It's certainly the only reason businesses choose OSS, or proprietary software. Net present value of TCO over the planning horizon.
Simply untrue.
1. Businesses aren't about minimizing expected TCOs, maximizing expected profits, etc. Those are one factor, but things like cost-certainty, worst-case scenarios, etc are also very important.
E.g. if solution A has a 95% chance of costing $100,000 for the next 6 years, and solution B has a 100% chance of costing $106,000 for the next 6 years, but solution A has a 5% chance of costing $200,000 over the next 6 years--what do you do?
_Rationally_ (and I use that term in the economic sense) solution A has a lower expected cost and is the right choice.
In the real world, if you know that $200,000 would severely impede your chances to make money, or put you into bankruptcy, etc and $106,000 would not massively affect the business, you would probably go with solution B.
Cost-certainty is a major factor in OSS decisions.
2. Businesses don't act for only business reasons. Sometimes they make a choice because the owner or someone in a purchasing position loves a product or philosophy, or isn't the authority on a product but trusts a tech leader's judgement (who themselve doesn't make completely rational decisions). Sometimes they make a choice because somebody has a family member selling a product, or owes someone a favor.
I'd say that trusting some internal techie with product evaluation, when that techie happens to be a fan of a particular product and doesn't do a fair evaluation of what's the best tool for the job, is a major factor in most technology decisions both for OSS and for commercial products.
OCaml and Dylan (the latter with optional strong-typing enabled) are widely-available real-world type-safe functional languages, and as another response noted SML is another (really, SML and Ocaml are both variants of ML).
Ocaml is high-performance, type-safe, functional, and freely available under an open-source license (I think it's QPL 1.0 for the compiler, GPL 2.0 for the libs)
Let me just say that an MMORPG that you have to pay to get into is a far cry from a public place.
No it isn't, for purposes of discrimination law. A public establishment includes, among other things, "any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment" (US Code Title 42.21.II.2000a.b.3).
Note that many of those you have to pay to get into, but they are still considered public places because (unlike, say, an Elks lodge) they do business with the general public on a non-invitation basis.
Now, the incident case is outside the realm of federal anti-discrimination law, which does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
More importantly, after a couple years of running a private network, never ever consider passing off the burden of maintaining the rickety development system that is suddenly 24x7 critical to IT. Those kinds of moves are exactly the kind that destroy IT's willingness to accomodate user requests.
That's the job of IT and development. If they can't do it, something's wrong with the organization. IT needs to know how to bring newly developed systems up to their production standards. Conversely, of course, if the developers are bringing up a new prototype, and they know it may eventually go into production, it's their job to coordinate with IT and make sure that it's not rickety and conforms to IT's requirements.
But in the early stages, it may be perfectly reasonable to prototype the system trying out new hardware or OSes or network layouts on a daily basis. So it makes eminent sense for some kinds of projects to be managed initially by the dev team, and if your company can't handle that--either because the developers have a "hack it until it works and then throw it to IT without comment" attitude, or because IT has a "we didn't build the system so we're not responsible for it" attituce--then you're in for a lot of missed opportunities and failed projects.
But you can be "held" on suspicion - sorry for my poor choice of words. They have a window of time where you can be held but not charged for anything, and it's not timed in minutes.
Kind of.
There are 3 different concepts you reference: 1. Detained for questioning (a "Terry stop") 2. Arrested 3. Charged
Being charged with a crime is a formal procedure that takes place in a courtroom, it's pretty much out of scope here.
With reasonable suspicion they can stop and question you without arresting you. However, such a stop must be (1) of short duration and (2) limited to investigation of the specific suspicious activity seen before the stop.
If they detain you for a prolonged time, legally it's an arrest. They don't have to say "you're under arrest" for it to be an arrest, and they can let you go without taking you down to the station or charging you. But the rules of arrest (custody, Miranda rights, etc) apply once you've been arrested.
An arrest requires probable cause. A Terry stop (stop-and-question) requires reasonable suspicion, a much lower standard.
Sorry, I should've clarified that's my understanding of the Constitutional limits. Clearly states can restrict the actions of their officers further if they so choose.
