The senate is truly one of the most debated topics in Canada to date. Some people want to abolish it, some want to reform it and some just want to leave it alone. Personally, I believe we should just leave the senate in its current state and really contemplate on the best beneficial reform for EVERY CANADIAN CITIZEN. Also, even though it may seem to some as though some type of reform is necessary, when you think about the numerous negative effects from some reformations, leaving the senate as is may be for the best. Therefore, due to the negative effects of certain reformations to certain residents living in Canada, the numerous possibilities of an abolition and the reality of leaving the senate as it is currently, I genuinely believe that leaving the senate in its current state is the best decision we as Canadians should accept until a true reformation that benefits ALL CANADIANS is thought up.
First of all, even though certain reformations such as the ability to vote for senators may indeed be more democratic, every Canadian should ask themselves if we really want to be in an economic situation like the Americans. Do we really want to be $16+ trillions of dollars in debt? I am not saying that this is the only possibility that will come about from this reformation; it is just one of many possibilities. However, that doesn’t mean we should ignore that possibility as it does seem to be the most logical possible outcome. Also, isn’t that what this specific reformation is trying to do, make citizens of Canada be able to vote for senators? This is why reforming in this way is not the most beneficial decision for the nation of Canada. There are also many other ways of reforming the senate but many of them involve problems with the Quebecois in that they feel some proposed reforms affect their constitutional rights. Also, speaking of not beneficial decisions, an abolished Senate may also have a negative impact on Canadians as well.
Generally, those who believe abolishing the Senate would be the best decision to end this issue of what to do with the senate are very optimistic people. However, even though it may seem as though abolishing the senate will be the best idea (in some peoples’ opinion and views) there are so many possibilities that can happen against Canadian benefits. For example. if the senate is abolished then the procedure to pass laws will go through less checking over and as a result more undemocratic or unfair laws may be passed. However, to abolish the senate may be the best way of reform as there is no way of telling how the extinction of a senate will affect Canada in its entirety, it could positively affect the nation or negatively affect the nation. So, since most reformation and abolition of the senate are not the best options at the moment, would should just accept that the senate should just be left as is.
In reality, the senate does need some type of change whether through abolition or another type of reformation, but right now, “Now, now, now!” (a quote from the Lincoln movie) we are better off still trying to figure out the best way to change the senate while leaving it as it is for now. Moreover, our debt is not as bad as the American government’s debt so why reform it so we can vote for new senators. Sure being able to vote for senators is more democratic, but we should not do something just so the nation is more democratic and instead we should be focusing on what GENUINELY BENEFITS the nation even if it means not voting for senators. Furthermore, as for the aforementioned abolition, to reiterate, there are just to many possibilities having both bad and good effects to the country and since this is a COUNTRY and NOT A COMPANY, taking a risk to abolish the senate and hope for a positive possibility is not even a decision to think about. This is why for now, we should only be thinking about the MOST BENEFICIAL REFORM and keep the senate in its current state.
Finally, from these specific reasons, the negative effects of certain reformations to certain residents living in Canada, the numerous possibilities of an abolition and the reality of leaving the senate as it is currently, is why I truly believe that, “Now, now, now!”, we should simply THINK about the MOST BENEFICIAL CHANGE for the WHOLE NATION!
Summary: THQ, a game company established in 1989 to produce toys and video games, had entered chapter 11 bankruptcy and was forced to sell off their properties in an auction to bidders including game companies such as Ubisoft, Sega and Crytek. In addition, they had to lay off their employees whose divisions were not part of the sale, thus retaining a small staff to guide what remains of the company through the rest of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Moreover, Koch Media, which publishes games under the Deep Silver label, will acquire Volition (Saint’s Row) and the Metro franchise, Crytek will acquire the Homefront game license from THQ, and many more game companies were able to buy some of THQ’s properties.
How is this related to technology? : Video games have been a part of technology for so long as they are technological creations which are developed on other technological devices. Therefore, anything closely related to technology, such as a company that creates video games, is related to technology.
- THQ employees (Negative): Any employee of the THQ game company will be negatively affected from this as they will be “layed-off” from their job and would have to find apply for another job. Also, even that small staff to guide what remains of the company through the rest of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings will be “layed-off” eventually.
- THQ owners (Negative): Similar, to THQ’s employees, THQ owners will be negatively affected as they will lose their company and won’t be able to make income on it anymore and will have to either make a new company or find some other way to make money.
- Companies that bought some THQ property (Positive): Any company that was able to make a purchase on a THQ property will be positively affected as they will be able to earn income off of consumers that enjoy that product. For example, the Saints Row videogame series is very popular and the company that was able to buy that will earn additional income on top of the income they are already earning.
- Companies that didn’t buy some THQ property (Negative/Neutral): Depending on how well the company is already doing in the market (meaning they are selling a fairly decent amount of merchandise in the market) is how they will be affected. For instance, certain companies can be negatively affected if they didn’t buy any THQ property as they may lose some consumers that liked buying their products to those that have acquired a new title to their video games library. However, if a company is selling lots of video games to consumers already, then they will not be greatly affected, if at all, as they are already making a decent amount of money.
