Chromebook: Contender or Pretender?

The Google Chromebook is an interesting fusion that reveals a lot about Google, and possibly the future of computers. Firstly, what it reveals about Google. It reveals that Google aims to be relevant of all computing and internet related markets. Browser, search engine, social media, and now computers. Google is certainly making it their priority to be a provider of all the popular computer-related markets and they have at least succeeded in being there. Even though the numbers of people on Google Plus aren't as high as Facebook, they have made G+ known. Chromebook as a selling point is probably not great. With Windows taking huge leaps to try and stay in the computer business and Apple still dominating, the future doesn't look bright for this innovative introduction to the slowly progressing computer industry.

The coolest part about the Chromebook is that it's all online. That means that it doesn't need to be backed up. That won't be good for the hard drive makers, but for general convenience  it's pretty revolutionary. It seems similar to Windows 8 where all your information from online is on the home screen; the Chromebook is a more extreme version of that. Unfortunately, like most extreme ideas, it won't get much attention, so that idea may be dissolved in time, but it was a clever because most of what people do is now online, and it also creates a much more social environment. Being social is an increasingly important part of the internet, and the Chromebook is a peek into a possible future.

Black Friday: What's the Rush?

Today marks the biggest day in shopping of the entire year, Black Friday. This day has been here for almost a decade and people often don't know too much about its origin. So, why not take a look back? Ok, Black Friday became consistently the biggest day in shopping in 2005 (c). Before that from 1993 to 2001 it shifted around from fifth through tenth. The name originated in the city of Philadelphia where it was used to refer to the heavy traffic that would occur right after Thanksgiving. The 'black' was then changed to refer to when retailers were in the 'black', or turning a profit. The opening of Black Friday has gradually become sooner and sooner. Last year, companies like Target opened at midnight, a huge leap, however this year companies have even opened at 8 PM on Thursday. Black Friday has been a hectic day in history, even inducing some unfortunate violence. Finally, the reason for the day being right after Thanksgiving is mainly because it marks the beginning of the Christmas season, so people have an extra reason to shop.

Black Friday, from a retailers point of view is a big strategy game. Often they lose money on the items that are put on 'mega sale' because they expect the people who come in to buy other things too that they will make money back on. Also, to ensure that it happens like that, often the 'mega sale' items are not similar so people in theory will not be particularly interested in just buying those items. Another major front for them is advertising, new motto's, spokespeople and ideas. The first step in getting customers is alerting them of your brand, in terms of Black Friday, that is even more true. The last part of Black Friday for retailers is making sure that employees aren't unhappy, because the hours are getting longer, strikes are not impossible.

Should Black Friday exist? Yes. But only if the hours get more reasonable. If the hours are ok, than Black Friday benefits everyone. The other cool part about Black Friday is that inspired other shopping days like Small Business Saturday, but let's save that for a different article.

The Wii U-nderdog

Nintendo is faced with a huge decision that could define its sales for a while to come. Stay in the family-oriented market, or change and try and expand to wider markets. Nintendo has a definite monopoly in the family game market, but the huge game buying demographic of teenagers seem to disgrace the Wii as a loser machine. So where does the new Wii U fit in?

The Wii U seems to be somewhere in the middle. It somewhat imitates the console quality anywhere device used first by Playstation. So that side is a lot towards the 'real gamer' side. The touchscreen and motion as well indicate complex controls, and that as well leans it towards the gamer side. However the major setback included with the Wii U for more passionate players is the selection of games. They are not necessarily the best for players who want to look good. The type of games are things like Mario, Lego, and Epic Mickey. Even though games like Black OPS II and Assassin's Creed III are available, the online will probably not have that many players on and again more serious players generally dislike the Wii. So, again, it fits somewhere in between.

The Wii U has a bit of an identity crisis that Nintendo needs to sort out. Personally, I would stick to the family market. It is often true that companies struggle and sometimes even terminate because of they try to do too much. Sticking in that niche will give them sufficient profit and has already been proven to do so. They also have no real competition in that niche, but if they try to expand, they end up in virtually impenetrable Xbox and Playstation territory. To sum up the U in terms of sales in one simile:  it should sell like hot cakes... on a Tuesday.

Voting mini-series-Proportional voting

So, proportional voting. Considered to be the most democratic form of voting. Basically, people vote for the president, and based on those results, that decides the people in the senate (or Parliament or house of Representatives). So, as an example if 5% of the votes go to the Libertarian party, if the congress contains 100 seats, then the Libertarians get 5 seats. How do they decide on who from the party? Well, before the election, each party submits a list of people, and if they get 5 seats the first 5 on the list make it into the congress.

Personally, this form of voting seems almost perfect, as you can tell from my former article on why voting for a third party candidate is a good idea (http://iexellence.blogspot.com/2012/10/iexellence-on-why-voting-for-third.html). In this form, it makes it so that everyone is represented, for a real example, take Gary Johnson, who won almost 2% of the vote, but he obviously didn't win and there are no Libertarians (Gary Johnson's party of association) in congress. Depending on how you define Democracy, this could technically be the most democratic because the people are represented. As far as cons, I'm pretty much speechless, there aren't any ones to mention. Due to this, it's definitely the best form of Democratic voting.

Popular Vote-Yay or Nay?

Recently, some buzz has been created about changing the voting system. Changing the system of government used since the founding of America, the Electoral College. Some background on the Electoral College: It was created by the founding fathers of America as an alternative to popular and proportional vote counting. The reason for not using the popular vote was that they believed that people would just vote for the runner in their state, and then the majority would not properly be represented, so they decided on the Electoral College, where each state has a number of votes, and when they vote for a candidate (based on majority), that candidate gets the vote. Currently, the amount of votes needed to win the presidency is 270.

So, just using the popular vote, why is that useful? Well, it would more effectively represent the majority in voting. Democracies are by nature, supposed to represent the majority of the people's wishes. Well doesn't the Electoral College do that? No, in the election of 2000, Albert Gore won the popular vote, but lost the election, thus using the popular vote system is more democratic. Also, it could influence people, and encourage them to vote. In states now, some people don't vote because they know that the state will support one candidate or another with its electoral votes, but if it contributes to the popular vote and that decides the president, then people will see that their vote has more value. It can also foil state by state voting fraud, because the popular vote is less based on state by state decisions, and more on the country's decision

In terms of cons, there doesn't appear to be any, except that switching might be an odd transition. Because of that, switching to the popular vote is the most sensible decision. The Electoral College was created hundreds of years ago, and times have changed, so it needs to be changed to fit the current agenda. For more on voting, and why it's important at: http://iexellence.blogspot.com/2012/11/voting-citizens-greatest-obligation.html

3 Reasons Why the World Won't End in 2012

1. Mayans Didn't Include Leap Year Days

Because of that fact, the world according to the Mayans ended sometime in June of last year on the Gregorian Calendar.  It also is a hint that their calendar wasn't fully accurate.

2. It was Created Thousands of Years Ago

Scientists today cannot even predict when the exact end of the world will be, so why would an Ancient Civilization? Sure, the Mayans were ahead of their time, but they weren't prophets. Consider this: there was someone who was assigned the job of making the yearly calendar. He can only continue for so long, their calendars were also very elaborate, and then, 2012 was 2,500 years in the future, and even now we know barely anything of what the Earth will be like in 4512. We also don't think about it. So basically, the Mayans had to stop somewhere, and talking about 2,500 years in the future was already beyond them, so it's possible that they just needed an ending point and randomly chose December 21st 2012.

3. It Is Completely Illogical

The Mayans said that time would rewind in 2012. Scientifically, that makes no sense. Time continues forever, and does not miss a beat. Ok, even if that is discarded and another way like natural disasters is substituted, it still makes no sense. Why would a huge amount of disasters all occur on one day. There is no meteor warning, hurricane warning, or even major earthquake warning that we know of for December 21st.

AO-From Hero to Zero

The rating Adult Only love it or hate it, it's had a everlasting effect on video game culture, its become under attack whether on not it should exist. So let's take a look back at the many faces of the AO rating.

Early days: AO was feared by parents everywhere. With the new creation of video game ratings, they were much more strict in ratings and the ratings were usually one step down from where they are today (M would have been AO, E 10+ would have been M). AO was used rarely, but mainly untouched by buyers. The first AO rated game without a recall was Manhunt 2 made by Rockstar on the 29th of October, 2007. The slaes were verall very poor, but started to pickup, as AO entered its middle stage.

Middle Stage;After the early days where it would look like blasphemy for a child to play or own an AO game, it began to become cool and "bad" to own AO games. It became like a way to separate boys from men in the school playgrounds. Much like M today. Game developers began to cherish the idea of getting the AO rating, because it would increase sales.

Now: AO has become archaic for gamers and it's almost as unused as EC (early childhood). People have even forgotten about it. Mainly, because if a game gets the rating now, then it is pretty much like getting the plague. It's also not ;or teenagers, the main game buyer demographic. So it has become a no-win situation for everyone, both the makers and the buyers.

So, the verdict: will it stay or will it go? Well in the words of the Clash: "if I go there will be trouble, if I stay there will be double". In other words, if AO ends up in the history books, gamers will protest the loss of a former icon, but if it stays, video game activists will just bring it up again and we could be in the same position not to far in the future. In the end however, it will probably stay, because if it stays it most likely won't be used again, therefore it will stay just to provide