Actually, _reasonable_ suspicion is sufficient for them to search the passenger compartment of your car; probable cause is not required. Numerous Supreme Court rulings have upheld that policy, on several ground including 1. Items in your immediate area could pose a threat to the officer; and 2. Unlike a home or other area, a car is mobile and it's more likely that evidence will disappear quickly (other justifications have been posited as well).
They do need reasonable suspicion that you have been or are currently involved in criminal behavior; it's a much lower bar than probable cause.
At least that's my non-legal belief of how things are, but I could be wrong--consult a lawyer if you need legal advice.
All true, but the fact remains that the indigenous American civilizations went into a sharp (relatively speaking) decline 100-200 years before the Spanish got there
If the earlier post had said that the Mayas or Toltecs had mysteriously disappeared, it'd be a reasonable point. Fpr the Aztecs, it's not.
The Aztec Empire was not in a sharp decline before the Spanish got there; indeed, it had reached it's largest size ever at some point after 1500 AD. The Spanish arrived in 1519 AD.
Contrast that with America, where many technology parks and shopping centers don't even have proper sidewalks, and where the fastest, cheapest food you can get is at McDonalds
At least in the Washington, DC area you can't beat middle-eastern pita joints for fast and cheap. And some of their options are a _lot_ healthier than McD's. I can easily get a sandwich+drink for under the cost of a value meal.
I use several.info addresses. Many municipalities use them, e.g. http://lacounty.info/. Some GNU/FSF programs use them, like Gnuplot: http://www.gnuplot.info/. Other open-source projects like Fedora (which predates the Fedora Linux distribution) use them: http://www.fedora.info/
Having been in a similar situation myself, I resent the "armchair patriot" ad hominem attack you're trying to use to dismiss people who point out that the law does not support the allegation that people are required to produce identification papers/licenses/etc. There is absolutely no law requiring you to even _have_ identification. I also find it odd that you would view a clarification on one aspect of the law as being a justification of the police and legal process.
In my situation (back long ago in high school) one of my friends was driving with me in the car when we saw a friend walking down the sidewalk with other friends who did not know the driver. He thought it would be amusing to stop the van, grab our friend, throw him in the back of the van, and drive off-which he did, and was promptly pulled over by a cop on suspicion of kidnapping. He and the "abductee" explained the situation, at which point the cop asked them to produce ID (which the "abductee", a 17-year-old high school student, did not have). The "abductee" refused, somewhat snarkily offered a Junior Classical League card (a latin-club membership card with no photo or anythin else other than a handwritten name), and eventually wound up in court where the charges were dropped.
But the details of the cases aren't really relevant. It sounds like in your case the officers had probable cause to investigate (having received reports of illegal activity in your area) and, indeed, had found the firecracker culprit. That doesn't justify them making illegal demands, but the moral issue isn't the law (which does _not_ support those demands) but rather the officers and possibly the judge who acted outside the law (it's tough to know if the judge acted outside the law or simply made the correct legal judgement under a flawed understanding of the facts).
At any rate, whether the law is enforced properly (it clearly is not in many cases) is a seperate discussion from what the law actually is and how the courts have interpreted it. And they've pretty unanimously rejected all attempts thus far to require people to even have an ID at all, let alone carry it on their person and produce it when requested.
I dunno about that, I find most of the tile sets dangerous in at least 2 ways: 1. Almost none of them have unique tiles for everything, by the late game you run into some duplicates that can trip you up. 2. You're not learning character classes, so when you get, say, a blessed scroll of genocide asking which monsters to eliminate you don't know what letter to pick.
1. Run away from anything you're faster than; If you are hitting it twice every other turn, you're better off hitting it once, moving away twice, hitting it once, etc. so that it can't get a swing at you. 2. Use ranged attacks. When you get your dagger skill up a little bit, you become a machine gunner (Experts can throw 3 a turn, a stack of +6 daggers will slice through the hordes) 3. Do _not_ try out objects that you don't know what they are, unless you're sure of the consequences. If you find potions and scrolls, stockpile them until you have a way to identify them. If you find armor, rings, cloaks, etc, do _not_ try to wear it until you know it's not cursed. See (4)! You can try engraving with wands to help ID them. 4. Value your pet. Your pet will normally not walk on cursed items (or you'll get a "pet moves only reluctantly" message) unless there is food on them--so use it to test for cursed stuff. Your pet is a better fighter than you at the outset, let it do work for you. Your pet will shoplift pricy items for you. 5. Even if you find, say, a dwarvish helm, keep testing new ones and trying them on if they're not cursed. You might find a much better enchanted one. 6. Don't hesitate to pray if you are really in danger. 7. When you find "escape" items (say, scroll/wand of teleport, wand of death/sleep, etc) keep them handy and do not hesitate to use them. 8. Never drink from fountains/sinks/etc. 9. Beg, borrow, or steal (or wish for) sources of reflection, magic resistance, and poison resistance.
