While the pictures are cool, I feel that using them as the background for some of the slides distracting. For instance, on the slide that says "26 billion tons of CO2" with the sun peaking around the earth, does the background picture really add much?
Ten amazing presenters and their presentations. Many different styles.
Steve Jobs, Dick Hardt, Guy Kawasaki, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Lawrence Lessig, Malcolm Gladwell, Tom Peters, Seth Godin, Andy Kaufman, Rupert Everett
Also, the 10 best that the Readers nominated. Hans Roling, Sir Ken Robinson, Al Gore, Majora Carter, John F. Kennedy, My Name is Joe?, Ze Frank, Douglas Englebart, Steve Jobs, and lastly, Crosby, Stills & Nash
Lawrence Lessig does presentations like this [1]; I've always been a fan.
A great example of this type of presentation done well is Cal Handerson's keynote at Djangocon in 2008 [2], "Why I Hate Django". Previous discussion on this presentation here [3].
You're probably right. I remember reading in his book "the road ahead" about his obsession with actually using the Corbis collection in his own home, with photos that updated all over the walls etc . . .
Unfortunately, his basic premise is incorrect. Key to every Carbon Management program I've ever read about involves Carbon Sequestration - I.E. Net Negative Carbon reduction. (Think about Planting Trees, growing carbon hungry algae, etc..)
That doesn't make a lot of logical sense. If I can develop an economy in which my gross reduction is 10x my gross production of carbon, resulting in a 9x NET reduction of carbon - why does it really matter if my Carbon Production is zero or not?
People tend to lose sight of the fact that it's NET reduction of carbon that we're interested in, not GROSS reduction. I'm fine with an industry putting a million tons of Carbon into the atmosphere as long as it pulls out 1.1 million tons through some mechanism.
The fact that Bill's entire presentation is based on a false premise, and that nobody in this thread other than me has called him on it, is disturbing.
Was it a false premise to rein in toxic waste dumping, rather than just concentrating on clean-up technologies?
There's that old adage about 'an ounce of prevention', which I think is even more apt in cases such as this, where the 'pound of cure' is an as-yet-undeveloped technology.
Mathematically, yes, you could focus on sequestration. But policy-wise, it's inviting disaster to defer today's problems as something to be solved with tomorrow's advancements.
And even if a suitable 'pound of cure' is found, it will almost certainly be dramatically more expensive to fix the problem, to say nothing of fixing the collateral damage caused in the interim.
You think he made them himself when he was presenting Microsoft corporate stuff?
If anything, the difference is now he can have a small team of professionals helping him, compared with a bureaucratic army of Microsoft's marketing department.
