Got a note from the ACM that SIGCOMM is being live Webcast the next few days. (I'm not in Toronto for it -- hello to everyone who is!)
A simple click and I'm listening to SIGCOMM talks. Fun.
The link is http://www.weyond.com/sigcomm/webcast/
Listen in as you can.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Monday, August 01, 2011
Fun Links, via Google+
One fun aspect of being on Google+ is occasionally a link comes along worth further notice.
The first, from David Karger, is a link to a report (by Democrats, says David) refuting a previous report (by Republicans) that had argued that the NSF was wasting a bunch of money on frivolous research. The link is here. Jon Kleinberg was one of the listed "frivolous" projects -- apparently studying pictures on social networks isn't considered important by those with an agenda -- and he has a brief response in the report.
The second is an editorial by S. Keshav, about the "hyper-critical attitude of paper reviewers", spurred by the fact that CCR had no technical articles, because all the submissions were rejected. I certainly have something to say on the issue (having, for example, recently had a conference rejection where 3 knowledgeable reviewers said the paper should be accepted, one unknowledgeable reviewer said the paper was too theoretically challenging for the systems audience, and apparently decided to take an uninformed stand at the PC meeting...). But rather than tell a long story here, I'll just point you to the editorial....
The first, from David Karger, is a link to a report (by Democrats, says David) refuting a previous report (by Republicans) that had argued that the NSF was wasting a bunch of money on frivolous research. The link is here. Jon Kleinberg was one of the listed "frivolous" projects -- apparently studying pictures on social networks isn't considered important by those with an agenda -- and he has a brief response in the report.
The second is an editorial by S. Keshav, about the "hyper-critical attitude of paper reviewers", spurred by the fact that CCR had no technical articles, because all the submissions were rejected. I certainly have something to say on the issue (having, for example, recently had a conference rejection where 3 knowledgeable reviewers said the paper should be accepted, one unknowledgeable reviewer said the paper was too theoretically challenging for the systems audience, and apparently decided to take an uninformed stand at the PC meeting...). But rather than tell a long story here, I'll just point you to the editorial....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)