Naturalness and simplicity. Two words that can pretty well sum up a good presentation. The presentation zen article tells us that these two things come with practice and are a skill. However, complication and elaboration are 'natural' to us, which shows the irony in this article. Again, these two things are the difference in which 'presenter' is better at selling their product( Bill Gates, Microsoft, and Steve Jobs, Apple). Steve jobs' presentations are always very 'empty' and 'simple', which is usually best as it engages the audience into listening and not just visualising. Bill Gates goes for a different approach and usually has many headings, pictures and bullet-points.
This is why I think that Steve Jobs has the advantage out of the two.
But I must point out that Steve jobs' presentation,particularily the one on the "iphone 3G", was rather dull and boring. Gates' presentations usually contain more humour but I guess the point of a presenation is to sell your product( for these two men anyway) so maybe humour is sometimes purposefully neglected to make way for impressive facts and figures.
Don Macmillan's presenation on 'how NOT to use powerpoint' was very useful and he covered the topic well ,with good humour, with his key points being:

• Writing every word you are going to say onto your presenation
• SPELL CHECK. IT'S THERE FOR A REASON SO USE IT!!
• Don't use too many bullet-points. Your main points are neglected.
• Detailing/animating graphs too much and using bad colour schemes.
• And finally(a new one to me!),choose your font carefully as it tells the audience what type of person you are. WATCH OUT!!
  

Wikipedia

Wikipedia, THE MOTHER OF INFORMATION ON THE WEB!!, well...to me anyway. I know it's not good, and we're constantly advised not to, but I am one of those terrible sinners that take information straaaiiight off wikipedia( I don't mean "copy and paste" but I don't cross check that the information is completely factual and is all correct).
But probably the most interesting and useful thing I have found out about is the fact that you are able to trace changes and modifications in articles back to the precise location of the computer where it was edited (generalising that all edits are done on a desktop computer).

This tool also allows any user to view the history of the page's edits which can be useful in checking the reliability of the source, e.g. if the article was vandalised moments before you were viewing the article, or if months ago, the latter being the more reliable and therefore useful.
By memorising the IP address of every computer to edit an article or page on wikipedia, you are able to cut down vandalism dramatically by blocking certain computers form editing on wikipedia at all.
Very few people will bother going to another computer just to vandalise an article as many people just do it for fun or fr a joke and is usually a one off thing.

I just saw this a few days ago and had to include it.