https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount?service=mail
https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount?service=mail&continue=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2Fe-11-1095a8595167de206048345a6c8b4109-948a948413b8859315bb21330d4e2ec980ed2c26&type=2
or use invitation
[free book]
http://www.bookgg.com/free.j?
[job/career]
又一次跳槽。
这一次，是在试用期。
生命已经走完了30余载，理想和事业，人生和追求，遥远地如同每一个人。
真的很想做一名西部枪手，孤独地屠杀和被杀。
翻译一篇文章。
The Rights of Employees
When the United States became a nation more than 200 years ago, the Founders formulated a Constitution that
structured the new society as a majoritarian democracy. They later added a Bill of Rights to protect
individuals from the tyranny of the majority. But in the 18th century, when the Constitution and Bill of
Rights were ratified, government was viewed as the only major threat to individual rights. The Founders
could not have imagined back then that, one day, concentrations of corporate power would exist on a scale
rivaling, and in some cases exceeding, governmental power.
Today, most Americans are more vulnerable to having their rights violated by their employers than the early
Americans were to having their rights violated by the government. Yet because the Constitution does not
limit their authority, private employers are free to violate the civil liberties of their employees.
Nationwide, the ACLU receives more complaints about abuses by employers than about abuses by the
government:
* In California, Sibi Sorkoa was denied a job because he refused to answer questions about his sex life
on a "psychological test." At least two million job applicants are required to take such tests every year.
* In Pennsylvania, George Geary was fired because he pointed out serious safety defects in his
employer's products. At least 200,000 Americans are unjustly fired every year.
* In Indiana, Janice Bone was fired because she smoked cigarettes in her own home. At least 6,000
American companies now attempt to regulate offduty smoking and other private behavior.
The American Civil Liberties Union believes that such abuses can only be prevented by extending, into the
private workplace, the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Certainly, we recognize that employers
have every right to expect workers to do their jobs. But employees are also entitled to the same freedoms
on the job that they enjoy off the job.
Here are the ACLU's answers to some questions frequently asked by the public about the rights of American
employees.
Q: If the Constitution doesn't apply to the private workplace, what does?
A: The vast majority of American employees, of whom there are 60 million in all, are governed by a doctrine
called "employment at will." This doctrine, a relic of 19th century antilabor laws, gives employers the
unfettered right to fire workers at any time, for any reason, whether grave or frivolous. Indeed, one can
be fired for no reason at all. An estimated 200,000 employees, at least, are unjustly fired in the United
States each year.
It is the prevalence of the employmentatwill doctrine that empowers employers to impose unwarranted urine
tests and intrusive "personality" and "integrity" tests on their employees. The power to fire at will
permits employers to suppress their employees' right to free speech.
Q: Are there any laws that protect employees' rights?
A: There are federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination against individuals on the bases of race,
religion, sex, national origin, age and disability. However, these laws require only that employees be
treated equally. Employers are, therefore, free to do whatever they wish to their employees as long as they
do so in a nondiscriminatory manner.
A few other federal and state laws provide some protection against specific abuses, such as urine testing,
polygraph testing and retaliation against whistle blowers. But these laws are extremely limited. The
fundamental human rights of free expression, privacy and due process are still largely unprotected in the
American workplace.
Q: Does the employmentatwill doctrine apply to all employees?
A: No. There are three broad categories of employees who are not governed by employmentatwill:
Government employees: Federal, state and local government workers are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, which prohibit the government from depriving any person of "life, liberty or property" without
due process of law. These employees are considered to have a property interest in their jobs, and the right
to due process places significant restrictions on arbitrary dismissals unrelated to job performance. Some
additional protection is provided by federal, state and local civil service laws.
Union members: Virtually all collective bargaining agreements between labor unions and employers stipulate
that unionized employees can be fired only for just cause, and only after a hearing before a neutral
arbitrator. However, less than 20 percent of American workers belong to unions today, since union
membership has been declining for years.
Contract employees: Senior executives, academics, performers, athletes and some other wellsituated
employees, whose numbers are so small as to be insignificant, work under individual employment contracts
that provide protection against unjust dismissal.
Q: What can be done about the problem of unjust dismissals?
A: The ACLU believes that the outmoded and unfair employmentat will doctrine should be abolished. Over the
years, the many attempts made to challenge employmentatwill in the courts have produced a few narrow
exceptions to the rule, but these exceptions have helped very few of the people unjustly fired from their
jobs. The ACLU and other organizations advocating employee rights are actively promoting, in state
legislatures, model statutes that encompass the following basic principles:
Employees can be fired only for just cause.
"Just cause" means that: the employee's offense adversely affected his or her job performance; the rule or
standard violated by the employee was known to the employee; and the infraction was serious enough to
warrant termination.
Every employee faced with termination is entitled to a hearing that includes the right to confront
witnesses, the right to present evidence, the right to have adequate representation (either an attorney or
other type of counsel), and the right to an impartial arbitrator.
Q: Can employers legally search their employees' lockers, desks and uring looking for contraband?