- Consumers (Positive/Negative): Depending on how well the new companies develop their newly acquired games from THQ is how consumers that liked buying that certain video game series (like Saints Row) will be affected. For instance, if the new company messes up the game in terms of story, flow and more, then the consumers will be negatively affected as they will have a bad experience when playing it. However, if the company makes the game better, then the consumers will have a fun and great experience playing their game.
- Government (Neutral): Whatever happens with THQ and the other game companies buying their property doesn’t really affect the government as they have more pressing matters to attend to such as the economy.
Reflection/Opinion/Questions: Honestly, THQ going bankrupt is very disappointing to me as they had so many opportunities to sell some unique and enjoyable video games. In addition, I wished that gamers including me would’ve bought more of their products so they would be able to stay and hopefully make new better games. However, even if we did buy a lot of their products they probably couldn’t escape the amount of bills/dues they had to pay off.
How do you feel knowing that THQ will no longer make games?
Would it matter if a company started making a game that another company used to work on?
What do you think will happen to all those employees of THQ after they have been “layed-off”?
Summary: In CES 2013, car companies such as Audi, Ford and more announced a technological breakthrough with the cars they are and have attempted to manufacture. One of the most outstanding features some car companies announced was a self-piloting/self-driving feature. Basically, it is a feature that can be activated by a mobile app, which once activated can drive itself to your location and pick you up. However, there are many other cool features, that was the most intriguing and revolutionizing.
How is this related to technology? : Electronics have been a part of technology for decades. Moreover, these cars are technological creations in the CES show , so therefore anything thing closely related to these cars is related to technology.
- CEA (Positive): From this revolutionizing idea and feature, the CEA will gain some major renown as this is where the idea was made public to an immense audience. In addition, it should cause the CEA to continue holding CES shows in the near future, therefore continuing to make more income.
- Car companies (Positive/Negative): Depending on how well a car company shows off their new vehicle is how they are affected; either negatively or positively. For instance, if a car company such as Audi does well in showing off how revolutionizing their car is then they will be positively affected as consumers in the future would be more likely to buy their car over another car that doesn’t have the feature that an Audi car will have. In addition, in the negative stand-point, if a company doesn’t have any interesting features to show at CES 2013 then they will lose money as few people will be buying their cars when it comes out.
- Government (Positive): If these cars sell VERY well in the future than the Government will be affected positively as they can set a new set of taxes on those specific self-driving automobiles, thus causing a growth on their amount of tax money.
- Consumers (Positive/Negative): People that will buy these cars when they come out may be either negatively affected or positively affected. For example, in the positive view, they will have a new, cool & beneficial car that can pick them by simply using the app on their mobile device. However, in the negative perspective, it may cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy as well as tons of money to repair it if damaged.
- New drivers (Positive/Negative): Depending on how one looks at it, new drivers that will drive this car will be either positively affected or negatively affected. For example, looking at it positively, the new drivers will have less stress as their car can come to them by using their phone and they will feel safer knowing that their car can drive themselves. Negatively however, they may not get enough practice driving and if their car malfunctions causing them to drive with their hands they may not be ready and as a result, they could be in a horrific accident.
- Humanity (Positive/Negative): From these cars, humanity could be positively affected as they can have their car pick them up using their phone if they forgot where they parked it or just don’t want to walk all the way there. However, negatively it could make humanity very lazy and maybe even obese if they don’t exercise well and constantly use the feature of “calling” their car to pick them up.
Reflection/Opinion/Questions: I am truly excited for these type of cars to come out as they are extremely cool and revolutionizing to see. In addition, I wonder how they were even able to use one’s phone to command one’s car to drive towards their location. Also, I wonder if they will malfunction and cause major and gruesome accidents. Overall, despite all the safety concerns I have about this invention, I still have hopes of it succeeding to be a MAINLY beneficial product.
Would you (or your parents) buy this car?
Do you think that these types of cars will cause more or less accidents?
How much do you think these cars will be worth when it officially comes out?
News Post # 18 [CES 2013, NSFW] Booth Babes Controversy An Important Reminder That Sometimes Sexy Trumps
Summary: Booth babes this CES have caused a lot of controversy especially the ones found in the link above. It is these women on display (also known as “fembots”) were representations of the “depersonalization” of a female that a booth babe represents. This is basically stating that (in this case) verbal input is not required and that a woman’s breasts, legs, butt and silence is all that is needed in humanity. Overall, the presence of booth babes served an important role in attracting people to the product and yet for some people it served a fairly depressing role as well.
How is this related to technology? : Electronics have been a part of technology for decades. Moreover, these booth babes are showing off the electronics in the CES show and some are even using techonology devices to do so. So, anything having to do with the appearance of a techonological device, is related to technology (like these booth babes).
