Your generalizations are humorous. Wildly inaccurate, but humorous nonetheless.
Change is sometimes necessary, and yet every change is not good. Today's Google silliness falls into bucket #2. -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:15 PM, MarvinC <marv...@gmail.com> wrote: > All of this is "ok", I guess. Whether you, we, us, or anyone likes it, it > still represents "change". Good, bad, progressive or re-gressive is left to > individual interpretation. I for one don't have a problem with it because > again, I have the ability to not use the option. Therefore my little world > of searching isn't turned upside down because some college graduate > at Google suggested this feature as a way to appeal to a "younger and more > captive" audience. Thankfully the decision to implement didn't come down to > anyone from this list because most techies wanna get one fix in place and > keep it forever.while old tech geezers will always complain about "ANY" form > of change. > Bring back DOS!!! > Get off my lawn!!! > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Ben Scott <mailvor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:19 PM, MarvinC <marv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Yes, normal people, outside of the >> > technical industry, make purchases based on the fancy images. >> >> Sure. And we all know how well that works out for them. >> >> > The search process is just that a simple query which >> > requires no effort. >> >> Exactly. So don't make it more complicated just for the sake of >> making it more complicated. >> >> Simplicity has beauty in itself. >> >> "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but >> when there is nothing left to remove." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery >> >> This is something a lot of computer industry types don't seem to >> understand. They think the longer the feature list, the more >> bells-and-whistles, the more *things* a program has, the better it >> must be. In practice, it's often the opposite that's true. The more >> stuff they add, the slower it gets, the more bugs there are, the more >> security issues, the higher the support burden, the harder it is to >> learn. >> >> > So again why not add some life to it. >> >> What you are calling "life" I would call "gaudiness". Now, that's a >> purely personal, aesthetic thing. But I've got just as much as right >> to call it "obnoxious" as you do to call the classic page "stale". >> >> On a more practical note, it takes longer to load a giant background >> image, and consumes more system resources. Individually, it's a drop >> in the bucket, but how many times per day does the Google home page >> get loaded across the world? >> >> > Not only is change good, it's also necessary. >> >> Again: Change for the sake of change alone is not progress. >> >> <reductio ad absurdum> Let's tear down every building on the planet >> and build new ones out of paper mache. Change is good and necessary, >> right? </reductio ad absurdum> >> >> -- Ben >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