A: The Fourth Amendment, which protects the privacy of citizens from "unreasonable searches and seizures,"
gives some protection to public sector employees against their employers' prying eyes. In general, a
government employer cannot search the person or belongings of an employee in the absence of any suspicion
that the particular employee has done something illegal. With respect to urine testing for drugs, however:
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government employees can be required to take such tests, even if the
employer does not suspect drug use, if the person's job is "safety sensitive," or involves carrying a
weapon or having access to classified information. (See ACLU Briefing Paper #5, "Drug Testing in the
Workplace.")
Private sector employees, on the other hand, have virtually no protection against even the most intrusive
practices. In all but a handful of states, an employee can be required to submit to a urine test even where
nothing about the employee's job performance or history suggests illegal drug use. If the employee refuses,
he or she can be terminated without legal recourse. Employees can be subjected to "sniff" searches by dogs
and searches of their lockers, desks, purses, and even their cars if they park in the company parking lot.
Both job applicants and employees can be required to answer extremely intrusive questions about their
private lives and personal beliefs on "psychological," "personality" and "integrity" tests.
The advent of computer technology has made possible even more sophisticated forms of spying in the
workplace. More and more employees are being subjected to electronic surveillance through video display
terminals, observation by hidden cameras installed in work areas and locker rooms, and monitored telephone
calls. With few exceptions, these increasingly widespread practices are legal.
Q: What can be done to protect the privacy rights of employees?
A: The ACLU believes that both state and federal legislation should be enactedto extend privacy rights to
private sector employees.
In recent years, some positive strides have been made. In 1988, Congress passed the Employee Polygraph
Protection Act, which ended decades of "lie detector" abuse in the private workplace. The Act outlaws most
random and preemployment polygraph testing, which in past years had led to an estimated 300,000 workers per
year being branded liars. (See ACLU Briefing Paper #4, "'Lie Detector' Testing.")
Several states Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island and Vermont have enacted
legislation that protects employees from indiscriminate urine testing. Two states Massachusetts and Rhode
Island restrict "paper and pencil honesty" tests. Connecticut is the only state that has a law prohibiting
"electronic surveillance, including video surveillance, of any area designed for the health and comfort of
employees or for safeguarding of their possessions."
The ACLU has developed model statutes to protect employees from unfair urine testing and electronic
surveillance, and is actively lobbying for their passage in state legislatures throughout the country. The
ACLU is also urging Congress to amend the Employee Polygraph Protection Act to cover so called paper and
pencil "integrity" tests.
Q: Can employers discriminate on the basis of employees' lifestyles?
A: One of the emerging issues in the American workplace is the attempt by employers to control certain
private habits and proclivities of their employees that have no relationship to job performance. Fat people
are victims of lifestyle discrimination, and a growing number of companies are refusing to hire smokers
even those who smoke only in their homes. A few employers exclude people with high cholesterol levels, or
high blood pressure, and those who engage in such risky hobbies as scuba diving and hang gliding. Others
impose lifestyle restrictions: One Oregon company bars workers who fail to participate in the company's
exercise program from attending company picnics; a Pennsylvania company prohibits its managers from riding
motorcycles!
The driving force behind this trend is economics: Employers concerned about the escalating costs of
employee health insurance are attempting to cut costs by firing and/or refusing to hire people whose
lifestyles appear to place them at risk of illness or injury. But if reducing health care costs is accepted
as a legitimate reason for employers to regulate the offthejob conduct of their employees, then virtually
every aspect of our private lives could be subject to employer control. This would be Big Brotherism at its
worst.
Q: What can be done to prevent lifestyle discrimination?
A: The ACLU believes that, just as legislation has been needed to prevent other violations of civil
liberties in the workplace, legislation is also necessary to prevent lifestyle discrimination. Just as
federal, state and local laws exist to prohibit employment discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity,
religion and, in some places, sexual preference, new laws are needed to protect against discriminatory
practices based on employees' private lifestyle preferences and habits.
Fourteen states have recently enacted laws that restrain employers from prohibiting legal activities as a
condition of employment. For example, Colorado law makes it "a discriminatory or unfair employment practice
for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any lawful
activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours...." Other states are considering bills
that prohibit employment discrimination based on offduty smoking. The ACLU supports these efforts.
Q: Should employers ever have the right to discipline their employees?
A: Absolutely. Employers have the right to expect an honest day's work for a day's pay. They have the right
to expect that their workers will not be drunk, drugged, or too fatigued to perform their jobs. They have
the right to set performance standards and expect those standards to be met. They also have the right to
discipline and dismiss employees for just cause.
Even if all the protective laws described in this briefing paper were passed in every state, employers
would still retain the right to discipline and dismiss any employee whose job performance was lacking.
Q: But wouldn't recognition of civil liberties in the workplace damage the American economy?
A: There is no conflict between free enterprise and civil liberties in the workplace. Free enterprise
should not be taken to mean that every corporation is a sovereign republic unto itself, whose only law is
the whim of the current CEO. Employers must be free to decide what products to make (or stop making), what
factories to operate and where to locate those factories, what prices to charge, and how many workers to
hire. But they can make such decisions without trampling on their employees' rights to free speech, privacy
and due process.
