Oh please... Sorry, yes it's technically possible... But that's NOT what Microsoft is doing. What Microsoft is doing is porting old games onto the new platform. So you can play the same game title, it may look the same and act the same, but it's not the same program.
It sounds like BMI tried to be reasonable and get him to license the music but he ignored them. From his quotes it sounds like he probably pissed them off and they decided to go after him.
It's not like the license is all that expensive or hard to obtain or that services to pipe in music don't exist. I don't feel bad for this guy, likely all he needed to do is stop playing copyrighted stuff when he was made aware of the violation and then obtain a license as required if he needed to continue.... Or, BUY a music service for his business from somebody and let them keep up with the licenses.
I've been working on a "public" free holiday light display, I'll be playing copyrighted music, and even though it's only in the idea stage, I've already approached BMI about required license arrangements (which they claim is none). Their E-mail response will be printed and kept.
Shesh dude.... There ARE ways to make that "off the shelf" Western Digital laptop drive work in your 360.... You have to get the right drive, but it's not that hard.
A few months back I was picking a new console to replace my 360. XBox One would have been a slam dunk if it would have kept playing all the kids' games. Instead, we traded them all in and bought a Wii U.
Wii feel sorry for U...
Seriously... You may be able to play a lot of old games released for the Wii, but unless you have young kids, the set of Wii games and that motion based user interface is pretty limiting. We had a Wii (in fact we still do) and my teenagers literally never play the thing any more. They are either on the Xbox 360 or their PC. We don't have a Play Station.
Your mileage may vary, but IMHO the Wii is for kids and older adults who don't really do video games. I would have kept the 360..
How is that even possible without a hardware chip?
It's not possible. They really are not going to let old games play on the new hardware... What they are ACTUALLY saying is that they will let you get a ported copy of a game you currently own on 360 for something approaching free of cost. However, we don't know which games will be ported or how they will make the ported version available.
So it's same old, same old for now. We don't know what games will be ported, how they will manage access to the ported games to just users who actually own the 360 version, and how they will deliver the new games.
Look, ANYBODY can claim to be an " independent security consultant" and it's stuff like this that sounds complex enough to be true. You can baffle people with BS if you know the buzz words, and even get consultant gigs from time to time, just hang out a shingle, buy a website and go to a couple of symposiums.
Security is about common sense and risk management. You need to understand the risks (which means you need to know what they are) and that takes some domain knowledge, plus you need to know what the possible techniques are to manage the risks, but once you know what the risks are and what tools you have to manage these risks, doing the actual *work* is decidedly easy and not that hard.
The moral of the story here is that if it sounds complicated coming from your "expert" then you need to fire them. If you cannot understand what they are suggesting needs to be done, they are just trying to separate you from your money, not provide you with security.
Without salespersons, you do not have a job. They are paid to do what you cannot.
They are paid to do something that I refuse to do, not something I cannot do.
I *could* go out and lie to the customer and get them to buy stuff from us, but my problem is that I would KNOW what I was saying was a lie... Even though I'm capable of it I refuse to lie.
Absolutely - they are on target for this. At least SpaceX is. And cutting their funding is not a way to get there.
NASA doesn't believe Space X is "on track" for this. They are at HIGH RISK for not meeting the 2017 deadline. NASA's the one that made this determination, not Congress. Cutting their funding is necessary to fund other things which are *more* necessary because of the program risk. However, this line item still gets $900 Million, so it's not like SpaceX get's nothing.
I was with you right up until you went all stupid with your political rhetoric. You should have stopped while you still sounded smart. WTF? Why not just let your argument stand instead of throwing stupid crap like that in and loosing your audience?
My mistake for not including the original post I was replying to...
Here it is for your listening pleasure (as well as to explain why I said what I said.. )
You can tell congress is run by a bunch of corporate minded Republican douchebags, when their answer to budget problems is just to offshore the work.
So... My point was that the "republican" congress wasn't acting badly, but actually had good reasons for doing this, and bipartisan support for the budget being discussed. Which really just says that the original poster was the one with the issues... Now I'm wondering about you having issue too....
You don't mean the Russians? As I recall, they have vehicles there now which are human rated, and where the bulk of the money taken from Space X was moved to.
What are you saying when you talk about entrenched players?
All supposition without any facts to back them up.
They requested $1,244 Million for commercial crew, they only got $900 million from congress. They are still funded at a significant level. If this was about payback, why didn't the rascally Republicans just pull it all? Surely they could have yanked more than 1/3rd if it was about politics.
Then there is the bi-partisan support of this budget. It seems to me that if the democrats are on board and not yelling bloody murder about it, there isn't much they find punitive about it.
As soon as the upstart can actually deliver a human rated vehicle that makes trips to the ISS and back, that will surely change.
Remember the issue here that nobody has confidence that Space X can provide the necessary service by the time it is needed in 2017, so other arrangements simply have to be made now with the Russians to make sure we can keep crew on the ISS. The commercial crew program wasn't the only NASA budget item to get hit because of this, and it 's not totally defunded but lost $344 Million and is still getting $900 million.
So, don't be too upset.... It's not what some people think it is..
This is the same congress that has specifically said that DoD payloads can't be launched using the RD-180 after a certain date to PREVENT us from spending more money buying RD-180 engines from Russia... but in order to get to the ISS we are willing to pay the Russians for a ride.
Ugh!!!
Congress would have GLADLY funded Space X if there was any confidence that they would actually be able to deliver a human rated capacity to get to the space station and back. The problem was that nobody thinks Space X can really do it before the currently contracted seats with the Russians run out. We really have no choice but to contract more seats with the Russians and cut Space X's funding earmarked for human transport to help make up the difference. Other programs lost funding for this reason too. Space X will still be flying cargo as scheduled, and will still be getting funding for human (commercial crew) albeit at a lower level.
So the goal remains the same, not to continue funding the Russians space program and move to commercial transport, it's just that the Russians have the ONLY game in town, the ONLY human rated system and we have no choice. Or would you suggest we risk not being able to keep crew on the ISS (giving it up to the Russians) or be in a position where we have to beg the Russians for a last few trips at whatever price they feel they can gouge us for?
Democrats are just complaining because Congress decided to defund a public project where the money went to a private company owned by a number of their big supporters. But it's not like they totally defunded anything, they just moved some money to another account because said private company wasn't going to be able to deliver the service the money is supposed to obtain. Space X will be short $344 million from what they expected because Congress had to make sure they still had transportation to the ISS to keep a US presence there, or do you propose we risk just giving the Russians the whole thing?
It's like you where building a house, but one of your contractors wasn't able to complete his work within the schedule you need. Well, now your house will not be ready for another 2 months, so you will need to pay rent for your current apartment for that time, you are going to have to get that money from someplace. So you cut back your budget for your new home and sacrifice someplace.
Did you even read about what they did with the funding?
Yes, they cut funding to SpaceX efforts (commercial crew) in favor of securing additional seats with the Russians on future dates. However the reasons where clearly due to Space X's failure to get their act together and provide confidence that they will be human rated in time to take over when the contract with the Russians was set to end. So NASA really doesn't have much choice, because if Space X isn't ready when the current seats we have from the Russians end, we'd be in a place where no US crew replacements would be possible.
It's also not a total abandoning of Space X, they remain funded, albeit at a lower level. They will still be doing cargo delivery and working towards human rated transport. Congress just moved future funding to the sure thing of Russian transport in order to de-risk keeping the Space Station going.
Congress DID fund NASA's Orion project fully, and then some, meaning that the idea here is to get the US back to where we had human rated systems and can transport our own people in our own equipment. So, where the short term effect is to fund the Russians, the LONG term idea is to use US built equipment to transport US personnel to the station as soon as Orion can human rated and made available. Plus, if Space X get's it's act together and manages to get human rated, you can bet that congress will GLADLY abandon the Russians in future budgets. In fact, they are COUNTING on doing so after 2018 at this point.
And here I thought the leftist where all upset with the republicans for being aligned with big business all the time, here they are cutting direct funding for Space X (a private business enterprise) and all you can say is they are off shoring work? If Musk wants to make up the measly $334 million with his own investors, he can keep development going just fine thank you... They don't seem to be lacking investors and they seem to have at least SOME ability to make money from cargo flights for the ISS and other launches so coughing up another few million shouldn't be an issue.
