Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Software-Generated Paper Accepted At IEEE Conference

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the compelling-principles-of-electrical-engineering dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 235

schlangemann writes "Check out the paper Towards the Simulation of E-commerce by Herbert Schlangemann, which is available in the IEEEXplor database (full article available only to IEEE members). This generated paper has been accepted with review by the 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (CSSE). According to the organizers, 'CSSE is one of the important conferences sponsored by IEEE Computer Society, which serves as a forum for scientists and engineers in the latest development of artificial intelligence, grid computing, computer graphics, database technology, and software engineering.' Even better, fake author Herbert Schlangemann has been selected as session chair (PDF) for that conference. (The name Schlangemann was chosen based on the short film Der Schlangemann by Andreas Hansson and Björn Renberg.)"

cancel ×

235 comments

I For One... (0, Redundant)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220395)

Do not welcome our new computer-generated overlords.

In Soviet Russia.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220541)

I For One.. Do not welcome our new computer-generated overlords.

... our new computer-generated overlords do not welcome you.

Re:In Soviet Russia.... (0)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220685)

Huh...? We're in Soviet Russia?

Yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220821)

Did you get the memo about this?

Re:In Soviet Russia.... (1)

soilheart (1081051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221343)

You must be new here.

Re:I For One... (5, Insightful)

aaron alderman (1136207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220983)

This sounds like a good way to filter journals which are lax with their standards. It might also weed out peers who are too lazy (or stupid) to contribute to the process.
So I for one welcome our new document-producing computer overlords, which is just as well as they already seem to be used as part of Slashdot's editorial process.

Reviewers? (5, Funny)

joelleo (900926) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220397)

They probably used automated reviewing software - the computers are conspiring against us! Next thing you know we'll have autogenerated legislation and automated reviews for congressmen to vote on. How long till we have automaton congressmen voting for autogenerated legislation with pork provisions for "free storage enhancement" for their cronies?? OMG! :)

Re:Reviewers? (5, Funny)

KagatoLNX (141673) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220481)

In some ways, it already functions this way. There's just a lot of people waiting to be replaced with shell-scripts.

Re:Reviewers? (-1, Redundant)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220689)

I, for one, welcome our new shell script overlords!

Re:Reviewers? (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221023)

> In some ways, it already functions this way. There's just a lot of people waiting to be replaced with shell-scripts.

    That affirmation is completely false.
    Stop spreading your lies.
    You don't know what you're talking about.
    In soviet russia your post is wrong about you.
else
    echo "--Syntax error"
    exit 1
fi
#-----This automated response was brought to you by:
#-----CocaCola, General Motors, RIAA

Re:Reviewers? (2, Funny)

jbacon (1327727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221215)

What color did you want that SQL database in?

(See OP's sig for answer)

Not a robot conspiracy (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220765)

Actually, if you look at the details, this "paper" was accepted into the poster session for the conference. I've been on enough technical program committees to know that the standards for poster acceptance vary quite wildly.

At some conferences, acceptance is done first and then papers are sorted into posters and presentations purely on the basis of what mode is most suitable to the material.

In others conferences, all the rejected papers are automatically accepted as posters. Why? Because conferences have expenses and to recover expenses they need attendees. Many institutions only pay for travel and registration if their employees have papers accepted at the event. So, to allow people to attend, they have to accept more papers than they might want to. With the rise of for-profit conference organizing companies, there is even a profit motive in some cases.

There is a vigorous debate within the IEEE whether such "pity accept" papers should be allowed into IEEE Xplore -- the long term archive of papers maintained for posterity. The decision is left to the conference organizers with the idea that including obvious junk in the archive actually has relatively low social cost since nobody would ever cite it or rely on it. So who cares. Others are embarrassed to have such crap in the company of more important work.

Re:Not a robot conspiracy (5, Interesting)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221081)

Actually, if you look at the details, this "paper" was accepted into the poster session for the conference.

