You want to run a Microsoft application on a supercomputer? Why not hitch a tub of nitroglycerine to a billion dollar check and throw it out the window (into a fire pit, incase the impact doesn't set it off)
Yeah, rendering, video editing and the other things Apple's xserve's don't need supercomputers.
Science and engineering are *not* the only places where supercomputers matter. You're just bias. Just watch the making of documentary for epIII of star wars, and look at all the shiny G5's hooked up to xserve's with awsome apple cinema display's. Science and engineering may be tilted heavily to windows and linux, but movie editing, 3d rendering etc are even more so geared to osx (well, not as much 3d rendering as movie editing but still)
Well, okay, what's the alternative? Either an interpreted language which does all the checking real time, which is painfully slow, or a language with a compiler that compiles the safty pads into the final product, which is also slow. The reason pointers are used so often is because they are very useful (sometimes references can be used instead, but not all the time) C++ is the most bare-bones high level language. Compilers are good enough to beat any human writing assembly code now (just read disasembled code, scary) yet the language is OO (but not over the top OO like some languages *cough*java*cough*) and for the most part very human readable (once you get used to it of course) with a clear and extremly flexible syntax (see: the obfustication contest article on the front page ATM)
Pointers are part of the reason. Pointers are insecure themselves, but their implementation can be. Most (like, 99.9999%) of the time its not a security risk, but sometimes, in complicated code, there's an insecure bit, and it can go unnoticed for forever, until some bitch finds it and your forced to fix it.
Your doctor-hospital analogy is kind of exaggerated. I don't care if a diagnosis, which my life depends on, takes 15 minutes more to ensure security. However, given the choice of playing BrandNewFPS XVII in C++ and getting a good frame rate, or playing a port of it to some kiddie language that holds your hands and makes every array resizable (aka a linked list), every pointer type thing unoverflowable etc etc etc etc (I'm looking at you, VB and Java) and getting like a tenth of a frame a second (i dont want any Java Isn't Really That Slow, You're Just Imagining It posts, at least I'm slighty on topic) I'd choose the potential risk (see: small potential, pointers are used like crazy and the usage:exploit ratio is very insignificantly tiny) in exchange for the better frame rate.
Back on topic slightly. What about, in this example, libpng and rendering images? You want your images to load and display very fast, but like EVERYTHING uses libpng and libjpeg etc (at least from the nix perspective) and that is a big bitch if theres an exploit in the code. However, these projects are very open to the public, and exploits won't last long. The last one was a fluke, I bet it was in a very confusing complicated all over the place bit of code and that's why it went unnoticed for so long.
Here's a though: make executable files in XML, and you can have the code for an xml parser in xml.
Then the world would collapse.
Anyway's, 'tis nothing wrong with pointers, and in alot of cases they are the best solution. If you're too dumb to use them properly, then use some n00b language like Java that protects you from such evils. Yes, even the best sometime forget to do checks and what-not on their pointers sometimes, and those sometimes are the ones that come to bite them in the ass, but for the most part, thumbs up to pointers, thumbs up to c++ and thumbs down to silly languages that protect the coder from their own dumbness.
They didn't leave them open, they didn't realize they existed. Either way, should makers of cars be held financially responsible for every bit of damage caused by missles hitting them, just because they didn't make the cars out of indestructable materials? This just in - cars vulnerable to anti-vehicular missle launchers. NanoGator thinks the car manufacturers should be held accountable. Abuhhhhh
Anyways, unless you've done software development, your opinion doesn't matter.
Apple won't release a standard-pc OSX to compete with windows because they quite simply cant compete, and Steve Job's wouldn't like it. One of the prime factors in the stability and power of OSX is they only have to worry about certain hardware. A good portion (i.e. most) of the blue-screen-of-death's on Windows are because of hardware support. Windows has had how many years of companies developing drivers for it, how could OSX be released and expect to compete? All the hardware manufacturers that made the obscure pieces in your 2 year old pc from some random company, using some obscure ethernet card and some weird motherboard with onboard sound, they're not going to suddenly produce drivers for osx (most people use outdated hardware, remember) even if they only target brand new computers, there's not that much insentive to support it as a hardware company (its easier to keep one OS dominant)
OSX would completly flop, plain and simple. The shareholders and boardmembers and engineers and everyone knows this.
Also, Steve Job's would DIE before doing this. He want's the complete package, and what Steve wants, Steve gets. It's worked so far, why change it?