The fact is that employers in most other Western industrialized nations, as well as in Japan, are required
by law to respect the rights of their employees. Nonetheless, those employers' businesses survive and
prosper. Moreover, several American employers, including some of the nation's most successful corporations,
already guarantee their employees' civil liberties without affecting the bottom line of profits. Those
employers believe that respecting employees' rights boosts morale and, thus, raises corporate performance.
It is ironic that the United States, with its long professed respect for individual rights, has not yet
extended Bill of Rights protections to the largest remaining group of forgotten citizens American workers.
It is time to right that wrong.
雇员权利
200多年前，当合众国成为了一个国家的时候，缔造者们制订了一部宪法，规定这个社会的构架是多数民主。
此后他们在宪法里加入了权利法案以保护个人免受多数人的暴政。可是在18世纪，在批准宪法和权利法案的时候，
人们只把政府看做是个人权利的威胁。缔造者们没有想到的是，有一天，公司的权力集中化越来越成为了
政府权力的对手，在某些情况下甚至超越了政府权力。
比起早期政府侵犯美国人的权利的容易程度，今天大多数美国人的权利，更容易受到雇主的侵犯。可是由于宪法
没有限制私人的雇主的威权，他们可以随心所欲地侵犯他们的雇员的公民权利。在全美范围内，ACLU收到的抱怨
雇主滥用权力的投诉，要多于对于政府的。
*在加利福尼亚，因为在"心理测试"里拒绝回答关于他的性生活的问题，Sibi Sorkoa 被拒了一份工作。
每年至少在2000,000份工作申请里，会要求进行此类测试。
*在宾夕法尼亚，因为指出了他的雇主的产品里的严重的安全缺陷，George Geary 被解雇了。
每年至少有200,000个美国人被不公正地解雇了。
*在印第安纳，因为在家里抽烟，Janice Bone被解雇了。
现在至少有6,000家美国公司试图管理非工作时间的抽烟和其他的私人行为。
ACLU坚信，只有把权利法案对我们的保护延伸和扩展到私人(的雇主的)工作场所，才能防止这样的权力滥用。
当然，我们承认雇主有要求工作者工作的权利。但是雇员也当有同样的，要求在非工作方面享受他们的自由，的权利。
这里是ACLU对于公众经常问起的关于美国雇员的权利的问题的回答:
Q: 如果宪法不管理私人的工作场所，什么能管?
A: 大多数美国雇员---60,000,000,被一种叫做"自愿雇用"的学说所统治。这种教条---19世纪反劳工法的遗留物，
给了雇主不受约束的权利---可以在任何时间，以任何重要的或者无关紧要的理由解雇工作者。事实上，没有任何理由
也可以解雇一个人。在美国，每年估计至少有200,000雇员被不公正地解雇了。
正是由于"自愿雇用"学说的流行，才给了雇主强迫雇员参加的没有许可证的尿液测试和侵犯人的
"个性"和"诚实"测试的权力。"自愿解雇"的权力给了雇主压抑雇员言论自由权利的许可。
Q: 有没有保护雇员权利的法律?
A: 有联邦和州法律禁止区别对待雇员,无论基于种族，宗教，性别，原国籍，年龄和残疾。然而，这些法律
只要求平等地对待雇员。因此，雇主可以让他们的雇员做任何事情，只要没有区别对待雇员。
有些联邦和州法律提供了一些针对特殊的滥用权力的保护，比如尿液测试，撒谎测试和打击报复揭发违法行为。
然而，这些法律作用及其有限。基本的人权比如自由表达，隐私和合法程序，在美国的工作场所依旧基本上未受保护。
Q: "自愿雇用"学说适用于所有雇员?
A: 否。有3类雇员不是:
政府雇员: 联邦，州和地方政府的工作者受到第四和第五宪法修正案的保护,其中规定，未经合法程序，
不得剥夺一个人的"生命，自由和财产"。人们认为，这些雇员在他们的工作里有财产利益，
and the right to due process places significant restrictions on arbitrary dismissals unrelated to job performance。
联邦，州和地方公民服务法律提供了一些其他的保护。
工会成员: 几乎所有的在劳动联盟和雇主之间的集体合同协议规定参加工会的雇员只能以正当的理由开除，
并且需要在一个中立的听证会之后。然而，由于这些年工会成员数量的下滑，今天只有不到20%的美国工作者参加了工会。
合同工: 高级执行人员，学者，表演者，运动员和一些其他的自适应很强的雇员，有让他们免受不公正
解除合同的个人雇用合同，但是他们数量极少，因此不怎么重要。
Q: 对于不公正的解雇，有什么可以做么?
A: ACLU坚信，过时的和不公正的"自愿雇用"学说当被抛弃。这些年来，通过很多次在法庭上挑战"自愿雇用"的尝试，
这条规则已经有了一些狭窄的例外，但这些例外对于被不公正地解雇的人们的帮助很少。ACLU和其他提倡雇员权利
的组织正在州立法机关和model法令积极倡如下基本原则:
雇员只能以正当的理由开除.