Don't hesitate to retreat, even run up several levels, and rest. If there's a horde of monsters, lure them to the upstairs then kill one, run upstairs and rest, run down and kill another, etc.
If you're using your pet in combat, don't forget that you can cast healing spells at it as well as yourself.
In general, remember it's tens of thousands of turns to ascend--don't gamble. Even if it's a 95% good bet.
If you're not sure what to do, stop and think--there is no timer in nethack.
Nethack, amen! I finally ascended for the first time last year, still playing it off and on. Possibly the most complex game ever made since they've been developing for 20 years and spending no energy on graphics.
Star Control 2 isn't that the Starflight ripoff? Starflight was a _great_ game.
Wow. I like all 3 of the new GTAs, but Vice City is far and away the worst IMO. Compared to the other 2, the maps are flat and boring, and I thought the story was also a lot less interesting than the others. Still a good game, and motorcycles and helis were great additions, but lacked the spark and flair of GTA3 and the polish and execution of San Andreas.
There are viable commercial alternatives. Many motels don't ask for ID. I've never been asked for ID on Greyhound, even when paying cash. Taxis never ID.
If you refuse to present state issued identification you will be ticketed for obstruction of justice
You are not required to have ID, not to carry it with you if you do have it. Attempts to enforce such things have been ruled unconstitutional in the past.
Actually you can be compelled to present ID by an office for any reason, or no reason at all. We really do have a "papers please" state at present. This is after the Supreme Court case Hiibel v. Nevada in 2004.
That ruling doesn't say what you claim it does. It refused to support demands for presenting ID. It does require providing your name if asked.
From the decision:
In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender [which was overturned as unconstitutional], the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
I did some more research,and Amtrack requires a photo ID. Greyhound does not obviously require a photo id from reading their website. In practice they may have the same secret law requirements; who can say, since it's a secret?
I've never had a problem walking into the bus station, popping down cash, and getting a ticket. No ID required.
...but they can't show the whole movie to point out which parts they (dis)like.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how it's presented. There are complete critical copies of copyrighted works along the lines of Roland Barthes' S/Z that have been protected. While they incorporate literally the entire work, the amount of critical material bastly outweighs the amount of source material. Reproducing a painting along with criticism thereof is commonplace and sometimes protected. There is no bright-line standard for how much of a work can be copied.
Well... Legally it is, yes. However, a lot of places step all over their employees, and when they grow a backbone (like I did, thankfully I had already resigned) they fire you.
That's nothing new, though. And I'm not talking about the legal work-week, I'm talking about how many hours people actually show up and work.
Plus, how the hell has the work week for IT ppl been declining when we're required to sleep with our cellphones two out of two to three weekends?? (or more often when someone gets a backbone/aka fired.) Ever get called on a nightly server outage (lovely windows)
Thankfully (kind of) my dad was a doctor and I grew up watching the hell of being on call all the time. I've worked in IT for a decade and always made it clear up front that I'm not going to carry a cell or beeper. For some people, it's worth a salary differential to be on call, you just have to make sure you know what you can get without being put in that situation and whether the extra money is worth the extra hours.
1. That has little to do with the post I responded to which claimed that Fair Use" is broadly supposed to have minimal to nil financial effects on the copyrightholder and in general the "fair user" is doing the using for personal reasons.
Maybe you can dance around and try to claim that actually the use itself didn't affect the film's box office take but the reviews did (though in many cases of parodies the fair use and the criticism are intimately connected). It's certainly not for personal reasons. And, realistically, in a lot of cases (more commonly with more Wowza! reviewers) the "clip from an upcoming movie" is itself the product being sold, and people don't watch for the value-added commentary.
