Wrong. Because companies must play in the same sandbox other companies do. If this law is for all companies, the definition of 'risk' changes. I'm not saying its a smart suggestion; I'm pointing out that your response is in the context of the current environment, not the one what would come out of such a change in laws.
I have a very close personal friend who had terrible, abusive parents. He did not use a toothbrush until he was 15. This is not as uncommon as you may believe. If you grew up in a loving, stable family, count yourself lucky, but also understand that there is a whole strata of society you may be unfamiliar with.
> But to make the leap that nobody would go around brushing their teath or investing in their personal hygiene if Big Brother wasn't their to educate the unwashed masses is really stupid and scary thing to hear said.
Yes, the statement was a little glib, but you'll note that in countries where governments do not actively promote health care, people don't brush. This is not rocket science. If investors do not believe that *people* want something, they will not risk investment in providing a solution. Look at seat belts, look at motorcycle helmets.. if you think I'm going to let people drive around and smash their brains on the sidewalk because its their god given right, and make me late for work (and cost me more in taxes related to 911 services, etc,) you're wrong. But we would not have these laws were the public sector not able to convince people that this was something they should be putting the private sector to task over. Private companies do *not* care about your life (nor should they, it is not their mandate.) If you can make more money with one out of X customers dying, because you drive your margin down by reducing that fraction significantly, you won't. Its not smart business. Government must have some level of respect and power in order to enact public safety regulations, health regulations, market regulations. The 'overhead' of taxes is simply citizens investing in technology and information that will ultimately help them (via public concensus) live happier lives. It isn't perfect, but neither is business.
> Hard to believe, but most Americans didn't brush their teeth until soldiers brought the Army's enforced habit back home from World War II.
Somebody taught your parents. Their parents? Somebody taught them. At some point, brushing your teeth was not the 'common sense' it is today, and I propose that the majority of many commercial markets related to hygine and health only exist through the dissemination of information via public services. Doubly so for socially scorned topics such as AIDs, which private companies were (and in some cases still are) loathe to opine in for fear of consumer backlash.
Sorry bub, but for all intents and purposes, between parents and private companies, both of which exist in many 3rd world nations, there often isn't enough awareness or commercial motivation to provide the tipping point where by a simple act or a small piece of information can be incorperated into the lives of all. That to me is where the government comes in; it is their job as elected officials and public institutions to do the 'dirty work' and never get thanked for it. And yeah, they fuck up just like companies do, and can spread disinformation just like companies can, but thats the technology of communication for you.. it can be used for good or for bad. Still doesn't mean I'd rather live without it.
Without a strong government, you cannot enforce private property laws, the one single thing a government *must* do in a capitalist state. Without private property laws, you cannot have investment. Without investment, you cannot have a market. Without a market, or a government, you get.. well, 3rd world countries.
If you're looking for a toothless government where private interests rule, there are plenty of countries on the planet that can be of service to you. Just remember to bring your toothbrush, because it just isn't all that profitable to sell toothbrushes in a country where the government isn't strong enough to educate the population in the value of personal health and hygine.
Your hyperbole is so goddamned rote, I swear to god. Governments arn't *supposed* to be efficient; they're supposed to provide you with the protection and safety you need in order to further human culture, society and technology. You cannot have a private sector without a public sector.. and if you're that intent on declawing the public sector, go for it. But really you should save yourself the trouble and just find a first world nation without a strong (inefficient) government; DOH, there are none!
Regulation of private interests is 100% neccessary, because a true free market is a non-existant ideal. On the flip side, private monitoring of the public sector is also 100% neccessary, because a fully trustable, transparent, representative government is also a non-existant ideal.
What kills me are the folks who need their world to be so black and white; I guess you would have loved the stone age, things were alot simpler back then, with non of that pesky government regulation bullshit.
What is important is that copyrights and trademarks be respected, otherwise there is no incentive to create boardgames that furthur human knowledge, culture, and society.
Imagine if we didn't have copyright law. Imagine a world without poker, bridge, snakes and ladders, blackjack, [insert one million fucking games better than risk, even tho risk does rule, here.]
I agree with copyright laws with limited term. I agree, even, with moderate trademark laws. I do not agree with anybody who suggests that the value of these laws to society at large increases with the magnitude of the legal strength they grant the owner.
At 1.00, they cover shipping and packaging. The cost of the chips themselves is minimal. Look at the prices again, and consider that the 'baseline' costs dont go up with a bigger bag, nor do the cost of the chips, but the price is three to four times that of the small bag.
