They were getting some pretty decent publicity before the name change. The cover of last month's issue of Game Informer had Red Steel and the controller on the cover (I know some people hate GI, but I'm only using that as an example).
The publicity from the name change is on the whole more negative than positive. I'm not sure what this type of publicity gets them, other than people knowing that the console exists, and that it has a weird name. I'm pretty sure they could have gotten this amount of publicity by keeping the Revolution moniker and running a few commercials; sure it would have been more expensive, but they are going to market this thing anyway, so the cost is not an issue.
I'm not anti-Nintendo (I own a 'Cube), so I want them to succeed as much as the next person. I just question the necessity of this move, in that the console has so much going for it. Here's hoping they rock it at E3 and prove me wrong.
The article states that: "Tell me, who had the 'Revolution' on the top of their go-to list at E3, at this time last week?"
I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that practically everyone was very excited to see what Nintendo was coming out with at E3, especially after the news about games like Red Steel and Madden (even though I'm not a big Madden fan, even I think the control scheme that it might use is pretty interesting).
I think that the major problem that people have with Wii is not that it sounds like urine or something that is small (at least I didn't instantly think of that), but that Revolution was such a cool name, and was so appropriate for what Nintendo was trying to do this generation. This new name might not be bad necessarily, but compared to what it was, it just simply isn't very good.
If this is all part of some PR gimmick, then Nintendo has taken a huge gamble for nothing. People loved the old name. People loved the ideas that the company was coming up with (after some skepticism about the controller). People were genuinely intrigued by what was coming at E3, and I think they would have been the biggest draw with the old name. In my mind Nintendo just got a little too enamored with the idea of being totally different this time around, and they took it one step too far.
"TFA calls it a criminal act, releasing that sort of info. Is it a criminal matter or a civil one?"
Well, if you go by the definition of a "crime," then all acts that break the law are by definition "criminal." However, it is a violation of the California Civil Code (I believe that was the basis of the suit, if not federal civil law), so the penalties for violation are civil in nature (i.e. primarily monetary punishments).
1. File intentionally ambiguous patents 2. Have patents approved by horribly inept patent office 3. Make no attempt to utilize idea(s) 4. Wait for hit product and/or industry to embrace new technology 5. ??? 6. Sue the crap out of them 7. Profit!
Oh man, someone stole my idea! Oh well, back to the drawing board...
I won't argue your other points, but in regards to Konfabulator:
The "widgets" that Konfab uses are very similar to something that used to be part of the earlier Mac OS (called Desk Accessories). There was a calculator widget, among others. If anything, Apple is updating this idea to the modern Mac OS (I believe that folklore.org and daring fireball.net have info on this).
Along the same lines, Windows had a version of these "widgets" (probably borrowed from the Mac OS) about three years before Konfab was around called DesktopX (I think). This will (at least from what I heard) be implemented in some way in Longhorn, whenever that comes out.
So, I won't deny that Apple might "adopt" certain ideas, but this indignation from the Konfab developers is sort of unfounded. Did they do it pretty well? Yes. Is their idea original? No.
"There's no provision in our Presential Election process for the popular vote to select the president."
I'm fully aware of that fact. What I wanted to express is that this is a flawed system of governance. The above illustrations are an example of how the will of the majority, i.e. the majority of the people in a democracy, can choose one candidate, and the system can disregard that and reward the seat to another person. I will grant you that these are all examples of the electoral college in action, working exactly as it was intended, but what I'm arguing is this: is that a good thing? I, and it would appear a majority of the people posting here, disagree.
"but it certainly does not have 'serious deficiencies.'"
Again, I would argue that a system in which the majority of the voters might not elect the chief executive is flawed and is seriously deficient, for the reasons stated above.
"I don't accept that for a minute..."
Which part don't you accept? The political animosity part, or the Bush not being popularily elected part? The latter is obviously true, and the former, I would admit, is my own particular observation. Still, you have to admit that it plays a role, at the very least in the minds of Democrats and liberals.
"To suggest we change the Constitution because part of a part of the animosity might be reduced is kinda ridiculous."
I don't think that is ridiculous at all. A lot of people genuinely felt as though their vote meant nothing after the 2000 election. The majority of the voters should never feel that way.
