I like your blog. As a blog. Your blog seems to excel at documenting, like a journalist, contemporary examples of Functionality Creep. Your examples seem to focus on developments which you consider sinister. So "Function Creep" refers specifically to "sinister applications of technology which diverge from an original, innocuous purpose." This has its place as a subset of Functionality Creep. See the Wikipedia Functionality Creep page, and especially the Talk page.

Some people would argue that the practice of microchipping dogs and cats has been beneficial because many pet owners have been able to reacquire their pets after being lost, then found. Then some would argue that microchipping children, a practice which "crept" from microchipping pets, has been beneficial because it has enabled parents to locate lost children and children abducted by psychopathic pedophilic abductors. They may further argue that deterring and capturing psychopathic pedophilic abductors is a higher value than protecting political dissenters. One's opinion of the matter may depend on whether you are a child abductee being forcibly and repeatedly raped or a political prisoner falsely condemned to a dungeon by the State. Both are horrific. Some would argue that children are more vulnerable. Others would argue that protecting children before political dissenters violates the rights and future options of children as well as the dissenters.

This type of argument has persisted in the annals of philosophy and ethics for centuries, and perhaps shall remain. The question is: How to find a balance between the safety of children and the rights of citizens of a State ? Without mandatory microchipping "creeping" into maternity wards.

I think you are on the right track as a reporter of contemporary examples of Functionality Creep, and should continue with this enterprise. Perhaps your blog should convert to a proper "Web Page." Then it could transcend the rancor of the blogosphere and gain further legitimacy as a subset of Functionality Creep

what's kreepy is your insistence on inventing new terminology or using dead terminology. "Function creep" is ideal. "Functionality creep" lost the race. It did not catch on. Let it go. Stop trying to be elitist on this issue. You are wrong. Your terminology is dead.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. I think my Wikipedia page says it all. And you have no argument. Google: Function Creep. The Wikipedia page for "Functionality Creep" is the first result. For a reason. Get used to it.

Well ... You'd be arrogant too if someone tried to usurp your golden goose. Go ahead with the "Function Creep," as I stated so fairly, as a more specific subset of Functionality Creep. I think the Function Creep subset amplifies and exemplifies the concept. Someone should document contemporary examples of sinister applications of technology. It just makes sense that way. Why don't we join forces and exemplify each other rather than continue to enjoin with rancor ?

Looks like Wikipedia admins decided to redirect Function Creep to Functionality Creep. Oh, that's too bad. Waaaaahhhh. Cry like a baby for me. Or join me, and we'll prove to the world the dangers that lurk. Of these I am not unaware. BTW: I am delightfully informed by the Function Creep blog. And I recommend it often.

Try this, you functional creeps:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/science-forecasts

Seems things will creep along with or without our input.

Yeah: We're fucked.

yeah, kk, everyone can get along. there's just the issue of terminology, and "function creep" is the clear winner. there could be two separate wikipedia pages. just don't usurp either pages sovereignty. that's all.

How about making a subsection of my page devoted to "sinister applications of technology which diverge from the original, innocuous intention." We could co-blog something to clarify. And share links. Because the message is more important than the man here. I think we both understand that, chap.

I am the creator of this blog. therealscottc is not in any way affiliated with it. Thanks for your comments, people.