Most poster sessions consist of abstracts that are *rejected* for a speaking slot. They usually don't need to pass any more muster than to be properly formatted. A stylesheet takes care of that--no AI needed. The final say after rejection for a speaking slot basically comes down to an administrative assistant's being able to know which side is up and to have enough room in the left margin for binding. The idea is that a poster session attendee will have a liver presenter in front of the poster to explain the poorly written abstract.

Re:Not a robot conspiracy (2, Interesting)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221853)

While I haven't reviewed abstracts for conferences, I have reviewed them as part of my IEEE membership in the Computing Society. While there are some lax reviewers (I'm guessing that happens in all groups which accept papers, but I can only speak to the one to which I belong) the majority of peer review is quite tight, with what I would imagine are such a number of comments that the author might feel daunted in making changes.

Re:Not a robot conspiracy (5, Informative)

Hays (409837) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221917)

It shouldn't have just been denied an oral presentation, it should have been caught by the program committee and never reviewed. You can't read 3 sentences of that abstract without knowing that it's garbage.

Presumably someone DID review this and deny it an oral, but didn't follow up with the program committee to make sure it was pulled entirely.

I've never been to a conference which pity accepts papers. CVPR, a IEEE conference on computer vision, has a 25% acceptance rate for posters. I think this paper is quite an embarrassment to IEEE.

Re:Not a robot conspiracy (1)

Kindaian (577374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222227)

The issue is the creation of meaningless and junk science all over tainting the archives with crap and reducing visibility of the true innovative papers... When will a "generated" paper will be awarded the nobel prize?

Re:Reviewers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220773)

I would say sooner than later, but if politicians are good at one thing, it's making sure people are voting... and not, let's say dogs, or robots, or botnets. You could add washing machines to that list, but they're too difficult to stop at the polls. On election day, everyone wants to have sex on a washing machine. It should be in the Bill of Rights. Every election day, we all get free nookie on top of the Maytag. Thump duh thump duh thump duh thump!

Re:Reviewers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220937)

Next thing you know we'll have autogenerated legislation and automated reviews for congressmen to vote on.

I hope they do! That would most probably be a huge improvement!

Re:Reviewers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221251)

By the way, here is the official review comment: "This paper presents cooperative technology and classical Communication. In conclusion, the result shows that though the much-touted amphibious algorithm for the refinement of randomized algorithms is impossible, the well-known client-server algorithm for the analysis of voice-over- IP by Kumar and Raman runs in _(n) time. The authors can clearly identify important features of visualization of DHTs and analyze them insightfully. It is recommended that the authors should develop ideas more cogently, organizes them more logically, and connects them with clear transitions"

Re:Reviewers? (3, Funny)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221503)

My personal theory is that the reviewers were thinking "Whatever they're smoking, I hope they share it".

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220399)

Had to try

Re:third (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220469)

Had to fail

proving my point... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220405)

...that peer reviewed journals (at least in computer science) are crap. 1) peer review is an old boys network, 2) people don't look at substance, they look for fancy buzzwords of the month and equations that look hard (you're rewarded for the more convoluted your paper is!), and 3) the way the system is setup, 99% of what is published is crap...people at universities and labs are forced to produce as many publications as possible to get promoted. It would be unfair of me to say that all of it is useless, but it's definitely inefficient. Look at where the great ideas in computer science and software development come today...they come from the community through things like open source (e.g. Linux, BitTorrent, etc). The academic community just rides on their coattails...

Re:proving my point... (3, Insightful)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220593)

A professor will typically publish around 500 papers. That's about one paper every two weeks. I cannot see how anyone can produce a high quality paper, including doing the research, in two weeks, every two weeks.

Re:proving my point... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220613)

I don't know any professors that proflic. That would take a lot of graduate students... An associate professor can typically count on getting tenure with 3 top tier publications at most institutions.

CS is much more prolific (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220981)

A grad student wouldn't even be hired as a tenure-track professor with only 3 top-tier publications at most institutions in CS. This is partly because CS mainly uses a conference publication model, not a journal model: you distribute your work in 6- to 10-page bite-sized pieces. You might sometimes collect some of these into a 30-page journal article, but often people skip that step entirely (why bother re-writing-up your research when it's already out there in some form).