"正当的理由"是指:雇员的违规行为对于他或者她的工作表现产生了不利影响；雇员知道他/她违反的规则；违规很严重，所以终止合同是正当的。
每一个面临合同中止的雇员都有资格要求听证，包括：有面对证人的权利，有提供证据的权利，
有足够的事实陈述(包括代理律师和其他类型的辩护律师)的权利，有公平的仲裁者的权利。
Q: 雇主能否合法地搜查他们的雇员的抽屉，桌面和尿液以寻找违禁品?
A: 宪法第四修正案---"禁止不合理的搜寻和夺取"以保护公民的隐私---对于防止公共部门雇主偷窥雇员进行了
一定程度的保护。通常，除非有证据怀疑某个雇员做了些非法的事情，政府雇主不得搜查这个人或者他/她的物品。
然而，对于药品尿液测试，美国最高法院裁定:即使政府雇主没有怀疑雇员使用药品，如果这个雇员的工作是
"安全敏感的"或者包括携带武器或者可以接触机密信息，他也可以要求雇员进行这样的测试。（参见: ACLU
Briefing Paper #5 "工作场所的药物测试"
另一方面，私人工作场所的雇员，却几乎没有任何保护---即使是最侵犯人的例子。除了一把州，在其余的州，
即使同雇员的工作表现没有任何关系，即使没有任何迹象表明雇员有非法的药物使用的历史，雇员也会被要求
提交尿液测试。如果雇员拒绝，那么他或她会被解雇--没有合法的求助。雇员会经常遭受狗的"嗅探"搜索和搜索
他们的抽屉，桌面，钱包，甚至他们的汽车---如果他们经常在公司停车场停车。在"心理""个性""诚实"测试中，
工作申请者和雇员会被要求回答及其侵犯人的问题比如：他们的私人生活和个人信仰。
计算机技术的到来使得在工作场所的更复杂的类型的监测成为了可能。越来越多的雇员经常遭受显示屏幕中端的
电子调查，安装在工作场所和抽屉房间的隐藏的摄像机，手机监视。除了少数例外，这些广泛增长的实践是合法的。
Q: 能做什么以保护雇员的隐私权利?
A：ACLU坚信，州和联邦立法机构必须制定法律来保护私人部门的雇员的隐私权利
最近一些年来，已经取得了一些正面的进步。1988,国会通过了雇员测谎保护法案，终止了几十年来在私人部门
的"测谎仪"的滥用。此法案宣布大多数随机和雇用前的谎言测试是非法的---在过去的岁月里，后者导致了
估计每年有300,000的工作者被诬蔑是说谎者。（参见 ACLU Briefing Paper #4: "测谎仪" 测试)
几个州:康涅狄格，爱荷华, 缅因,明尼苏达,罗德岛和佛蒙特，
[xbox 360 ban debate]
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=62564
Microsoft Bans Modified Xbox 360 Consoles on Xbox Live
Microsoft has confirmed that users who have modified the firmware of the DVD-ROM in their Xbox 360 to allow non-genuine game disks to be played will no longer be able to access Xbox Live but will not have their accounts banned.
In its Gamerscore Blog Microsoft states that the crackdown is to "maintain a fair gaming environment" but the ban is widely seen as move against pirated disks, particularly of the game Crackdown which allows access to the Halo 3 beta.
"We have stated in the past that customers can only enjoy access to the Xbox LIVE community through the use of a genuine, unmodified, Xbox console and we will continue to enforce this rule to ensure the integrity of our service…" continued the blog.
26 Comments
No Surprise...
They did the same thing with the original xbox.
by: tellgar 05/21/2007 07:39 AM
So
xbox consoles modified to play illegal games wont work on the internet anymore, and people are surprised by this?
by: Gogevandire 05/21/2007 09:51 AM
heh oh crap
I might have to buy another xbox360 then, I modded my original xbox, stuck a 250GB hard drive in there and still use it as a media centre to this day. (live sucked back then)
Currently i can only play downloaded games on my 360, no media apps yet, but now that i heard Halo 3 is gonna be coop over live i may have to buy a second Xbox360 only for that.
by: koultunami 05/21/2007 10:18 AM
If you modify
your console to allow it to play cheap illegal discs what do you expect. Pay for your games like everyone else and you'll have the service restored
by: barryriley 05/21/2007 01:50 PM
And this is going to work, how ?
Given the fact that these machines are already modified, I suspect there will be an additional 'mod' that will make the unit pass Micro$loth's muster. As we all know, they've done such a superlative job of preventing all of their products from being wantonly distributed. Essentially, all they do is prevent the overly inept, or incapable of bypassing their latest attempts at enforcement from receiving the benefit. "Locks are meant to keep honest people, honest." (the criminals either ignore them, know how to break them, or just don't care)
by: The_Guru 05/21/2007 02:28 PM
actually i'm pretty sure just switching hdd's
will fix this issue.
by: koultunami 05/21/2007 03:37 PM
What's wrong with....
a company doing what it wants with their product?
by: BeatBlaster 05/21/2007 06:31 PM
Halo 3
I am waiting for that game to come out before I buy my 360, the grape vine has it that there will be a $100 drop in price when it comes out. Yes It will be a MOD one when I get it. My current Xbox is MOD and it is a fully functional computer, I can surf the internet, play games strait from the hard drive. I really don't care about Xbox Live that much. I can download the updated rosters for Maden with having to go thru MS. BTW barryriley, I have about $5000 in games, and I didnt pay for any of them :)
by: thedrewman 05/21/2007 06:35 PM
@BeatBlaster
Because after you've bought it, it is your hardware. Being able to play copies of dvds that you own so as not to scratch or ruin the originals is not a criminal offense and is protected under copyright law.