I knew the vice president of marketing at Freeto Lay canada. They make nothing on the small bags of chips. They just want you as a customer, to know the name, because they make a killing on the 3D Doritos and larger or more specialty based bags.
The small bags of chips are sold at a pricepoint that covers the costs, no more.
Very few people understand this. MS's participation in any market other than OS and Office indicates just how much money they can dump on advertising.
They may lose X dollars when an XBox is sold, but if you look at it like an ad everytime body talks about their XBox, or all the SOLD OUTs you talk about, its actually an investment.
An illegal one, if you ask me, but an investment none the less.
Quake has three things that make Unreal the poor mans quake in my opinion:
- A rocket launcher you want to use - And beautifully beefy sounds
The sound effects in Quake One and Three are ultra satisfying in a way that few games are. From a game design standpoint, it does what little else other FPSs do; the guns are slow (cept the rail of course,) but the player movement is very very fast. Its almost the opposite of the popular trend of tactical/stealth fps and action games these days.
Well then I have something for you; real life. But movies, books, and games to a lesser degree challenge you because they make you understand somebody ELSES choices, not yours.
Good article which makes it crystal clear how working on consoles in an exercise in making every byte in RAM count. The more flexible your loading system and artistic pipeline, the better your game will look.
True true, but Apple is moving away from IBM and towards x86, not towards Intel, per se. While I agree that this takes some of the sheen off the claim that its the smartest move available, its still better than sticking with PowerPC. Intel, being the bigger player in DRM here, is going to give Apple the corperate confidence factor of locking the OS on approved hardware, so its a no brainer.
So yeah, you have a point, but I think its largly moot. Apple wants to kick MS in the shins, not destroy it. Moving to Intel puts Apple in a position to put Intel in a bad spot - who do they treat preferentially? Apple isn't MS, but they still sell a shitload of machines. Hopefully, Intel has to become non-biased from an OS standpoint, and we all benifit. Meanwhile, AMD has the most to gain here; as the benifits of exclusive deals and advertising subsities for OEMS is reduced because the relationships are no longer exclusive (risk sharing, it makes any business person cream in their pants), AMD suddently has more leverage in OEM talks. Its a good time to be an OEM I think; everyone wants to be your suitor, and you're ultimately the gate keeper. AMD, on the outside looking in, gaining the critical praise, ramping up production, cheaper R&D labour, and all that, is suddenly about to be the belle of the ball.
They'd rather that they only have to lobby one government than have to do it seperately, all over.
If the rules are centralized federally, it makes it much easier to be the gatekeeper on policy as it pertains to corperate use of private data.
Its similar to your point, but more of an addenum. I'm not judging whether they want good or evil, but its pretty clear what kind of advantages are provided by one stop shopping as it pertains to government policy making.
To think they really care about the customer as a means to more profitable ends is to conveniently ignore the fact that they define aggresive market tactics in the technology sector. They're not the sort that believes that being the best company in the quality and service sense equals the most profits. Again, whether or not you hold that to be true, its hard to build a case that they believe that.
My issue is that intelligent design as a theory does nothing.
Does it help us anticipate the changes around us? No. Does it help us develop new technologies, medicines, etc? No. How does it help us, then? How does it equip humans with a better grasp of their surroundings? If it does, it does so in a spiritual way. And guess what, we already have spiritual institutions; church. If ID is to be taught in class, then science should be taught in Church, because the theory of ID does not actually help us in a practical sense to wield more power over our environment, over matter. What ID proponants fail to understand is that evotion, as a theory, doesn't give a blind fuck who is at the wheel; we theorize that it happens this way, and that allows us to make predictions or alter our behaviour by way of observing how things have changed in the past. You want God to be at the wheel, fine? But tell me something other than God invented shit. Tell me what he invented, how, when he makes changes, why he makes changes, and how we can alter our beviour in order to make a better world. Once you start talking about those things, guess what, thats church.
> That's the way the world works. Don't like it? Start your own company and make your own rules.
That's the way the world works. Don't like it? Point out what you did to a different company that values leaving the bean counting to management and placing the customer satisfaction in the hands of the pople who actually build and support the product, and work for them.