A grad student looking to be competitive as a hire at a top-tier research university typically is expected to have 4-5 publications in top-tier conferences or journals (journals don't actually usually get more cache; in some areas, they get less). This is somewhat mitigated if you're in an area that only has one, very competitive top conference: so a graphics grad student obviously doesn't need 5 SIGGRAPH papers to be a competitive candidate. But an AI student should have a good smattering of AAAI and IJCAI papers, plus a few in the top tier conference of their specific area (ICML, IUI, AAMAS, etc.). A professor looking to get tenure at a top institution typically will have 10-30 publications at such venues.

Re:CS is much more prolific (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221845)

Reading this I'm more glad than ever that I just did my undergraduate degree and then skipped out to industry.

Re:proving my point... (5, Informative)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220615)

It's called pipelining. You're doing multiple pieces of research over long periods in parallel. Large parts of the research and dog work are handed off to grad-student units to be completed and then introduced back into the main pipeline.

Then the professor goes to the toilet and squeezes out another paper while reading the results of the grad student's dog work.

Re:proving my point... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220871)

A professor will typically publish around 500 papers. That's about one paper every two weeks. I cannot see how anyone can produce a high quality paper, including doing the research, in two weeks, every two weeks.

Be careful with numbers. That 500 figure you're quoting includes all papers with a given professors name on it, including (but not limited to):

- pretty much every paper produced by one of their postgrad students.
- pretty much every paper produced by one of their postdocs.
- pretty much every paper produced by one of their research assistants.
- repeat for political allies, old friends, the janitor, anyone else who is willing to allow them to give minimal input and a name in the title...
- and their own papers.

Get the picture?

Re:proving my point... (2)

aaron alderman (1136207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221017)

I know that professor. Trust me, he isn't doing anything but being the team leader and gets to attach his name to everything.
He's successful because he applies for grant money, hires quality staff and administers multiple projects thanks to his years of expertise. (He also likes shaking hands of politicians and appearing on TV)
The quality work comes from his minions (post doc's, etc) and he basks in their collective glory.
</jealous>

Re:proving my point... (2, Insightful)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222193)

"He's successful because he applies for grant money, hires quality staff and administers multiple projects thanks to his years of expertise."

So... he's a good and productive administrator? I can see being annoyed at hogging the publishing limelight, but it's pretty hard to fault someone for being a good leader.

Re:proving my point... (4, Interesting)

caerwyn (38056) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220711)

Just for an example of poor quality (though opposite to your comments about convolution), I was once handed a paper (I don't recall the journal or author, unfortunately, as this was several years ago) on fault detection in distributed networks.

The entire point of the paper was "If you send a request and you don't get a response back for a while, something probably went wrong." I read over it a couple times, hoping I was missing something that actually had substance to it. No luck.

That said, I don't think the academic community is entirely full of crap, or just riding on coattails. I do think a lot of that goes on, though, and I think it really pollutes the overall signal/noise ratio in the related journals- and from a distance, it does tend to just blur together into "crap".

Re:proving my point... (5, Funny)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221419)

The entire point of the paper was "If you send a request and you don't get a response back for a while, something probably went wrong." I read over it a couple times, hoping I was missing something that actually had substance to it. No luck.

It was probably an attempt to satisfy the author's "[citation needed]" request in Wikipedia.

Re:proving my point... (4, Interesting)

PingPongBoy (303994) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220933)

There is a lot of crap, I agree, because many profs save time by having students write papers, and when you talk about riding coattails, the profs just put their name along with the student's name on the sometimes quite long list of authors. On the surface, there is a "structured" way of writing a paper so that it passes muster. After that, deep thoughts are typically not described in detail. The reader is "supposed to" have enough IQ or education to follow along.