2. The primary way that commercial uses change court interpretations of fair use is that courts tend to put a higher burden of proof on the defendent to prove that their commercial use is fair (typically, if the user is non-commercial than they place a higher onus on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the use is unfair).
But commerciality--even an impact on the marketability of the original--does not prima facie demonstrate that a use is unfair. Indeed, in that Slashdot baby "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc" a use that clearly affects the marketability of the copyrighted product was upheld (after all, if you cannot tape a movie when it airs on the networks and time-shift your viewing, you're more likely to buy the official movie release).
The basic balancing test required to ensure that use is fair use says otherwise to what you state. I encourage you to read the following: Definition of Fair Use [auburn.edu] (pay special attention to points 3 and 4 there). I also encourage you to find out what a "balancing test" means, legally, in case that term is new to you.
I'd recommend the same, since your first sentence here shows a startling lack of understanding of the concept. In particular, the Court has been pretty one-sided about this portion of the balancing act: if you can't demonstrate that your market was affected then it's tough to get a court to agree that a use is unfair, but market affect on its own is proof of little.
IOW, this clause is generally invoked to protect fair use, but violating it alone doesn't go far toward showing that a use is not, on balance, fair.
If it's a litmus test at all (which it really isn't, since "no commercial impact on the copyright holder" is normally a defense but not always), it's a litmus test in the opposite direction of what you're claiming.
"Fair Use" is broadly supposed to have minimal to nil financial effects on the copyrightholder and in general the "fair user" is doing the using for personal reasons.
This is not true. Ebert & Roeper can show a movie clip, do some scathing commentary, decrease the film's box office take, and make money in the process, and that's clearly fair use. Protecting negative criticism is one of the core philosophical reasons behind fair use (originally, anyway) and it clearly has the potential to have devastating financial effects on the copyright holder.
Slashdot Mirror
It's certainly the only reason businesses choose OSS, or proprietary software. Net present value of TCO over the planning horizon.
Simply untrue.
1. Businesses aren't about minimizing expected TCOs, maximizing expected profits, etc. Those are one factor, but things like cost-certainty, worst-case scenarios, etc are also very important.
E.g. if solution A has a 95% chance of costing $100,000 for the next 6 years, and solution B has a 100% chance of costing $106,000 for the next 6 years, but solution A has a 5% chance of costing $200,000 over the next 6 years--what do you do?
_Rationally_ (and I use that term in the economic sense) solution A has a lower expected cost and is the right choice.
In the real world, if you know that $200,000 would severely impede your chances to make money, or put you into bankruptcy, etc and $106,000 would not massively affect the business, you would probably go with solution B.
Cost-certainty is a major factor in OSS decisions.
2. Businesses don't act for only business reasons. Sometimes they make a choice because the owner or someone in a purchasing position loves a product or philosophy, or isn't the authority on a product but trusts a tech leader's judgement (who themselve doesn't make completely rational decisions). Sometimes they make a choice because somebody has a family member selling a product, or owes someone a favor.
I'd say that trusting some internal techie with product evaluation, when that techie happens to be a fan of a particular product and doesn't do a fair evaluation of what's the best tool for the job, is a major factor in most technology decisions both for OSS and for commercial products.
OCaml and Dylan (the latter with optional strong-typing enabled) are widely-available real-world type-safe functional languages, and as another response noted SML is another (really, SML and Ocaml are both variants of ML).
Ocaml is high-performance, type-safe, functional, and freely available under an open-source license (I think it's QPL 1.0 for the compiler, GPL 2.0 for the libs)
Let me just say that an MMORPG that you have to pay to get into is a far cry from a public place.
No it isn't, for purposes of discrimination law. A public establishment includes, among other things, "any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment" (US Code Title 42.21.II.2000a.b.3).
Note that many of those you have to pay to get into, but they are still considered public places because (unlike, say, an Elks lodge) they do business with the general public on a non-invitation basis.