Offshoring jobs, give me a break, 334 Million is a drop in the bucket in that world.... My guess is you are upset about Congress choosing to defund programs going to huge democratic supporter owned companies... You want welfare for these kinds of companies, because they support your political views...
If that's true, this this is an incredibly bad design flaw by Airbus, something on par with forgetting to connect the emergency break handle to the devices designed to stop the wheels from turning.
Capitalism is like playing the lottery. Anyone can get rich. But not everyone. Most are just losing money in the system so a few fortunate ones can be rich.
I have to disagree, or somehow I must have won a lottery when I wasn't looking, a lottery that keeps paying me a little bit more each year as time goes on.
Look, I came from a poor family, not even middle class, from a very poor area. But I'm what you might call middle to upper class now. I got here by working, by paying my own way though college by working full time and doing school full time to live. In the summers I mowed thousands of acres of grass to pay tuition. Heck, with few exceptions, I've been gainfully employed with a regular job since I was 14. You name it, I've likely had a job doing it, shoveling you know what, cleaning toilets and floors, dumping trash, mowing lawns, plumbing, electrical and construction work.
Don't give me this sob story about the system being rigged, or the rich only getting that way because of luck or because they cheated others out of it. It's not usually true and I KNOW it's not true in my life.
This is pretty bad bit of piloting then. There are at least two ways they should have known something was wrong if the engines where not producing enough power.
1. The engine gauges should be abundantly clear between the RPM and pressure ratio. Both are an excellent indicator of how much power you are getting and if either was incorrect or unsteady after throttle up from flight idle, in ANY of the engines you DON'T proceed but abort your takeoff. You NEVER take an airplane airborne with an engine problem which should have been obvious well before V1. Wasn't somebody watching the gauges?
2. The rate of acceleration will be less if the engines are not putting out what they should. This means you will reach the V1 point of the runway BEFORE you have the V1 speed and you again ABORT takeoff. Somebody in that cockpit wasn't watching the runway markers go by.
If they really took off w/o full engine power, multiple somebodies messed up on the flight deck. Then they proceeded to make additional mistakes when they attempted the reset of the engines. They obviously had a positive rate of climb and should have used that to put some distance between them and the ground before trying to turn back, apparently they didn't take advantage of that long enough and ended up landing short.
A "landing" is where you run out of altitude, airspeed and ideas at exactly the same time you are over the touch down zone of the runway. They ran out of altitude before they ran out of airspeed and ideas, and they did it at the wrong location.
I do'na know what they call this where's ya from but here We call this kind of thing trespassing! It's bad enough that you insist on running all this Java Script stuff, but now you want to store stuff locally so you can better control what popup boxes I see and be a light'n the load on ya end yonder? No sir, I'm done being nice and putt'n up with ya. You can take ya North West sourced, high wheeling fancy software and the low down good for nothn snake oil sellin' business off my property afor' I be calling the law. There will be no billboards bein' built on a my stake, a'n'a I won't be buy'n no truck I'sa see's ya try'n to sell that way. No sir, not gona be buy'n nothing.
Now, I'm gona warn ya fella, if I see you, ya friends or any of your varmints trespassing on ma property after today, I'm a gona shoot first with this here six shooter. Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot a-gin, and if'n ya still breathin I might be asking questions, or I might just shoot so'more depen'n on how mean I'm a feelin' and how I'm stocked for ammo at da-time. Ya either gon' be dead, or wish'n ya already was...
Now shoo, ya lazy good for nothing, free loading, yella pond scum. If'n I'm still see'n ya face once I get to count'n to ten, I'm a gona be count'n six more as I be pullin' the trigger. Ya' here me clear? (Click) All ya'll be going now, mind ya mannors as ya be on the trail. Make sure on close'n the gates ya open on the way home to Redmond or I'll be making sure ya learn ya manors..
A one........ (Mississippi)..... A Two.... (Mississippi)........
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please... Sorry, yes it's technically possible... But that's NOT what Microsoft is doing. What Microsoft is doing is porting old games onto the new platform. So you can play the same game title, it may look the same and act the same, but it's not the same program.