If Apple gained 100% market share, would they make more money? Yes. However they would be starting off with 0% market share and a weak posistion. Apple makes assloads off of their current buisness model (just watched the making of star wars episode 3, so many G5 towers and apple cinema displays *drools*) and they're still picking up pace. Releasing a general-pc OSX would be suicide.
It's not that Nintendo doesn't want to compete - it's that they're not playing cat and mouse with Sony and MS. Honestly, all this talk about specs, throwing out random numbers people are woo-ed by but don't mean much to them in reality (ooo my machine has 3 cores, ooo well mine has 1 core +7 spe thingies, beat that!)
Honestly, all the theoretical numbers, the teraflops, the floatingpoint-operations-per-second's, it mean's nothing. Well okay it means somthing, but remember the GCN launch? Nintendo didn't go into the nitty gritty about the hardware because the consumers don't need to know. Developers don't even need to know. Why? Theoretical limits are just that: theoretical. When Nintendo released benchmarks of the GCN, did they do what the ps2 and xbox did, for example releasing a polygon-per-second count of just rendering nothing but flat triangles? No. They released numbers based on what you could achieve in a game, with AI, sound, texturing etc, i.e. realistic numbers. The hardware platforms are so different, that one measure means virtually nothing. Sure, the PS2 can kick all the consoles and pretty much any PC at flat polygon fillrate, but it has pretty shitty graphics compared to the gamecube (metroid prime, or for a crossplatform example, RE4)
Nintendo is simply better at engineering things anyways. The GCN had something like a 400mhz cpu, and probably the lowest "numbers" of all the consoles, yet it is equal to the xbox (well, some parts not so much (shaders), but other things its better at (particles is a good example, but thats based on a lot of factors, namely its FP performance)) It's also in a much smaller housing, and doesn't sound like a windtunnel like the xbox. How did they manage this? They engineered it better. Microsoft took PC parts, threw them in a black box and called it a days work (hell, the controllers are USB, the connection has just been physically changed to not fit into normal USB slots)
Sony and MS are going for the whole shebang, all of digital entertainment. Sony has their music and movie divisions influencing it, and their consumer tech (mp3 players etc) all fighting to make the ps3 a super DRM convergance machine. Microsoft has their Windows Media Centre to sell, and whats to be the software king (things like their music store, the xbl store etc) What does Nintendo want to do? Make games. Their online model doesn't have a music store. It has demo's you can download for your DS. Old school roms you can buy (please let them be cheap) etc etc. Nintendo is focused squarely on games. The Revolution won't be a multimedia powerhouse. I doubt it'll play DVD's out of the box. Nintendo is appealing to developers, by offering them a new (awesome) method of control, but letting them use the old one (the classic controller shell) if they are too afraid. The devkit enviroment is supposedly nearly the same as the GCN, which if you've ever programmed for a console (I did a bit of DS) you know is a very good thing. The PS3 and xbox360, with their new architectures supposedly are hard to develop for (and to add to that, the current devkits for the ps3 are supposedly horrid, typical Sony style)
So, is Nintendo backing away from competition and trying to find a niche market, or find a new group of consumers? No. Although they still want the new consumers, they want the old crowd too. They just are more focused on the gaming aspect of consoles than their competitors, which I believe will let them win out in the end.
Wrong. Alot of people seem to have this opinion. This is Apple - not Microsoft. MS got their OS used by everyone, maybe not everyone legally baught a purpose but most of the modern world came to depend on it. Win. Apple is a different beast. They want to design the WHOLE package, not just the software, and not just the hardware. They want everything to work seemlessly, as can be witnessed by the vast amount of first party software bundled with OSX. Sure, I bet they planned on alot of people pirating the developer previews - it helps them stop the real pirating once the OS is released (by making it harder to crack) However, in the long run, they have nothing to gain. They don't need beta testers for unsupported hardware because they don't want that hardware supported. I'm sure a little pirating in the sake of demo'ing the OS wouldn't bother them, but they won't stand for actual use of OSX on non-apple hardware. They make no money off that hardware, and no money off that OS install (as it will be most likely pirated) Apple is not giving up the hardware side of thing's, they stand to lose too much money.
Do you know what this was all about? They weren't getting paid a wage. Google did not hire them. They spent spare time in the summer making a contribution to an open source project, which they may have/were doing for free anyway, and Google gave 'em $4500 and a tshirt. What the hell is wrong with that? These guys didn't sit in cubicles all summer coding, they did it on their spare time.
p.s. Your opinions on McDonalds food is pretty funny.
