitive, because in essence, it all comes down to opinion. But there are alot of definatives that surround the issue of the XP theme.
One thing that more of us might agree on is that it's definately an interface designed to appeal to a wider audience. Microsoft likes its bright colors because those appeal to the older generation who are still of the mindset: "more colors = better." There are two problems with this. First, here in a slashdot context, we are not the general population. Most of us found this new "candy" style pretty condesending. Second, the "more colors style" goes starkly agains conventional wisdom of almost a full cenury of futurism and the expected styles that are contianed therein. People generally don't see bright colors as a sign of "futuristic high tech," a trait that our society would see as a positive when they're dropping money in a computer store.
Another big problem with the XP theme is that it added very little, if anything at all, to the actual unsability of the the user interface. It was just an ugly coat of paint, like that one fucia house two blocks over. (You know the one.) All functionality was still in the same place, at best just rearanged within the same window.
Definatives aside, if we do come back to nothing more than opinion, we can only turn to experts in that particular field to find some sort of authority. This again turns out of favor of the older interface over the XP one. In my 6 years working in various design houses, I've yet to see a designer, web or otherwise, that prefered the "candy" interface over the clean greys of the old Win2K style. Outside of my personal experience, we can turn to the design comunity as a whole. While I can't ask for their opinion personally, their works reinforce my point. Clean lines and muted colors abound, curved edges are easily found but large swatches of garish primary colors are not.
Now none of this is about Vista, (which from the couple of screenshots I've seen apears to at least be a step in the right direction), but I just had to point out that while an argument like this might seem based in only opinion, anyone with a little art training will realize that that there are definative "rights" and "wrongs" in the art community, and even more so in the design world. The XP style is mostly "wrong." It's the result of an ill-advised corporated campaign to make computers seem less indimedating to Grandma, and we ended up with very little aestetic value.
I'll admit that I'm a little suspicious of a report like this that meshes so perfectly with all my liberal suspicions of Big Oil and Big Tobacco.
But the "Both sides do it" argument is pretty rediculous. Would some truly argue that the relatively meager lobbies and scientific groups that promote awareness about global warming have the same type of power and persuassion as these mutiti billion dollar profit corporations? Sure both sides point to studies that benefit them. But one side doesn't have to fabricate its science, and isn't backed by monetary interests in the same way the corporations are.
Saying "both sides do it" is like throwing a penny on one side of a scale and a couple of lead bars on the other.
...there are a lot of articles and sections of articles in wikipedia that are heavily edited without the facts changing much. This is mostly a good thing, cleaning up grammar, etc. But the if that is used as a basis for how reliable the information is, it could be misleading because the software won't know if the facts have changed, or just their wording.
It's a good point, but I think the edit frequency would be pretty substantialy different in those cases. I'm not really basing this off anything more than guessing, but I would imaging that cleaning up gramar or structure in a particular section might take what? 2 or 3 big edits? Maybe a dozen or so little ones? And in most cases all of these would take place pretty much all at once. If the grammer is bad, someone who cares goes in and fixes it, and then it's pretty much done with. I think the type of edits that happen in the these fact wars would result in far more edits than your typical cleanup. And the edits would continue for a longer period of time. Algorithms that could adjust for those threshholds aren't too far out of the question.
Again, though, just kinda guessing. I've never gotten into any heavy editing.
I won't pay for TV again until someone can provide a service that mimics my current setup: uTorrent + tvrss.net + XBMC. It's absolutely spoiled me and I just couldn't justify paying for something less. I'd be more than happy to give money to any company that provides a service just like it.
I don't want commercials, I don't want re-runs (mostly) and I don't want to have to use a delivery system other that the gool ol' fashioned interweb. I don't want to just record the airwaves (or cable, etc) becuase I don't want my show to ever be clipped at the begining or end or interuped by W. I want new shows to appear right as they air, I want it all in HD via a set-top unit (specifically designed for this service), and while I'd be happy to pay per show, I don't want to spend more than an average of about $50 a month for the 20 or so series I watch in a given year.
I would not mind at all using my upstream to help distribute bandwith very much like this one program I know. (It starts with bit and ends with torrent.) I wouldn't even mind if they DRMed the shit out of them either, so long as they let me watch it as many times as I want until the DVD comes out.
Other things that would be sweet: the ability to stream live events (sports, award shows, etc.), distibuted cost payment programs (I'd pay $3 a month for "The Simpsons", which would get me every new show when they come out and a spattering of reruns to keep me tided over the rest of the year. This would probably require a pay-per-year model). File sharing across multiple of these propietary set-top units on the same LAN would kick ass too.
Pluto is and always should be a planet. If they try to claim it isn't, i think it will start a bigger controversy then creation verses evolution when taught in schools.