"Some will hold a grudge. That's how some people work."
That would be fine, if it wasn't a majority of the country. You can't simply downplay the effect of the last election as the collective grumblings of a few discontented voters. Its several million people.
"We just need to tweak the voting registration requirements a little."
I won't argue that this could be reformed. However, that simply doesn't address the main problem: majority votes for candidate A, minority votes for candidate B, and candidate B, through the current constitutional system, is possibly elected president. Its a fundamental problem. Tweaking it won't make the problem go away.
"The current system has served the country well for 230 years..."
That's only if you discount the 1800 election, in which the House of Representatives decided to elect Thomas Jefferson, The election of 1824, in which John Quincy Adams won despite losing the popular vote, the 1876 election that went to Hayes despite a loss of the popular vote, the 1888 election that put Harrison in despite losing the popular vote, and the recent 2000 election that resulted in the current president being allowed to take office despite losing the popular vote.
I think that some sort of solution to this problem is completely necessary, in that it is readily apparent that the system as it stands now has serious deficiencies. Part of the animosity in politics today can be partly attributed, at least in my opinion, to the fact that Bush was constitutionally, but not popularily, elected. I don't think "Joe Six-Pack" wants to hear that Candidate X was elected despite the popular vote because "that's what the constitution says." To most of the populace, this just doesn't fly.
I'm from northern Minnesota, and when Bush was up here, he referred to the northern part of the state as the "Iron Ridge" (its actually called the Iron Range). That might seem minor, but not to the people who live and work up there...
I don't think Kerry's mistake is all that bad. I mean, if you're comparing mistakes, don't get me started on Bush's history ("Strategery, Nucleear"). Kerry didn't cost the "Pack" two home losses, their crappy play did (and a lack of a defense). I think you might have missed the point of the article. If the "Pack" win, then Bush LOSES. I'm a Vikings fan, but all I can say is "Go Pack!"
Slashdot Mirror
They were getting some pretty decent publicity before the name change. The cover of last month's issue of Game Informer had Red Steel and the controller on the cover (I know some people hate GI, but I'm only using that as an example).
The publicity from the name change is on the whole more negative than positive. I'm not sure what this type of publicity gets them, other than people knowing that the console exists, and that it has a weird name. I'm pretty sure they could have gotten this amount of publicity by keeping the Revolution moniker and running a few commercials; sure it would have been more expensive, but they are going to market this thing anyway, so the cost is not an issue.
I'm not anti-Nintendo (I own a 'Cube), so I want them to succeed as much as the next person. I just question the necessity of this move, in that the console has so much going for it. Here's hoping they rock it at E3 and prove me wrong.
The article states that: "Tell me, who had the 'Revolution' on the top of their go-to list at E3, at this time last week?"
I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that practically everyone was very excited to see what Nintendo was coming out with at E3, especially after the news about games like Red Steel and Madden (even though I'm not a big Madden fan, even I think the control scheme that it might use is pretty interesting).
I think that the major problem that people have with Wii is not that it sounds like urine or something that is small (at least I didn't instantly think of that), but that Revolution was such a cool name, and was so appropriate for what Nintendo was trying to do this generation. This new name might not be bad necessarily, but compared to what it was, it just simply isn't very good.
If this is all part of some PR gimmick, then Nintendo has taken a huge gamble for nothing. People loved the old name. People loved the ideas that the company was coming up with (after some skepticism about the controller). People were genuinely intrigued by what was coming at E3, and I think they would have been the biggest draw with the old name. In my mind Nintendo just got a little too enamored with the idea of being totally different this time around, and they took it one step too far.
"TFA calls it a criminal act, releasing that sort of info. Is it a criminal matter or a civil one?"
Well, if you go by the definition of a "crime," then all acts that break the law are by definition "criminal." However, it is a violation of the California Civil Code (I believe that was the basis of the suit, if not federal civil law), so the penalties for violation are civil in nature (i.e. primarily monetary punishments).
1. File intentionally ambiguous patents
2. Have patents approved by horribly inept patent office
3. Make no attempt to utilize idea(s)
4. Wait for hit product and/or industry to embrace new technology
5. ???
6. Sue the crap out of them
7. Profit!
Oh man, someone stole my idea! Oh well, back to the drawing board...