The U.S. Military Invented the Internet... therefore the U.S. should have control over it.
The Chinese invented guns, therefore the Chinese should have control over them.
You can say it about anything. The fact of the matter is that the internet has evolved because its global. The internet as it is isn't the same as it was when it was a US thing. Many countries depend on it heavily for their economy as the US does, and don't want the root DNS servers hosted by one government. Imagine the next president, lets call him Joe, decides that country X is in some way evil (terror threat? It'd work with the american public) the US could cut off DNS record access to that country, so no domain names would resolve. or they could intentionally fudge them up and send them redirecting to wrong places. Imagine waking up, going to your computer, opening Firefox, and your homepage is now a site telling you that your countries dns access has been halted for war measures. Every domain you try now resolves to this page.
Would this ever happen? Unlikely, but it's still a bad thing for any country other than the US (and Canada... unless the softwood lumber dispute gets out of hand;) )
It's not a matter of the UN having control, its the world, not just the US. Personally I don't want China, North Korea or any other country with a crazy government having root DNS servers, but hell if every country got one (or one per certain amount of capita) then thats decentralized enough for everyones sake.
The downside? China or some country using that power to block their citizens access to certain domains (well, at least stopping them from resolving correctly) As long as their are enough other root dns servers that can just ban getting their stuff sync'd from china then its not bad for the rest of the world, but it's another tool that China/etc can use against it's people which isn't cool.
I loved the original X-BTF (beyond the frontier). Got it for 1.99$ used at EB. Best use of a toonie (Canadian and proud of it) ever. I had just finished playing Tachyon, some novalogic game (it was good too, fun multiplayer) and the drop in graphics was a huge turn off at first, and the poor voices (with no subtitles) of the taladi took a long time to get used to.
After playing for a few hours, the game had this awsome sense of immersion. It felt like a real, living breathing huge ass universe. You could see the seams around the sky-box of space, where the "stars" were (the textures were poorly done, so you knew you were flying around in a huge ass box) even though, as someone who programs games as a hobby, alot of its flaws were painfully obvious, for some reason it still felt perfect. All the space stations were large distances apart, even though the diffrence between large empty space and small empty space is none existant in computer graphics, it still felt amazing. Even though it was basically flying your ship from one end to another docking with stations and finding the best deal on energy cells and reselling them to someone else, it was great. You could manually dock with stations, not that big of a deal, especially after you got the autodock enhancement, but it made it feel authentic, no stupid crappily done cutscenes. The aliens simply didn't take your shit, you could fire a few shots at an aliens ship/station, but if you were in their territory it didnt take long until they ordered you dead, and unless your in the later parts of the game, it wouldnt take long to die. Even though the AI was shit - the bad dudes would try and ram you - it almost made sense (since they were robots) and it was easy enough to avoid fights.
X2 was good, Whereas XBTF took a long time to get into story (which fizzled out eventually and left you back to your trading and empire building, which I personally got bored of) X2 starts with the story, feels more linear, and not quite as big a universe, but much much much better looking. Maybe it does get better (in the scale sense) later in the game, i didnt get far until I switched off windows and couldn't play it, but it was still a great game, I recomend both to anyone wanted an unusual game that doesn't just rehash old ideas (well, I've never played Elite etc so I guess I'm bias, but still its an unexplored genre)
You do realize that if you put the control inside the wavebird-like sleeve, it still tilts when you tilt the addon sleve? Rigid body physics astounds! I read somewhere EA plans to use the "normal" controller + tilt for their football games.
I'm pretty sure the intention is to have the sleeve addon thing work with all games, i.e. they don't have to specifically support the addon. However I could be mistaken.
Give me 1 well done FPS, 1 well done star wars game with lightsaber control and make Twilight Princess a nrv title and I'll buy 10 systems and sign off everything I own to Nintendo. The last request is optional, though.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to run a Microsoft application on a supercomputer? Why not hitch a tub of nitroglycerine to a billion dollar check and throw it out the window (into a fire pit, incase the impact doesn't set it off)
Yeah, rendering, video editing and the other things Apple's xserve's don't need supercomputers.