What I don't get is how so much of the argument to keep Pluto as a planet hinges around nostalgia, and "keeping the textbooks the same." How is that science? Things change; science marches on. If we have a better definition of a planet now, we should apply it univerally (pun intended). But we shouldn't adjust the definition so it fits "history," or fits "text books." That's so flawed I can't even believe someone could seriously hold that position.
So far as controversy, so what if there is? People can kick and spit all they like, but they can't change a scientific definition by protesting. (Or they shouldn't be able to, anyway.) What if I got a whole bunch of people together and said that the Bohr model of the atom is the correct one, because its easier to draw. Oh, and it's traditional! Down with change!
Now if they decide that a better definition of a planet would include Pluto (which it might, I don't really know much about the actual scientific arguments), we'll have to change the textbooks anyway! But do we really want like 40 "planets" in our solar system just so we can keep Pluto? Seems pretty stupid to me.
I don't complain because I'd be adverse to the exercise. I'm adverse to the idea of replacing a time tested, awesome combat system with a gimicky, shitty one.
Interactivity, yes! I've loved all the Wiimote functionality I've heard about so far for this version. But I just don't think motion replicating sword play is a good idea, in any game, and especially in a Zelda title where that sword really gets flying sometimes. It has the potential to wreck one of the best sword fighting systems around (if the fighting engine is indeed based off Wind Waker still, not to metion the excelent legacy of the N64 titles).
If its a simple matter of gestures that initiate cirtain moves, then I might be fine with it. (Maybe.) But a 1:1 sword motion replication would be simply disasterous.
Slashdot Mirror
This happened to me last week and those are the exact steps I (coincidentally) followed to get it up and running again.
Wait, why not HL2? Its structure was pretty identical to HL1 as I recall.
I use tvrss (which aggregates EZTV and others), but otherwise same here. XBMC FTW. I would pay for this service, but I can't find anyone providing it legally. Won't anyone provide it for me? Someone smart stands to make a lot of money here.
I feel ripped off when I can beat the whole game, and there is nothing left offered. Do I get mad that I can't beat Ninja Gaiden Black on master? No, because I can beat it on normal, and given enough time, probably even on hard.
Games these days are unequivocally too easy because they want to appeal to the largest audience possible. But a game that doesn't offer more to an advanced player above and beyond the standard game, THAT'S the game that's ripping you off, not the other way around. A game should offer enjoyment to people of all skill levels, savant included.
Plus, many areas don't even have the choice between DSL and cable. When there are so few competitors (and there will never be a ton of competitors in typical suburban America, just due to the difficulty of laying a network), regulation is necessary to keep companies honest.
Also, it should be noted, even though its probably obvious, that the bill does appear to specifically allow broadband companies to continue "tiered access" so far as speed and bandwidth is concerned (charging more for more bandwidth).
Another clause I found interesting is the specific prohibition of forcing a customer to purchase another service in order to get broadband.
Nice.
Yes. Half of my current enjoyment of FF:XII is wandering around and finding the areas that will level my characters fastest so I can always be a little overpowered for the main story line.
Of course, that's just how I role.
What's the name of the merit badge?! It doesn't even say, so far as I can tell... Is it really a merit badge or a merit "patch?"
Can I at least use a pen? It would make me feel a little better, anyway.
I don't know if they're reacting to the game itself or to its (most definitely misinformed) reaction in the public. But misinformed or not, the reason they state for not carrying this game just happens to be true. I played 4 hours or so of the game last night and it most certainly "touches on a sensitive issue -- violence in school." Overblown in the media? You bet. But the simple fact of it is this game has plenty of violence in it. No guns, sure. No one dies, sure. But I've beat up like 20 kids already with pretty much no consequences. Some people in the community might, and justifiably so, take offense to that.
It should also be noted that a good number of these beatings were required to progress in the game.
That said, I don't feel as if the US rating of "T for Teen" is wrong. I understand the rating is even a little stiffer in the UK.
The concepts you've listed are just example of unfair, poorly implemented, or downright Orwellian DRM. You fail to discredit concept of DRM itself. Are you saying that because DRM has potential for abuse, it should be banned altogether?
You, and all of the other detractors I've heard, fail to address the rights of the company to protect their own intellectual property. Do they not have that right? That's the real issue I would like some answers on.
(Sorry to play such devil's advocate here, but I really don't think anyone's thinking this through.)
That's true only if "fair use" can't be specifically defined. If you think "fair use" is this nebulous concept that is different for every person out there, then sure DRM is an impossible concept. But by saying "fair use" can't be specifically defined you're saying: "Hey copyright holders! You can't enforce your <distain>laws</distain> because you don't know if 'fair use' for me means 10 copies or 1,000 copies or 1,000,000 copies."
You're basically invalidating the copyright altogether by refusing to put definate numbers on "fair use". If you do, then DRM becomes very possible indeed.
