Group items tagged

a set of the key things any person needs to learn: How to predict consequences How to read [effectively] (how to see under the surface to what each piece is doing; and to distinguish the 4 types: description, argument, explanation, definition) How to distinguish truth from fiction How to empathize How to be creative How to communicate clearly [i.e. how to write effectively; how to use the 4 types] How to learn How to stay healthy How to value yourself How to live meaningfully

"The PowerPoint presentation BMJ 2007; 335 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38994.480845.DE (Published 20 December 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;335:1292 Article Related content Read responses (3) Article metrics David Isaacs, senior staff specialist1, Stephen Isaacs, consultant2, Dominic Fitzgerald, senior staff specialist3 Author Affiliations davidi@chw.edu.au The main purpose of a PowerPoint presentation is entertainment. Intellectual content is an unwarranted distraction. In preparing a PowerPoint presentation, aesthetics should transcend substance. The background colour scheme and logo for your slides should be selected for maximum emetogenic potential. The first inverse ridicule rule of PowerPoint presentation states: "The more lines of writing that can be coerced onto a slide and the smaller the font, the lower the risk of anyone criticising any data which has accidentally been included." The second rule states: "The number of slides you can show in your allotted time is inversely proportional to the number of awkward questions which can be asked at the end." PowerPoint has superseded the carousel era, when presentations were severely limited by the number of slots in the slide carousel and the risk of dropping the lot seconds before your talk. Plagiarism laws do not apply to PowerPoint, so cartoons of marginal relevance but high entertainment value can be downloaded and shown at suitable intervals to maintain audience mirth while minimising critical capacity. Research has shown that the ideal cartoon:data ratio is 5:1. The seasoned PowerPoint artist or PowerPointilliste has refined the presentation into a son-et-lumiere extravaganza, in which scattered dots and luminescent clumps of meaningless datasets hurtle on to the screen from all points of the compass, to the strident strains of Handel's Fireworks Music, building inexorably to a Fantasia-style Sorcerer's Apprentice climax. This fulfils an important s

"The chief justice's masterful opinion showed that line of argument for the simplistic and agenda-driven construct that it was. Parsing the 1,000-plus-page statute in a succinct 21-page opinion, he deftly wove in quotations from recent Supreme Court opinions. Who said that we "must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme"? Why, it was Justice Scalia (actually quoting an earlier opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) in a decision just a year ago. And who said that "a provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme" because "only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law"? Why, Justice Scalia again."