Science and engineering are *not* the only places where supercomputers matter. You're just bias. Just watch the making of documentary for epIII of star wars, and look at all the shiny G5's hooked up to xserve's with awsome apple cinema display's. Science and engineering may be tilted heavily to windows and linux, but movie editing, 3d rendering etc are even more so geared to osx (well, not as much 3d rendering as movie editing but still)
Well, okay, what's the alternative? Either an interpreted language which does all the checking real time, which is painfully slow, or a language with a compiler that compiles the safty pads into the final product, which is also slow. The reason pointers are used so often is because they are very useful (sometimes references can be used instead, but not all the time) C++ is the most bare-bones high level language. Compilers are good enough to beat any human writing assembly code now (just read disasembled code, scary) yet the language is OO (but not over the top OO like some languages *cough*java*cough*) and for the most part very human readable (once you get used to it of course) with a clear and extremly flexible syntax (see: the obfustication contest article on the front page ATM)
Pointers are part of the reason. Pointers are insecure themselves, but their implementation can be. Most (like, 99.9999%) of the time its not a security risk, but sometimes, in complicated code, there's an insecure bit, and it can go unnoticed for forever, until some bitch finds it and your forced to fix it.
Your doctor-hospital analogy is kind of exaggerated. I don't care if a diagnosis, which my life depends on, takes 15 minutes more to ensure security. However, given the choice of playing BrandNewFPS XVII in C++ and getting a good frame rate, or playing a port of it to some kiddie language that holds your hands and makes every array resizable (aka a linked list), every pointer type thing unoverflowable etc etc etc etc (I'm looking at you, VB and Java) and getting like a tenth of a frame a second (i dont want any Java Isn't Really That Slow, You're Just Imagining It posts, at least I'm slighty on topic) I'd choose the potential risk (see: small potential, pointers are used like crazy and the usage:exploit ratio is very insignificantly tiny) in exchange for the better frame rate.
Back on topic slightly. What about, in this example, libpng and rendering images? You want your images to load and display very fast, but like EVERYTHING uses libpng and libjpeg etc (at least from the nix perspective) and that is a big bitch if theres an exploit in the code. However, these projects are very open to the public, and exploits won't last long. The last one was a fluke, I bet it was in a very confusing complicated all over the place bit of code and that's why it went unnoticed for so long.
Here's a though: make executable files in XML, and you can have the code for an xml parser in xml.
Then the world would collapse.
Anyway's, 'tis nothing wrong with pointers, and in alot of cases they are the best solution. If you're too dumb to use them properly, then use some n00b language like Java that protects you from such evils. Yes, even the best sometime forget to do checks and what-not on their pointers sometimes, and those sometimes are the ones that come to bite them in the ass, but for the most part, thumbs up to pointers, thumbs up to c++ and thumbs down to silly languages that protect the coder from their own dumbness.
They didn't leave them open, they didn't realize they existed. Either way, should makers of cars be held financially responsible for every bit of damage caused by missles hitting them, just because they didn't make the cars out of indestructable materials? This just in - cars vulnerable to anti-vehicular missle launchers. NanoGator thinks the car manufacturers should be held accountable. Abuhhhhh
Anyways, unless you've done software development, your opinion doesn't matter.
Apple won't release a standard-pc OSX to compete with windows because they quite simply cant compete, and Steve Job's wouldn't like it. One of the prime factors in the stability and power of OSX is they only have to worry about certain hardware. A good portion (i.e. most) of the blue-screen-of-death's on Windows are because of hardware support. Windows has had how many years of companies developing drivers for it, how could OSX be released and expect to compete? All the hardware manufacturers that made the obscure pieces in your 2 year old pc from some random company, using some obscure ethernet card and some weird motherboard with onboard sound, they're not going to suddenly produce drivers for osx (most people use outdated hardware, remember) even if they only target brand new computers, there's not that much insentive to support it as a hardware company (its easier to keep one OS dominant)
OSX would completly flop, plain and simple. The shareholders and boardmembers and engineers and everyone knows this.
Also, Steve Job's would DIE before doing this. He want's the complete package, and what Steve wants, Steve gets. It's worked so far, why change it?
If Apple gained 100% market share, would they make more money? Yes. However they would be starting off with 0% market share and a weak posistion. Apple makes assloads off of their current buisness model (just watched the making of star wars episode 3, so many G5 towers and apple cinema displays *drools*) and they're still picking up pace. Releasing a general-pc OSX would be suicide.
It's not that Nintendo doesn't want to compete - it's that they're not playing cat and mouse with Sony and MS. Honestly, all this talk about specs, throwing out random numbers people are woo-ed by but don't mean much to them in reality (ooo my machine has 3 cores, ooo well mine has 1 core +7 spe thingies, beat that!)
