If you must know, it's not the OED, it's actually the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition.
Even the definition you cite from the American Heritage Dictionary indicates that "innovate" can mean "To introduce (something new) as if for the first time." Many people learned of portable digital audio players only with the introduction of the iPod, so they certainly perceive it "as if" it were completely new.
It's certainly true that there are insufferable kneejerk Apple bandwagon-jumpers and fanboys on Slashdot and everywhere else. Tweak them if you must.
I must still take exception to the implication that innovation means creating something new ex nihilo and anything else is "copying".
But all this is too subtle for Slashdot anyway.
There were lots of words in the above paragraph if you want to look them up in your OED also.
Goodness me, thank you! I would never have dreamed of looking up words I don't understand -- and of course that means most of them -- in a dictionary! It's lovely that people are so kind to a complete idiot like me!
innovate - verb [ intrans. ] make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products
Seems to me innovation includes taking something established and making changes/improvements to it. And, yes, making something falling-off-a-log easy to use counts.
Who claims that Apple invented portable digital music players? No one. But who would claim that the iPod was not in some degree innovative? I suppose only those who care only about feature lists and not about ease of use, attractive design, etc.
Far be it from me to defend Microsoft or Windows, but users do have emotional reactions to software (as well as to other products they use), and it is wise for developers to understand how to encourage positive emotional reactions.
People really aren't lying/exaggerating when they say that they "love" their iPods or their TiVos or that they "hate" their Gateway or Windows or whatever.
Don Norman's book, Emotional Design, has good information about this.
Except that you can do pretty much all the AJAX stuff using a hidden frame instead of XmlHttpRequest. In fact, the object that handles such things in my company's framework tries to do XmlHttpRequest first, then falls back on hidden IFRAME if it fails (e.g., if an IE user has ActiveX turned off).
So maybe you should have said "MS invented the XMLHttpRequest object which makes AJAX somewhat more convenient."
It detects memory leaks that are due to the two separate garbage collection routines that IE employs for DOM objects on the one hand, and JavaScript objects on the other. The leaks occur when a developer creates a circular reference between a JavaScript object and a DOM object, which is a very easy and natural thing to do.
That is "poor" code only in the sense that it trips over IE's DOM/JS circular reference memory leak problem. Other browsers (e.g., Firefox 1.0.4, Safari 1.3+) handle that code with no memory leaks.
So while it may be true that it is possible to write a web page that will cause a given web browser to leak memory, this DOM/JS problem is particularly evil because it occurs not with some obscure, complex, or malicious coding practice, but with one that is very common and natural.
[S]omeone observing something is NOT science. They have to test the observation against a theory, write about how it did or didn't, and be published. THAT is science.
From what I have been able to find about Bruno and Vanini, neither would qualify as scientists under that definition. Again, take Bruno's contention of an infinite number of inhabited worlds. What observation could he be have been testing, and against what theory, which would have yielded that conclusion?
One possibility is:
The Earth is inhabited.
The Earth is a planet.
There are other planets in the universe.
They are inhabited too.
There are many other planets in the universe beyond the ones I have observed.
The universe is infinite.
Therefore, there are infinitely many planets in the universe.
Therefore, there are infinitely many inhabited planets in the universe.
Of the above premises, only 1 through 3 are what we would call observations. All the rest of the premises were for Bruno pure speculation (some of which subsequent observation has disproven).
Perhaps another account of Bruno's thought can be reconstructed that fits your definition of science, but I feel his work is much more speculative/philosophical than "scientific" on your definition.
Had [Galileo] not recanted, he would have been executed for publishing a theory that the sun was the center of the solar system....
Galileo's belief in the Copernican System eventually got him into trouble with the Catholic Church. The Inquisition was a permanent institution in the Catholic Church charged with the eradication of heresies. A committee of consultants declared to the Inquisition that the Copernican proposition that the Sun is the center of the universe was a heresy. Because Galileo supported the Copernican system, he was warned by Cardinal Bellarmine, under order of Pope Paul V, that he should not discuss or defend Copernican theories. In 1624, Galileo was assured by Pope Urban VIII that he could write about Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a mathematical proposition. However, with the printing of Galileo's book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was called to Rome in 1633 to face the Inquisition again. Galileo was found guilty of heresy for his Dialogue, and was sent to his home near Florence where he was to be under house arrest for the remainder of his life. In 1638, the Inquisition allowed Galileo to move to his home in Florence, so that he could be closer to his doctors. By that time he was totally blind. In 1642, Galileo died at his home outside Florence.
On this account, Galileo did not recant Copernican ideas, and all he got for it was house arrest.
Yes, Bruno and Vanini were both executed. They held scientific views which ran counter to the prevailing theory. But were they executed because of this, or for some other reason? Specifically, it would need to be demonstrated that what led to these men's executions was their scientific views and not their theological views.
From The Galileo Project: It is often maintained that Bruno was executed because of his Copernicanism and his belief in the infinity of inhabited worlds. In fact, we do not know the exact grounds on which he was declared a heretic because his file is missing from the records. Scientists such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler were not sympathetic to Bruno in their writings.
Of course, to some extent I am making a spurious distinction, since there was, at the time, little concept of "science" and "theology" as two separate domains of thought.
But I still don't think that either of these men are most accurately described by the term "observer". Bruno believed and taught that the universe was infinite and contained an infinite number of world, all of which were inhabited. He certainly didn't observe that.
During the dark ages people were absolutely convinced that theory was correct. And anything that disagreed with the theory was burned, as were the heretics who observed it.
Do you have a specific example of an "observer" being burned for disagreeing with the prevailing theory? Or are you perhaps engaging in hyperbole?
I'm not a historian of science, but I'm not aware of any executions, let alone burnings, in the "dark" ages over divergence from prevailing scientific theories.
Of course, there were those who were burned for disagreeing with prevailing theological/religious theory, but I doubt that's what you're referring to, since you use the word "observed", hardly an appropriate term in the theological arena.
A trade secret is defined as any information that allows a company to make money because it is not generally known. To put it another way, if the economic value of a piece of information relies on it being kept private, it could be a trade secret.
Apple's argument will be that sales of their current products are damaged by information about upcoming products. They will argue that a number of customers will say "I'm not going to buy that iMac now, I'll just wait for this new Mac to come out next month."
By your definition, therefore, information about the existence, specs, and release date of upcoming Apple products would be a trade secret.
Safari is very difficult for JS development
on
Mapping Google Maps
·
· Score: 1
I am a big user of Safari, but as a web developer, it's very difficult to develop in.
The main reason for this is that the JavaScript error notifications are almost 100% useless. You have to turn them on in the "Debug" menu (which you need a little hack to activate), and even then you get helpful things like this: "(event handler):Undefined value"
No file name, no line number, no context, just a vague message. It's back to the old methods of inserting a zillion alerts and trying to figure out what the problem is. It's quite the let-down after developing for Gecko (using Venkman).
In addition, there are some irritating JavaScript/DOM bugs which I hope will be zapped in the Tiger version.
Some examples:
The cellIndex property on TD elements is always 0.
The rows collection of a table contains all the TRs, but also all the THs. The rowIndex values are similarly screwed up.
The Date.setUTC* methods are seriously screwed up in several ways.
The issue is that Apple will not license their DRM to play on anything other than apple computers and apple ipods. Therefore, if you want to be legal, you have to use apple's hardware to play itunes-purchased music.
That's interesting. I was pretty sure a legal version of iTunes available for non-Apple hardware, for the Operating System Whose Name We Do Not Speak.
Almost everything in OSX is really nice, but why the F**K did they take all the applications out of the apple menu and stuff them into that weird panel buried in the "go" menu in the finder?
The Dock is supposed to be your frequently-used apps launcher, replacing the Apple Menu in that function. Opinions on whether this is a good change vary. Personally, I find the Dock perfectly adequate for my app launching needs.
If you're looking for all applications, that never was in the Apple Menu by default.
And is there any way to fix it?
Sure, there are several freeware/shareware apps which will simulate the Apple Menu in OS X: FruitMenu, XMenu, Classic Menu. Check versiontracker.com for the downloads.
The word in the original Greek seems to be a much more specific term (meaning "love of money") than the Latin "cupiditas".
Also, the context of the saying makes it clear that "money" is in view.
If I recall correctly, the difficulty in obtaining iPods is more due to the constrained supply of the Toshiba hard drives they are built around than to anything Apple has control over.
What's your point? I have been a Windows user (never at home, but at some of my places of employment), but I never heard the term "stealth" applied to firewalls, etc. there.
Does the fact that I have been a Windows user help a potential attacker exploit my machine? Didn't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Goodness me, thank you! I would never have dreamed of looking up words I don't understand -- and of course that means most of them -- in a dictionary! It's lovely that people are so kind to a complete idiot like me!
Well, Apple has a trademark on the word "iMovie", but I haven't hear of them trying to stop anyone else from using "movie"...
innovate - verb [ intrans. ] make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products
Seems to me innovation includes taking something established and making changes/improvements to it. And, yes, making something falling-off-a-log easy to use counts.
Who claims that Apple invented portable digital music players? No one. But who would claim that the iPod was not in some degree innovative? I suppose only those who care only about feature lists and not about ease of use, attractive design, etc.
Except who ends up paying if you catastrophically injured and your insurance runs out. Yeah, that's right, I do (along with everyone else).
People really aren't lying/exaggerating when they say that they "love" their iPods or their TiVos or that they "hate" their Gateway or Windows or whatever.
Don Norman's book, Emotional Design , has good information about this.
So maybe you should have said "MS invented the XMLHttpRequest object which makes AJAX somewhat more convenient."
However, it is my understanding that you can download and compile the most recent version of WebCore (which passes Acid2) and Safari will use it.
Not exactly.
It detects memory leaks that are due to the two separate garbage collection routines that IE employs for DOM objects on the one hand, and JavaScript objects on the other. The leaks occur when a developer creates a circular reference between a JavaScript object and a DOM object, which is a very easy and natural thing to do.
For example, this creates a memory leak in IE:
someNode.onmouseover = function() { this.style.color = "#f00" };That is "poor" code only in the sense that it trips over IE's DOM/JS circular reference memory leak problem. Other browsers (e.g., Firefox 1.0.4, Safari 1.3+) handle that code with no memory leaks.
So while it may be true that it is possible to write a web page that will cause a given web browser to leak memory, this DOM/JS problem is particularly evil because it occurs not with some obscure, complex, or malicious coding practice, but with one that is very common and natural.
[S]omeone observing something is NOT science. They have to test the observation against a theory, write about how it did or didn't, and be published. THAT is science.
From what I have been able to find about Bruno and Vanini, neither would qualify as scientists under that definition. Again, take Bruno's contention of an infinite number of inhabited worlds. What observation could he be have been testing, and against what theory, which would have yielded that conclusion?
One possibility is:
Of the above premises, only 1 through 3 are what we would call observations. All the rest of the premises were for Bruno pure speculation (some of which subsequent observation has disproven).
Perhaps another account of Bruno's thought can be reconstructed that fits your definition of science, but I feel his work is much more speculative/philosophical than "scientific" on your definition.
Had [Galileo] not recanted, he would have been executed for publishing a theory that the sun was the center of the solar system....
Um, no. At least, not according to this:
On this account, Galileo did not recant Copernican ideas, and all he got for it was house arrest.
From The Galileo Project: It is often maintained that Bruno was executed because of his Copernicanism and his belief in the infinity of inhabited worlds. In fact, we do not know the exact grounds on which he was declared a heretic because his file is missing from the records. Scientists such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler were not sympathetic to Bruno in their writings.
Of course, to some extent I am making a spurious distinction, since there was, at the time, little concept of "science" and "theology" as two separate domains of thought.
But I still don't think that either of these men are most accurately described by the term "observer". Bruno believed and taught that the universe was infinite and contained an infinite number of world, all of which were inhabited. He certainly didn't observe that.
Do you have a specific example of an "observer" being burned for disagreeing with the prevailing theory? Or are you perhaps engaging in hyperbole?
I'm not a historian of science, but I'm not aware of any executions, let alone burnings, in the "dark" ages over divergence from prevailing scientific theories.
Of course, there were those who were burned for disagreeing with prevailing theological/religious theory, but I doubt that's what you're referring to, since you use the word "observed", hardly an appropriate term in the theological arena.
Apple's argument will be that sales of their current products are damaged by information about upcoming products. They will argue that a number of customers will say "I'm not going to buy that iMac now, I'll just wait for this new Mac to come out next month."
By your definition, therefore, information about the existence, specs, and release date of upcoming Apple products would be a trade secret.
The main reason for this is that the JavaScript error notifications are almost 100% useless. You have to turn them on in the "Debug" menu (which you need a little hack to activate), and even then you get helpful things like this: "(event handler):Undefined value"
No file name, no line number, no context, just a vague message. It's back to the old methods of inserting a zillion alerts and trying to figure out what the problem is. It's quite the let-down after developing for Gecko (using Venkman).
In addition, there are some irritating JavaScript/DOM bugs which I hope will be zapped in the Tiger version. Some examples:
No, XmlHttpRequest is not the culprit. Safari (1.2+) supports that just fine.
Sorry to break it to you, but those are moral issues, or at least issues that moral concerns affect.
For instance, it's a moral judgment whether the disparity between rich and poor is good or bad or neither.
That's interesting. I was pretty sure a legal version of iTunes available for non-Apple hardware, for the Operating System Whose Name We Do Not Speak.
If you're looking for all applications, that never was in the Apple Menu by default.
Sure, there are several freeware/shareware apps which will simulate the Apple Menu in OS X: FruitMenu, XMenu, Classic Menu. Check versiontracker.com for the downloads.The word in the original Greek seems to be a much more specific term (meaning "love of money") than the Latin "cupiditas". Also, the context of the saying makes it clear that "money" is in view.
If I recall correctly, the difficulty in obtaining iPods is more due to the constrained supply of the Toshiba hard drives they are built around than to anything Apple has control over.
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but shouldn't the title be "Microsoft-Funded Study Clinches 10-year Deal"?
I'm not sure what "cinches" would mean in this context.
It is limited: you can only make 7 copies of the exact same playlist. You'll have to reorder it or otherwise change it to make 7 more, and so forth.
Personally, I don't find that limit at all onerous.
What's your point? I have been a Windows user (never at home, but at some of my places of employment), but I never heard the term "stealth" applied to firewalls, etc. there. Does the fact that I have been a Windows user help a potential attacker exploit my machine? Didn't think so.
But it's quite different for the purposes of attempting to exploit my machine, isn't it?