Is it an old boys network? Perhaps, but I don't really think so. The system works, as in it is maintainable rather than functional, rather than perfect, because there is enough money to keep below average students. After all, if you have only above average students, you will end up with below average students, below a larger average, but then you need above average profs and above average budgets. Just as subprime was aided by mandates to provide poor people with access to housing, universities have to admit bad performance.

The problem is a lot of writers tend to gravitate to lower standards, partly to save time on writing, and partly because the system makes papers suck so badly that it becomes easy to become published - it's an artificial way of paving the road to academic recognition. Reviewers are inundated with garbage. They can't reject as many as they want because they have a "quota". Also, some people need an incentive to become researchers, trying to achieve something risky, and they aren't going to stay in the field if their papers keep getting rejected.

There has to be a happy ending - if you want to figure out something, don't just search the literature. The exact answer isn't there. You have to solve the problems yourself and skim the papers for little insights into techniques or results.

Re:proving my point... (1)

Enter the Shoggoth (1362079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221095)

...that peer reviewed journals (at least in computer science) are crap. 1) peer review is an old boys network, 2) people don't look at substance, they look for fancy buzzwords of the month and equations that look hard (you're rewarded for the more convoluted your paper is!), and 3) the way the system is setup, 99% of what is published is crap...people at universities and labs are forced to produce as many publications as possible to get promoted. It would be unfair of me to say that all of it is useless, but it's definitely inefficient. Look at where the great ideas in computer science and software development come today...they come from the community through things like open source (e.g. Linux, BitTorrent, etc). The academic community just rides on their coattails...

I agree with the first part of your post, but at the risk of re-igniting the discussion that we've had [slashdot.org] here previously; it's quite a strech to say that the academic community simply rides the coattails of the opensource community. Yes, BitTorrent is something that would have cut it as Computer Science research but whilst Linux may be fun, useful, more secure than Windoze, and Free (as in speech) it has very little to do with computer _science_ research.

Indeed there is a yawning chasm between what academia and industry do, often this is regrettable*, however it is often so because industry and the academy have very different goals, not withstanding the idiocay that is trying to turn universities into _purely_ commercial enterprises, without blue-skies research we might as well all just go back to swinging from a tree in the jungle.

*on the part of both groups - just witness the way industry is approaching the prospect of many-cores as a pervasive platform, aided and abetted by some of the less clear thinking of those in the academy - Software Transaction Memory anyone?

Re:proving my point... (1)

comp.sci (557773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221677)

Undoubtedly there are many issue with the peer review process but it's not an old-boys network as you claim. Every respectable journal or conference blinds all reviews so the reviewers don't know whose papers they are reviewing. Of course there are terrible conferences like this one (and many other commentators have mentioned this) since anybody can create a conference. Also, to say that all CS research is done by developers shows a lack of understanding what most true research in CS is.

Editing (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220415)

One may suspect that the original submission was heavily edited. (read: merely an inspiration for a real idea) That said, this should be in "idle."

Re:Editing (4, Informative)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220579)

Did you read the paper? I'll just give you the abstract and let you decide for yourself if there was heavy editing ...

"Recent advances in cooperative technology and classical communication are based entirely on the assumption that the Internet and active networks are not in conflict with object-oriented languages. In fact, few information theorists would disagree with the visualization of DHTs that made refining and possibly simulating 8 bitarchitectures a reality, which embodies the compelling principles of electrical engineering. In this work we better understand how digital-to-analog converters can be applied to the development of e-commerce."

Re:Editing (4, Informative)

rite_m (787216) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220657)

This is a conference not a journal. CS journals do go through multiple revisions, conference acceptance usually don't go through any. If any, they go through atmost one, which may or may not be compulsory.

Re:Editing (2, Insightful)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221471)

Granted, there's no 'A' to point at and say 'RTFA', but the summary says the paper was reviewed for the conference.

Fascinating Development (5, Funny)

myrdos2 (989497) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220423)

Let me be the first to say that random material implies a review board that is not at odds with itself. Interestingly, researchers are able to better understand material used in conjunction with algorithmic development and first principles engineering, which does not suggest a relationship between the reader and any given node.

