Calling Edward Tufte....
|
|
There not even a mention of him!(Not in the comments either)
|
|
Yet they found a suitable use for it...
Senior officers say the program does come in handy when the goal is not imparting information, as in briefings for reporters. I guess one should not ask what they are imparting then... |
|
ÂItÂs dangerous because it can create the illusion of
understanding and the illusion of control, General McMaster said in a telephone interview afterward.
ÂSome problems in the world are not bullet-izable. Why.. WHY ... THAT's ... the kissing Cousin of Vanity, a simplest explanation for pseudo-Econ (like say, Eliminating [OUR] RiskÂ) by fleecing the suckers via selling the MFers Short while encouraging them to buy the Crap.. Long. (It may even be the simplest psych-explanation for Talk Radio, Tea-Baggers and the Murican Dream-state.) +7 for bloody-pithy! on that new koan. ÂSome problems in the world are not bullet-izable. -- blongs on every Corner Office oversized pretentious teakwood Desk, near the $4500 Ergo-Arggghh 'chair'. +6? oTpy. I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC |
|
tristero's take, and the bigger picture.
http://digbysblog.bl...stenographer.html
This is another post where I try to look rather closely at the way something is being said. Here, the topic is pretty serious - the communication of important data within the Pentagon - but that topic, while addressed, is not my main focus. Rather, it is the way that topic is reported that concerns me, and concerns me a lot. Obviously, my reasoning and conclusions are speculative, but I don't think they're entirely unfounded. It was astounding that Tufte didn't even get a mention in Bumiller's piece - especially as it was on the front page. It was entirely too fluffy. It does not give me a good feeling about the Times editor either. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Kind of like shooting the messenger
Not that Powerpoint doesn't deserve to be shot, but that dreadful graphic looks to me like something that was created in another program and then imported into PP. I can't begin to imagine how cumbersome it would be to create the image in Powerpoint, but I could do it in about an hour in Illustrator, and export it into something PP-readable in half a minute after that.
cordially, |
|
Yeabut...
A graphic like that can be good - "See, it's really complicated!" I think, however, that in the presentation someone actually tried to explain the component parts. I haven't been able to find it, but there's another version of that graphic which has various areas highlighted in a yellow cloud, clearly as part of an attempted explanation of various subcomponents.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some mid-level staffer had to spend a few hours making it inside PPT. [... googlie goo ...] Ah, here it is. Along with a link to the full PPT. http://cominganarchy...-slide-at-a-time/ Oh! My eyes! It's actually a product of "PA Consulting Group" - http://www.paconsulting.com/ - not the Pentagon. Cheers, Scott. |