If by that you mean "prison", yes.

but a photograph that's in a frame (generally) is a transformative work. Framing has been recognized as an art

I'm pretty sure that, while the frame can be considered as art, you can't sell copies of someone else's image just because you put it in a fancy frame.

In fact, you sure as hell can't sell copies of someone else's copyrighted photo in a frame and call it a transformative work.

You can own the art of the framing, but you sure as hell don't get rights to the work you framed. Not even a little.

The description is that the work was "transformed" by being annotated and printed from a screenshot. I have no problem with that.

You should. Because what you're saying is you can co-opt someone else's work merely by framing and annotating it.

And, I'm sorry to tell you this, but that's bullshit.

That's like saying you could print out someone's source code, add some annotations to it, and claim copyright on the whole thing.

So, if you buy a copy of someone's work, frame it, and sell that .. sure, you can be value added, and your framing is a "transformative work".

But you can't sell multiple copies, because the act of copying that photo means you have violated copyright. Because you can't make copies in the first place.

I find it really ironic that Google, a company so used to being the new hotness upstart company, is so willfully ignoring usage patterns of a significant minority comprising "the youth" and people on the wrong side of the internet divide, and much of the third world, and anyone without a data plan outside of wifi range.

So, basically the non-profitable ones they can't sell ads to?

Because, let's be honest here, Google makes the new hotness to sell ads. That it is useful "new hotness" is just the way they lure you in.

Google isn't providing a public service. Google is padding their ad revenue. And all those "free" services exist for two reason: analytics and ads.

Beyond that, you can bet your ass google doesn't give a crap about you. Not even a little. And they never will.

Honestly, if you're thinking of solutions for hurricanes where you might be without power for longer than the portable batteries will last ... see if you can't find a hand-crank generator or something.

This looks interesting, but other than the google search for "hand crank generator" I know nothing about it.

A bunch of years ago my family spent a week without power after a major storm. A few weeks after that my father had a Honda generator wired directly into the house so they could keep the fridge running for short periods and run the well pump. Flick a switch, and you have limited power and a single AC plug. My in-laws have a much bigger generator which will generate a lot more power.

And then there's really cool things like this which is a campstove, but which also powers USB .. so you can cook and generate electricity from wood, which is pretty neat.

Similar thing in this power pot which charges USB while you boil water.

So, wood-burning USB power is a real thing.

With some googling, you can find a ton of ruggedized things which both charge from USB, and, and which generate power to charge USB devices.

The question is ... what do you need?

What other things am I missing that would be useful and/or interesting to power when not near an electrical outlet?

Well, your phone, your tablet, your GPS, your portable speakers, your music player. You know, anything you own which can be charged via USB.

I've got 2x5000 mAh, and 2x6000 mAh batteries I keep charged around the house and when I travel. They all have 1A and 2.1A outputs, as well as built in LED flashlights. Which means I can keep most of my stuff charged until I get where I'm going. Or I can charge them where I'm sitting instead of being chained to a wall charger. (And I've got a 4-port USB wall charger as well as a 3-port USB wall charger which will do 120/240V 50/60Hz.)

They've handy and convenient, but do you actually need to ask "what things that charge from USB can I charge from USB"?

If it charges from USB, and you own it ... ta da!

Years ago I decided that except for very specific things (like my camera), I won't own anything which doesn't charge with standard USB. From there, a couple of cables, a couple of batteries, and a couple of wall chargers and you can keep stuff always charged.

Once you toss proprietary cables, or anything which can't charge by USB ... you find it's a lot easier to pack what you need.

My travel electronics bag is now capable of operating everything I need from any electrical source by reusing the same USB cables. It really cuts down on the crap and clutter.

We are entitled to being paid for not working. That is what is morally right. Of course the Republicans are stupid and think you should be required to work for what you are paid. That is morally wrong, and it goes against the concept of basic income.

No, you're a moron making a strawman argument.

If you think that working for a company for years, to get laid off and have zero severance is in any way a sensible thing, then you're an idiot who thinks the rest of the world should take it up the ass to benefit corporations.

Because I don't hear any Republicans saying how evil it is when CEOs get multi-million dollar severance packages for being incompetent. They act like it's well deserved.

But let's not pretend that this is a case of "getting paid for nothing". This is a case of "corporations don't get to fuck employees over for their own benefit".

Since there are Republican candidates who have received massive corporate payouts when they lost their job ... don't even pretend this is any different.

You're a moron. The rest world doesn't think in terms of "Republican" and "Democrat" -- just you guys.

They also don't think in terms of being 100% douchebag capitalist, or 100% socialist. Because they're not morons incapable of understanding the whole picture of how to balance society's needs with those of corporations.

Corporations aren't some magical construct -- it's a bunch of people looking out for their own interests. That doesn't mean they should be entitled to do that at someone else's expense.

Except the Republicans seem to champion the idea of douchebag capitalism as some form of moral idea, and then make stupid statements like you just did.

Are you somehow suggesting that in a failing corporation, the people who were laid off without proper severance should fall on their swords to protect other people? Why? Some noble sacrifice for the company?

Honestly, pick one .. greedy capitalism, or altruism.

But some countries, even though they allow greedy capitalism, they also have laws to protect employees. Which is a good thing -- sure, run a business, be profitable. Awesome!! Everybody wins, life is good.

But don't think that entitles you to treat your employees like serfs who should be grateful to work for a company who will screw them over at the first chance.

Would you sacrifice yourself for a company who laid you off, or for its remaining employees? Because if you would you're an idiot.