Furthermore, citations may be employed to enhance this phenomenon when used together with LaTeX and multiples of knowledge.

Your paradigm complements the understatement (2, Funny)

freshfromthevat (135461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220483)

As we seek the preponderance of false results loosely coupling the precipitate with the bandwidth, we limit latency at all costs.

Re:Fascinating Development (0, Redundant)

dafrazzman (1246706) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220603)

In this letter, I would like to share with you some thoughts I originally organized to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come. Let me begin by saying that IEEE's accusations are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by IEEE's pompous, morbid claims, but its unedifying preoccupation with Jacobinism will steal the fruits of other people's labor before you know it. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that I want to lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why can't we simply agree to disagree? Many people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we seek liberty, equality, and fraternity, or is it sufficient to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity? Whenever that question is asked, IEEE and its apologists run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that IEEE hates it when you say that it uses words like "historicocabbalistical" to give its bons mots an air of culture and elegance. It really hates it when you say that. Try saying that to it sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having it shriek insults at you. All of this once again proves the old saying that even IEEE's most dotty functionaries are trained in the use of force, deadly force, advanced weaponry, and offensive and defensive tactics.

Re:Fascinating Development (0, Redundant)

dafrazzman (1246706) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220771)

Sorry for that rash comment. Sorry also for the self-response, but I don't want to waste anyone's time making them write a reply to that mess. Here, I've had a little more time to compose my thoughts. *ahem*

Something is happening here, and I'm getting a little worried. To get immediately to the point, whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may get people to sign a petition to limit IEEE's ability to cause trouble and, as the alternative, the gloomy and larcenous dirigisme currently being forced upon us by IEEE. Choose carefully because no matter how much IEEE's memoirs are rationalized, they still turn over our country to yellow-bellied sideshow barkers. That said, let me continue.

Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that a great many of us don't want IEEE to bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to its spiteful codices. If IEEE makes fun of me or insults me I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to create and nurture a true spirit of community.

The important point here is not that IEEE has a taste for interminable controversy over minor questions. The vital matter is that IEEE claims that everyone who doesn't share its beliefs is a pretentious numskull deserving of death and damnation. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. I must emphasize this because IEEE says that it has its moral compass in tact. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to muster enough force to stigmatize any and all attempts to place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of IEEE and its bitter, crass lickspittles.

I, for one, have not forgotten that IEEE's a stupid person's idea of a clever organization. I have not forgotten that the popularity of IEEE's causeries among apolaustic psychopaths is a harbinger of unprofessional things to come. And I cannot forget that IEEE has declared that it's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to analyze its principles in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion. IEEE's revolting all right; the very sight of it turns my stomach. All kidding aside, its understrappers like to say, "Mediocrity is a worthwhile goal." Such frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. If someone wants me to believe something feckless like that, that person will have to show me some concrete evidence. Meanwhile, I intend to show you that once one begins thinking about free speech, about narrow-minded, vulgar mythomaniacs who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own loathsome beliefs, one realizes that IEEE is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is busy trying to implement a deplorable parody of justice called "IEEE-ism".

The cure for corruption, conspiracy, and treason must start by exposing the problem to people who care and are not themselves corrupted. The same holds true for gormless pantywaists. Anyone who thinks that sesquipedalianism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society is not living in the real world. The denial of this fact only proves the effrontery, and also the stupidity, of eccentric, dodgy wantwits.

IEEE's ideologies are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. I might add: Griping about IEEE will not make it stop trying to violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains. But even if it did, it would just find some other way to dispense bread and circuses to insipid, shambolic prevaricators to entice them to cause offensive subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. The dim-witted Stalinism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of primitive nutcases, nor of the bloody-minded shirkers who rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. It is the fault of IEEE. While these incidents may seem minor, we must nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to rub its nose in its own hypocrisy. You must be the one to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society -- the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth -- all of whose lives are made miserable by IEEE. And you must inform your fellow man that with IEEE so forcefully preventing me from sleeping soundly at night, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must improve the lot of humankind.