There, fixed that. Honestly, everything you said is the very reason why I left my last employer high and dry. Is a manager useful at 2am when something goes down? No. So who's actually satisfying the client? My experience thus far has suggested that starting your own company means you're very very good at paper work. Don't hire engineers who can't figure out whats a good/bad business decision, and never forget that something that looks like an expensive decision today from a subordinate can pay off in spades tommorow. Seriously, I left my last job because they were so desperate to call today profitable that I would put money down on them not being around in 2 years. And those were managers, business people.
Screw that. I see exactly what you're saying, but a world where everybody tries to exact the most amount of money from the least amout of effort in an unfeasible business practice. Doing things correctly, and giving fair deals is the only sustainable form of capitalism.
See the rise and fall of many markets. Emerging economies emerge because they have no choice and do everything you imagine is wrong; economies that fail are the very economies that hand over the reigns to people incapable of anything but believing that just because you might be able to squeeze blood from a rock the first time, you can do it many times over.
I leave jobs where management or bosses with no technical aptitude focus on sucker clients who dont demand unfettered access to technical resources; these are places who accept clients who won't have money for long, and subsequently end up not building up their own business on the strengths of their product but rather their success at the moment in negotiating contracts and business relationships.
Killer business sharking is fine if you're going to make a flash in the pan and move on, but nothing I've seen has yet to convince me that business aptitude should be anything but an 'add on skill' to people who are actually capable of creating things. Just look at the american culture machine right now; all the money is on lawyers (and let me stress that layers are important people), executives, business people.. they dont know how to make product, so to give them the power is to say lets make money today, but eventually piss everybody off. Funny how business sense seems to coincide with social networking so nicely that by the time things start to crumble, they're in another job. I see technical people, all the time, stick with something because they believe in it. I very rarely see business people stick around a full up and down cycle to the death. THATs business sense; the sense for self, not the sense for what creates sustainable value.
I have no problem with following your advice if my manager still actively codes or engineers or whatever; if he doesn't how the hell is he more qualified to determine what is a good deal for the client, and what kinds of promises and commitments would result in repeat business?
> One more thing... if a company already has a patches section with the words "Coming Soon" before the game is released, is that suggesting something about the quality of the product?
No. Name me one game that didn't have patches. (Nevermind that patches frequently add new features in addition to potentially fixing bugs.) Thats a pretty niggly and invalid (nevermind cliche) point you're hinting at.
When you stop, you make things hot. Imagine energy that you can recoup; your car spends energy, but lots of it goes into things that we can't recapture immediately.
The first law says that energy is conserved, in a fully closed system, but the heat and noise (note how playing music uses energy) of a system represent the energy we cannot get back in most common technologies.
If this alternator can be engaged the moment you want to stop, and allows the part in a car that spins and drives the wheels to be slowed down by this device rather than friction, then you have a winner. Imagine a device that could stop the shaft the nanosecond you no longer want to turn the wheels (and maybe even stop them).. something that could be wound with as little frictional interference as possible, and store the energy. A flywheel? Something that stores, then returns the energy to you?
People keep talking about conserving the energy in the system, but much of it is wasted, and some of it can be stored, inefficiently these days, to keep it INSIDE the system.
You are have to remember that we're controlling energy here; the motor is a good example. You're willingly saying goodbye to potentially recoverable energy. The law of conservation is important, but we have to remember the original intent of motors; to provide energy, period. Some of it is wasted, and its possible through various technologies to keep that energy in the system as much as possible. Think of it; to listen to you, venting air into the interior of the vehicle requires more energy from the motor. Of course not, that energy would have just heated the car or its environment if we didn't use technology to transfer the energy otherwise wasted to a practical place.
This is where its at; imagine some sort of head or shoulder strap that you attach the controller to; suddenly, moving your head moves your view in the game.
Attach it to a driving wheel, blammo.
I like the idea of using it as a motorcycle grip; twist it along the z-access for throttle turn it left right for steering.
Oh man, I cannot wait to put my hands on this thing.
But it isn't a fighting game in the pure SF/Tekken/VF mold. No special mechanics (okay, other than the blanka charge mechanic) means that while it *is* a game that has people fighting each other, the control mechanics are too far removed from the true 1v1 fighters to be considered as such. It's a fucking amazing party game in fighters clothing. And I love it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats what we folks like to call a 'nerd cliff'; you stood at the very edge of something worth commenting on, and leaped off on your own.
Not that your points arn't valid, simply that you're looking for another thread.
Wrong. Because companies must play in the same sandbox other companies do. If this law is for all companies, the definition of 'risk' changes. I'm not saying its a smart suggestion; I'm pointing out that your response is in the context of the current environment, not the one what would come out of such a change in laws.