Now, the incident case is outside the realm of federal anti-discrimination law, which does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
More importantly, after a couple years of running a private network, never ever consider passing off the burden of maintaining the rickety development system that is suddenly 24x7 critical to IT. Those kinds of moves are exactly the kind that destroy IT's willingness to accomodate user requests.
That's the job of IT and development. If they can't do it, something's wrong with the organization. IT needs to know how to bring newly developed systems up to their production standards. Conversely, of course, if the developers are bringing up a new prototype, and they know it may eventually go into production, it's their job to coordinate with IT and make sure that it's not rickety and conforms to IT's requirements.
But in the early stages, it may be perfectly reasonable to prototype the system trying out new hardware or OSes or network layouts on a daily basis. So it makes eminent sense for some kinds of projects to be managed initially by the dev team, and if your company can't handle that--either because the developers have a "hack it until it works and then throw it to IT without comment" attitude, or because IT has a "we didn't build the system so we're not responsible for it" attituce--then you're in for a lot of missed opportunities and failed projects.
But you can be "held" on suspicion - sorry for my poor choice of words. They have a window of time where you can be held but not charged for anything, and it's not timed in minutes.
Kind of.
There are 3 different concepts you reference:
1. Detained for questioning (a "Terry stop")
2. Arrested
3. Charged
Being charged with a crime is a formal procedure that takes place in a courtroom, it's pretty much out of scope here.
With reasonable suspicion they can stop and question you without arresting you. However, such a stop must be (1) of short duration and (2) limited to investigation of the specific suspicious activity seen before the stop.
If they detain you for a prolonged time, legally it's an arrest. They don't have to say "you're under arrest" for it to be an arrest, and they can let you go without taking you down to the station or charging you. But the rules of arrest (custody, Miranda rights, etc) apply once you've been arrested.
An arrest requires probable cause. A Terry stop (stop-and-question) requires reasonable suspicion, a much lower standard.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
Sorry, I should've clarified that's my understanding of the Constitutional limits. Clearly states can restrict the actions of their officers further if they so choose.
Actually, _reasonable_ suspicion is sufficient for them to search the passenger compartment of your car; probable cause is not required. Numerous Supreme Court rulings have upheld that policy, on several ground including 1. Items in your immediate area could pose a threat to the officer; and 2. Unlike a home or other area, a car is mobile and it's more likely that evidence will disappear quickly (other justifications have been posited as well).
They do need reasonable suspicion that you have been or are currently involved in criminal behavior; it's a much lower bar than probable cause.
At least that's my non-legal belief of how things are, but I could be wrong--consult a lawyer if you need legal advice.
All true, but the fact remains that the indigenous American civilizations went into a sharp (relatively speaking) decline 100-200 years before the Spanish got there
If the earlier post had said that the Mayas or Toltecs had mysteriously disappeared, it'd be a reasonable point. Fpr the Aztecs, it's not.
The Aztec Empire was not in a sharp decline before the Spanish got there; indeed, it had reached it's largest size ever at some point after 1500 AD. The Spanish arrived in 1519 AD.
Contrast that with America, where many technology parks and shopping centers don't even have proper sidewalks, and where the fastest, cheapest food you can get is at McDonalds
At least in the Washington, DC area you can't beat middle-eastern pita joints for fast and cheap. And some of their options are a _lot_ healthier than McD's. I can easily get a sandwich+drink for under the cost of a value meal.
I think he/she means Crohn's disease.
h ns/index.htm
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/cro
I use several .info addresses. Many municipalities use them, e.g. http://lacounty.info/. Some GNU/FSF programs use them, like Gnuplot: http://www.gnuplot.info/. Other open-source projects like Fedora (which predates the Fedora Linux distribution) use them: http://www.fedora.info/
Having been in a similar situation myself, I resent the "armchair patriot" ad hominem attack you're trying to use to dismiss people who point out that the law does not support the allegation that people are required to produce identification papers/licenses/etc. There is absolutely no law requiring you to even _have_ identification. I also find it odd that you would view a clarification on one aspect of the law as being a justification of the police and legal process.