However, Microsoft is entitled to ban hardware that might harm thier network. If people mod thier hardware to cheat, then it could affect the experience of people that have paid to play fairly.
by: CrisW 05/21/2007 06:55 PM
@the Guru
Exactly, they dont have to and cant stop everyone, but they can no doubt stop enough people
by: GogeVandire 05/21/2007 07:41 PM
@Cris
I wouldn't be surprised to find a clause buried in MS's legalese that states their hardware is subject to the same stipulations as their software, i.e. you've simply purchased a license to use their product.
by: caution2 ChannelCop 05/21/2007 07:43 PM
...
I hate people who try to cheat the system.
If you want to play, you have to pay.
The same applies to car modifications. Replicas hurt the industry too much, many aftermarket companies are bankrupt because of replica factories. I'm sure everyone knows the problems BBS is facing right now.
by: vant 05/21/2007 08:05 PM
For all the NEWBS, Just my $0.02
Well, I look at it this way, if you buy a product *NO MATTER WHAT IT IS* you should be able to do with it what you want. If a person such as I want to modify the firmware of my drive so I can play my LEGALLY backupped games, etc. I should be able to and still use a "service" Lets see... I pay for a system that technically I don't actually "own" because they can do with it what they want if I were to do with it what I want. I pay for a service to play on, again they do with that what they want..
Basically if you buy something and you are supposed to "own" it, you should be able to do with it what you want without being reprimanded for it.
Like "I bought my gallon of milk and I can't pour it out without the milk police suing me for disrespecting the cow and farmer where it came from."
WTF Ever... I can see blocking certain xbox's for using ACTUAL code that WOULD support cheating, but anything else should be just fine. Afterall, it's YOUR stuff, if you want to throw it out your window when you're pissed, the you can do that. It's YOURS, not someone else's, you PAID For it, it's yours fair and square.
Again, just my two cents. You buy it, you should be able to do with it WHATEVER you want. Regardless.
Last I checked it's not against the law to "update" your firmware .
by: Tecchie 05/22/2007 07:16 PM
@techie
Your wrong.
Simply put.
There are lots of things you "buy" but dont own.
by: Gogevandire 05/23/2007 11:23 AM
@thedrewman
"BTW barryriley, I have about $5000 in games, and I didnt pay for any of them :)"
I'm not having a go at piracy itself (although it evidently is theft, and if we all did it, there'd be no Xbox 360 at all), I'm just pointing out that people have absolutely no right to complain about the loss of a service if they're pirating their games
by: barryriley 05/23/2007 02:06 PM
@Tecchie
"If a person such as I want to modify the firmware of my drive so I can play my LEGALLY backupped games, etc. I should be able to and still use a "service""
Oh come on, that's the oldest defense in the book. How many people are really legally backing up their games and playing them that way? Why not just put the disc in the drive. I remember the exact same argument with the Amiga, "I'm only buying these 400 blank disks so that I can back up all my games". It's a bullsh*t argument that just doesn't hold water
by: barryriley 05/23/2007 02:23 PM
@Barry
I remember it with the spectrum,
:P
odd thing was, the blank tapes didnt cost much less than game back then.
quite strange.
by: Gogevandire 05/23/2007 02:39 PM
@Barry
I may/can be wrong but that still doesn't change the fact that I should be able to do to my hardware what I Want. I'm not polluting the environment, killing people, raping people, etc.
If you and the MPAA consider it stealing, then so be it. But I didn't "physically" take it. If it was made for me to download free of charge, then it should be just fine, and last I checked the only way they can REALLY bust you is if you were making come kind of compensation from your "illegal backups".
Remember, just my two cents ($0.02)
by: Tecchie 05/23/2007 04:28 PM
not cool
Yeah my 360 got banned. Oh well I just bought a new 360 and now I have one for backups offline and one for retail games online. Its a small price to pay to pay a smaller price.
by: darkrom666 05/23/2007 07:49 PM
*shrug*
I create an ISO of all the games I have that require a CD/DVD to play. I don't like having to spend 20+ minutes finding the CD when the urge to play a particular game. Instead of sorting through my binders and spindles I just mount the image and away I go. Right now I'm kicking myself because I can't find my StarCraft CD and I appear to have deleted my image.
With close to 2 terabytes on my gaming rig I have entire drives dedicated to my isos. Hell of a lot easier to keep ISO folders organized compared to the real life equivalents...
For the most part I own legitamate copies. Sure, some of the single player stuff I have are downloads, but anything I want to play online is a real copy.
by: Ouka 05/23/2007 10:34 PM
wow...
