IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Calling Edward Tufte....
http://www.nytimes.c...werpoint.html?hpw
New There not even a mention of him!(Not in the comments either)
New 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...
New “It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of
understanding and the illusion of control,” General McMaster said in a telephone interview afterward.
“Some 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] Risk™)
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.

“Some 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
Expand Edited by Ashton April 27, 2010, 06:25:03 PM EDT
New 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.

Those of us who have been enduring Elizabeth Bumiller's reporting for the New York Times over the course of far too many years have marveled at how someone so lazy, so incurious, and so biased could hold onto her job. I think I can offer a partial explanation. She's a messenger, not a reporter.

Still, rarely has her sloth been on such prominent display as it is here, an article about the Pentagon's dangerous obsession with elaborate PowerPoint presentations in lieu of serious analysis and genuine comprehension. But, appearances aside, this article wasn't written for you or me, instead... well... Go ahead. Read it. I'll wait.

Don't see what I'm talking about? Of course you don't. After all, you're not a reporter who's supposed to be doing an article on the problems with Powerpoint presentations, or who accidentally happens to know something very important about the subject. You're simply someone who relies upon the media to, you know, inform you. So it's quite understandable that you wouldn't realize that the problem with Bumiller's article is what is glaringly not mentioned. That omission would make this an appallingly bad piece of reporting... if Bumiller's intention was actually to inform the ordinary reader about the nature of the problem.

In fact, if you were a reporter, rather than a royal stenographer and self-appointed Messenger to the Mighty, and you were doing an article on problems with PowerPoint presentations in the military, you would be obligated to mention Edward Tufte's famous essay, The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint which brilliantly described how thoroughly misleading and counterproductive these cheesy slideshows can be.

Who is Edward Tufte? Again, it's not your job, Ms/Mr Ordinary Reader, to know who he is. It should be a reporter's job to find out, however, but apparently Bumiller never did. Tufte is, barely arguably, the foremost authority on the visual presentation of complex data in the United States. Data like the stuff displayed in a military PowerPoint slideshow. Since the publication of his first masterpiece, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Tufte has become well known as THE expert on how to create effective visual presentations, either in print form or live. Here's a link to an excerpt from his work, where he discusses the problems that were hidden in plain sight in a PowerPoint presentation during a space shuttle disaster, a presentation which gave NASA the misleading impression that the problem wasn't that serious.

[...]


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.
New 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,
New 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.
     Calling Edward Tufte.... - (dmcarls) - (6)
         There not even a mention of him!(Not in the comments either) -NT - (Another Scott)
         Yet they found a suitable use for it... - (scoenye)
         “It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of - (Ashton)
         tristero's take, and the bigger picture. - (Another Scott)
         Kind of like shooting the messenger - (rcareaga) - (1)
             Yeabut... - (Another Scott)

Smoke the pipe, and there will be no lies between us.
68 ms