- Booth Babes (Positive/Negative): Depending, on how one looks at it Booth babes can be affected negatively or positively. For instance, in the positive way, these Booth babes are getting paid just to attract people (especially men) to look at the product they are promoting and make them remember that product when they leave the event. However, on the negative view, these woman are being wrongly used and emotionally abused when changing into something they’re not.
- CEA (Positive): Regardless of what people think about booth babes, the CEA is not greatly affected as it is not them who chooses the look of a booth babe, it is the company showing off the product that chooses.
- Companies participating (Positive/Negative): Depending on how one looks at it companies may be affected negatively or positively. For example, in the positive way, these companies may be attracting more viewers (especially males) to check out their product and remember it when they leave compared to a company that doesn’t have a booth babe. However, in the negative perspective, these companies may be frowned upon by those who strongly disagree with the booth babe “job” and thus affecting their reputation negatively as some consumers may view them as sexist or even racist.
- Women in general (Positive/Negative): Depending on how a women feels about booth babes is how each individual woman is affected. For instance, if a woman doesn’t like the job of a booth babe then they will be negatively affected as they will be looking towards the negative of how booth babes affect woman in general and that they are nothing but breasts & legs for example. However, some women can also look at this in a positive way, in that these women are able to dress up into something interesting and nice to look at.
- Government (Neutral): Regardless of how this controversy ends, the government will not be greatly affected as they have more important things to attend to such as economic situations.
- Men looking at displays in CES (Positive/Negative): Once again, depending on how one looks at it, the men looking at the displays in CES can be negatively affected or positively affected. For instance, looking at it positively these men will have something, other than the gadgets, to look at and admire as well as remember from this experience (other than the gadgets). As for looking at it negatively, these men may appear as perverts for some people and maybe even twisted for STARING at these booth babes.
Reflection/Opinion/Questions: I truthfully don’t have an strong opinion on this topic as I believe that if a woman chose to be a booth babe then I don’t see why some women may see that as “depersonalization”. Although, I don’t know if they are able to choose or not, I personally do NOT find this in anyway “depersonalizing”. In addition, if I had the choice whether to have booth babes in CES or not, I would rather have booth babes as they make theatmosphere of the room a little more lively and for some reason (in my opinion) happier!
What is your opinion on the usage of “Booth Babes” at any convention?
Do you think booth babes play a SIGNIFICANT role in showing off a product in CES 2013?
Would you pay more attention to a booth with a booth babe than a booth WITHOUT a booth babe?
Summary: 2013’s CES (Consumer Electronics Show) was held in Las Vegas which showed many interesting, intriguing and jaw-dropping gadgets that will be in stores this year. However, there were also quirky and weird ideas as well during CES 2013 such as a 70 euro fork that “nags” you when you are eating too much. More detail on these wacky and yet interesting ideas and notions can be found by clicking the link above this summary.
How is this related to technology? : Electronics have been a part of technology for decades. Moreover, that would make these electronics shown in the CES event related to technology as well.
- Consumer Electronics Association (Positive): From the wacky to the amazing all these electronics should positively affect the CEA and should gain some major income and renown. Also, they may even decide to still continue the CES events for the upcoming years despite their reputation of “success” from critics in the past years.
- Companies that are showing gadgets (Positive/Negative): If any company does well in showing off their products they will gain some serious renown and may influence consumers to buy their products instead of another competitor. However, companies may also be affected negatively as they may bomb their presentation causing barely anybody to buy their product when it comes out.
- Consumers (Positive): Whether or not this CES event is a hit or not the consumers will be positively affected as they will have a variety products to choose to buy and enjoy.
- Humanity (Positive): Humanity will be positively affected as they will evolve though these new and or revolutionized gadgets that will be in stores soon. Also, no matter how wacky it may seem, like a vibrating fork, it could be more beneficial than someone might think.
- Government (Neutral): It genuinely doesn’t matter how this event turns out as the government will not be immensely affected because they have bigger priorities that is damaging them, such as the economy.
- Investors (Positive/Negative): Depending on who the investors invest into is how they will be affected. For instance, if they invest into a company whose product doesn’t sell that many to consumers then they will lose their invested money. However, if the company they invest into is selling many of their products to consumers then they will earn their investments back and more.
- Companies that didn’t participate in this event (Negative/Neutral): Depending on who the company is and how they are doing in the market, is how they will be affected. For instance, a big company like Apple that didn’t participate in this event will not be really affected as they have already sold many of their products, while a small not that popular company that didn’t participate in this show will be negatively affected as many consumers are drawn to those products of the company that was at the event.
Reflection/Opinion/Questions: Personally, I think that even these wacky and quirky gadgets will sell fairly as people will wonder if it will actually help them or not, and it is through this curiosity that some people buy these products. As for the jaw dropping gadgets such as the ULTRA HDTV I believe that those gadgets will sell the most as many people are highlighting it on the internet.
What was the most interesting gadget to you on the CES event?
In your opinion, which gadget shown in the CES event, will sell the most this year?
Would you buy any of the gadgets shown in the CES event?