Steve Jobs passes away.

[dicjones]

You guys crack me up.

 

Webster's definition of the two words...hope this ends this silly debate. They are practically the same thing. It's like trying to argue whether a particular paint is tan, taupe or beige.

 

 

 

Definition of INNOVATION

 

1: the introduction of something new

2: a new idea, method, or device : novelty

 

Definition of INNOVATE

 

transitive verb

1: to introduce as or as if new

2archaic : to effect a change in

 

 

Definition of INVENTION

 

1: discovery, finding

2: productive imagination : inventiveness

3a : something invented: as (1) : a product of the imagination; especially : a false conception (2) : a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment

b : a short keyboard composition featuring two- or three-part counterpoint

4: the act or process of inventing

 

 

Definition of INVENT

 

transitive verb

1archaic : find, discover

2: to devise by thinking : fabricate

3: to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment

 

 

[The Troll King]

You guys crack me up.

 

Webster's definition of the two words...hope this ends this silly debate. They are practically the same thing. It's like trying to argue whether a particular paint is tan, taupe or beige.

 

 

 

Definition of INNOVATION

 

1: the introduction of something new

2: a new idea, method, or device : novelty

 

Definition of INNOVATE

 

transitive verb

1: to introduce as or as if new

2archaic : to effect a change in

 

 

Definition of INVENTION

 

1: discovery, finding

2: productive imagination : inventiveness

3a : something invented: as (1) : a product of the imagination; especially : a false conception (2) : a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment

b : a short keyboard composition featuring two- or three-part counterpoint

4: the act or process of inventing

 

 

Definition of INVENT

 

transitive verb

1archaic : find, discover

2: to devise by thinking : fabricate

3: to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment

 

 

Reading comprehension lesson. The difference is clear in the definitions you provided. To invent is to discover. The innovation is the implementation of the discovery. There is a clear and concise difference.

[sakaridis]

Wow. A p i s s i n g contest on how to label a man who just passed away. I hate the internet more and more each day.

Steve Jobs was a public figure, a controversial man and entrepreneur. Discussion (and debate) about his work, accomplishments and failures, especially on the days following his death, is perfectly logical and is to be expected.

 

It happened with Michael Jackson, it happened with Osama Bin Laden, it will probably happen with Stan Lee, when he leaves this mortal coil. I'm fairly certain it happened with lots of other public figures, in previous decades. (Centuries, even!)

 

It's got nothing to do with the Internet and everything to do with human nature. Get over it.

 

(And for the record, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. Just as Marie Antoinette never actually said "let them eat cake" )

[bigfiver69]

A couple of tid-bits about this modern day "DaVinci"

 

After resuming control of Apple in 1997, Jobs eliminated all corporate philanthropy programs.

 

When confronted with a daughter who the mother had been raising on welfare Jobs denied paternity by claiming he was sterile; he later acknowledged her as his daughter.

 

 

What are you trying to accomplish here?

 

I'm merely pointing out that Jobs is a False Messiah and I'm entertained by references to Edison, and DaVinci. He didn't cure cancer, he didn't create world peace, he didn't solve the world's starvation problem, and he sure as hell doesn't walk on water.

 

You'd believe otherwise from some opinions on him.

 

What he did do was figure out a way to make unused technology profitable but only for the sole purpose of lining his pockets instead of actually trying to invent something that the world really could view him as a true pioneer. Instead you get to poke at letters on glass and download the latest Lady Gaga single or Fart Maker app.

 

He won't be remembered 50 years from now, much less 500. But please, I invite you all to continue to amuse me.

 

Lemme guess. You're a PC.

 

 

[The Troll King]

A couple of tid-bits about this modern day "DaVinci"

 

After resuming control of Apple in 1997, Jobs eliminated all corporate philanthropy programs.

 

When confronted with a daughter who the mother had been raising on welfare Jobs denied paternity by claiming he was sterile; he later acknowledged her as his daughter.

 

 

What are you trying to accomplish here?

 

I'm merely pointing out that Jobs is a False Messiah and I'm entertained by references to Edison, and DaVinci. He didn't cure cancer, he didn't create world peace, he didn't solve the world's starvation problem, and he sure as hell doesn't walk on water.

 

You'd believe otherwise from some opinions on him.

 

What he did do was figure out a way to make unused technology profitable but only for the sole purpose of lining his pockets instead of actually trying to invent something that the world really could view him as a true pioneer. Instead you get to poke at letters on glass and download the latest Lady Gaga single or Fart Maker app.

 

He won't be remembered 50 years from now, much less 500. But please, I invite you all to continue to amuse me.

 

Lemme guess. You're a PC.

 

 

I've said it repeatedly, I use my iPad for most everything.

[Mark 1]

A couple of tid-bits about this modern day "DaVinci"

 

After resuming control of Apple in 1997, Jobs eliminated all corporate philanthropy programs.

 

When confronted with a daughter who the mother had been raising on welfare Jobs denied paternity by claiming he was sterile; he later acknowledged her as his daughter.

 

 

What are you trying to accomplish here?

 

I'm merely pointing out that Jobs is a False Messiah and I'm entertained by references to Edison, and DaVinci. He didn't cure cancer, he didn't create world peace, he didn't solve the world's starvation problem, and he sure as hell doesn't walk on water.

 

You'd believe otherwise from some opinions on him.

 

What he did do was figure out a way to make unused technology profitable but only for the sole purpose of lining his pockets instead of actually trying to invent something that the world really could view him as a true pioneer. Instead you get to poke at letters on glass and download the latest Lady Gaga single or Fart Maker app.

 

He won't be remembered 50 years from now, much less 500. But please, I invite you all to continue to amuse me.

 

Lemme guess. You're a PC.

 

 

I've said it repeatedly, I use my iPad for most everything.

 

Whacking off seems to be your biggest activity on it.

[dicjones]

Every good turn deserves another so a reading comprehension lesson for you, I provided the definitions to help end the argument, not to prove you wrong.

 

I said they are PRACTICALLY the same thing which is why I referenced the paint, because obviously this comes down to personal interpretation of said definitions. Which is basically me saying, here are some definitions to help, but I don't think it will.

 

I have no horse in this, I was just trying to help out.

 

I'll just be quiet now

[BlowUpTheMoon]

 

Whacking off seems to be your biggest activity on it.

 

Keepin' it classy. (thumbs u

[The Troll King]

Every good turn deserves another so a reading comprehension lesson for you, I provided the definitions to help end the argument, not to prove you wrong.

 

I said they are PRACTICALLY the same thing which is why I referenced the paint, because obviously this comes down to personal interpretation of said definitions. Which is basically me saying, here are some definitions to help, but I don't think it will.

 

I have no horse in this, I was just trying to help out.

 

I'll just be quiet now

 

Stating that they are one and the same or interchange is in clear opposition to my statements.

[The Troll King]

I'm not saying that I hate Apple products or Steve Jobs. I'm just not ready to get down on my knees for the man.

[dicjones]

I'm not saying that I hate Apple products or Steve Jobs. I'm just not ready to get down on my knees for the man.

 

I agree, comparing him to DaVinci or other like that, is overstating it I think.

[bronze_rules]

Every good turn deserves another so a reading comprehension lesson for you, I provided the definitions to help end the argument, not to prove you wrong.

 

I said they are PRACTICALLY the same thing which is why I referenced the paint, because obviously this comes down to personal interpretation of said definitions. Which is basically me saying, here are some definitions to help, but I don't think it will.

 

I have no horse in this, I was just trying to help out.

 

I'll just be quiet now

 

Stating that they are one and the same or interchange is in clear opposition to my statements.

 

Anyone who's filed for a patent should be familiar with the requirements-- namely:

 

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may obtain a patent, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

 

In other words, for an invention to be patentable it must:

 

1. be statutory,

2. be new,

3. be useful, and

4. be nonobvious.

 

All the above are fairly synonymous with innovation. If I was to make an argument against

Jobs role as an innovator, I would lean it toward the fact that as the owner of the company, he has the clout to simply add his name on any patent application that looks promising. It's not so much that the patents lack innovation; the question should be more about how much innovation was due to Jobs himself.

 

[The Troll King]

Every good turn deserves another so a reading comprehension lesson for you, I provided the definitions to help end the argument, not to prove you wrong.

 

I said they are PRACTICALLY the same thing which is why I referenced the paint, because obviously this comes down to personal interpretation of said definitions. Which is basically me saying, here are some definitions to help, but I don't think it will.

 

I have no horse in this, I was just trying to help out.

 

I'll just be quiet now

 

Stating that they are one and the same or interchange is in clear opposition to my statements.

 

Anyone who's filed for a patent should be familiar with the requirements-- namely:

 

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may obtain a patent, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

 

In other words, for an invention to be patentable it must:

 

1. be statutory,

2. be new,

3. be useful, and

4. be nonobvious.

 

All the above are fairly synonymous with innovation. If I was to make an argument against

Jobs role as an innovator, I would lean it toward the fact that as the owner of the company, he has the clout to simply add his name on any patent application that looks promising. It's not so much that the patents lack innovation; the question should be more about how much innovation was due to Jobs himself.

 

A fair assessment.

[COI]

A couple of tid-bits about this modern day "DaVinci"

 

After resuming control of Apple in 1997, Jobs eliminated all corporate philanthropy programs.

 

When confronted with a daughter who the mother had been raising on welfare Jobs denied paternity by claiming he was sterile; he later acknowledged her as his daughter.

 

 

What are you trying to accomplish here?

 

I'm merely pointing out that Jobs is a False Messiah and I'm entertained by references to Edison, and DaVinci. He didn't cure cancer, he didn't create world peace, he didn't solve the world's starvation problem, and he sure as hell doesn't walk on water.

 

You'd believe otherwise from some opinions on him.

 

What he did do was figure out a way to make unused technology profitable but only for the sole purpose of lining his pockets instead of actually trying to invent something that the world really could view him as a true pioneer. Instead you get to poke at letters on glass and download the latest Lady Gaga single or Fart Maker app.

 

He won't be remembered 50 years from now, much less 500. But please, I invite you all to continue to amuse me.

 

What does this accomplish for you? If people want to be sentimental about his passing, and honor his accomplishments, why all over it?

 

Maybe you should focus on diminishing Kim Kardashian, if you're really so concerned with false-idol worship. She's truly useless, and the best part is, she's still alive.

[The Troll King]

A couple of tid-bits about this modern day "DaVinci"

 

After resuming control of Apple in 1997, Jobs eliminated all corporate philanthropy programs.

 

When confronted with a daughter who the mother had been raising on welfare Jobs denied paternity by claiming he was sterile; he later acknowledged her as his daughter.

 

 

What are you trying to accomplish here?

 

I'm merely pointing out that Jobs is a False Messiah and I'm entertained by references to Edison, and DaVinci. He didn't cure cancer, he didn't create world peace, he didn't solve the world's starvation problem, and he sure as hell doesn't walk on water.

 

You'd believe otherwise from some opinions on him.

 

What he did do was figure out a way to make unused technology profitable but only for the sole purpose of lining his pockets instead of actually trying to invent something that the world really could view him as a true pioneer. Instead you get to poke at letters on glass and download the latest Lady Gaga single or Fart Maker app.

 

He won't be remembered 50 years from now, much less 500. But please, I invite you all to continue to amuse me.

 

What does this accomplish for you? If people want to be sentimental about his passing, and honor his accomplishments, why all over it?

 

Maybe you should focus on diminishing Kim Kardashian, if you're really so concerned with false-idol worship. She's truly useless, and the best part is, she's still alive.

 

[Mark 1]

The statement that Jobs won't be remembered in 50 years is so laughable that anything else Buffy says is total nonsense.

 

The fact he needed to do this thread crapping in here and the Water Cooler just shows his true colors as a troll having an agenda to somehow prove some ridiculous point whether the man invented or innovated.

 

 

[The Troll King]

The statement that Jobs won't be remembered in 50 years is so laughable that anything else Buffy says is total nonsense.

 

The fact he needed to do this thread crapping in here and the Water Cooler just shows his true colors as a troll having an agenda to somehow prove some ridiculous point whether the man invented or innovated.

 

 

Obviously your reading comprehension level is lacking as well. I have no dog in this hunt.

[Spiderphill]

Jobs is a genius hands down. He will be remembered with the best of them.

[The Troll King]

Jobs is a genius hands down. He will be remembered with the best of them.

 

Who invented the television?

 

Something tells me that no one here could answer that without looking it up. Seems like a pretty amazing invention huh?

 

I happen to know it's Philo Farnsworth. Why do I know that? Because I'm a genius.

[Jaded Savage]

All I'm saying is why does this discussion have to be in a thread about his passing? If one wants to degrade his legacy, do it in an other thread.