The Vent

New Xbox Features

2009-11-23T08:18:00.000-08:00

Here are two videos regarding new features to Microsoft's Xbox 360 gaming console. The first talking about a new application that is a free download, mainly an attempt by Microsoft to make them more of everything to everyone. The second video is my review of the new Xbox method of control in the form of a new web camera.

The Future of the Human/Tech Interface

2009-10-07T10:47:00.000-07:00

Times are fast changing, technology being at the forefront of these changes. The average person has a palm-sized cellular phone with more

computing power than programs of the United States government in the 1960's. Computing transistors that used to be the size of a human head

can now be grouped in bulk without surpassing the width of a human hair. On the other side, things like television screens and computer monitors

continue to grow larger and larger while still becoming more and more energy efficient. The problem amidst all these changes is that no matter

how small the computing device or how slick the screen is, we still need some way to relay information into these devices.

Physical peripheral devices may never disappear completely because we naturally prefer a hands-on form of control. Currently, the touchscreen

market is quickly expanding due to innovations in touch navigation. The greatest market barrier for touchscreen computers is that the technology

is not to the point of being able to go completely without a mouse or keyboard. Touch screen keyboards are hard to use after having learned to

use a typical keyboard where static muscle touches aid non-visual typing. Item selection by screen touch is getting better, but typical

operation systems are not structured well enough for touch input (some things are small, therefore hard to pinpoint touch with a finger). Multi-touch

gestures are becoming commonplace with touch screens as well as enhanced mouse/touch pads on notebook PCs. This is likely one way which

touch technology will capitalize on for better functionality. Apple computers are perhaps the best example of multi-touch gestures. Single-finger

touches utilize typical mouse uses, whereas two fingers at once allow the user to scroll on the screen. There are also uses for three finger touch

and four finger touch.

The obvious goal of computing is to one day have touch-less input, a functionality that is ever farther behind touch-input technology. Multi-touch

technology is already slow to be developed, just imagine developing multi-touch as in-air free-motion gestures. There has been some progress

in this area but it is somewhat limited to data entry with some navigation commands, all of which can easily be compared to sign language.

However giant leaps of progress have been made in this area by the developers of the Sixth Sense project. They have laid the foundation for

free-motion interfaces by using color coordinated fingertips.

These changes will continue to be driven by consumer utility and business necessity. If these new technologies can become integrated into daily

life they will flourish, but such an adoption will require a high level of training and implementation. Especially if the touch or touch-less interface

language ever becomes more than simple (minimal) input. There is a great amount of potential in the business world for these technologies,

especially with consideration of the Sixth Sense system. This potential will continue to expand as the cell phone and mobile device technologies

grow.

Funai Eco Scan Projector

Microsoft Office Labs 2019 Vision Montage

Sixth Sense

Touchscreen PC's Prompt Interface Innovations

An American History Lesson #5: Principles, a Commentary

2009-10-07T10:38:00.000-07:00

The following is a commentary that I saved when I first read it. I have to say that I whole-heartedly agree with his words. It was published June 25, 2008 so keep in mind that this was leading up to the 2008 election. The authors name is at the end, but read it before finding out who it is.

A lot of people don't believe it, but the truth is that I really don't know whom I'm going to vote for this November. It won't be Barack Obama -- he and I simply disagree on too many fundamental issues -- but it also may not be John McCain.

As much as the media and the analysts try to pigeon-hole people as having only one political ideology, the fact is that most people (at least, most "real" people), don't fit neatly into one predetermined set of political beliefs.

I'm no exception. Although I am a "conservative," I'm not a "Republican," and there's a big difference. A true Republican, or a true Democrat, is someone who puts their party above their principles and their candidate above their conscience.

But most of us (or at least those of us who live outside the Beltway) aren't like that. We're more like the mad scientist Frankenstein: We'd like to take a piece of this candidate, a touch of that one and a little slice of the one over there, mash it all together and create someone who's lines up perfectly with our values and beliefs.

Which brings me back to John McCain. Like Obama, McCain and I have fundamental differences on a host of important issues. Sure, I disagree with him less than I do with Obama, but is that really the standard we should use in choosing their candidate? Our country isn't a reality show where we simply elect whoever's left after all the backstabbing and lying is finished.

Is it?

On my radio program, I talk a lot about voting for your values. But as time goes by, we all tend to get buried in the minutiae of campaigns and lose sight of those things. Day after day, the media and analysts feed us stories that line us up against each other like armies getting ready for battle. Standing in the middle isn't an option, so people tend to take a side, even if they don't feel completely comfortable there.

The only way out of that trap is to try to define what it is you really stand for and believe in. After all, how can you say that Obama or McCain reflects your values if you don't even know what those values are?

Chances are that your definition will slant heavily to the values advertised by one of the parties. That's fine, but keep in mind that just because a party says they stand for something doesn't mean it's true.

After all, the Republicans said they stood for smaller government, but the size of our government grew enormously under a Republican president and a Republican majority in Congress. Democrats said they stood for an end to the war in Iraq, but for better or worse, nearly two years after taking over Congress, they don't even have a timetable for withdrawal.

My point is that actions speak louder than words. The "R" and the "D" don't matter if the people we elect don't follow through on their promises.

So what are my core values, the things that I refuse to compromise on? To figure that out, I decided to try to define what I think a conservative really believes.

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.

A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.

A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.

A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.

A conservative believes that real compassion can't be found in any government program.

A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.

A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it's not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family's needs than some faceless, soulless government program.

A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else's throat.

A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.

A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.

A conservative believes that a child's education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.

A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.

Those are the things a conservative believes in, and they're the things that I believe in. Now, if only I could find a candidate to match.

By: Glenn Beck

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html

An American History Lesson #4: Our foundation

2009-10-07T10:21:00.002-07:00

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Thomas Jefferson

An American History Lesson #4: Our foundation

By: Dan Howe 06/20/2009

How many of you have actually even read our Declaration of Independence?

American Citizens today take for granted what this Republic was originally founded for.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Pay attention.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Created equal by our creator with unalienable Rights.... such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... This was once written as Life, Liberty and Property, which was amended to prevent continuation of slavery.

Notice how its says PURSUIT of Happiness.... not guarantee.

It does not say that you have the right to a free education.

It does not say you have the right to free health care.

It does not say that you have the right to a free house.

Furthermore, it does not say that you will be wealthy and have everything taken care of in your life.

You DO have the right to those things, and by all means you should strive to have those things...

But thats the beauty of our country which has inspired free enterprise, capitolism, competitive markets...You have to work to have them. There truly is no "free' lunch... it comes out of someone's pocket at some point.

We use our abilities to work, or our minds to create something. Services... products.. things that people want and will pay for. We then help make their life better and, in doing so, make our lives better through being paid. These services get competitive, and then the competitors have to find a way to be better and/or cheaper. Thus raising quality for citizens and, in turn, humankind. The more these businesses profit, the more they can expand... the more they can work to create things that will be further useful. Our Founding Fathers had faith in Human intuition and ability. They knew that humans, if left unfaltered to their work, could do many great things. This is a mechanism through which our country has become great in the world.

Though the Founding Fathers also knew that man presented a danger to itself and needed protection from other factions. They knew that a government would be needed to protect the country and ensure that the country's founding principles be applied properly to all. However, the government was to be limited in its size, scope, and power. It would have checks and balances, no single man or group would/should have too much control. Big enough to protect the people... yet small enough to stay out of their way.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." --Thomas Jefferson

[Declaration continued] "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Founding Fathers accepted government as the PROBLEM, NOT as a solution.

The government answered to the people... not the other way around.

Governments tax the people, and therefore government officials are on the payroll of the people. Lets not forget... every few years they show us their resume's and tell them what they can do for us... but if they don't keep their promises, or if they do a bad job we fire them.

Government is supposed to echo its people.

I leave you with the conclusion to the United States' Declaration of Independence as the Founding Fathers highlight what King George was doing that had so enraged them. As you read this consider: We may not suffer the same problems they once did. But to this end, think about what the current government administration (and not to say previous government administrations are omitted) is doing that is not in line with these premises.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Many Americans still felt a kinship with the people of Great Britain, and had appealed in vain to the prominent among them, as well as to Parliament, to convince the King to relax his more objectionable policies toward the colonies. The next section represents disappointment that these attempts had been unsuccessful.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. In the final section, the signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions, and by necessity the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion incorporates language from Lee's resolution of independence that had been passed on July 2.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

An American History Lesson #3: The difference between Republicans and Democrats

2009-10-07T10:21:00.001-07:00

An American History Lesson #3
The difference between Republicans and Democrats.

You're in an inner-tube. Floating on a lake, 75 feet from the pier. A boat speeds by and clips the tube causing it to burst. You can't swim so you yell for help.

Over on the dock...

A Republican hears your pleas and quickly throws out a 50 foot rope and expects you to do a little work to save yourself.

A Democrat hears your pleas and quickly throws out a 100 foot rope... but then drops his end.

In essence... THAT is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

An American History Lesson

2009-10-07T10:20:00.000-07:00

An American History Lesson If there is anyone out there that doesn't know this information, this is a very good visual presentation covering the subject. Now don't be mad at old people, just remember who did this. THINK ABOUT "YOURS..." Franklin Delano. Roosevelt 32nd. President, Democrat Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945 Our Social Security Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He Promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following: A wonderful Program - Very muchly needed - Every thing is spelled out - A great President - Billy C. ------THEN ------ Dwight David Eisenhower 34th. President, Republican, Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961 Insert by Vincent Peter Render, If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. If I recall correctly, it was a democratically controlled Congress. From what I understand, their logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out; that is, be used up for the purpose it was intended that it was set aside for. ------ WORSE STILL ------ Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969 Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it? Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term of Office: November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? Answer: The Democratic Party. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton) 42nd. President Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) 45th. Vice President Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US . ------ The Straw that Broke the Camel’s Back! ------ James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter) 39th President, Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: ANSWER: That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. (jIMMY CARTER) (DEMOCRAT, TERM OF OFFICE: JANUARY 20, 1977 TO JANUARY 20, 1981 AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAI D A DIME INTO IT! - - - - - - Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes WILL evolve! ... Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.. AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM! THEY ALSO VOTE FOR THEIR OWN PAY RAISES! Thomas Jefferson 3rd. President, Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781 "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson Quotes: Food For Thought

2009-10-07T10:16:00.000-07:00

But of all the views of this law none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe, as they are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty. For this purpose the reading in the first stage, where they will receive their whole education, is proposed, as has been said, to be chiefly historical. History by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

A Government Big Enough to Give You Everything You Want, is Strong Enough to Take Everything You Have.

Excessive taxation will carry reason & reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, November 26, 1798

But with respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years.