I have a very close personal friend who had terrible, abusive parents. He did not use a toothbrush until he was 15. This is not as uncommon as you may believe. If you grew up in a loving, stable family, count yourself lucky, but also understand that there is a whole strata of society you may be unfamiliar with.
.. if you think I'm going to let people drive around and smash their brains on the sidewalk because its their god given right, and make me late for work (and cost me more in taxes related to 911 services, etc,) you're wrong. But we would not have these laws were the public sector not able to convince people that this was something they should be putting the private sector to task over. Private companies do *not* care about your life (nor should they, it is not their mandate.) If you can make more money with one out of X customers dying, because you drive your margin down by reducing that fraction significantly, you won't. Its not smart business. Government must have some level of respect and power in order to enact public safety regulations, health regulations, market regulations. The 'overhead' of taxes is simply citizens investing in technology and information that will ultimately help them (via public concensus) live happier lives. It isn't perfect, but neither is business.
h istory.html
.. it can be used for good or for bad. Still doesn't mean I'd rather live without it.
> But to make the leap that nobody would go around brushing their teath or investing in their personal hygiene if Big Brother wasn't their to educate the unwashed masses is really stupid and scary thing to hear said.
Yes, the statement was a little glib, but you'll note that in countries where governments do not actively promote health care, people don't brush. This is not rocket science. If investors do not believe that *people* want something, they will not risk investment in providing a solution. Look at seat belts, look at motorcycle helmets
I dont think its that much of a stretch. Read here: http://www.toothbrushexpress.com/html/toothbrush_
A choice quote:
> Hard to believe, but most Americans didn't brush their teeth until soldiers brought the Army's enforced habit back home from World War II.
Somebody taught your parents. Their parents? Somebody taught them. At some point, brushing your teeth was not the 'common sense' it is today, and I propose that the majority of many commercial markets related to hygine and health only exist through the dissemination of information via public services. Doubly so for socially scorned topics such as AIDs, which private companies were (and in some cases still are) loathe to opine in for fear of consumer backlash.
Sorry bub, but for all intents and purposes, between parents and private companies, both of which exist in many 3rd world nations, there often isn't enough awareness or commercial motivation to provide the tipping point where by a simple act or a small piece of information can be incorperated into the lives of all. That to me is where the government comes in; it is their job as elected officials and public institutions to do the 'dirty work' and never get thanked for it. And yeah, they fuck up just like companies do, and can spread disinformation just like companies can, but thats the technology of communication for you
Without a strong government, you cannot enforce private property laws, the one single thing a government *must* do in a capitalist state. Without private property laws, you cannot have investment. Without investment, you cannot have a market. Without a market, or a government, you get .. well, 3rd world countries.
.. and if you're that intent on declawing the public sector, go for it. But really you should save yourself the trouble and just find a first world nation without a strong (inefficient) government; DOH, there are none!
If you're looking for a toothless government where private interests rule, there are plenty of countries on the planet that can be of service to you. Just remember to bring your toothbrush, because it just isn't all that profitable to sell toothbrushes in a country where the government isn't strong enough to educate the population in the value of personal health and hygine.
Your hyperbole is so goddamned rote, I swear to god. Governments arn't *supposed* to be efficient; they're supposed to provide you with the protection and safety you need in order to further human culture, society and technology. You cannot have a private sector without a public sector
Regulation of private interests is 100% neccessary, because a true free market is a non-existant ideal. On the flip side, private monitoring of the public sector is also 100% neccessary, because a fully trustable, transparent, representative government is also a non-existant ideal.
What kills me are the folks who need their world to be so black and white; I guess you would have loved the stone age, things were alot simpler back then, with non of that pesky government regulation bullshit.
What is important is that copyrights and trademarks be respected, otherwise there is no incentive to create boardgames that furthur human knowledge, culture, and society.
Imagine if we didn't have copyright law. Imagine a world without poker, bridge, snakes and ladders, blackjack, [insert one million fucking games better than risk, even tho risk does rule, here.]
I agree with copyright laws with limited term. I agree, even, with moderate trademark laws. I do not agree with anybody who suggests that the value of these laws to society at large increases with the magnitude of the legal strength they grant the owner.
Wrong. :) Well, maybe *logically*, but not in actual practice.
At 1.00, they cover shipping and packaging. The cost of the chips themselves is minimal. Look at the prices again, and consider that the 'baseline' costs dont go up with a bigger bag, nor do the cost of the chips, but the price is three to four times that of the small bag.
