Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
A trio of late-in-the-thread observations: - There is a trade-off between simple and powerful, but one can always make both worse by adding a serving of "stupid", conversely, one can always make something both simpler *and* more powerful by removing some of the unnecessary "stupid" (eventually you might run low on stupidities to harvest, so there can be limits, but don't give up too soon using the trade-off argument as your excuse). Occasionally one can change the game with a hunk of "clever" that later makes the previous idea look stupid. - There are some extremely powerful and easy to use technologies out there that are made possible by standardization, both in defining what the product does and by using powerful standard components. Good examples are indeed cars. And phone calls. Note that there sometimes needs to be a lot of education about the properties of the product for this to happen. Even morons know a lot about what cars are good for and what they are not good for, similarly the properties of a phone call are well defined, though the phone example has been in a lot of flux in recent years. GPS is an amazing set of physics and technologies, yet it can be packaged into extremely easy-to-use products once one defines the product and engineers it carefully. - People do want choice, but they are too busy and ignorant to really deal with all that choice. But they still want some choice: I overheard two young women in Target the other week, they talking about something unknown to me, and the second one didn't need whatever the first one suggested because she already had it and "mine has ionic power". God maybe knows what that meant, I would be willing to bet a hell of a lot of money that she had no idea what that meant, but it gave her the impression that it was good, and maybe the term does correlate with some real feature. I was once impressed by the name "Formula-409", but that was when it was new and I was a pretty little kid--I give myself a pass. I am weird because know a lot about how the things around me work (as does this BLU crowd), but I don't know how degreasers work beyond a basic understanding of soap. Formula-409 is still magic to me. I think I know of a better and improved competing product that we have at home and if only it had a catchier name I could tell you what it is. -kb, the once very young Kent who was attracted to technology specifically because of the superficial wiz-bang trappings that he now scorns.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |