When teling someone something, you tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them.
Please don't take this personally, but OMG PLEASE STAHP. I hear this repeated all the time, and it frustrates me endlessly. Maybe this is the rule of thumb for speaking to mutants, farm animals or teenagers. But if you have an at least moderately intelligent audience whose attendance is not compulsory (e.g. a modern workplace), telling me the same thing three times will make me stop paying attention to you. Training people that you need to repeat themselves three times in a presentation is part of why many presentations are so boring and why we all ignore them which is why you have to repeat yourself three times and NOMAD ERROR. ERROR. ERROR. EXAMINE.
I do plenty of useful presentations all the time, using the crazy technique of just telling people what I want to communicate to them, one time. (Reiterating important points within a slide if necessary.) If they were multitasking, napping or ignoring the rest of my presentation because they expected to hear it three times, that's their problem. And I don't feel bad.
The product isn't the issue--it is how people are being trained to use it, and changing the way a message is presented won't change the message.
True as far as it goes, but I would argue that very, very few people are actually taught how to give presentations. Think about it - someone may have taught you how to use PowerPoint, but did anyone teach you to present? I am sure we have all gotten "coaching" at one point or another from some jackass reviewing our slides pre-presentation telling us that "you need more pictures" or "spell out the acronyms on slide six" but I doubt if more than a handful have actually received decent instruction on how to organize one's thoughts and communicate effectively to an audience. Not just that - for example, I have a few stupid, inoffensive canned jokes that I tell at the beginning of each presentation for a new audience at work. It's cheesy and groan-worthy, but it establishes an air of informality and receptiveness that makes the audience far more willing to listen. Does anyone get taught that kind of stuff anymore?
Plus, no amount of good or bad PowerPoint usage will make up for someone just being a bad communicator (especially in front of audiences). You can use PowerPoint as a crutch, but the greatest software in the world can't save your presentation from sucking if you have issues ranging from "stage fright" or "fear of public speaking" all the way to "just being an idiot who can't think linearly from A to B." I'd venture a completely unsupportable opinion that at least 2/3 of all humans in a modern white-collar workplace are either subpar thinkers or subpar communicators, so we can expect at least that percentage of presentations to suck.
Ignore this pedant. Thanks for the interesting grandparent post.
*picks up iPhone* "NSA, where is the nearest Pizza joint?"
NSA: Five miles, then turn right at Ivy, Rd.
NSA: By the way, you have very few funds in your account. I recommend something cheap at TacoBell.
Uhh....ok, Thanks!...I think..
A taxi can get you almost anywhere in less than half the time.
That problem isn't the taxi's problem, it is a train problem. I could design a bus system in New York that would Eliminate the need for Taxis.
From what I've read the lack of respect for negative results ties into both the leadership for study funding and to the less informed people from outside the scientific community who often approve the funding.
The person in charge of a larger scientific entity may have even more invested in the "right" conclusion in terms of their leadership potential and may not want to fund or advance studies which could threaten their larger position on the issue.
And people from outside the scientific community may see negative outcomes wrongly as "failed" science -- why look, you couldn't even prove your theory. As you point out, this is wrong, but I think these people look at it kind of like a failed business venture. If Joe Scientist's theory is disproven, he must be an incompetent idiot and we should disown him because clearly he's going down the wrong path.
>> "And another thing, why is education literally never a talking point during elections?"
At this risk of sounding trollish you cannot possibly be paying attention. Around election time we have grandstanding on all sort of education subjects: Evolution and Creationism. When/if kids should learn about reproduction and birth control. Outcome based education. Benchmarking. Multi-culturalism in our history and Social Studies curriculum. Safety in schools. School lunch programs ("Michelle Obama lunches"). "Liberal indoctrination". Teacher's unions. That's just what I can think of on the spot. The list goes on.
Very few things are political hot-button topics on the scale of public education.
Honestly, we've had this current system for so long, would it really hurt to try another one?
We've had the old system in place since the dawn of the Industrial Age. It no longer suits our needs because we don't need Industrial Education. YET, we are fighting to keep it, rather than use the metrics we have available under the information age to have appropriate education for every student at all times. We no longer need Teachers, but we rather need facilitators, to help kids maximize their potential at the time they can attain it. The methods of Industrial education do not afford us the ability to teach the smart kids like they are smart, and the slower kids like they need.
This is going to require a huge shakeup of status quo.
"Please buy me! Won't someone please buy me?" How FUBAR is TWC that they're so ready to sell to someone, anyone? Either a) they had this in the pipeline before the Comcast deal fell through, in which case how many other deals are on standby?, or b) they brokered a major corporate sell deal entirely within the last month, presumably under immense pressure.
In my opinion, TWC is desperate to sell because there's an internal house of cards that's about to fall over. Someone needs to unload it quickly so that a pending spectacular failure will be on someone else's watch.
Do SAN vendors intentionally mix production runs of drives when they ship them?
I would kind of expect them to, and it might explain why I've never seen a group of drives bought at the same time (installed in a server or SAN) fail as a group.
Although I would kind of expect some logistical challenges if I was a SAN vendor trying to keep inventories of multiple production runs in stock for populating new SANs, especially when some single unit devices can ship with as many as 24 drives. Keeping a half-dozen unique batches on site for populating systems, sure, but 24? I would think some SANs would have to go out with drives from the same production run and the logistics just get more complicated with mismatched supply/demand/production curves.
" I'd rather see an injection as the corpse looks less... mutilated and gory."
It starts out that way. And then, it doesn't end up that way. Franchise agreements always end up hurting the public in the long run.
If you want to fix the streets of New York City, implement better public transportation. New York could use a nice bus system.
If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.
That is utter bullshit. It is fear mongering at its worse. What is the worst possible thing is to have Government Granted Franchise agreements, whereby politicians can be bought and paid for by those companies buying up such agreements. The public is never served by such agreements in the long run.
Improperly secured networks. Yes, you can use "internet connected" networks, but if you don't secure them properly, a simple PTP VPN tunnel connection, would allow for transactions ONLY (via VPN). If you don't allow any inbound, or outbound traffic, other than what transverses across the VPN, you can't have this kind of thing happen.