Talk:Functionality creep

A thought

This is an interesting phenomenon when you consider how it could be linked to evolution and the false concept of irreducible complexity. DS 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Example of Functionality Creep

Drivers Licenses. If I didn't have to use it everytime I wrote a check I might then know where it is when I need it for it's original purpose. Since I write less and less checks these days, and since checks are headed for extinction, perhaps the main purpose of drivers license will revert to their original function.

POV

Instead of an article about Functionality creep, what we seem to have here is one example that has almost become an essay against personal identification numbers. It's careful not to cross the line, but it's pretty pov-ish in my opinion. Ideas? --Zantastik talk 05:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Function Creep" Wikipedia page should be deleted because it fails to follow Wikipedia Style Guidelines, and is a narrower definition of the subject, which relies on subjective definitions of sinister and malicious applications of technology, rather than alterations over time from original intended purpose.

Obviously this is a stupid dispute. "Function" and "Functionality" are both nouns. Function refers more to overall utility, while functionality refers to the utility of specific qualities of the object. This is splitting hairs. Who invented the telephone ? Alexander Graham Bell or Elisha Gray ? Well ... A.G.B. got to the patent office first ... that is his patron did. Nonetheless, the Function Creep purveyor has a blog about the subject, which tracks contemporary examples of technology becoming sinister from innocuous origins. While the purveyors of Functionality Creep seem to indicate a more broad definition, to wit: "Functionality creep is what occurs when an item, process, or procedure designed for a specific purpose ends up serving another purpose for which it was not intended." The purveyors of Functionality Creep clearly are indicating that, good or bad, malicious or innocuous, the definition transcends any moral judgment. The purveyor of Function Creep is solely focused on sinister applications of technology, which is narrower than what the purveyors of Functionality Creep intend. Besides, judging by the irrational vitriol included in the Function Creep Wikipedia page, and it's total lack of attention to Wikipedia style guidelines, the Function Creep Wikipedia page should be deleted. This user should be required to create an account and follow Wikipedia style guidelines. This identical posting will be pasted to the Functionality Creep Talk Page. Kreepy krawly 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another POV

Is the distinction between these two terms even necessary? And if so, who are the human beings interested in non-sinister forms of function creep? Corporate bores and engineers. Everything else aside, "function creep" is the accepted vernacular of most people on this planet. Your very actions regarding this debate (snitching to admin, managing to remove the function creep website from Google's search engine) illustrate a kind of "function creep". And it's a really creepy application (war of the words). If yr forefathers had used similarly dirty tricks, who knows? Maybe we'd all be using portable telephonic devices now instead of cellphones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.139.121 (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Response to "Another POV"

Yes the distinction between these two terms is necessary, Mr. Blackwood. It just so happens that "corporate bores and engineers" are the creators of most of our daily wonders, endlessly marching towards the source of the "Strange Attractor." The "Strange Attractor" is the hypothetical point in future history where and when technology becomes "sufficiently advanced" to render biological activity meaningless. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but your definition of "Function Creep" contains subjective value judgements which most phraseology prohibits in public discourse. Whatever you think about the current trends and future uses in technology, and I'm not dissagreeing that there are sinister trends as you profess, your definition is mere vernacular. And vernacular has no place in the public toolbox of the human mind. It is useful for subcultures and cults as catchphrases, but not as universal language. To insure the safety of the future, we as humans must increasingly guard against vernacular containing hidden subjective value judgements CREEPING into common phraseology and general discourse. This is because the history of mankind has been manipulated by an ivory tower society of intellectuals and technocrats that consistently have defined current trends by their own subjective value judgements, which limits public discourse. The creators of technology, the investors in these wonders, the marketers, have a veiled interest to limit the definitions of their products to suit their own ends, whatever the intention. There is a complex mixture of intentions among these various involved parties. So carefully defining the terms of which we speak is necessary. Carefully maintaining objective definitions will attract notice to the concept of "Functionality Creep," rather than render it to the junkpile of cultish vernacular. "General acceptance" of a term does not substantiate its definition. Objectivity is not subject to a public vote. Facts are facts regarless of who thinks they are true. All of humanity could profess that the sky is red, ignoring facts. Sometimes the sky is red; this is where carefully defined objective distinctions of public phraseology comes into such crucial play. Do you choose to accept the very tactics of the sinister corporate bores and engineers you profess to seek to limit and keep in check ? Kreepy krawly 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]