I knew the vice president of marketing at Freeto Lay canada. They make nothing on the small bags of chips. They just want you as a customer, to know the name, because they make a killing on the 3D Doritos and larger or more specialty based bags.
The small bags of chips are sold at a pricepoint that covers the costs, no more.
Very few people understand this. MS's participation in any market other than OS and Office indicates just how much money they can dump on advertising.
They may lose X dollars when an XBox is sold, but if you look at it like an ad everytime body talks about their XBox, or all the SOLD OUTs you talk about, its actually an investment.
An illegal one, if you ask me, but an investment none the less.
Quake has three things that make Unreal the poor mans quake in my opinion:
- A rocket launcher you want to use
- And beautifully beefy sounds
The sound effects in Quake One and Three are ultra satisfying in a way that few games are. From a game design standpoint, it does what little else other FPSs do; the guns are slow (cept the rail of course,) but the player movement is very very fast. Its almost the opposite of the popular trend of tactical/stealth fps and action games these days.
Well then I have something for you; real life. But movies, books, and games to a lesser degree challenge you because they make you understand somebody ELSES choices, not yours.
Its called empathy, sheesh.
Good article which makes it crystal clear how working on consoles in an exercise in making every byte in RAM count. The more flexible your loading system and artistic pipeline, the better your game will look.
True true, but Apple is moving away from IBM and towards x86, not towards Intel, per se. While I agree that this takes some of the sheen off the claim that its the smartest move available, its still better than sticking with PowerPC. Intel, being the bigger player in DRM here, is going to give Apple the corperate confidence factor of locking the OS on approved hardware, so its a no brainer.
So yeah, you have a point, but I think its largly moot. Apple wants to kick MS in the shins, not destroy it. Moving to Intel puts Apple in a position to put Intel in a bad spot - who do they treat preferentially? Apple isn't MS, but they still sell a shitload of machines. Hopefully, Intel has to become non-biased from an OS standpoint, and we all benifit. Meanwhile, AMD has the most to gain here; as the benifits of exclusive deals and advertising subsities for OEMS is reduced because the relationships are no longer exclusive (risk sharing, it makes any business person cream in their pants), AMD suddently has more leverage in OEM talks. Its a good time to be an OEM I think; everyone wants to be your suitor, and you're ultimately the gate keeper. AMD, on the outside looking in, gaining the critical praise, ramping up production, cheaper R&D labour, and all that, is suddenly about to be the belle of the ball.
They'd rather that they only have to lobby one government than have to do it seperately, all over.
If the rules are centralized federally, it makes it much easier to be the gatekeeper on policy as it pertains to corperate use of private data.
Its similar to your point, but more of an addenum. I'm not judging whether they want good or evil, but its pretty clear what kind of advantages are provided by one stop shopping as it pertains to government policy making.
To think they really care about the customer as a means to more profitable ends is to conveniently ignore the fact that they define aggresive market tactics in the technology sector. They're not the sort that believes that being the best company in the quality and service sense equals the most profits. Again, whether or not you hold that to be true, its hard to build a case that they believe that.
My issue is that intelligent design as a theory does nothing.
Does it help us anticipate the changes around us? No.
Does it help us develop new technologies, medicines, etc? No.
How does it help us, then? How does it equip humans with a better grasp of their surroundings? If it does, it does so in a spiritual way. And guess what, we already have spiritual institutions; church. If ID is to be taught in class, then science should be taught in Church, because the theory of ID does not actually help us in a practical sense to wield more power over our environment, over matter. What ID proponants fail to understand is that evotion, as a theory, doesn't give a blind fuck who is at the wheel; we theorize that it happens this way, and that allows us to make predictions or alter our behaviour by way of observing how things have changed in the past. You want God to be at the wheel, fine? But tell me something other than God invented shit. Tell me what he invented, how, when he makes changes, why he makes changes, and how we can alter our beviour in order to make a better world. Once you start talking about those things, guess what, thats church.
damn tv commies!
> That's the way the world works. Don't like it? Start your own company and make your own rules.
That's the way the world works. Don't like it? Point out what you did to a different company that values leaving the bean counting to management and placing the customer satisfaction in the hands of the pople who actually build and support the product, and work for them.