Neither IEEE nor its lackeys have dealt squarely or clearly with the fact that IEEE doesn't care about accountability in our public systems. Let me recap that for you because it really is extraordinarily important: IEEE doesn't want us to know about its plans to direct social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Otherwise, we might do something about that. During the first half of the 20th century, ethnocentrism could have been practically identified with revanchism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called a peremptory buttinsky. You may be worried that IEEE will teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate -- as soon as our backs are turned. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that IEEE has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which its sophistries are Right with a capital R. Then again, just because IEEE is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.

If we do nothing, IEEE will keep on stirring up trouble. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can shine a light on IEEE's efforts to beat plowshares into swords. Even giving IEEE the benefit of the doubt, it is not uncommon for it to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole self-aggrandizing affair as some great benefit to humanity. IEEE's confidants were recently seen insulting my intelligence. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's IEEE's policy.

The salient point here is that IEEE once tried to convince a bunch of us that it is the arbiter of all things. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed and a number of people informed the rest of the gang that my goal is to complain about mealymouthed bums. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Make special note of that point because IEEE has allied itself with the devil and serves him faithfully. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: IEEE insists that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. That lie is a transparent and strained effort to keep us from noticing that before it once again claims that everyone who scrambles aboard the IEEE bandwagon is guaranteed a smooth ride, it should do some real research rather than simply play a game of bias reinforcement with its comrades.

As long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, IEEE's acolytes don't really care that if it gets its way, I might very well jump in the lake. If we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how when I hear IEEE say that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem, I have to wonder about it. Is it totally unbridled? Is it simply being hypocritical? Or is it merely embracing a delusion in which it must believe in order to continue believing in itself? To rephrase that question, what is it about our society that makes garrulous, repressive sluggards like IEEE desire to extinguish the voices of opposition? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is clearly not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that IEEE is interpersonally exploitative. That is, it takes advantage of others to achieve its own infernal ends. Why does it do that? It would take days to give the complete answer to that question but the gist of it is that IEEE presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, it devises new schemes to change the course of history. Many the things I've talked about in this letter are obvious. We all know they're true. But still it's necessary for us to say them because only IEEE can praise an institution that is as grotesque and noxious as it itself.

Sokal affair Redux? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220431)

Re:Sokal affair Redux? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220675)

This is not especially like the Sokal affair. Its pretty obvious here that no-one read the paper.

Consider, the first paragraph from the paper:

The synthesis of ïber-optic cables is a natural quagmire. While such a hypothesis is entirely a theoretical ambition, it rarely conïicts with the need to provide operating systems to computational biologists. Similarly,for example, many methodologies measure vacuum tubes. The notion that hackers worldwide interfere with context-free grammar is largely bad. The synthesis of checksums would tremendously improve mobile information.

or this:

"We performed a quantized emulation on Intelâ(TM)s mobile telephones to prove the work of Italian mad scientist J. Dongarra."

Sadly... (4, Interesting)

KarrdeSW (996917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220441)

This SCIgen system quite resembles how many undergrads I have seen write papers for many of their classes, not just computer science.

Re:Sadly... (0, Offtopic)

rincebrain (776480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220663)

No, but neither do most researchers.

Re:Sadly... (0, Offtopic)

rincebrain (776480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220671)

Damn, apparently my reply button missed? I don't really think so, but Slashdot disagrees.

Generated girlfriend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220443)

"Accepted."

Crossing the doctor with buzzword bingo... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220457)

When asked to comment on the news story, the paper's author is quoted as saying: "How does Software-Generated Paper Accepted At IEEE Conference make you feel?"

Re:Crossing the doctor with buzzword bingo... (4, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220475)

"Oh, I don't know about Software-Generated Paper. Can you tell me about it?"

Re:Crossing the doctor with buzzword bingo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220755)

What would it mean to you if I told you about it?

Captcha: hardness.