Is this the time to give unnecessary confessions or what?
by: kuhl 05/24/2007 01:36 PM
@Tecchie
You're right and wrong.
When you buy hardware, you should be allowed to modify it anyway you want.
*HOWEVER*
XBOX Live is a service being offered by Microsoft. It is not a right under the constitution or by law. The world doesn't owe you anything.
If you buy a satellite receiver, you can modify it but using it to get free PPV is against the law and DirecTV (or other) does not have to provide you with continued service if you get caught. Same thing with Microsoft.
by: steiny_33 05/24/2007 02:33 PM
@steiny_33
Yes, I understand it's a service they are offering, but it's your hardware. There is no law or constitution right or restriction that states you can't use your own hardware to use these services.
And as for the satellite services, if they didn't want people to be able to use "unlocked boxes" then they shouldn't be broadcasting the signal where everyone can get it. Here's an outerspace one for you, what *if* aliens (for the sake of argument they existed) did the same thing, and had their own equipment to decode the broadcast, then what? We going to arrest them too? What about TV over AIR, or FM/AM/Ham radios for example... You've got the equipment to "decode" the transmission because you obviously can't decode it with your head, then so be it. If they want to make sure it's locked down, then they should encrypt their outbound signals and each "receiver" needs a special code linked only to that paticular box and broadcasting sats. (which could be maintained in a database by the provider) And you can't say that would be too expensive or complicated because people said that before the first sat launch way back when..
Back on track, you know why alot of people modify their boxes such as myself? I like media, movies, muic, etc.. and if I choose to rip what I have to my computer and transfer it to a small box such as the xbox and play my stuff on there without having to haul out a PC or what-not then I want to be able to do that, and ALSO
Play my NON-XBOX-Live games with others from around the world, so there is Live Alternatives like XLink Kai, or XBConnect, etc.. My point is, if a company wants it's end users to abide by the rules and "play it their way" then they shouldn't offer half-asses services. Period.
BTW, 320GB in an XBOX is awsome shiszzle... Got all my CD's on there, my OWN collection of DVD's, and even some smallville seasons that I BOUGHT and ripped and burned, and I still play all my stuff legitly.. If I want to play on XBOX live, then I just flip a switch on my box and I am back on with the stock *un modded* hdd.
XBOX Live is a service being offered by Microsoft. It is not a right under the constitution or by law. The world doesn't owe you anything.
If you buy a satellite receiver, you can modify it but using it to get free PPV is against the law and DirecTV (or other) does not have to provide you with continued service if you get caught. Same thing with Microsoft.
by: steiny_33
by: Tecchie 05/25/2007 12:19 AM
@steiny_33
Yes, I understand it's a service they are offering, but it's your hardware. There is no law or constitution right or restriction that states you can't use your own hardware to use these services.
And as for the satellite services, if they didn't want people to be able to use "unlocked boxes" then they shouldn't be broadcasting the signal where everyone can get it. Here's an outerspace one for you, what *if* aliens (for the sake of argument they existed) did the same thing, and had their own equipment to decode the broadcast, then what? We going to arrest them too? What about TV over AIR, or FM/AM/Ham radios for example... You've got the equipment to "decode" the transmission because you obviously can't decode it with your head, then so be it. If they want to make sure it's locked down, then they should encrypt their outbound signals and each "receiver" needs a special code linked only to that paticular box and broadcasting sats. (which could be maintained in a database by the provider) And you can't say that would be too expensive or complicated because people said that before the first sat launch way back when..
Back on track, you know why alot of people modify their boxes such as myself? I like media, movies, muic, etc.. and if I choose to rip what I have to my computer and transfer it to a small box such as the xbox and play my stuff on there without having to haul out a PC or what-not then I want to be able to do that, and ALSO
Play my NON-XBOX-Live games with others from around the world, so there is Live Alternatives like XLink Kai, or XBConnect, etc.. My point is, if a company wants it's end users to abide by the rules and "play it their way" then they shouldn't offer half-asses services. Period.
BTW, 320GB in an XBOX is awsome shiszzle... Got all my CD's on there, my OWN collection of DVD's, and even some smallville seasons that I BOUGHT and ripped and burned, and I still play all my stuff legitly.. If I want to play on XBOX live, then I just flip a switch on my box and I am back on with the stock *un modded* hdd.
*sorry, re-post for stuff I left in*
by: Tecchie 05/25/2007 12:20 AM
.....
So to play burned games, all I need to do is 'flash' the firmware? No need for a dodgy chip?
Cool. :-D
by: LondonOntGuy 05/29/2007 08:57 PM
.....
So to play burned games, all I need to do is 'flash' the firmware? No need for a dodgy chip?
