While this is indeed unlikely to be even remotely efficient, it isnt quite as bad as some people above are painting.

Its NOT the equivalent of one person raming into a bus and having an effect on its speed; Its the equivalent of, say, 25-50 people raming into the bus and having an effect on its speed.
A single person isnt expected to pay of the energy consumption of the bus with this scheme, its merely they are expected to pay-of the extra electricity used by -them- riding the bus. Its like buying carbon-displacement when traveling by air, your not covering the whole aircraft, just (supposedly) your contribution by being on that flight.

We are also, of course, talking about an electric bus here, using an electric moter which is vastely more efficient in terms of energy conversion then a combustion engine. (and, of course, human muscles powered by food are also hugely efficient....and, ultimately, solar-powered, energy source. ).

Dont get me wrong, its still not going to cover infrastructure costs, and those capacitors will lose a lot of energy too.
Not to mention storing it before reaching the bus.
If your going to generate power from people, just feeding it back into the grid directly would be the better way to do it. At least then it would power some energy-efficient light bulbs easily enough.

And, actually, yes, daft as it sounds, using people in Gyms to generate power is sensible too....exercise machines are supposed to provide resistance, and dont have to move, and dont need to carry the weight of the capaciters so should be able to generate a lot more energy per-person.

"Nintendo would have been higher up with the low power usage of the Wii itself. "

Greenpeace dosnt take into account anything so meaningfull as power consumption. (or energy used to make the system, transport, and repair it)

Greenpeaces two critisms with Nintendo are;
a) Not making public their material sources etc.
b) Not having a console desposal POLICY.

Seriously, the first I get, but the second is crazy....the only reason you send a console back is to have to repaired. NO ONE sends their consoles back purely once they are finnished with them.

Attaching clothing together has a lot more problems, making it harder to put on, and meaning both have to be washed together.
I wear different socks each day, but not a new pair of trousers each day.

Now, granted the anaology works in that they would have a simerla problem of limited options; Combined earphones and glass's, like combined trousers and socks, mean I can''t wear one without the other.

However, I cant ever see a downside to having wireless earphones on the glass's even when not in use, so in this case the disadvantage only flows one way; Can't use the earpones without the glass's.

So this disadvantage, and presumably the disadvantage of a cost which is unspecified, has to be weighed against the advantage of having the soundsystem always there, and less fiddly to put on.
I can certainly picture slipping this on quickly and its going to be more convient then having a wire trailing down to my mp3 player. Compared to other wireless earphones (of which there dosnt seem to be much options), the advantage is stability and comfort....having something unfixed to anything but your ear while ridding or even running is *a lot* more likely to fall out then this is.

So, as with any product, pro's and con's, but I think people are far too quick to call out crap here.
I suspect its just sheep falling into line, few people thinking about it, and just going on first impressions of the display.

I dont get whats so crap about these at all :-/
Attaching earphones to glass's makes perfect sense to me.

Sure, the display is a bit naff, but whats so wrong with the product :?

I dissagree.
Simplicity and universal formats are needed, but theres nothing wrong with glass's.
Millions of people ware glass's every day, its hardly a bother.

Especialy as seperation of left/right with glass's is an order of magnitude higher quality then stand-alone 3D solutions. (which basicly half the resolution and require someone to be sitting in a specific position).

Allthough non of this tech does it, glass's would also make it trivaly simply to use headtracking to enhance the effect.
Such as Johney Lee demostrates with the wiimote;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
(I have downloaded the demo and tried it myself, and even without steroscopicness this is far more immersive "personal viewpoint" then any other techique I have seen. Combined with stero vision this would be a killer-app for any game or game system).

Looks like just a pair of shutter glass's to me, same thing eDimension and others have been saleing for decades.
I guess the "new moniter" requirement probably dosnt apply is your using an old CRT screen rather then a flatscreen. (which are mostly polarised thus LCD shutter specs dont work).

Still, if this means NVidia actualy puts some more effort into their sterodrivers everyone benifits, regardless of the device used for seperation.

Potentially this could make a VERY nice base for Augmented Reality app's.

I just want Transparent OLED based HMDs :-/
They are already possible for that.

They would probably need a normal LCD back too. (else you couldnt get black at all), but even combined they should be perfect for HMDs. (much lighter, no backlight needed, power efficiant).
I dont want bigger tvs, I want my AR glass's darnit!

You need to look at a bit of software called NaturalMotion endorphin.

Its basicaly inteligent IK-based charecters for gaming, and its *perfect* for be combined with motion plus and stuff like this.

Fixed-charecter animations are completely incompatable with 1:1 motion controll systems, so game developers need to rethink.
But there is techniques, like endorphin, out there for having decent charecter motions combined with getting the location of the hand to match reallife input.

As for Link, I think actualy controlling directly the sword motions is going to FAR outweigh the negatives of the charecter not looking as cool when fighting. Allthough in many ways fighting would probably look more cool anyway, seeing as it would be more dynamic and unique, rather then just 3 or 4 preset animations player other. The game could use a few simple tricks if nesscery to help the player. Slowing down time, being the most obvious.

As for difficulty, it wouldnt need to be easier or harder, just different. Generic slashs wont cut it anymore, make the player have to aim for gaps in the armour, for instance. You cant aim a sword with buttons or stick, but motion controll lets you easily. So the game should require it more.

Actual fighting games would probably need to be done completely differently, but frankly, I think that needs to happen anyway.
Theres only so much can be done with button combos.

Its a shame that so many people are against glass's seeing as the most stable, flexible and universaly viewable 3D images require them.

Paralax barrier-methods have limited viewing angle and reduced resolution, and (sigh) holographic star-wars stuff is just physicaly impossible. (light cant be made to stop in mid air, it has to reflect off something).

For us to have any hope of true "personal viewing angle" 3D, as well as merely steroscopic 3D, glass's of some sort have to be used as well. (at least if you want to allow more then one person to watch at a time...Johnny Lee's method would work for one person...but even then youd have to ware a headband, so your going to look stupid either way!).

Personaly I dont see the problem with glass's, as long as there
a) Standard.
b) Light, comfortable and adjustable.

Millions of people already wear glass's everyday, might as well make the things usefull for more then mere focus correction.