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.

But frankly, I'd hold the applause until after the penalty is collected and Compu-Finder is actually disbanded. Because frankly, it's a hollow victory if they move, change their corporate name, hire a fictitious body of corporate officers, and resume where they left off.

They're frakking spammers. What makes anyone think this bureaucratic announcement actually will matter?

about VMWare's position on this. What on earth do they think trumps their obligations to the license they agreed to by using GPLv2 software in their product?

I wonder if they could possibly be as deluded and stubborn as SCO.

How 'bout a church where they furiously attack off-topioc self-constructed imaginary strawmen?

Oh, wait, we have Slashdot. Carry on.

Prior art.

Not saying they're delicious. They've always given me heartburn, and they bind you up something terrible, but technically this concept is already on the market.

They can't refuse entry. He's a Canadian citizen. He can't be barred from re-entering Canada.

So they did the right thing by allowing him entry. And imprisoning him in a Canadian prison. Problem solved. (For limited definitions of "problem" and twisted definitions of "solved".)

Is it really that easy?

I imagine initial contact is risky for all involved. If the IT guy volunteers, he could be a mole for the Federales. If the Cartel finds a likely candidate on its own head-hunt, what's to keep the guy from narcing them out?

This way, the bad guys control all aspects of the recruitment and there's absolutely no risk other than they guy turning on them while "in service"... and you have his family for leverage against that.

Raul Tejada?

Is that you?

By extension of this research, the test subject not only won't stop to help, he'd probably attack me.

Moral of the story: racism is stupid.