An exact painting of a photograph isn't transformative, but a photograph that's in a frame (generally) is a transformative work. Framing has been recognized as an art, even if the item framed isn't, but the framed whole is a transformative work of the item framed. The description is that the work was "transformed" by being annotated and printed from a screenshot. I have no problem with that. Though, TFA and the summary disagree on whether the exact $90 item is the same as the $9000 item, or just a new transformative work of the original, unrelated to the $9000 item (unrelated meaning copying the style, but not content).

The thing that confuses most people about copyright is that sweat of the brow is unrelated to copyright. A creation that's trivial is a creation. A work that's not creative, but takes 10,000,000 man hours, is not copyrightable.

John sold his copyright, then copied himself. That is a clear and not a problem, though maybe a good warning for people to not sell copyright completely if they plan on continuing to work in the industry.

It's simple, if it's copyrighted, it's copyrighted. It doesn't matter that it's a derivative of your own earlier works. That a screenshot (of someone else's work) is copyrightable is the problem. If you were to copy his method to come to a similar (or even identical) work, you'd be legal, but to copy his exact work, it doesn't matter that it's transformative of your original work.

These issues have been well explored in music, where "borrowing" from others is well known and broadly practiced.

Because SDN isn't real. Alcatel-Lucent is selling SDN that's a router with features. Turn on VPN and configure with a central server? That's SDN.

But don't tell the advocates that's been around for 20+ years. They get angry. SDN is the future, despite being indistinguishable from the stacked switches I worked on 20+ years ago, or the provisioning server that remotely re-configured the entire network in a single keystroke, also 20+ years old.

The "original" SDN was from the early VM days, where you needed a way to control communication between servers, and made a software switch, but that's a new term for an old idea, and so far, I haven't seen anything in SDN that's "new", other than some UI improvements on 20+ year old ideas.

Free is a France startup that is doing really well. Others like OneAccess started in France in the boom, and are still around and growing.

I've supported fraudsters, getting enough information to protect myself from them. Someone offering to kill for you isn't right in the head. Pissing them off by rudely declining "fuck off" would probably not be a wise move. Failing to rebuff immediately someone who approached you is far from soliciting them, or transacting with them.

The US has officially weaponized anthrax without violating any treaties. The official story is that they needed to weaponize it to develop effective countermeasures. It's not a biological weapon. It's a biological defense. It's just indistinguishable from the weapon of the same name.

The world has more than enough food, even if a particular person doesn't.

The current barrier to divorce is that you must sue the government for permission. Why would people make a self-harming contract?

I don't think that would work. After 9/11, the coverage showed unbroken windows removed from the rubble at the pentagon. The windows were designed to withstand a hit from any man-portable weapon system. This included the most powerful sniper weapons, as well as RPGs. I'm assuming the White House is no worse than the pentagon, but I didn't build either.

So we shouldn't place control on non-LOS 50+ lb drones because there exist 2 lb LOS-only drones? I can put enough C4 on a 2 lb drone to cause problems. The glass on the White House is designed to stop a .50 cal armor piercing sniper bullet. If you wanted to shoot the president, you'd be better off shooting through the wall. But a pound or two of C4 on a small drone, landing at the base of the wall may damage it enough for a clear shot, or dislodge one of the supremely heavy windows. Though I suspect that wouldn't work, for other reasons.

My phone charge does 5A at 5V without an issue, and my laptop doing 5A at 20V does so over tiny wires.

You answer the question, then immediately forget the answer. You have AC at 240 (sigh, 110, if you must) and have outlets in some strategic areas (kitchens and for major appliances), and 12V or 48V everywhere else.

I think we should have a 48V internal wiring standard, with some 240V appliance plugs, for vacuums, refrigerators, washers and driers, and such. The dual-standard will complicate things slightly, but result in a large overall savings, as wall-warts are eliminated, and all their waste.

More sense is 240 AC for appliances, and 12V or 48V for everything else. DC-DC stepping in the wall jack isn't hard. So you go to the jack at 48V, and there to 5V for your wall-wart voltages. With some for 12V or 48V for higher powered things.

If it were me, I'd design a mechanical switch in the plug that activated the circuit, so it would have zero loss when not used, unlike current wall warts. We use 110 VAC because it's what we've always used, not because it's a good voltage or current type.

Some don't put out any. an RC drone will put out trivial spurious emissions. Only the live-camera type would be sending anything. So if you rely on RF for drone detection, there will be many ways around it.

Gene sequencing is not open to interpretation, thus never gets it wrong. Gene testing is not science.