There, fixed that. Honestly, everything you said is the very reason why I left my last employer high and dry. Is a manager useful at 2am when something goes down? No. So who's actually satisfying the client? My experience thus far has suggested that starting your own company means you're very very good at paper work. Don't hire engineers who can't figure out whats a good/bad business decision, and never forget that something that looks like an expensive decision today from a subordinate can pay off in spades tommorow. Seriously, I left my last job because they were so desperate to call today profitable that I would put money down on them not being around in 2 years. And those were managers, business people.
Screw that. I see exactly what you're saying, but a world where everybody tries to exact the most amount of money from the least amout of effort in an unfeasible business practice. Doing things correctly, and giving fair deals is the only sustainable form of capitalism.
.. they dont know how to make product, so to give them the power is to say lets make money today, but eventually piss everybody off. Funny how business sense seems to coincide with social networking so nicely that by the time things start to crumble, they're in another job. I see technical people, all the time, stick with something because they believe in it. I very rarely see business people stick around a full up and down cycle to the death. THATs business sense; the sense for self, not the sense for what creates sustainable value.
See the rise and fall of many markets. Emerging economies emerge because they have no choice and do everything you imagine is wrong; economies that fail are the very economies that hand over the reigns to people incapable of anything but believing that just because you might be able to squeeze blood from a rock the first time, you can do it many times over.
I leave jobs where management or bosses with no technical aptitude focus on sucker clients who dont demand unfettered access to technical resources; these are places who accept clients who won't have money for long, and subsequently end up not building up their own business on the strengths of their product but rather their success at the moment in negotiating contracts and business relationships.
Killer business sharking is fine if you're going to make a flash in the pan and move on, but nothing I've seen has yet to convince me that business aptitude should be anything but an 'add on skill' to people who are actually capable of creating things. Just look at the american culture machine right now; all the money is on lawyers (and let me stress that layers are important people), executives, business people
I have no problem with following your advice if my manager still actively codes or engineers or whatever; if he doesn't how the hell is he more qualified to determine what is a good deal for the client, and what kinds of promises and commitments would result in repeat business?
> One more thing... if a company already has a patches section with the words "Coming Soon" before the game is released, is that suggesting something about the quality of the product?
No. Name me one game that didn't have patches. (Nevermind that patches frequently add new features in addition to potentially fixing bugs.) Thats a pretty niggly and invalid (nevermind cliche) point you're hinting at.
why would the tv have to move?
It looks like that stupid magnet bracelet for a car! ROFL!
Its more simple, like this:
.. something that could be wound with as little frictional interference as possible, and store the energy. A flywheel? Something that stores, then returns the energy to you?
When you stop, you make things hot. Imagine energy that you can recoup; your car spends energy, but lots of it goes into things that we can't recapture immediately.
The first law says that energy is conserved, in a fully closed system, but the heat and noise (note how playing music uses energy) of a system represent the energy we cannot get back in most common technologies.
If this alternator can be engaged the moment you want to stop, and allows the part in a car that spins and drives the wheels to be slowed down by this device rather than friction, then you have a winner. Imagine a device that could stop the shaft the nanosecond you no longer want to turn the wheels (and maybe even stop them)
People keep talking about conserving the energy in the system, but much of it is wasted, and some of it can be stored, inefficiently these days, to keep it INSIDE the system.
You are have to remember that we're controlling energy here; the motor is a good example. You're willingly saying goodbye to potentially recoverable energy. The law of conservation is important, but we have to remember the original intent of motors; to provide energy, period. Some of it is wasted, and its possible through various technologies to keep that energy in the system as much as possible. Think of it; to listen to you, venting air into the interior of the vehicle requires more energy from the motor. Of course not, that energy would have just heated the car or its environment if we didn't use technology to transfer the energy otherwise wasted to a practical place.
> It you add all your forces together and there's some left over, SOMETHING'S going to accelerate.
Heat?
This is where its at; imagine some sort of head or shoulder strap that you attach the controller to; suddenly, moving your head moves your view in the game.
Attach it to a driving wheel, blammo.
I like the idea of using it as a motorcycle grip; twist it along the z-access for throttle turn it left right for steering.
Oh man, I cannot wait to put my hands on this thing.
SSBM is an amazing, incredible, fun as hell game.
But it isn't a fighting game in the pure SF/Tekken/VF mold. No special mechanics (okay, other than the blanka charge mechanic) means that while it *is* a game that has people fighting each other, the control mechanics are too far removed from the true 1v1 fighters to be considered as such. It's a fucking amazing party game in fighters clothing. And I love it.