When I see a slide like the ones being discussed, I see simply too much information
That isn't really the problem. Tufte oftens bemoans low density of data and that Powerpoint tends to guide presentors into that trap with its large fonts, bullet points, and cartoonish graphics.
The spaghetti slide in the NYT article has around 200 word groups with 13 of them in larger typeface than the others. These are grouped together in 7 colors. And there are many many lines that appear to illustrate one way relationships binding them all together. If you leave aside the lines that isn't exactly a whole lot of data. The Minard graphic Tufte likes to display at his courses has far more data represented and it illustrates complex relationships between sets of data without shitloads of lines all over the place.
But in saying that Powerpoint makes us dumb Tufte is saying that some problems are indeed too complex to be reprsented in Powerpoint fashion. I don't see how that spaghetti diagram, even if it is the best way to represent that data which I doubt, could be comprehensible to anyone when projected on a screen, whether that was being done by Powerpoint or Keynote or whatever else. So they've taken an issue that is complex and forced it to fit the presentation rather than forced the presentation to fit the complexity of the issue.
There are some very intelligent people in the military just as there were in NASA when the Challenger was launched. Rocket scientists even. It isn't that they can't comprehend the information in that spaghetti map or O-ring failure by temperature data, it is, as you point out, presenting it in a way that is useful to them.
And it was very easy for their fears, with scant evidence, to be carried all the way up the chain of command. There were a lot of Leo Strauss followers salted throughout the Federal government who wanted to believe.
It isn't the 'surest method' and very often isn't quick relative to others and in those instances is most definitely not painless. What I refer to is the length of time people often remain conscious after an eventually fatal wound delivered by a firearm. Even with multiple hits.
Like some previous comments indicate, a biologist would know that a Tylenol OD would be a painful way to go, unlike the 2700 Canadians in your article.
Your notion that liver failure is nasty relative to firearms illustrates the point those posters are trying to make well. I was an 0311/8541 in the USMC during a particularly active time in USMC history, so I'm familiar with the variety of damage dealt by firearms. If I were to decide to off myself, I wouldn't do it with a firearm, for sure.
I think of that every time I see a Flexpicker or Quattro.
Oddly named because it has 4 arms, and I always think they should've followed the Schick Corporation's lead and skipped from Flexpicker's 3 straight to 5.
I am not arguing anything any way. I'm asking, why is it all right for a person to set terms for DNA they've given away, but not all right for a company to set terms for a product it sells?
They didn't do research on them, they did research on their DNA, which the Havasupais provided willingly. Why is it all right for an individual to put usage terms on something they give away but not all right for a company to do it with a product they sell?
Do the Chinese want all of those things? Would they want them if you honestly explained their cost?
If you asked a currently unemployed former auto worker if he wished that maybe wages and benefits hadn't gotten quite so out of hand back in the big 3's boom days, he'd probably say yes. Because then he'd still have a job. Our marketing line here in the US is all of the unemployed workers need to learn new skills to find jobs, but that isn't because those low skill jobs are gone, it is because they were the easiest to export. There are still people assembling cars mostly by hand because there are still places where wages and benefits for a half dozen human welders is cheaper than the capital cost of a welding robot.
Always among the first comments any time a new hardware story is posted here is a long thread complaining about how it is too expensive. Or that something similar can be had for less. The alternatives aren't cheaper because they are made from a pile of free silicon, they are cheaper because they are produced in factories like the one in this story. Apply that to every product everywhere.
These factories can't give the things you list to their workers because someone will open another factory somewhere else and not give out those things, and thus produce a cheaper product. Price comparison shoppers will ensure that the former factory closes its doors while the latter flourishes.
Ive's designs are further down the "Weniger, aber besser" path than Rams' made it.
For instance with an iphone I think a label for every button would be silly. There are only 4 buttons and 1 switch on the thing and when held in the position it is normally used only 1 of the buttons is facing the user. That one is labeled, unnecessarily, with a symbol. In places where there are many buttons you find labels...apps all have them.
I do with Apple placed equal emphasis on both parts of the Rams principle though. The iphone email client is a whole lot of less and none at all of better.
There is a graphic of a tire there as well, and I am offended.
Since when does North America have a monopoly on tires? They don't. I was born in rural Angola, Africa and we even had tires there. When I was in Japan I saw tires. And in Iraq. And France and Italy and Belgium and Brasil and New Zealand. So how then can anyone place a graphic of a tire next to a story with "North America" in the title, as if tires are solely possessed by North America?
I don't think, at this point, you would get a WePad or a Courier over an iPad because at this point neither the WePad nor the Courier can be bought.
Microsoft's Courier would be great if it ever got here, unmolested by the sort of idiocy that gave us the Zune Marketplace. But it won't. The WePad might or it might not, I have no idea.
No, since the standards were put in place, obviously. There have been some fairly extensive violations. Some companies have violated HIPAA multiple times. Who has gone to jail?
I don't understand it either, mainly because I think the climate in China is closer to free market capitalism than the climate in the US. In relative terms China is a capitalist utopia, particularly from a producer's perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
When I see a slide like the ones being discussed, I see simply too much information
That isn't really the problem. Tufte oftens bemoans low density of data and that Powerpoint tends to guide presentors into that trap with its large fonts, bullet points, and cartoonish graphics.
The spaghetti slide in the NYT article has around 200 word groups with 13 of them in larger typeface than the others. These are grouped together in 7 colors. And there are many many lines that appear to illustrate one way relationships binding them all together. If you leave aside the lines that isn't exactly a whole lot of data. The Minard graphic Tufte likes to display at his courses has far more data represented and it illustrates complex relationships between sets of data without shitloads of lines all over the place.
