My spoon is too big.
Like Sariel, my SODA submission was, um, offered an opportunity to submit elsewhere.
Sigh. Now it is my intention to sit down and play video games for several hours.
Recent Comments
- UK Dissertation Help on It's made of people!
- Van Leasing on Geometry and topology at FOCS 2009
- D. Eppstein on Elsevier. Again.
- David Klempner on Elsevier. Again.
- EastwoodDC on How hard is optimal racing?
- Matt on Innovations in Computer Science
- D. Eppstein on Innovations in Computer Science
- Suresh on Innovations in Computer Science
- stolee on First annual STOC business meeting drinking game
- mike on FOCS post-mortem summaries, again
Recent Posts
- Geometry and topology at FOCS 2009
- Elsevier. Again.
- JoCG now accepting submissions!
- It's made of people!
- How hard is optimal racing?
- First annual STOC business meeting drinking game
- Innovations in Computer Science
- Yet another reason to hate Elsevier
- STOC registration deadline
- Call for cyber-geometers
Computational Geometry
Theoretical CS (and other math)
- Theory Matters
- Adventures in Computation (Aaron)
- bit-player (Brian)
- Computational Complexity (
LanceBill) - figuring out computer science (Andreas)
- In Theory (Luca)
- MathTrek (Julie)
- Michael Nielsen
- My Biased Coin (Michael)
- my slice of pizza (Muthu)
- Shtetl-Optimized (Scott)
- WebDiarios de Motocicleta (Mihai)
- What’s new (Terry)
Terror and/or Badger Alert Level
« There, I fixed that for you. | Main | I am sitting in a cowbell »
September 08, 2008
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
I swear to god I clicked on that URL thinking that it said "fantastic contraception"...
Posted by: mikero | September 08, 2008 at 07:33 PM
Hu hu.. nice spoon. A nice cover of that: http://happytreefriends.atomfilms.com/watch_episodes/
Posted by: alex | September 09, 2008 at 02:21 AM
Hum. Some comments are always more diplomatic than others...
"this paper is a clear REJECT (for SoDA or any other forum)."
vs
"I recommend rejection. The subject of the paper is interesting. However, in
view of the two above remarks, I am not convinced of the pertinence of the
results of the paper. Furthermore, I think the paper could be improved a
lot with more precision (in particular for the definitions) and sometimes
more explanations of the algorithms (see below)."
Posted by: JyBy | September 10, 2008 at 06:01 PM