Re:Crossing the doctor with buzzword bingo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221175)

"Reply hazy, try again."

Re:Crossing the doctor with buzzword bingo... (1)

LarsG (31008) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221195)

Upon which the reporter followed up with: "Are such questions much on your mind?"

Nothing new (4, Interesting)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220499)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scigen [wikimedia.org]

Does this program pass the Turing Test?

Re:Nothing new (3, Interesting)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220531)

I should think that journal peer review, done properly, is a far better turing test.

Re:Nothing new (0, Offtopic)

rincebrain (776480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220667)

No, but neither do most researchers, so it's okay.

Re:Nothing new (0, Offtopic)

funfail (970288) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220731)

If you are a random post generator, your random seed is exploitable:

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1072087&cid=26220663 [slashdot.org]

Re:Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221701)

Thats what she said, and next time ill be more careful who I generate my post in front of.

Re:Nothing new (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220987)

No, there has to be a conversation between two interlocutors for it to apply as a Turing test. I guess it would fail miserably, after all, it just generates likely sentences :
Program : The Markovian pattern of the sequence implies the monotony of the problem
Reviewer : What do you mean by "Markovian pattern" ? and How does it imply monotony ?
Program : This can be answered by doing an inverse transformation of the semantic graph
Reviewer : Are you trying to bullshit me a la Sokal ?
Program : No, the Kullback-Leibler divergence of the problem can prove that.
Reviewer : Nice try, smart-ass.

Re:Nothing new (1)

neuraxon77 (815479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221075)

No. I asked and it said: "Scheme and the Turing machine, while compelling in theory, have not until recently been considered significant."[1] Apparently it's not self-aware: It's written in Perl and not Scheme. :) [1] http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/315/scimakelatex.75855.Zebigneow.html [mit.edu]

Re:Nothing new (2, Funny)

KangKong (937247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26222099)

No, it just managed to be passed off as a scientist, which is a whole lot easier than being passed off as a normal human.

NSFW (2, Interesting)

Stoutlimb (143245) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220521)

The links from the wikipedia article aren't quite safe for work. Anyone watching the short film Der Schlangemann at work should at least turn down the volume, or not watch at all. Lucky for me my boss would probably just laugh.

Re:NSFW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220599)

The links from the wikipedia article aren't quite safe for work.

So edit the Wikipedia article and tag them as such there. The link provided by Slashdot is safe.

Re:NSFW (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220751)

The links from the wikipedia article aren't quite safe for work. Anyone watching the short film Der Schlangemann at work should at least turn down the volume, or not watch at all. Lucky for me my boss would probably just laugh.

You know, if you're concerned about accidentally finding something on the net that would alert your boss to the fact that you don't actually do anything, and/or get you in trouble, you could try doing some work and waiting till you get home to surf....

Besides, it's about a doll with a changeable penis size. How safe for work did you think it should be?

Re:NSFW (1)

NinthAgendaDotCom (1401899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220827)

Work at work? You must be new here.

But seriously. Most modern white collar jobs have downtime.

Re:NSFW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221969)

And here's the link of course!
Der Schlangemann [youtube.com]

This is an Automated Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220523)

***THIS IS AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE***

So I am really getting a kick out of these replies.

For those who can't access the paper..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220553)

This paper is total gibberish. You only need to scan the first couple of lines to see its gibberish. Then, as you move down you find highly plausible sentances, like "We added 300 FPUs to our mobile telephones.". The diagrams and graphs are idiotic. Interestingly, they didn't throw in a mass of exotic looking equations.

What, again? (3, Insightful)

arrenlex (994824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220559)

Again? Didn't they come out with software to detect this [slashdot.org] sort of thing last time it happened? [slashdot.org]

Re:What, again? (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220737)

Yes, but the computer-generated reviewers can't get that software as a package for their distro.

Why is this shocking? (5, Insightful)

binpajama (1213342) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220571)

The last time I checked, there were more than half a million papers on arxiv. The number of scientific papers in the world is increasing with the rate of increase in researchers looking for jobs, not with the rate at which problems are being discovered or solved.

