The question is bang on, but the conclusion a bit negative.
A presentation starts by thinking about where you want the audience to end up; it could be that you just want to impart some knowledge but maybe there are some behaviours you'd like people to change.
You then need to arrange your presentation to take people from one idea to the next in terms that are accessible to them. There's no point in telling someone something if you haven't already told them why it's relevant to them. If they believe it's relevant, it won't be boring.
There's lots of good detail advice on presenting in the comments but it will all be for nothing if you don't start with a coherent idea of what you want to achieve and a structure that makes it simple for your audience to follow.
Indeed. Furthermore, I look forward to the version that is able to make use of trusted computing architecture to get remote attestation that what it is talking to is an untampered-with bot. That should be an interesting day.
Someone should start a gamer party and run for election on the grounds that you actually know something about what you're trying to regulate.
Or even just join the Bikers party and stand a better chance of fixing both asinine attitudes at once. In my opinion politicians as a group represent more of a danger than bikers _or_ gamers.
When we first implemented messagelabs' spam filtering my biggest problem was dealing with a large number of users thinking their email setup was broken, there was such a drop in traffic.
You're right that the level of sophistication shown in guerrilla warfare is unequal. Almost by definition I suppose, although it's mostly a function of resourcing levels.
I think there's a big gap between guerrilla warriors and terrorists, though. A terrorist's goal is to bring about a political goal by terrorising a populace, whereas guerrilla warriors are attempting to exert political control by military means (fighting a war in short); terror might or might not be a part of that arsenal, makeshift bombs always will be.
Since scaring people is the point of terrorism, someone trying to build some form of terror-abetting robot would be wasting their money; nothing is going to scare people as much as knowing that an unknown number of people, who might be anywhere are planning to kill them at a random place and time and perfectly willing to die in the process.
Well, imagine you were in your car, with your chauffeur.
You ask tell them where you want to go and they say 'OK, sir'.
After half an hour the chauffeur says 'here we are' and you say 'WTF, I asked to go to Spearmint Rhino, why are we at the mall?'
Chauffeur: 'I don't know where Spearmint Rhino is, so I brought you here, you can ask someone or maybe just buy something'.
Time passes whilst you wonder why exactly you're paying this idiot, then someone breaks your window with a mallet and shoves a ton of junk mail through on you.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is bang on, but the conclusion a bit negative.
A presentation starts by thinking about where you want the audience to end up; it could be that you just want to impart some knowledge but maybe there are some behaviours you'd like people to change.
You then need to arrange your presentation to take people from one idea to the next in terms that are accessible to them. There's no point in telling someone something if you haven't already told them why it's relevant to them. If they believe it's relevant, it won't be boring.
There's lots of good detail advice on presenting in the comments but it will all be for nothing if you don't start with a coherent idea of what you want to achieve and a structure that makes it simple for your audience to follow.
Indeed. Furthermore, I look forward to the version that is able to make use of trusted computing architecture to get remote attestation that what it is talking to is an untampered-with bot. That should be an interesting day.
Not even... See this.
http://revk.www.me.uk/2011/11/secret-to-accessing-newzbin2-from-bt.html
Of course if you supply pseudo-code, then it's semantically equivalent to maths, so not patentable.
Software patents? Just say no.
Someone should start a gamer party and run for election on the grounds that you actually know something about what you're trying to regulate.
Or even just join the Bikers party and stand a better chance of fixing both asinine attitudes at once. In my opinion politicians as a group represent more of a danger than bikers _or_ gamers.
Real men (still) use ed:
http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.htm
I agree, you should check these out at least.
When we first implemented messagelabs' spam filtering my biggest problem was dealing with a large number of users thinking their email setup was broken, there was such a drop in traffic.
You're right that the level of sophistication shown in guerrilla warfare is unequal. Almost by definition I suppose, although it's mostly a function of resourcing levels.
I think there's a big gap between guerrilla warriors and terrorists, though. A terrorist's goal is to bring about a political goal by terrorising a populace, whereas guerrilla warriors are attempting to exert political control by military means (fighting a war in short); terror might or might not be a part of that arsenal, makeshift bombs always will be.
Since scaring people is the point of terrorism, someone trying to build some form of terror-abetting robot would be wasting their money; nothing is going to scare people as much as knowing that an unknown number of people, who might be anywhere are planning to kill them at a random place and time and perfectly willing to die in the process.
Why would I, a terrorist, go to all the effort of developing and building a sophisticated machine when I can can just blow stuff up?
Blowing stuff up is:
- Easier
- Cheaper
- Faster
- Harder to detect in advance
- Scarier
Maybe if I could take control of robots the military creates it would be worth some effort. But why bother? They're already something we should all be scared of: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/19/sa_gun_death_probe/
Well, imagine you were in your car, with your chauffeur.
You ask tell them where you want to go and they say 'OK, sir'.
After half an hour the chauffeur says 'here we are' and you say 'WTF, I asked to go to Spearmint Rhino, why are we at the mall?'
Chauffeur: 'I don't know where Spearmint Rhino is, so I brought you here, you can ask someone or maybe just buy something'.
Time passes whilst you wonder why exactly you're paying this idiot, then someone breaks your window with a mallet and shoves a ton of junk mail through on you.