Honestly, all the theoretical numbers, the teraflops, the floatingpoint-operations-per-second's, it mean's nothing. Well okay it means somthing, but remember the GCN launch? Nintendo didn't go into the nitty gritty about the hardware because the consumers don't need to know. Developers don't even need to know. Why? Theoretical limits are just that: theoretical. When Nintendo released benchmarks of the GCN, did they do what the ps2 and xbox did, for example releasing a polygon-per-second count of just rendering nothing but flat triangles? No. They released numbers based on what you could achieve in a game, with AI, sound, texturing etc, i.e. realistic numbers. The hardware platforms are so different, that one measure means virtually nothing. Sure, the PS2 can kick all the consoles and pretty much any PC at flat polygon fillrate, but it has pretty shitty graphics compared to the gamecube (metroid prime, or for a crossplatform example, RE4)
Nintendo is simply better at engineering things anyways. The GCN had something like a 400mhz cpu, and probably the lowest "numbers" of all the consoles, yet it is equal to the xbox (well, some parts not so much (shaders), but other things its better at (particles is a good example, but thats based on a lot of factors, namely its FP performance)) It's also in a much smaller housing, and doesn't sound like a windtunnel like the xbox. How did they manage this? They engineered it better. Microsoft took PC parts, threw them in a black box and called it a days work (hell, the controllers are USB, the connection has just been physically changed to not fit into normal USB slots)
Sony and MS are going for the whole shebang, all of digital entertainment. Sony has their music and movie divisions influencing it, and their consumer tech (mp3 players etc) all fighting to make the ps3 a super DRM convergance machine. Microsoft has their Windows Media Centre to sell, and whats to be the software king (things like their music store, the xbl store etc) What does Nintendo want to do? Make games. Their online model doesn't have a music store. It has demo's you can download for your DS. Old school roms you can buy (please let them be cheap) etc etc. Nintendo is focused squarely on games. The Revolution won't be a multimedia powerhouse. I doubt it'll play DVD's out of the box. Nintendo is appealing to developers, by offering them a new (awesome) method of control, but letting them use the old one (the classic controller shell) if they are too afraid. The devkit enviroment is supposedly nearly the same as the GCN, which if you've ever programmed for a console (I did a bit of DS) you know is a very good thing. The PS3 and xbox360, with their new architectures supposedly are hard to develop for (and to add to that, the current devkits for the ps3 are supposedly horrid, typical Sony style)
So, is Nintendo backing away from competition and trying to find a niche market, or find a new group of consumers? No. Although they still want the new consumers, they want the old crowd too. They just are more focused on the gaming aspect of consoles than their competitors, which I believe will let them win out in the end.
Wrong. Alot of people seem to have this opinion. This is Apple - not Microsoft. MS got their OS used by everyone, maybe not everyone legally baught a purpose but most of the modern world came to depend on it. Win. Apple is a different beast. They want to design the WHOLE package, not just the software, and not just the hardware. They want everything to work seemlessly, as can be witnessed by the vast amount of first party software bundled with OSX. Sure, I bet they planned on alot of people pirating the developer previews - it helps them stop the real pirating once the OS is released (by making it harder to crack) However, in the long run, they have nothing to gain. They don't need beta testers for unsupported hardware because they don't want that hardware supported. I'm sure a little pirating in the sake of demo'ing the OS wouldn't bother them, but they won't stand for actual use of OSX on non-apple hardware. They make no money off that hardware, and no money off that OS install (as it will be most likely pirated) Apple is not giving up the hardware side of thing's, they stand to lose too much money.
Read the summary. Note the mention of TPM.
Wiki linky
The page the article is hosted on is part of an effort to hack the restrictions on it so it can run on more general non-apple hardware.
1/300th the speed of light is roughly 621 miles per second
I have dialup you insenstive clod!
Do you know what this was all about? They weren't getting paid a wage. Google did not hire them. They spent spare time in the summer making a contribution to an open source project, which they may have/were doing for free anyway, and Google gave 'em $4500 and a tshirt. What the hell is wrong with that? These guys didn't sit in cubicles all summer coding, they did it on their spare time.
p.s. Your opinions on McDonalds food is pretty funny.
Uh, it's direct quotes from Iwata, the CEO. Good job at reading the article summary, let alone the article itself.