It sounds like BMI tried to be reasonable and get him to license the music but he ignored them. From his quotes it sounds like he probably pissed them off and they decided to go after him.
It's not like the license is all that expensive or hard to obtain or that services to pipe in music don't exist. I don't feel bad for this guy, likely all he needed to do is stop playing copyrighted stuff when he was made aware of the violation and then obtain a license as required if he needed to continue.... Or, BUY a music service for his business from somebody and let them keep up with the licenses.
I've been working on a "public" free holiday light display, I'll be playing copyrighted music, and even though it's only in the idea stage, I've already approached BMI about required license arrangements (which they claim is none). Their E-mail response will be printed and kept.
Shesh dude.... There ARE ways to make that "off the shelf" Western Digital laptop drive work in your 360.... You have to get the right drive, but it's not that hard.
A few months back I was picking a new console to replace my 360. XBox One would have been a slam dunk if it would have kept playing all the kids' games. Instead, we traded them all in and bought a Wii U.
Wii feel sorry for U...
Seriously... You may be able to play a lot of old games released for the Wii, but unless you have young kids, the set of Wii games and that motion based user interface is pretty limiting. We had a Wii (in fact we still do) and my teenagers literally never play the thing any more. They are either on the Xbox 360 or their PC. We don't have a Play Station.
Your mileage may vary, but IMHO the Wii is for kids and older adults who don't really do video games. I would have kept the 360..
How is that even possible without a hardware chip?
It's not possible. They really are not going to let old games play on the new hardware... What they are ACTUALLY saying is that they will let you get a ported copy of a game you currently own on 360 for something approaching free of cost. However, we don't know which games will be ported or how they will make the ported version available.
So it's same old, same old for now. We don't know what games will be ported, how they will manage access to the ported games to just users who actually own the 360 version, and how they will deliver the new games.
You are full of ...... It...
(/sarcasim)
Look, ANYBODY can claim to be an " independent security consultant" and it's stuff like this that sounds complex enough to be true. You can baffle people with BS if you know the buzz words, and even get consultant gigs from time to time, just hang out a shingle, buy a website and go to a couple of symposiums.
Security is about common sense and risk management. You need to understand the risks (which means you need to know what they are) and that takes some domain knowledge, plus you need to know what the possible techniques are to manage the risks, but once you know what the risks are and what tools you have to manage these risks, doing the actual *work* is decidedly easy and not that hard.
The moral of the story here is that if it sounds complicated coming from your "expert" then you need to fire them. If you cannot understand what they are suggesting needs to be done, they are just trying to separate you from your money, not provide you with security.
You're right of course. That leaves the lawyers...
And human resources reps....
Without salespersons, you do not have a job. They are paid to do what you cannot.
They are paid to do something that I refuse to do, not something I cannot do.
I *could* go out and lie to the customer and get them to buy stuff from us, but my problem is that I would KNOW what I was saying was a lie... Even though I'm capable of it I refuse to lie.
Absolutely - they are on target for this. At least SpaceX is. And cutting their funding is not a way to get there.
NASA doesn't believe Space X is "on track" for this. They are at HIGH RISK for not meeting the 2017 deadline. NASA's the one that made this determination, not Congress. Cutting their funding is necessary to fund other things which are *more* necessary because of the program risk. However, this line item still gets $900 Million, so it's not like SpaceX get's nothing.
I was with you right up until you went all stupid with your political rhetoric. You should have stopped while you still sounded smart. WTF? Why not just let your argument stand instead of throwing stupid crap like that in and loosing your audience?
My mistake for not including the original post I was replying to...
Here it is for your listening pleasure (as well as to explain why I said what I said.. )
You can tell congress is run by a bunch of corporate minded Republican douchebags, when their answer to budget problems is just to offshore the work.
So... My point was that the "republican" congress wasn't acting badly, but actually had good reasons for doing this, and bipartisan support for the budget being discussed. Which really just says that the original poster was the one with the issues... Now I'm wondering about you having issue too....
You don't mean the Russians? As I recall, they have vehicles there now which are human rated, and where the bulk of the money taken from Space X was moved to.
What are you saying when you talk about entrenched players?
All supposition without any facts to back them up.
