Roy Wallace wrote:
>
> Using your terms, Paul, it would seem there is disagreement in how
> important "usefulness density" is as a goal. For example, the World
> Wide Web has an extremely low "usefulness density", but is very
> useful. Of course, the importance of usefulness density wholly depends
> on the "cost" of "storage".
>
This again is a false comparison. The WWW doesn't have resource
restrictions in the same manner as Rockbox. Assume the internet became
slower for everyone, the instant any website was put up. Were this the
case there would immediately be a concern on the value of having more
information available versus the ability for people to access this
information in a reasonable time frame. Assuming there were a
controlling authority, any website put up would be looked at in terms of
"how many people will this help" versus "how much current, and
potentially future, cost will this have to users who will, and
especially who won't, use this feature."
Received on 2008-10-29