Dude in a book went crazy and decided to mount his hourse and attack a windmill. Fun times.
The U.S. Military Invented the Internet... therefore the U.S. should have control over it.
;) )
The Chinese invented guns, therefore the Chinese should have control over them.
You can say it about anything. The fact of the matter is that the internet has evolved because its global. The internet as it is isn't the same as it was when it was a US thing. Many countries depend on it heavily for their economy as the US does, and don't want the root DNS servers hosted by one government. Imagine the next president, lets call him Joe, decides that country X is in some way evil (terror threat? It'd work with the american public) the US could cut off DNS record access to that country, so no domain names would resolve. or they could intentionally fudge them up and send them redirecting to wrong places. Imagine waking up, going to your computer, opening Firefox, and your homepage is now a site telling you that your countries dns access has been halted for war measures. Every domain you try now resolves to this page.
Would this ever happen? Unlikely, but it's still a bad thing for any country other than the US (and Canada... unless the softwood lumber dispute gets out of hand
It's not a matter of the UN having control, its the world, not just the US. Personally I don't want China, North Korea or any other country with a crazy government having root DNS servers, but hell if every country got one (or one per certain amount of capita) then thats decentralized enough for everyones sake.
The downside? China or some country using that power to block their citizens access to certain domains (well, at least stopping them from resolving correctly) As long as their are enough other root dns servers that can just ban getting their stuff sync'd from china then its not bad for the rest of the world, but it's another tool that China/etc can use against it's people which isn't cool.
Damnit, replace Bo with No.
Bo. The first x (where x is some number) of bytes on the DS is write protected, and you have to manually short a connection to overwrite it.
Actually, the Master Chief is a reincarnated Leela. Whoops spoiler.
I loved the original X-BTF (beyond the frontier). Got it for 1.99$ used at EB. Best use of a toonie (Canadian and proud of it) ever. I had just finished playing Tachyon, some novalogic game (it was good too, fun multiplayer) and the drop in graphics was a huge turn off at first, and the poor voices (with no subtitles) of the taladi took a long time to get used to.
After playing for a few hours, the game had this awsome sense of immersion. It felt like a real, living breathing huge ass universe. You could see the seams around the sky-box of space, where the "stars" were (the textures were poorly done, so you knew you were flying around in a huge ass box) even though, as someone who programs games as a hobby, alot of its flaws were painfully obvious, for some reason it still felt perfect. All the space stations were large distances apart, even though the diffrence between large empty space and small empty space is none existant in computer graphics, it still felt amazing. Even though it was basically flying your ship from one end to another docking with stations and finding the best deal on energy cells and reselling them to someone else, it was great. You could manually dock with stations, not that big of a deal, especially after you got the autodock enhancement, but it made it feel authentic, no stupid crappily done cutscenes. The aliens simply didn't take your shit, you could fire a few shots at an aliens ship/station, but if you were in their territory it didnt take long until they ordered you dead, and unless your in the later parts of the game, it wouldnt take long to die. Even though the AI was shit - the bad dudes would try and ram you - it almost made sense (since they were robots) and it was easy enough to avoid fights.
X2 was good, Whereas XBTF took a long time to get into story (which fizzled out eventually and left you back to your trading and empire building, which I personally got bored of) X2 starts with the story, feels more linear, and not quite as big a universe, but much much much better looking. Maybe it does get better (in the scale sense) later in the game, i didnt get far until I switched off windows and couldn't play it, but it was still a great game, I recomend both to anyone wanted an unusual game that doesn't just rehash old ideas (well, I've never played Elite etc so I guess I'm bias, but still its an unexplored genre)
It says Tiger compatible, but does it retain 10.3 compatibility? I hope so, it looks neat.
You do realize that if you put the control inside the wavebird-like sleeve, it still tilts when you tilt the addon sleve? Rigid body physics astounds! I read somewhere EA plans to use the "normal" controller + tilt for their football games.
I'm pretty sure the intention is to have the sleeve addon thing work with all games, i.e. they don't have to specifically support the addon. However I could be mistaken.
Give me 1 well done FPS, 1 well done star wars game with lightsaber control and make Twilight Princess a nrv title and I'll buy 10 systems and sign off everything I own to Nintendo. The last request is optional, though.
Didn't you see the sign? Don't feed the trolls.
Just look at the dudes comment history.
Master Chief won an award last year.
Duck Hunt 2: Screw the Ducks, Shoot The Dog