Cool. :-D
[Visual Studio]
[.NET/VS]
{
Download&破解before setup: http://www.bkye.com/post/downvs2005.html
一直都想研究下ASP.NET，一直都没有机会实现，现在有机会了，要做的事情当然就是下个软件来玩玩了，早上出去想买张Visual Studio 2005 中文版的光盘，跑了好几家都没有买到，只有买Visual Studio 2003 中文版的，要玩就玩最新的，就想到回来下载了，搜索了好长时间都没有找到一个满意的，最后终于还是让我找到了一个满意的，而且速度还8错的说。
下载地址为：http://202.119.248.201/soft1/vs2005.rar
关于破解的一些说明：
下载后解压，找到SETUP文件夹下的setup.sdb,用记事本打开它找到[Product Key]，将下面的一行序列号删除，改为：KYTYHTQKW6VWPBQDKC8FHWC4J
还有一个比较麻烦点的方法是，安装后在“添加删除”里面选择删除"visual studio 2005"，然后在打开的窗口中选择最后一项“添加注册码升级到正式版”，在里面输入下面的cd－key:SN:KYTYH-TQKW6-VWPBQ- DKC8F-HWC4J
当然，如果你觉得你的系统一般都不能坚持到180天，那你也可以
[部分原创][部分总结]个人总结，VS2003安装问题以及解决方案
， 如果安装好后 打开后提示vc软件包未安装或未注册。那么一定是因为你安装时覆盖了上一次的安装路径。解决方法：删掉原来的安装 文件夹重新安装，或者修复一遍
二，如果安装时提示FROUTPAGE***组件*** 安装失败。那么一定是你的IIS没有安装。或是没有点选FRONTPAGE**组件。解决方法：运行 widows安装组件向导，然后点选IIS然后点详细信息。选择FRONTPAGE**组件，然后确定完成安装
我的系统是Win XP (P) SP2 ,计划安装VS.NET2005。
在安装IIS时被要求插入SP2的补丁盘，我去下载了SP2补丁，把其中安装文件调出来单独做成文件夹以供系统读取，但在安装IIS过程还是出现有若干个安装文件不能读取，导致安装失败。
之后我跳过了安装IIS这个步骤，可惜在安装VS.net的过程中又出现了“Windows Installer包
f:\vs_setup.msi 未能打开”这个对话框，最终安装失败。
请教诸位大侠，应该如何解决上述问题，以安装VS.NET2005
我遇到过这种情况，这是因为你的WindowsXP系统文件已经受损，所以他在安装过程中不断地提示你要安装SP2的补订文件。为了以绝后患，你最好修复一次系统，或者干脆重装一遍系统
在安装IIS&vs.net的时候我遇到了如下问题，总结一下：
1 分区的问题
如果你打算在当前系统下安装Microsoft Visual Studio .NET的话，就要把系统盘
转换成NTFS格式的，否则无法安装，可以用一些软件比如PowerQuest进行转换。而
且如果你打算在其他盘上建立IIS的虚拟目录，最好也把那个盘做成NTFS的，这里涉
及到一个访问权限的问题，在FAT32格式下，有一些权限无法设置。我现在正遇到这
个问题，用Vs可以在wwwroot下新建项目，但是如果在虚拟目录中新建项目就会出现
“应用程序根初始化错误”，这个错误就是是由访问权限的问题造成的。关于权限设
置的问题后面还有描述。
2 操作系统的问题
我用的操作系统是Windows XP Professional。这里要注意，WinXP Home版没有IIS
这一项，所以如果你的系统是WinXP Home的，还是换Pro或者换Win2000之类的系统。
IIS不是安装系统是默认安装的，所以需要用“控制面板”“添加删除程序”“添加
删除Windows组建”添加。选中“Internet信息服务”，点击“详细信息…”，确保
“Frontpage2000服务器扩展”是选中的，我在安装过程中这一项是默认选中的，但
为了保险起见还是查看一下好。这里还要说一下，如果你的分区不是NTFS格式的，IIs
有一些组件不能完全安装，其中的道理我也还不太明白。还有如果升级到WinXP SP2,
vS安装也会出现错误；安装Vs后Office会提示到期，所以要在安装Vs之后安装office
只是听说而已，还没有碰到。
3 环境配置问题
安装好IIS和vs后环境需要配置一下：
安装IIS后，网站属性当中IP地址要更改为127.0.0.1（如果希望别人访问的话就改成自
己的IP地址，不过安全性可是没有保障哦），其余的按照默认设置就可以了。
安装vs会同时安装好.net framework 1.1 不过好像vs不能识别出这个版本，所以要运
行一个程序，
这样就OK了。
权限也要修改一下，在wwwroot的属性的安全选项卡（如果没有，就打开“工具”“文件夹选
项”“查看”选项卡中，取消选中“使用简单文件共享（推荐）”，这里要说一下，
如果你的分区格式不是NTFS的，即便选中也不会出现这个选项卡，这就是开始提到的
做NTFS分区的原因，其中的道理我也还不太明白）中，如果没有Everyone这个用户，
就新建一个Everyone，附给他完全控制的权限。这样就不会出现权限错误了
Pre: SP2 / IIS
直接解压visual studio2005安装文件，然后双击setup.exe安装时都会出现vs_setup.msi文件未能打开的问题！
IIS seems not related to this issue
Can NOT install in VMware
but OK under true machine
解决方法一，双击你vs的压缩文件，打开你压缩文件里边的内容，然后双击setup.exe文件，出现解压文件对话框，等文件解压完后文件就会自动安装，不会出现“vs_setup.msi文件未能打开的问题”，安装一半时，会提示重启电脑对话框时，一定要选“是”，重启计算机后，电脑会自动安装，一直等到安装成功，就ok了~!
解决方法二，把文件解压，用虚拟光驱安装，问题也可以解决“vs_setup.msi文件未能打开”的问题。
}
[Java/J2EE]
{
J2ME
J2ME
http://java.sun.com/downloads/
{TAG:Java}{TAG:JDK}
{
J2SE 1.4.2 1.4.2_11 1.5.0_06
Setup another version:
If (1)JDK 1.5 is also installed (2)We want to set JDK 1.4.2 default
Then we MUST delete C:\Windows\System32\java.exe and C:\Windows\System32\javaw.exe (they are the same as that in bin/ of INSTALL_DIR of 1.5)
[环境变量]
JAVA_HOME = C:\PF\JDK_1.5.0_06\Path += %JAVA_HOME%\bin\CLASSPATH = .;%JAVA_HOME%\lib\dt.jar;%JAVA_HOME%\lib\tools.jar
http://java.sun.com/
[Z]
http://java.sun.com/products/archive/
[环境变量]
JAVA_HOME = SETUP_PATH
Path += %JAVA_HOME%\bin\
CLASSPATH = .;%JAVA_HOME%\lib\dt.jar;%JAVA_HOME%\lib\tools.jar
}
J2SE 1.4.2 1.4.2_11 1.5.0_06
Setup another version:
If (1)JDK 1.5 is also installed (2)We want to set JDK 1.4.2 default
Then we MUST delete C:\Windows\System32\java.exe and C:\Windows\System32\javaw.exe (they are the same as that in bin/ of INSTALL_DIR of 1.5)
环境变量:
JAVA_HOME = C:\PF\JDK_1.5.0_06\
Path += %JAVA_HOME%\bin\
CLASSPATH = .;%JAVA_HOME%\lib\dt.jar;%JAVA_HOME%\lib\tools.jar
Eclipse
{
Eclipse
http://www.eclipse.org/->
http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/->
http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.2.1-200609210945/eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-win32.zip->
http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.2.1-200609210945/eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-win32.zip&url=http://download.actuatechina.com/eclipse/eclipse/downloads/drops/R-3.2.1-200609210945/eclipse-SDK-3.2.1-win32.zip&mirror_id=385
}
NetBeans
http://www.netbeans.org/
FROM:LOCAL
}
[JCreator Pro]
SN(A Site License):
P145518-Master XinClub (Name)
000WHJ-B480WG-5JAGYT-DX5UYE-A37FKU-JA13VN-G5C3WC-3QA458-5MFGPV (Key)
{
Can not recognize CHS path
}
{TAG:Java}{TAG:Build}
{
Ant
http://ant.apache.org/
[环境变量]
ANT_HOME = ......
Path += %ANT_HOME%\bin\
}
[Ant]
环境变量:
ANT_HOME = ......
Path += %ANT_HOME%\bin\
[JUnit]
环境变量
JUNIT_HOME = C:\PFG\JUnit_4.0\
Path += %JUNIT_HOME%\bin\
CLASSPATH += %JUNIT_HOME%\junit-4.0.jar;%JUNIT_HOME%
Setup:
Dependency: JDK 1.5
Test Installation:
JAVA_HOME =
java org.junit.runner.JUnitCore org.junit.tests.AllTests
Apache Tomcat: servlet container
(belongs to J2EE)
{
Apache Tomcat
http://tomcat.apache.org/ ->
http://tomcat.apache.org/whichversion.html
6.x
http://tomcat.apache.org/download-60.cgi
5.x
http://tomcat.apache.org/download-55.cgi
4.1
http://tomcat.apache.org/download-41.cgi
3.3
http://tomcat.apache.org/download-33.cgi
servlet container
}
}
[Assembler/Disassembler]
汇编:nasmw
反汇编:ndisasmw | debug
MASM | TASM
NASM
{
From INSTALL:
./configure
make everything
(ERROR:
mkdir -p info
makeinfo nasmdoc.texi
make[1]: makeinfo: Command not found
make[1]: *** [info/nasm.info] Error 127
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/cjs/Desktop/nasm-0.98.39/doc'
make: *** [doc] Error 2
)
sudo make install_everything
}
Documentation:
http://sourceforge.net/docman/index.php?group_id=6208
nasm
ndisasmw.exe -o0x7c00 f:\VM-share\boot.bin
AS/gas AT&T 语法格式
[DNS/IP]
DNS: 202.96.209.5 | 202.96.209.6 | 202.96.209.133
OpenDNS: 208.67.222.222 | 208.67.220.220
Google IP: 64.233.187.99
http://sonojason.yculblog.com/post.4076481644.html
Mobbyca's Blog - 水木清华纪念版
心有壁垒 不见桥梁 (林达)
[复旦]
复旦2004
[报纸]
电脑报
[杂志]
大众软件
没有评论:
发表评论