Power Point - shooting bullets

We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint:
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
New York Times

 I have always been told the linearity of thought that powerpoint enforces can limit your thinking process and understanding of complex systems. This is not so reassuring that the people need the most clarity have discovered the same thing...

UPDATED: article:
"...Great presenters employ the basic narrative techniques used throughout history to connect with audiences and move them to action and new understanding. The presentations that work are not the ones with the most data or the most elaborate charts and graphs; the winners are those with the most compelling and convincing narratives.

We're a distracted, multi-tasking society. So presentations need to lure and re-lure an audience simply to keep their attention. Audiences are looking at the clock or fiddling with their handheld devices throughout a presentation. You don't connect with your audience by throwing information at them -- you do it by taking them on a journey toward your perspective..."

Excerpts: 

“PowerPoint makes us stupid,” Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps, the Joint Forces commander, said this month at a military conference in North Carolina. (He spoke without PowerPoint.) Brig. Gen. H. R. McMaster, who banned PowerPoint presentations when he led the successful effort to secure the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar in 2005, followed up at the same conference by likening PowerPoint to an internal threat.

“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.”


In General McMaster’s view, PowerPoint’s worst offense is not a chart like the spaghetti graphic, which was first uncovered by NBC’s Richard Engel, but rigid lists of bullet points (in, say, a presentation on a conflict’s causes) that take no account of interconnected political, economic and ethnic forces. “If you divorce war from all of that, it becomes a targeting exercise,” General McMaster said.


Commanders say that behind all the PowerPoint jokes are serious concerns that the program stifles discussion, critical thinking and thoughtful decision-making. Not least, it ties up junior officers — referred to as PowerPoint Rangers — in the daily preparation of slides, be it for a Joint Staff meeting in Washington or for a platoon leader’s pre-mission combat briefing in a remote pocket of Afghanistan. 

(Thanks Lee!)

 

Mapping the Protest in Bangkok

New events in Bangkok highlight the public-ness and private-ness of spaces of protest.
The above mapping highlights the "area" under control of the "red shirts"

The top horizontal line is Rama 1 Road, home of the gigantic malls like Siam Paragon.

Cities all over the world are privatizing their gathering spaces under the guise of consumerism. These become likely sites of protest for this disruption of financial systems - now having international/global repercussions.

Chicago's New Loops of Security

Chicago Links Street Cameras to Its 911 Network
By Karen Ann Cullotta

“We can now immediately take a look at the crime scene if the 911 caller is in a location within 150 feet of one of our surveillance cameras, even before the first responders arrive,” Mr. Orozco said...

“...In America, we protest the use of cameras for things like enforcing laws that reduce crime or traffic accidents, but we probably ought to do more,” Mr. Alschuler said.

He added: “My more serious concern would be if they start using new audio technologies, which can be calibrated to alert police to loud noises, like a scream or a car crash. What worries me is if police can use technology to listen to anyone who happens to be talking in a public location, which would raise serious privacy concerns...”

Gated Internet Communities?

photo and related NYTimes article

“If you’re looking for a digital Pearl Harbor, we now have the Japanese ships streaming toward us on the horizon,” Rick Wesson, the chief executive of Support Intelligence, a computer consulting firm, said recently."

The internet is under attack. The existing structure of the internet has security gaps, allowing hackers to infiltrate corporate and military data...causing much fear. So the debate ranges now in creating a new internet, one with stricter identification measures and security blocks.

"What a new Internet might look like is still widely debated, but one alternative would, in effect, create a “gated community” where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety. Today that is already the case for many corporate and government Internet users. As a new and more secure network becomes widely adopted, the current Internet might end up as the bad neighborhood of cyberspace. You would enter at your own risk and keep an eye over your shoulder while you were there."

"The idea is to build a new Internet with improved security and the capabilities to support a new generation of not-yet-invented Internet applications, as well as to do some things the current Internet does poorly — such as supporting mobile users."

Or does the strategy look not at recreating the web, but instead rethinking the structure and gradually creating new interventions...

"That has not discouraged the Stanford engineers who say they are on a mission to “reinvent the Internet.” They argue that their new strategy is intended to allow new ideas to emerge in an evolutionary fashion, making it possible to move data traffic seamlessly to a new networking world. Like the existing Internet, the new network will almost certainly have no one central point of control and no one organization will run it. It is most likely to emerge as new hardware and software are built in to the router computers that run today’s network and are adopted as Internet standards."

How does the structure of our information relate to the physical built environments. Are the gated communities of suburbia, the super surveillant cities of post 9/11 the future of our communication networks?

"A more secure network is one that would almost certainly offer less anonymity and privacy. That is likely to be the great tradeoff for the designers of the next Internet. One idea, for example, would be to require the equivalent of drivers’ licenses to permit someone to connect to a public computer network. But that runs against the deeply held libertarian ethos of the Internet."

“As soon as you start dealing with the public Internet, the whole notion of trust becomes a quagmire,” said Stefan Savage, an expert on computer security at the University of California, San Diego."

The Green Zone

The New Green Zone, Baghdad, Iraq.

from The Guardian:

"The US military released the first tentative artists' impression yesterday. An army source said the barbed wire, concrete blast barriers and checkpoints that currently disfigure the 5 sq mile area would be replaced by shopping malls, hotels, elegant apartment blocks and leisure parks."

"American officials stress that final decisions about reconstruction and development rest with the Iraqi government. Karnowski added that as well as the benefits of renovating and demilitarising an important area of Baghdad, the blueprint would help to create a "zone of influence" around the massive new US Embassy compound being built on the eastern tip of the Green Zone. The $1bn project to move the embassy from Saddam's old presidential palace is planned for completion later this year."

Papal Protection

If you look closely down the street, you will see the two dump trucks lined up strategically to block vehicular access down Lexington (or was it Madison?). Its pope visit day, and the city, police, state and some of those federal dudes have come together to weave a line of security thru mid-town Manhattan. The width of streets, lined with stone, steel and brick buildings are fenced off by large white dump trucks. Any attempted car bomb heading toward the pope-mobile's path would be prevented. How does the width of our urban corridors signify security? How can the urban form breach security? We are familiar with technological gadgets (cameras, heat, radio-active sensors) placed within the city for "security". But how can the initial planning phases of a city implement, reinforce or even detract from overt security? How does this enforce or detract from public-ness, free speech or demonstration? Same-same but different from the overt use of the use of space to express power/security (Mao/Tienanmen Square, Hitler/Nuremberg, Haussmann+Nepoleon III/Paris).