I won't argue your other points, but in regards to Konfabulator:
The "widgets" that Konfab uses are very similar to something that used to be part of the earlier Mac OS (called Desk Accessories). There was a calculator widget, among others. If anything, Apple is updating this idea to the modern Mac OS (I believe that folklore.org and daring fireball.net have info on this).
Along the same lines, Windows had a version of these "widgets" (probably borrowed from the Mac OS) about three years before Konfab was around called DesktopX (I think). This will (at least from what I heard) be implemented in some way in Longhorn, whenever that comes out.
So, I won't deny that Apple might "adopt" certain ideas, but this indignation from the Konfab developers is sort of unfounded. Did they do it pretty well? Yes. Is their idea original? No.
"The savings would go to a special fund to hire more employees for the police department, a major focus for city officials right now."
Steve B. (Or Bill G.): "You see, open source makes you less safe and secure than windows products...oh wait...crap."
"...and in other news, three repeated blows to the head can cause brain damage. This, as reported by the medical journal 'Duh'"
-paraphrasing Norm MacDonald on SNL's "Weekend Update"
Well, we are living in the "Willennium"...
"There's no provision in our Presential Election process for the popular vote to select the president."
I'm fully aware of that fact. What I wanted to express is that this is a flawed system of governance. The above illustrations are an example of how the will of the majority, i.e. the majority of the people in a democracy, can choose one candidate, and the system can disregard that and reward the seat to another person. I will grant you that these are all examples of the electoral college in action, working exactly as it was intended, but what I'm arguing is this: is that a good thing? I, and it would appear a majority of the people posting here, disagree.
"but it certainly does not have 'serious deficiencies.'"
Again, I would argue that a system in which the majority of the voters might not elect the chief executive is flawed and is seriously deficient, for the reasons stated above.
"I don't accept that for a minute..."
Which part don't you accept? The political animosity part, or the Bush not being popularily elected part? The latter is obviously true, and the former, I would admit, is my own particular observation. Still, you have to admit that it plays a role, at the very least in the minds of Democrats and liberals.
"To suggest we change the Constitution because part of a part of the animosity might be reduced is kinda ridiculous."
I don't think that is ridiculous at all. A lot of people genuinely felt as though their vote meant nothing after the 2000 election. The majority of the voters should never feel that way.
"Some will hold a grudge. That's how some people work."
That would be fine, if it wasn't a majority of the country. You can't simply downplay the effect of the last election as the collective grumblings of a few discontented voters. Its several million people.
"We just need to tweak the voting registration requirements a little."
I won't argue that this could be reformed. However, that simply doesn't address the main problem: majority votes for candidate A, minority votes for candidate B, and candidate B, through the current constitutional system, is possibly elected president. Its a fundamental problem. Tweaking it won't make the problem go away.
"The current system has served the country well for 230 years..."
That's only if you discount the 1800 election, in which the House of Representatives decided to elect Thomas Jefferson, The election of 1824, in which John Quincy Adams won despite losing the popular vote, the 1876 election that went to Hayes despite a loss of the popular vote, the 1888 election that put Harrison in despite losing the popular vote, and the recent 2000 election that resulted in the current president being allowed to take office despite losing the popular vote.
I think that some sort of solution to this problem is completely necessary, in that it is readily apparent that the system as it stands now has serious deficiencies. Part of the animosity in politics today can be partly attributed, at least in my opinion, to the fact that Bush was constitutionally, but not popularily, elected. I don't think "Joe Six-Pack" wants to hear that Candidate X was elected despite the popular vote because "that's what the constitution says." To most of the populace, this just doesn't fly.
I'm from northern Minnesota, and when Bush was up here, he referred to the northern part of the state as the "Iron Ridge" (its actually called the Iron Range). That might seem minor, but not to the people who live and work up there... I don't think Kerry's mistake is all that bad. I mean, if you're comparing mistakes, don't get me started on Bush's history ("Strategery, Nucleear"). Kerry didn't cost the "Pack" two home losses, their crappy play did (and a lack of a defense). I think you might have missed the point of the article. If the "Pack" win, then Bush LOSES. I'm a Vikings fan, but all I can say is "Go Pack!"