There's a surprising new scapegoat for the Columbia disaster: PowerPoint, the Microsoft presentation software.

An alert reader notes that The New York Times reported in its Sunday magazine on a portion of the safety board report on the destruction of the space shuttle, as follows:

NASA, the board argued, had become too reliant on presenting complex information via PowerPoint, instead of by means of traditional ink-and-paper technical reports. When NASA engineers assessed possible wing damage during the mission, they presented the findings in a confusing PowerPoint slide -- so crammed with nested bullet points and irregular short forms that it was nearly impossible to untangle. ''It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation,'' the board sternly noted.

PowerPoint is the world's most popular tool for presenting information. There are 400 million copies in circulation, and almost no corporate decision takes place without it. But what if PowerPoint is actually making us stupider?

This year, Edward Tufte -- the famous theorist of information presentation -- made precisely that argument in a blistering screed called The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. In his slim 28-page pamphlet, Tufte claimed that Microsoft's ubiquitous software forces people to mutilate data beyond comprehension. For example, the low resolution of a PowerPoint slide means that it usually contains only about 40 words, or barely eight seconds of reading. PowerPoint also encourages users to rely on bulleted lists, a ''faux analytical'' technique, Tufte wrote, that dodges the speaker's responsibility to tie his information together. And perhaps worst of all is how PowerPoint renders charts. Charts in newspapers like The Wall Street Journal contain up to 120 elements on average, allowing readers to compare large groupings of data. But, as Tufte found, PowerPoint users typically produce charts with only 12 elements. Ultimately, Tufte concluded, PowerPoint is infused with ''an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.''

NASA, the board argued, had become too reliant on presenting complex information via blackboards, instead of by means of traditional ink-and-paper technical reports. When NASA engineers assessed possible wing damage during the mission, they presented the findings in a confusing array of inscribed chalkboards -- so crammed with nested bullet points and irregular short forms that it was nearly impossible to untangle. ''It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this blackboard and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation,'' the board sternly noted.

Chalkboards are the world's most popular tool for presenting information. There are 400 million chalkboards in circulation, and almost no corporate decision takes place without them. But what if chalkboards are actually making us stupider?

This year, Edward Tufte -- the famous theorist of information presentation -- made precisely that argument in a blistering screed called The Cognitive Style of Chalkboards. In his slim 28-page pamphlet, Tufte claimed that the ubiquitous blackboard forces people to mutilate data beyond comprehension. For example, the low resolution of handwriting on a blackboard means that it usually contains only about 40 words, or barely eight seconds of reading. Chalkboards also encourage users to rely on bulleted lists, a ''faux analytical'' technique, Tufte wrote, that dodges the speaker's responsibility to tie his information together. And perhaps worst of all is how blackboards render charts. Charts in newspapers like The Wall Street Journal contain up to 120 elements on average, allowing readers to compare large groupings of data. But, as Tufte found, chalkboard users typically produce charts with only 12 elements. Ultimately, Tufte concluded, the chalkboard is infused with ''an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch.''

Oh well, I'm taking The Times' advice with a few grains of salt these days. They also now think that whining Portland Trail Blazer thug Rasheed Wallace is the next Dr. Martin Luther King. I rest my case.

To sum up: