<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Worse is better</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lackhead.org/2007/06/worse-is-better/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lackhead.org/2007/06/worse-is-better/</link>
	<description>The irascible ramblings of some guy named Chad</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:27:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: lackhead</title>
		<link>http://www.lackhead.org/2007/06/worse-is-better/#comment-143</link>
		<dc:creator>lackhead</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lackhead.org/2007/06/worse-is-better/#comment-143</guid>
		<description>One thing this makes me think of, is the New Jersey school of design leads to inevitable regression in quality standards.  Think of this working over time; the New Jersey approach leads to a design, that while inferior, does pervade the market (ala Windows).  The ubiquitousness of this design affects the standard of the day, and the next generation is going to have a higher goal to shoot for.  In other words, the next-gen designers will have been conditioned to expect worse, and as such, both the MIT and New Jersey schools of design will be calibrated to a lower standard.  Repeat this over generations and it leads you to the inevitable heat-death of the universe. 

The current generation of computer geeks have grown up with Windows, and know little about how much better the world can be.  We need &lt;a HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8" rel="nofollow"&gt;that hottie in athletic shorts to run down the hallway to throw her hammer in the face of mediocrity!&lt;/A&gt; 


-c</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing this makes me think of, is the New Jersey school of design leads to inevitable regression in quality standards.  Think of this working over time; the New Jersey approach leads to a design, that while inferior, does pervade the market (ala Windows).  The ubiquitousness of this design affects the standard of the day, and the next generation is going to have a higher goal to shoot for.  In other words, the next-gen designers will have been conditioned to expect worse, and as such, both the MIT and New Jersey schools of design will be calibrated to a lower standard.  Repeat this over generations and it leads you to the inevitable heat-death of the universe. </p>
<p>The current generation of computer geeks have grown up with Windows, and know little about how much better the world can be.  We need <a HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8" rel="nofollow">that hottie in athletic shorts to run down the hallway to throw her hammer in the face of mediocrity!</a> </p>
<p>-c</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