They requested $1,244 Million for commercial crew, they only got $900 million from congress. They are still funded at a significant level. If this was about payback, why didn't the rascally Republicans just pull it all? Surely they could have yanked more than 1/3rd if it was about politics.
Then there is the bi-partisan support of this budget. It seems to me that if the democrats are on board and not yelling bloody murder about it, there isn't much they find punitive about it.
As soon as the upstart can actually deliver a human rated vehicle that makes trips to the ISS and back, that will surely change.
Remember the issue here that nobody has confidence that Space X can provide the necessary service by the time it is needed in 2017, so other arrangements simply have to be made now with the Russians to make sure we can keep crew on the ISS. The commercial crew program wasn't the only NASA budget item to get hit because of this, and it 's not totally defunded but lost $344 Million and is still getting $900 million.
So, don't be too upset.... It's not what some people think it is..
I thought we we're gonna solve this shit with a space elevator, what's the current progress on such?
Still on the ground floor with that idea... I don't think it will get off the ground...
This is the same congress that has specifically said that DoD payloads can't be launched using the RD-180 after a certain date to PREVENT us from spending more money buying RD-180 engines from Russia... but in order to get to the ISS we are willing to pay the Russians for a ride.
Ugh!!!
Congress would have GLADLY funded Space X if there was any confidence that they would actually be able to deliver a human rated capacity to get to the space station and back. The problem was that nobody thinks Space X can really do it before the currently contracted seats with the Russians run out. We really have no choice but to contract more seats with the Russians and cut Space X's funding earmarked for human transport to help make up the difference. Other programs lost funding for this reason too. Space X will still be flying cargo as scheduled, and will still be getting funding for human (commercial crew) albeit at a lower level.
So the goal remains the same, not to continue funding the Russians space program and move to commercial transport, it's just that the Russians have the ONLY game in town, the ONLY human rated system and we have no choice. Or would you suggest we risk not being able to keep crew on the ISS (giving it up to the Russians) or be in a position where we have to beg the Russians for a last few trips at whatever price they feel they can gouge us for?
Democrats are just complaining because Congress decided to defund a public project where the money went to a private company owned by a number of their big supporters. But it's not like they totally defunded anything, they just moved some money to another account because said private company wasn't going to be able to deliver the service the money is supposed to obtain. Space X will be short $344 million from what they expected because Congress had to make sure they still had transportation to the ISS to keep a US presence there, or do you propose we risk just giving the Russians the whole thing?
It's like you where building a house, but one of your contractors wasn't able to complete his work within the schedule you need. Well, now your house will not be ready for another 2 months, so you will need to pay rent for your current apartment for that time, you are going to have to get that money from someplace. So you cut back your budget for your new home and sacrifice someplace.
Did you even read about what they did with the funding?
Yes, they cut funding to SpaceX efforts (commercial crew) in favor of securing additional seats with the Russians on future dates. However the reasons where clearly due to Space X's failure to get their act together and provide confidence that they will be human rated in time to take over when the contract with the Russians was set to end. So NASA really doesn't have much choice, because if Space X isn't ready when the current seats we have from the Russians end, we'd be in a place where no US crew replacements would be possible.
It's also not a total abandoning of Space X, they remain funded, albeit at a lower level. They will still be doing cargo delivery and working towards human rated transport. Congress just moved future funding to the sure thing of Russian transport in order to de-risk keeping the Space Station going.
Congress DID fund NASA's Orion project fully, and then some, meaning that the idea here is to get the US back to where we had human rated systems and can transport our own people in our own equipment. So, where the short term effect is to fund the Russians, the LONG term idea is to use US built equipment to transport US personnel to the station as soon as Orion can human rated and made available. Plus, if Space X get's it's act together and manages to get human rated, you can bet that congress will GLADLY abandon the Russians in future budgets. In fact, they are COUNTING on doing so after 2018 at this point.
And here I thought the leftist where all upset with the republicans for being aligned with big business all the time, here they are cutting direct funding for Space X (a private business enterprise) and all you can say is they are off shoring work? If Musk wants to make up the measly $334 million with his own investors, he can keep development going just fine thank you... They don't seem to be lacking investors and they seem to have at least SOME ability to make money from cargo flights for the ISS and other launches so coughing up another few million shouldn't be an issue.
Offshoring jobs, give me a break, 334 Million is a drop in the bucket in that world.... My guess is you are upset about Congress choosing to defund programs going to huge democratic supporter owned companies... You want welfare for these kinds of companies, because they support your political views...
If that's true, this this is an incredibly bad design flaw by Airbus, something on par with forgetting to connect the emergency break handle to the devices designed to stop the wheels from turning.
Capitalism is like playing the lottery. Anyone can get rich. But not everyone. Most are just losing money in the system so a few fortunate ones can be rich.
I have to disagree, or somehow I must have won a lottery when I wasn't looking, a lottery that keeps paying me a little bit more each year as time goes on.
Look, I came from a poor family, not even middle class, from a very poor area. But I'm what you might call middle to upper class now. I got here by working, by paying my own way though college by working full time and doing school full time to live. In the summers I mowed thousands of acres of grass to pay tuition. Heck, with few exceptions, I've been gainfully employed with a regular job since I was 14. You name it, I've likely had a job doing it, shoveling you know what, cleaning toilets and floors, dumping trash, mowing lawns, plumbing, electrical and construction work.
Don't give me this sob story about the system being rigged, or the rich only getting that way because of luck or because they cheated others out of it. It's not usually true and I KNOW it's not true in my life.
This is pretty bad bit of piloting then. There are at least two ways they should have known something was wrong if the engines where not producing enough power.
1. The engine gauges should be abundantly clear between the RPM and pressure ratio. Both are an excellent indicator of how much power you are getting and if either was incorrect or unsteady after throttle up from flight idle, in ANY of the engines you DON'T proceed but abort your takeoff. You NEVER take an airplane airborne with an engine problem which should have been obvious well before V1. Wasn't somebody watching the gauges?
2. The rate of acceleration will be less if the engines are not putting out what they should. This means you will reach the V1 point of the runway BEFORE you have the V1 speed and you again ABORT takeoff. Somebody in that cockpit wasn't watching the runway markers go by.
If they really took off w/o full engine power, multiple somebodies messed up on the flight deck. Then they proceeded to make additional mistakes when they attempted the reset of the engines. They obviously had a positive rate of climb and should have used that to put some distance between them and the ground before trying to turn back, apparently they didn't take advantage of that long enough and ended up landing short.
A "landing" is where you run out of altitude, airspeed and ideas at exactly the same time you are over the touch down zone of the runway. They ran out of altitude before they ran out of airspeed and ideas, and they did it at the wrong location.
I do'na know what they call this where's ya from but here We call this kind of thing trespassing! It's bad enough that you insist on running all this Java Script stuff, but now you want to store stuff locally so you can better control what popup boxes I see and be a light'n the load on ya end yonder? No sir, I'm done being nice and putt'n up with ya. You can take ya North West sourced, high wheeling fancy software and the low down good for nothn snake oil sellin' business off my property afor' I be calling the law. There will be no billboards bein' built on a my stake, a'n'a I won't be buy'n no truck I'sa see's ya try'n to sell that way. No sir, not gona be buy'n nothing.
Now, I'm gona warn ya fella, if I see you, ya friends or any of your varmints trespassing on ma property after today, I'm a gona shoot first with this here six shooter. Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot a-gin, and if'n ya still breathin I might be asking questions, or I might just shoot so'more depen'n on how mean I'm a feelin' and how I'm stocked for ammo at da-time. Ya either gon' be dead, or wish'n ya already was...
Now shoo, ya lazy good for nothing, free loading, yella pond scum. If'n I'm still see'n ya face once I get to count'n to ten, I'm a gona be count'n six more as I be pullin' the trigger. Ya' here me clear? (Click) All ya'll be going now, mind ya mannors as ya be on the trail. Make sure on close'n the gates ya open on the way home to Redmond or I'll be making sure ya learn ya manors..
A one........ (Mississippi)..... A Two .... (Mississippi)........
If you run Windows 8 metro, you already got it...
Nice off-topic method of crow-barring in your opposition to the ACA, troll. No one cares.
I wouldn't say nobody cares... You apparently care enough to respond.... Badum tssssss
TOR.... You forgot Tor!