If this festering pool of April Fail wasn't already sufficiently dead and putrescent enough, Poe's Law would have killed it.

Between clueless "editors" and clueless politicos, this is why we can't have nice (funny) things.

I always thought the meal was happy because it was finally getting out of that God-forsaken place. Even being hauled away to be dismantled by a shrieking 4-year old and being consumed piece-by-piece is better than remaining within the confines of a McDonalds establishment.

I'm joking. I think.

Of course not.

They'll sue their ex-employee's new employer, assuming it's strategically worth it to bully them into something. (Coerce them out of a market, or into a partnership, etc.)

It's an arrow in a quiver. It's not fired unless there's a good target.

Well, the obvious difference is you can't use "correct horse battery staple", because the NSA knows about that one. Their CIA colleagues probably managed to extract it using the $5 wrench decryption algorithm.

Even creepier. The ketchup slithers out of the bottle top like a red high-temperature Helium II... and all over everything. And it keeps going... seeking something only Cthulhu knows.

OTOH, who can resist the opportunity to revive the phrase "anal leakage"?

You're talking about penises a lot.

Are you sure you're not a Republican Catholic priest?

"Facebook, acting on the concerns of random trolls, thinks you're crazy and should be locked up for your own good. Kthxbye."

I hope this article is being tagged "whatcouldpossiblygowrong".

I won't believe it until Netcraft confirms this.

You didn't read TFS.

There are no points for any of that. There are only points for raising money for their "non-profit foundation". (Yes, those are scare quotes.)

It's like the hellish offspring of a multilevel marketing scheme and a particularly unscrupulous Kickstarter campaign.

I think I'll form a corporation to tender a proposal to the authorities to provide my world-famous crime-prevention rocks.

It's pretty obvious how effective they are. Neither I nor anyone else who has one of these has ever been victimized by crime. Hell, as far as I know, we've never even seen a criminal. Clearly, ne'er-do-wells and nefarious malcontents are strongly repelled by the magnetic forces projected by these stones. (I think it's magnetic, anyway. Who knows how that works? You just can't explain that.)

Anyway, I figure a modest delivery and support contract is an extremely cost-effective alternative to the clearly supersticious voodoo of these magic "helicopter" crime preventers. (Who the hell believes in that kind of woo, anyway? "Flying machines?" Feh.)

I've had good luck pairing my Magnetbox Bluetoof speakers to my Sandsung Galaxian phone. I think this will be just fine.

Alas, this is Slashdot. Not only does the readership not read TFA, they generally don't read TFS, so if the title lacks succinct and complete literal accuracy, it runs the risk of telling a story completely counter to the real story.

The only ones who do read TFS are generally looking to karma-whore pedantic moderation points by manufacturing 3d-printed recreational outrage, so I guess it works out for someone.

At the end of the day, it's the soi-disant editors' fault. As usual.

(Yes, I note that the original submission had the same regrettable discrepancy between summary and title. Too bad the editors didn't do any actual editing when they had the opportunity.)

You disagree with the OED here. The OED says that making changes to an established product is innovation.

Is it accidental that you truncate your quote by leaving off the actual innovation?: "Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products". And your second point clearly proves you didn't actually read the OED dictionary entry in its context. If you look at it (go ahead, I won't tell), you'll find that the phrase you're latching on to is actually an example of the use of the word in an external context, not part of the definition. The OED call this an "illustrative quotation". Whomever OED is quoting is using the second phrase in contrast to the first, which uses "innovate" in its correct literal meaning.

The grievous deficiencies in Slashdot's ability to cleanly transfer markup in quoted material is largely to blame. Also to blame is my desire to preserve all info rather than editing to prove my point (something evidently not everyone shares), and a foolish hope that people would study source material for themselves.

Innovation requires actual novelty. Anything else is hype and hucksterism.

Here's a definition from an actual dictionary, not something drafted by an Apple apologist:

1. Make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products: the company's failure to diversify and innovate competitively

1.1 [with object] Introduce (something new, especially a product): innovating new products, developing existing ones

(BTW, that's Oxford. As in, Oxford English Dictionary. If your definition disagrees with OED, that's because your definition is objectively wrong.)

"New", for-real-new, not "pretend it's new", not "new because the actual innovator doesn't count", not "new to us and our spellbound customer base and captive press".

Actual creation is not negotiable. It's an absolute unavoidable criterion of "innovate". "Creating novel things" is the only definition of innovation. And also something conspicuously absent from Apple engineering. About the only thing I can see Apple innovating in is marketing.