In my situation (back long ago in high school) one of my friends was driving with me in the car when we saw a friend walking down the sidewalk with other friends who did not know the driver. He thought it would be amusing to stop the van, grab our friend, throw him in the back of the van, and drive off-which he did, and was promptly pulled over by a cop on suspicion of kidnapping. He and the "abductee" explained the situation, at which point the cop asked them to produce ID (which the "abductee", a 17-year-old high school student, did not have). The "abductee" refused, somewhat snarkily offered a Junior Classical League card (a latin-club membership card with no photo or anythin else other than a handwritten name), and eventually wound up in court where the charges were dropped.
But the details of the cases aren't really relevant. It sounds like in your case the officers had probable cause to investigate (having received reports of illegal activity in your area) and, indeed, had found the firecracker culprit. That doesn't justify them making illegal demands, but the moral issue isn't the law (which does _not_ support those demands) but rather the officers and possibly the judge who acted outside the law (it's tough to know if the judge acted outside the law or simply made the correct legal judgement under a flawed understanding of the facts).
At any rate, whether the law is enforced properly (it clearly is not in many cases) is a seperate discussion from what the law actually is and how the courts have interpreted it. And they've pretty unanimously rejected all attempts thus far to require people to even have an ID at all, let alone carry it on their person and produce it when requested.
I dunno about that, I find most of the tile sets dangerous in at least 2 ways:
1. Almost none of them have unique tiles for everything, by the late game you run into some duplicates that can trip you up.
2. You're not learning character classes, so when you get, say, a blessed scroll of genocide asking which monsters to eliminate you don't know what letter to pick.
1. Run away from anything you're faster than; If you are hitting it twice every other turn, you're better off hitting it once, moving away twice, hitting it once, etc. so that it can't get a swing at you.
2. Use ranged attacks. When you get your dagger skill up a little bit, you become a machine gunner (Experts can throw 3 a turn, a stack of +6 daggers will slice through the hordes)
3. Do _not_ try out objects that you don't know what they are, unless you're sure of the consequences. If you find potions and scrolls, stockpile them until you have a way to identify them. If you find armor, rings, cloaks, etc, do _not_ try to wear it until you know it's not cursed. See (4)! You can try engraving with wands to help ID them.
4. Value your pet. Your pet will normally not walk on cursed items (or you'll get a "pet moves only reluctantly" message) unless there is food on them--so use it to test for cursed stuff. Your pet is a better fighter than you at the outset, let it do work for you. Your pet will shoplift pricy items for you.
5. Even if you find, say, a dwarvish helm, keep testing new ones and trying them on if they're not cursed. You might find a much better enchanted one.
6. Don't hesitate to pray if you are really in danger.
7. When you find "escape" items (say, scroll/wand of teleport, wand of death/sleep, etc) keep them handy and do not hesitate to use them.
8. Never drink from fountains/sinks/etc.
9. Beg, borrow, or steal (or wish for) sources of reflection, magic resistance, and poison resistance.
Don't hesitate to retreat, even run up several levels, and rest. If there's a horde of monsters, lure them to the upstairs then kill one, run upstairs and rest, run down and kill another, etc.
If you're using your pet in combat, don't forget that you can cast healing spells at it as well as yourself.
In general, remember it's tens of thousands of turns to ascend--don't gamble. Even if it's a 95% good bet.
If you're not sure what to do, stop and think--there is no timer in nethack.
Nethack, amen! I finally ascended for the first time last year, still playing it off and on. Possibly the most complex game ever made since they've been developing for 20 years and spending no energy on graphics.
Star Control 2 isn't that the Starflight ripoff? Starflight was a _great_ game.
Starflight
X-COM UFO Defense.
Civilization
Autoduel (C64)
Doom
GTA3
Wow. I like all 3 of the new GTAs, but Vice City is far and away the worst IMO. Compared to the other 2, the maps are flat and boring, and I thought the story was also a lot less interesting than the others. Still a good game, and motorcycles and helis were great additions, but lacked the spark and flair of GTA3 and the polish and execution of San Andreas.
There are viable commercial alternatives. Many motels don't ask for ID. I've never been asked for ID on Greyhound, even when paying cash. Taxis never ID.
didn't you just restate exactly what I said?
If you refuse to present state issued identification you will be ticketed for obstruction of justice
You are not required to have ID, not to carry it with you if you do have it. Attempts to enforce such things have been ruled unconstitutional in the past.