So far as being able to play music on a "device of [one's] choosing", I would say that if a content provider that alows you to convert your purchased product to a standard, DRM free medium (audio CD), they're being more than fair. They can't be expected to accommodate every device out there. Not to mention the argument that you are agreeing to their terms of purchace, and they can tell you to use whatever device they damn well please. Again, the free market agument comes into play. If you don't like it you're welcome to go to a competitor. None of this is really about the inherent concept of DRM though. Its all about whether a company is using DRM fairly or not.
See, to me, the senario you put forth would be a clear case of abuse of DRM. It's true people need to be aware of systems that are so unfaily restrictive. But this isn't a problem with DRM itself. The problem is the company abusing a technology to try and screw the consumer. This is a free market after all, and there are companies out there that treat you much better than that. Consumers know this and there's a reason Apple is the runaway leader in the digital music market.
Would some one please explain what exactly it wrong with DRM? If you have a problem with concept of copyrights in general, then I can understand. But is there anyone out there that is cool with copyrights, but thinks DRM is bad?
I'm not trying to be an apologist for the corporations. I know they don't care about the art or the artist, only money. That's given. But do they not have a right to protect their intellectual property? Are the detractors of DRM against the concept of intellectual property altogether?
The way I see it is there is nothing wrong with the concept of DRM, only with the abuse of DRM. Is this a "slippery slope" argument?
I'm serious in my plea here. Someone please fill me in on what I am missing!
Here, let me help you.
No. Eye candy doesn't matter for shit. The interface could be all in text and keyboard based for all I care. The only thing that matters is presenting the user with an intuitive toolset that makes performing their day to day tasks simple and non-intrusive. Its not about being a "graphics nut," its about presenting things in the best way possible to your audience. A UI should be natural.
I agree with performance and stability, but those are givens aren't they? If a UI runs slowly, taking up all the CPU cycles, and blocks the user from performing their task, it fails as a UI. If the system crashes, well, I mean that's a failure of the OS altogether isn't it? No feature in the world matters at that point. Whether your installation process is good or not, again, all comes down to UI. Does the user have to type a bunch of commands to install? No? It's a pleasent looking series of screens that guides them throught the process you say? Again, UI is key. If its confusing, or conveluded, the user simply isn't going to care how fast it runs, because they won't be able to figure out how to run it!
Again, its not about eye candy, its about how well the system allows me to access my applications and documents. Thats it. Thats the purpose of a computer.
Again, you miss my entire point. But I've reiterated it several times already. UI is not bling nor is it about inducing erections. Its about getting the hell out of my way while I try to get my work done. If its really good, it might even help me get my work done.
Ok, sure, there's tons of new stuff in Vista. Cool. But I'm so sick of people discounting UI like its just one among many feature. UI is the only feature that matters. I think techies loose sight of the fact that most people don't care about "features" like "Service hardening" or "Windows Defender." That stuff is just confusing and people wonder why they need to be bothered with it. All people want is a way to get to thier applications and a way to find, organize, and work with their documents. You know. Work. Productivity. What most people use a computer for. UI is 99% of the story when it comes to those functions.
Additional, built in apps are great. But they're just that: apps. OSX has great ones, and it looks like Vista is adding a bunch of new/upgraded ones. But for people (most of us) who just do Photoshop, or Dreamweaver, or MS Word, or whatever it is we do all day, all these little apps are just icing and not really part of the core computer-using experience.
I'll say it again, because it can't be said enough: UI is the only really important thing in an operating system. If you fail there, your OS is all icing and no cake.
Its impossible to speak about something like this in any sort of definitive, because in essence, it all comes down to opinion. But there are alot of definatives that surround the issue of the XP theme.
One thing that more of us might agree on is that it's definately an interface designed to appeal to a wider audience. Microsoft likes its bright colors because those appeal to the older generation who are still of the mindset: "more colors = better." There are two problems with this. First, here in a slashdot context, we are not the general population. Most of us found this new "candy" style pretty condesending. Second, the "more colors style" goes starkly agains conventional wisdom of almost a full cenury of futurism and the expected styles that are contianed therein. People generally don't see bright colors as a sign of "futuristic high tech," a trait that our society would see as a positive when they're dropping money in a computer store.
Another big problem with the XP theme is that it added very little, if anything at all, to the actual unsability of the the user interface. It was just an ugly coat of paint, like that one fucia house two blocks over. (You know the one.) All functionality was still in the same place, at best just rearanged within the same window.
Definatives aside, if we do come back to nothing more than opinion, we can only turn to experts in that particular field to find some sort of authority. This again turns out of favor of the older interface over the XP one. In my 6 years working in various design houses, I've yet to see a designer, web or otherwise, that prefered the "candy" interface over the clean greys of the old Win2K style. Outside of my personal experience, we can turn to the design comunity as a whole. While I can't ask for their opinion personally, their works reinforce my point. Clean lines and muted colors abound, curved edges are easily found but large swatches of garish primary colors are not.
