<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/1/31 Steve Witham <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sw@tiac.net">sw@tiac.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
>From: David Wagner <<a href="mailto:daw@cs.berkeley.edu">daw@cs.berkeley.edu</a>><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">>Some of my favorite papers I've ever<br>
>read have been "principles" papers. For instance, the paper introducing<br>
>and arguing for the end-to-end principle is a classic systems paper that<br>
>has had significant influence, and certainly impressed me when I first<br>
>read it. If I remember my anecdotes correctly, that paper was rejected<br>
>twice before being eventually accepted, and was controversial at the time.<br>
<br>
</div>"Gotos considered harmful." But a Gotos only comes around once in a<br>
great while. You would have to be already well-respected & write a<br>
good screed. Btw, Google only returns one hit for "ACLs considered<br>
harmful" <a href="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7E410/lectures/L32_Protection.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~410/lectures/L32_Protection.pdf</a><br>
and it's a page (about EROS) that's been taken down (but in Google's<br>
cache at the moment).<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
>Tyler Close wrote:<br>
>> If it is true that it is hard to publish a paper that only evaluates<br>
>> existing mechanisms, rather than proposing new mechanisms, that would<br>
>> go a long way towards explaining why poor mechanisms survive and<br>
>> thrive for so long in this field once they take hold.<br>
<br>
</div>David:<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
>They wanted to know what to do: who could they tell to<br>
>make sure the record gets corrected? The answer is, often, nothing.<br>
>They didn't like that answer much, and I don't blame them, but that's<br>
>how it works.<br>
<br>
</div>"It" being peer review for conferences and journals. A mechanism that's<br>
meant to deal with the situation where<br>
it's already hard to get something published (or onto a stage)<br>
it's hard to attach a criticism to something already published<br>
so<br>
it's easier to pre-filter than post-filter<br>
<br>
What you're saying is that the system itself discourages trying to<br>
use it for post-filtering.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Might a wiki-like annotation system that parallels citeseer help provide a way to collect and disseminate corrections and criticisms on published papers.<br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Tyler, you might write a survey of ACL-based errors in<br>
papers in that conference's recent proceedings. Nyuk nyuk.<br>
Maybe find a paper that criticizes ACLs and plot error frequency for<br>
some number of years before and after that paper.<br>
<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><font color="#888888"><br>
--Steve<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
cap-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cap-talk@mail.eros-os.org">cap-talk@mail.eros-os.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk" target="_blank">http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>