Actually you can be compelled to present ID by an office for any reason, or no reason at all. We really do have a "papers please" state at present. This is after the Supreme Court case Hiibel v. Nevada in 2004.
That ruling doesn't say what you claim it does. It refused to support demands for presenting ID. It does require providing your name if asked.
From the decision:
In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender [which was overturned as unconstitutional], the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.
I did some more research,and Amtrack requires a photo ID. Greyhound does not obviously require a photo id from reading their website. In practice they may have the same secret law requirements; who can say, since it's a secret?
I've never had a problem walking into the bus station, popping down cash, and getting a ticket. No ID required.
...but they can't show the whole movie to point out which parts they (dis)like.
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how it's presented. There are complete critical copies of copyrighted works along the lines of Roland Barthes' S/Z that have been protected. While they incorporate literally the entire work, the amount of critical material bastly outweighs the amount of source material. Reproducing a painting along with criticism thereof is commonplace and sometimes protected. There is no bright-line standard for how much of a work can be copied.
Well...
Legally it is, yes. However, a lot of places step all over their employees, and when they grow a backbone (like I did, thankfully I had already resigned) they fire you.
That's nothing new, though. And I'm not talking about the legal work-week, I'm talking about how many hours people actually show up and work.
Plus, how the hell has the work week for IT ppl been declining when we're required to sleep with our cellphones two out of two to three weekends?? (or more often when someone gets a backbone/aka fired.)
Ever get called on a nightly server outage (lovely windows)
Thankfully (kind of) my dad was a doctor and I grew up watching the hell of being on call all the time. I've worked in IT for a decade and always made it clear up front that I'm not going to carry a cell or beeper. For some people, it's worth a salary differential to be on call, you just have to make sure you know what you can get without being put in that situation and whether the extra money is worth the extra hours.
1. That has little to do with the post I responded to which claimed that Fair Use" is broadly supposed to have minimal to nil financial effects on the copyrightholder and in general the "fair user" is doing the using for personal reasons.
Maybe you can dance around and try to claim that actually the use itself didn't affect the film's box office take but the reviews did (though in many cases of parodies the fair use and the criticism are intimately connected). It's certainly not for personal reasons. And, realistically, in a lot of cases (more commonly with more Wowza! reviewers) the "clip from an upcoming movie" is itself the product being sold, and people don't watch for the value-added commentary.
2. The primary way that commercial uses change court interpretations of fair use is that courts tend to put a higher burden of proof on the defendent to prove that their commercial use is fair (typically, if the user is non-commercial than they place a higher onus on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the use is unfair).
But commerciality--even an impact on the marketability of the original--does not prima facie demonstrate that a use is unfair. Indeed, in that Slashdot baby "Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc" a use that clearly affects the marketability of the copyrighted product was upheld (after all, if you cannot tape a movie when it airs on the networks and time-shift your viewing, you're more likely to buy the official movie release).
The basic balancing test required to ensure that use is fair use says otherwise to what you state.
I encourage you to read the following: Definition of Fair Use [auburn.edu] (pay special attention to points 3 and 4 there). I also encourage you to find out what a "balancing test" means, legally, in case that term is new to you.
I'd recommend the same, since your first sentence here shows a startling lack of understanding of the concept. In particular, the Court has been pretty one-sided about this portion of the balancing act: if you can't demonstrate that your market was affected then it's tough to get a court to agree that a use is unfair, but market affect on its own is proof of little.
IOW, this clause is generally invoked to protect fair use, but violating it alone doesn't go far toward showing that a use is not, on balance, fair.
If it's a litmus test at all (which it really isn't, since "no commercial impact on the copyright holder" is normally a defense but not always), it's a litmus test in the opposite direction of what you're claiming.
"Fair Use" is broadly supposed to have minimal to nil financial effects on the copyrightholder and in general the "fair user" is doing the using for personal reasons.
This is not true. Ebert & Roeper can show a movie clip, do some scathing commentary, decrease the film's box office take, and make money in the process, and that's clearly fair use. Protecting negative criticism is one of the core philosophical reasons behind fair use (originally, anyway) and it clearly has the potential to have devastating financial effects on the copyright holder.