What you're advocating is: for the benefit of a company who has laid you off, who (in violation of the law) has failed to pay severance .. that people should say "wow, the company could go under, I should sacrifice myself so that doesn't happen".

Again, if you would do that you are an idiot.

Honestly, who the hell is going to perform a charitable act to benefit the company who laid them off?

If they didn't have the cash to pay out separation pay, what were they paying the remaining employees with in another month. The shareholders clearly let them walk into that trap by not properly structuring the layoff to match cash flow.

No, it means that this wasn't the first time they'd been in this mess, and the shareholders were more willing to cut their losses than double down on losing even more.

This wasn't the first time Mandriva struggled to make ends meet. It had some epic troubles in 2010, right before Croset joined, that resulted in layoffs and the exit of its founder.

After so many years of struggle, the shareholders didn't want to put up more money to save Mandriva, and the company was forced into bankruptcy,

This company sounds like it had been struggling for a long time, and would have failed anyway.

In which case the employees who said "give me my damned money now" spared themselves from being the ones with no chair when the music stopped.

What the shareholders didn't do is throw good money after bad.

The ex-employees got paid, and in fact as CEO makes clear had the court allowed say 'installment payments' or 'deferred payments' rather than 'all the money right now' they may have been able to hang on, but no.

Or, they might have still failed, and the employees would have been left behind with nothing.

These 'greedy ex-employees' wanted their money & 'be damned with who gets hurt'.

Who gives a fuck? They've been laid off, they owe nothing to the company, and getting left holding bag isn't their problem.

That doesn't change the fact the company was legally obligated to pay them.

Your obvious belief that the company owes any single indivdiual employee anything

First off, it's the fucking law that they have to pay severance. So, by law, they sure as hell do owe employees something ... your idiotic belief that workers should be grateful to a have a job and suck it up if they get fired is irrational libertarian drivel.

as opposed to 'in the best interests of the company & as many employees as we can save' is telling.

Are you actually giving me the "needs of the many" crap with regards to a fucking corporation? That employees should forego their severance from a failing company for the "greater good"? Because now you're talking bullshit out of both sides of your mouth.

Why the fuck should any employee put the "best interests of the company & as many employees"? You think employees should give their employers one final act of altruism and sacrifice? For what? Shareholder fucking value?

The corporation doesn't give a fuck about your welfare, they have no business expecting you to give a damn about theirs.

Your selfish & its all about you.

You're fucking right I am. I'm selfish in the exact same way the corporations are -- I'm here to look out for myself. The only difference is in civilized countries there are laws which say you have to give employees severance so that the greedy, selfish assholes who run corporations can't just shit on their employees for their own gain.

Isn't "enlightened self interest" the whole fucking point of capitalism?

Not bending over so the corporation which laid you off can skip out on paying you what they owe you in the hopes that they might come out of it ... that is completely irrational from the perspective of the ex-employees. and somehow says "for the greater good, we should all sacrifice ourselves in the name of corporate profits".

Fuck that.

When the company began to run into problems from external sources the laws of the country we had set up in did not give us the flexibility we needed to continue trading and maintain at least some of the worker's jobs.

No, if you read TFA, it really comes down to the people they had "restructured" out of jobs found that the company lacked the liquidity to pay them their legally required severance, and a court agreed to pay them so they didn't become victims of a failing company trying to buy time.

Sorry, but if you think the employees should roll over and get fucked and not get paid so that company can try to stay in business ... you're sadly mistaken.

You may think it's perfectly reasonable to expect employees to get screwed over to keep the company going, but the rest of the world doesn't.

These kinds of laws exist precisely so you can't just fire people for free. America may think at-will employment because it lets corporations be greedy douchebags -- but the rest of the world has pretty much figured out that screwing over the employees to benefit the corporation is a stupid fucking idea.

Because they probably would have gone under anyway. Any employee who would voluntarily get screwed to keep the company going is an idiot. Because they sure as hell won't do it for you.

Boo hoo. A corporation didn't get to leave its employees holding the bag.

No sympathy whatsoever.

Yeah, no kidding ... failing company gets ordered to pay employees before the business folds and they get nothing is not something which evokes much sympathy.

Because I can't tell you have many companies have folded, leaving the employees with nothing, but a CEO who has managed to come out of it quite well.

Sorry, but you're the CEO ... which means the buck stops at you, not you get to skip off with your severance while everybody else gets screwed over.

Mandriva SA went out of business following a few court decisions upon action of former employees, who had been dismissed as a part of the restructuring process in 2013. As the labour laws are very generous towards the employees in France, those court decisions forced the company to announce bankruptcy, as the cash available was not sufficient to cover the amounts due and the shareholders did not want to cover them.

In other words, you were about to go out of business, and instead of leaving the employees with nothing they took what was theirs before you stiffed them and went under anyway.

Sorry, but employers don't give a damn about us. I see no reason to give a damn about them ... and certainly not to the point of not getting paid so the business can fail anyway. Who the hell is going to do that for a company who laid them off?

Sounds like he'd have happily left them with nothing if he'd had the chance. I can't see any reason why the former employees would have done anything but fight for their severance.

In Soviet Russia, internet trolls you

It's OK, 1987 is too busy snorting cocaine and being a selfish bastard to notice.

This is not a NASA project, so you've made a stunningly basic error in your first sentence. Not looking too good for attention to detail for someone "in the professional software field".

LOL .. no disrespect to the GP, but that level of attention to detail explains a lot about many commercial software products.

Just sayin'.