But in saying that Powerpoint makes us dumb Tufte is saying that some problems are indeed too complex to be reprsented in Powerpoint fashion. I don't see how that spaghetti diagram, even if it is the best way to represent that data which I doubt, could be comprehensible to anyone when projected on a screen, whether that was being done by Powerpoint or Keynote or whatever else. So they've taken an issue that is complex and forced it to fit the presentation rather than forced the presentation to fit the complexity of the issue.
There are some very intelligent people in the military just as there were in NASA when the Challenger was launched. Rocket scientists even. It isn't that they can't comprehend the information in that spaghetti map or O-ring failure by temperature data, it is, as you point out, presenting it in a way that is useful to them.
That someone paid $5000 for it would be the most direct way to prove it.
I work with them.
And it was very easy for their fears, with scant evidence, to be carried all the way up the chain of command. There were a lot of Leo Strauss followers salted throughout the Federal government who wanted to believe.
It isn't the 'surest method' and very often isn't quick relative to others and in those instances is most definitely not painless. What I refer to is the length of time people often remain conscious after an eventually fatal wound delivered by a firearm. Even with multiple hits.
Like some previous comments indicate, a biologist would know that a Tylenol OD would be a painful way to go, unlike the 2700 Canadians in your article.
Your notion that liver failure is nasty relative to firearms illustrates the point those posters are trying to make well. I was an 0311/8541 in the USMC during a particularly active time in USMC history, so I'm familiar with the variety of damage dealt by firearms. If I were to decide to off myself, I wouldn't do it with a firearm, for sure.
I think of that every time I see a Flexpicker or Quattro.
Oddly named because it has 4 arms, and I always think they should've followed the Schick Corporation's lead and skipped from Flexpicker's 3 straight to 5.
I am not arguing anything any way. I'm asking, why is it all right for a person to set terms for DNA they've given away, but not all right for a company to set terms for a product it sells?
They didn't do research on them, they did research on their DNA, which the Havasupais provided willingly. Why is it all right for an individual to put usage terms on something they give away but not all right for a company to do it with a product they sell?
I have friends on a few different continents.
I don't Facebook though, because most of them don't either, but I do use Facebook as a verb.
Do the Chinese want all of those things? Would they want them if you honestly explained their cost?
If you asked a currently unemployed former auto worker if he wished that maybe wages and benefits hadn't gotten quite so out of hand back in the big 3's boom days, he'd probably say yes. Because then he'd still have a job. Our marketing line here in the US is all of the unemployed workers need to learn new skills to find jobs, but that isn't because those low skill jobs are gone, it is because they were the easiest to export. There are still people assembling cars mostly by hand because there are still places where wages and benefits for a half dozen human welders is cheaper than the capital cost of a welding robot.
Always among the first comments any time a new hardware story is posted here is a long thread complaining about how it is too expensive. Or that something similar can be had for less. The alternatives aren't cheaper because they are made from a pile of free silicon, they are cheaper because they are produced in factories like the one in this story. Apply that to every product everywhere.
These factories can't give the things you list to their workers because someone will open another factory somewhere else and not give out those things, and thus produce a cheaper product. Price comparison shoppers will ensure that the former factory closes its doors while the latter flourishes.
Once again: China is communist in name only. It practice it is a shining example of near perfect anarcho-capitalism.
Wrong hacker movie.
And they rode out on a ferry, not a rowboat.
Ive's designs are further down the "Weniger, aber besser" path than Rams' made it.
For instance with an iphone I think a label for every button would be silly. There are only 4 buttons and 1 switch on the thing and when held in the position it is normally used only 1 of the buttons is facing the user. That one is labeled, unnecessarily, with a symbol. In places where there are many buttons you find labels...apps all have them.
I do with Apple placed equal emphasis on both parts of the Rams principle though. The iphone email client is a whole lot of less and none at all of better.
There is a graphic of a tire there as well, and I am offended.
Since when does North America have a monopoly on tires? They don't. I was born in rural Angola, Africa and we even had tires there. When I was in Japan I saw tires. And in Iraq. And France and Italy and Belgium and Brasil and New Zealand. So how then can anyone place a graphic of a tire next to a story with "North America" in the title, as if tires are solely possessed by North America?
This is an obvious infringement of my rights.
The US train system is excellent if you are coal, or liquid polypropylene, or the like. For humans not so much.
Which is all well and good if it works, and there are some decent prediction models and a whole lot of terrible ones.
It would be nice and comforting, as this thing moves along, if data about accuracy of the predictions was made available, but I doubt it will be.
the corporatist that wants to give you health care
Speaking of encouraging irrationality...
I don't think, at this point, you would get a WePad or a Courier over an iPad because at this point neither the WePad nor the Courier can be bought.
Microsoft's Courier would be great if it ever got here, unmolested by the sort of idiocy that gave us the Zune Marketplace. But it won't. The WePad might or it might not, I have no idea.
Because cola A was overpriced
how absurdly overpriced I believe cola A to be.
Those are two different things.
No so easy for me, I'm using IE6 and it mangles comment nesting. Stupid Micorsoft.
No, since the standards were put in place, obviously. There have been some fairly extensive violations. Some companies have violated HIPAA multiple times. Who has gone to jail?
Who has gone to prison (in the US) for not securing data, pre the standards being discussed in the article?
Mediamote controls WMC PCs dandily. It works on the current iPhone OS so I'm guessing it works on an iPad.
I don't understand it either, mainly because I think the climate in China is closer to free market capitalism than the climate in the US. In relative terms China is a capitalist utopia, particularly from a producer's perspective.