Monday, October 29, 2012

3 Reasons why Obama will be a 2-Term President

1. Home Field Advantage

Ever since the beginning of America it has been a trend the that if the president runs for a second term, he gets it. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, and many more have followed in that trend. Even George W. Bush, who left office with the lowest approval rating of any president ever recorded in the history of the United States, was voted in for a second term. The most likely reason for this is that people feel more comfortable with what they know (Obama as president) then what they don't know (Romney as president).

2. Failed Competition

Now, by no means is Romney a complete failure as indicated by the closeness of the polls, bu the lacks one of the major traits a candidate needs to have, the down-to-Earth connection with the people. Considering that at least 90% of America never meets or even sees the president in person, it is important for people to feel a connection to the president. Even though Obama is not the most down-to-Earth person in politics, he is more tangible to the general public than a Multi-Millionaire. If there was a more connectable candidate, or if Romney used a more visible Southern accent, he could gains a few more votes.

3. Social Media/The Internet 

Obama could become the first president to be helped by the internet in his campaign, his posts have been met with better receptions on social media, and not only that, but the amount of sources like the Onion, different Youtubers, and satirical Romney impersonators have been all over the internet. That could work like advertising, because al ot of the theory of advertising is that the more you see it, the more you believe it. So this could work the same way online with the huge amount of Romney critics.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

3D Printing-A New Revolution

The biggest invention since the factory. 3 dimensional printing is a revolutionary new technology that can be used for a plethora of different interests. For example, even though now, the biggest objects one can create on a 3D printer are tiny to say the least, it can be used to create a spoon at will. If this technology evolves like the car, then in 50 years, people could become self sufficient, and make their own products out of the convenience of their homes.

If that doesn't convince you of the potential of 3D printing just check out This Website. It clearly illustrates that 3D printing has already taken a step towards every day usage. Currently, the price of the cheapest 3D printers are still over $1,000 a pretty penny for the average Joe, the high-end model shown above is expected to cost a little under $17, 500. But, let's not get to worked up about the price, everything needs time to evolve and over the next couple of decades the price should drop significantly, just look at the light bulb, when it first came out it was a fortune, but now it's something that we incorporate in our everyday life without even noticing.

Of course there are some downsides to this new technology, some people argue it should be made illegal because it would kill manufacturing, students even build a car with a 3d printer, but then again factories killed farming, and it turned out to be for the most part a good thing. And since factories have much more negative effects than 3D printers, they pollute they sometime abuse workers, and they take up massive amounts of real estate. So maybe it's time to give back the power to create back to the people.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

iExellence on why voting for a third party candidate could be the best ballot you ever cast

Obama vs. Romney. Republican vs. Democrat. Red vs. Blue. This is how America has voted since the time of Abraham Lincoln. Last election the majority of this country voted for a man with a slogan promising change. So, isn't it time Americans created their own change? Recently, there was a third party presidential debate featuring Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Jill Stein (Green), Virgil Goode (Republican), and Rocky Anderson (Justice). (Full Debate Here) This debate was much unlike the more publicized Obama-Romney debates because there mostly everyone agreed on solutions to the issues except Virgil Goode. The most interesting part of the heated debate was when they were discussing illegal drug use and whether as president the candidates would legalize marijuana or not. When it's Gary Anderson's turn to speak, he sates that he has quote: "Smoked marijuana" in his life. This was a seriously bold move, and it proved something valuable that third party candidates posses that Democrat and Republican candidates don't. Freedom to express their ideas.

Recently, Obama and Romney shattered a record for amount of money spent on campaigning for president  and that number will increase increase over future elections. Much of this money goes to professional campaigners who know what their candidate needs to say and act, just look at the difference between Obama in debate one and Obama in debate two. This was no doubt run by his clever campaign team. If you look at the stats from Jill Stein's total grossed income from this years campaign, it adds up to $246,443 (Full stats), that's less than the donations Obama got from Massachusettes actually, about 1/64th of his Massachusettes donations to be exact. Just FYI, Jill Stein is the favorite of the third party candidates. So, by this I don't mean to say that she is better because she runs on less funds, Obama clearly earned his, but that she can't possibly spend as much on campaign tactics, added on to the fact that she doesn't expect to win, that means she is completely free to express what she truly thinks, and likewise for her other third-party candidates. So, the main reason to vote for one of the, is because it is easy to see their real opinions. Even their websites are less craftily engineered to hide their opinions, they're right there. So, what I'm trying to hint at is not that third party candidates are automatically better, but that it is important to make an informed decision when you cast your ballot an to vote based on your own educated opinion, not just because of your party preference.  

Friday, October 26, 2012

Why Apple should be biting their fingernails about Microsoft's new tablet

Earlier this year, Apple suffered the biggest setback in company history with the death of their founder, Steve Jobs. This was expected by many to throw them of balance and possibly lose their ever-tightening grip on the computer industry. So why worry about an outdated, glitchy, uncool company like Microsoft? Well, with the release of their new commercial, that stars hipsters and dubstep, Microsoft could possibly take away the Apple brand's most valuable asset, the cool factor. After the Apple-Samsung suit, it was made even more clear to the world that products that Samsung's products functioned just as well as if not better than Apple's and could be bought for cheaper. So why do people still purchase those overpriced, fragile tablets anyway? Well, it's because Apple has done a spectacular job of making themselves the go to company for cool computers that no-one takes you seriously without. So, back to Microsoft, they are taking a lot of cues from Apple, the simplistic new logo, the strategic targeting of audiences. However, Microsoft has a couple of secret weapons at their disposal. Before 2012, Apple costumers mostly rallied behind Steve Jobs while Microsoft users rallied behind Bill Gates. When Mr.Gates left Microsoft, they took an almost immediate plunge, and it's no coincidence. The other secret weapon is very simple, so simple in fact, even a child will notice it. Microsoft uses color, while Apple uses B&W. This could easily make Apple's sleek look turn against itself, and Microsoft with its more simple, fun design could become the new 'people's tablet'. Who will win the war in the end for the control of the rapidly growing computer industry? Only time will tell, but with the Microsoft Surface coming into play, this could make for quite a battle.