Now none of this is about Vista, (which from the couple of screenshots I've seen apears to at least be a step in the right direction), but I just had to point out that while an argument like this might seem based in only opinion, anyone with a little art training will realize that that there are definative "rights" and "wrongs" in the art community, and even more so in the design world. The XP style is mostly "wrong." It's the result of an ill-advised corporated campaign to make computers seem less indimedating to Grandma, and we ended up with very little aestetic value.
Simply wait for Firefox 2.0 to hit final. Spellcheck! You'll see all sorts of bad spelling disapear (sic?) when that hapens (sic!).
I'll admit that I'm a little suspicious of a report like this that meshes so perfectly with all my liberal suspicions of Big Oil and Big Tobacco.
But the "Both sides do it" argument is pretty rediculous. Would some truly argue that the relatively meager lobbies and scientific groups that promote awareness about global warming have the same type of power and persuassion as these mutiti billion dollar profit corporations? Sure both sides point to studies that benefit them. But one side doesn't have to fabricate its science, and isn't backed by monetary interests in the same way the corporations are.
Saying "both sides do it" is like throwing a penny on one side of a scale and a couple of lead bars on the other.
It's a good point, but I think the edit frequency would be pretty substantialy different in those cases. I'm not really basing this off anything more than guessing, but I would imaging that cleaning up gramar or structure in a particular section might take what? 2 or 3 big edits? Maybe a dozen or so little ones? And in most cases all of these would take place pretty much all at once. If the grammer is bad, someone who cares goes in and fixes it, and then it's pretty much done with. I think the type of edits that happen in the these fact wars would result in far more edits than your typical cleanup. And the edits would continue for a longer period of time. Algorithms that could adjust for those threshholds aren't too far out of the question.
Again, though, just kinda guessing. I've never gotten into any heavy editing.
I won't pay for TV again until someone can provide a service that mimics my current setup: uTorrent + tvrss.net + XBMC. It's absolutely spoiled me and I just couldn't justify paying for something less. I'd be more than happy to give money to any company that provides a service just like it.
I don't want commercials, I don't want re-runs (mostly) and I don't want to have to use a delivery system other that the gool ol' fashioned interweb. I don't want to just record the airwaves (or cable, etc) becuase I don't want my show to ever be clipped at the begining or end or interuped by W. I want new shows to appear right as they air, I want it all in HD via a set-top unit (specifically designed for this service), and while I'd be happy to pay per show, I don't want to spend more than an average of about $50 a month for the 20 or so series I watch in a given year.
I would not mind at all using my upstream to help distribute bandwith very much like this one program I know. (It starts with bit and ends with torrent.) I wouldn't even mind if they DRMed the shit out of them either, so long as they let me watch it as many times as I want until the DVD comes out.
Other things that would be sweet: the ability to stream live events (sports, award shows, etc.), distibuted cost payment programs (I'd pay $3 a month for "The Simpsons", which would get me every new show when they come out and a spattering of reruns to keep me tided over the rest of the year. This would probably require a pay-per-year model). File sharing across multiple of these propietary set-top units on the same LAN would kick ass too.
Ok, I'm coming back from fantasy land now.
What I don't get is how so much of the argument to keep Pluto as a planet hinges around nostalgia, and "keeping the textbooks the same." How is that science? Things change; science marches on. If we have a better definition of a planet now, we should apply it univerally (pun intended). But we shouldn't adjust the definition so it fits "history," or fits "text books." That's so flawed I can't even believe someone could seriously hold that position.
So far as controversy, so what if there is? People can kick and spit all they like, but they can't change a scientific definition by protesting. (Or they shouldn't be able to, anyway.) What if I got a whole bunch of people together and said that the Bohr model of the atom is the correct one, because its easier to draw. Oh, and it's traditional! Down with change!
Now if they decide that a better definition of a planet would include Pluto (which it might, I don't really know much about the actual scientific arguments), we'll have to change the textbooks anyway! But do we really want like 40 "planets" in our solar system just so we can keep Pluto? Seems pretty stupid to me.
I don't complain because I'd be adverse to the exercise. I'm adverse to the idea of replacing a time tested, awesome combat system with a gimicky, shitty one.
Interactivity, yes! I've loved all the Wiimote functionality I've heard about so far for this version. But I just don't think motion replicating sword play is a good idea, in any game, and especially in a Zelda title where that sword really gets flying sometimes. It has the potential to wreck one of the best sword fighting systems around (if the fighting engine is indeed based off Wind Waker still, not to metion the excelent legacy of the N64 titles).
If its a simple matter of gestures that initiate cirtain moves, then I might be fine with it. (Maybe.) But a 1:1 sword motion replication would be simply disasterous.