Since the currency of the research community is number of publications, and since administrative sections of universities have little or no competence in judging an academic's competence save statistics on papers published, why is it surprising to find that people publish low-quality work?

I am reminded of the joke about string theory, `The number of papers in string theory is increasing faster than the speed of light. This is not a problem, though, since no information is actually transferred.'

Re:Why is this shocking? (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220799)

Since the number of problem-solvers is independent of the number of problems, and problem-solvers can examine multiple solutions to the same problem, along with a limited range of solutions for many problems, you can expect the number of publications to exceed the number of problems and the number of problem-solvers. However, you are correct that merely increasing the quantity of papers (which is all the current rules do) will cause the quality to suffer. The total thought put in to N papers over a period of time t cannot exceed the total amount of thought the brain can output over time t.

Sure, natural multitaskers will be able to better exploit the total amount of thought the brain can exploit when N exceeds 1, but if N exceeds their threshold, the quality suffers. For the rest of humanity, where single-tasking is the rule, N absolutely has to be 1.

Current funding rules for academia and research labs mean that quantity is profitable, quality is not. That is exactly the wrong way to get any real work done and is partly why papers on hyperdilution and test-tube cold fusion are serious money-spinners. They take no effort to write, get cited lots (even if by debunkers - doesn't matter, since funding is a function of the absolute number of citations and not by whether the citing papers agree), and grab the attention of potential external sponsors who couldn't tell a good paper from a confetti'd dingo's kidneys.

Re:Why is this shocking? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220859)

Why is this shocking?

1) Because a completely gibberish paper was reviewed and accepted by human reviewers, who presumably have expertise in computer science.

2) Because IEEE is an old, respected organization that sponsors respectable CS conferences (e.g., FOCS).

Decoupling Vacuum Tubes from Web Services ... (1)

angrydotnerd (1377713) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220581)

Title: Decoupling Vacuum Tubes from Web Services in Evolutionary Programming

Author: Hans Blitzkrieg

Abstract: Redundancy and operating systems, while confirmed in theory, have not until recently been considered intuitive. We leave out these algorithms for now. After years of theoretical research into DHCP [1], we verify the exploration of B-trees, which embodies the appropriate principles of networking [2]. In our research we use game-theoretic algorithms to disprove that SMPs and write-back caches are always incompatible.

It makes me wonder... (3, Interesting)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220631)

...does this mean that those who are supposed to review such things are either incompetent or don't bother with their job, or that many "professional science" papers are actually pure bullshit, so you can't tell the difference?

Re:It makes me wonder... (5, Interesting)

Gribflex (177733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221253)

I took a grad level course at the end of my degree in which the prof tried to subtly communicate this to the grad students.

Each week we had to read and write a short review on a paper that had been peer reviewed and accepted into some CS or Eng journal somewhere. The topics were pretty broad, but all had something to do with the internet, or communication (the focus of the course).

At the end of the course, the professor revealed that he had purposely selected papers such that one third were considered today to be 'good' papers, one third were considered to be valid, but poorly written, and one third were considered to be pure bunk but well written.

He then posted a graph showing how people commented on each of the papers.

Not surprisingly, nearly every student reviewed all of the papers in a positive light.

I'm pretty sure that the professor was trying to teach a bit humility to the grad students. He also succeeded in proving "...that those who are supposed to review [the papers] are either incompetent or don't bother with their job, or that many "professional science" papers are actually pure bullshit, so you can't tell the difference?"

kind-of IEEE (5, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220683)

This is kind-of an IEEE conference. There are core IEEE conferences, which are run by the IEEE, which this isn't. Then there are other conferences (lots of them), which the IEEE sponsors in one way or another, and indexes the proceedings of. They often see the latter as a free (or at least cheap) way of getting their name associated with something that might take off. On the other hand, as this shows, it can get their name associated in the other sort of manner as well.

This seems to be a conference in China that was just founded, which leads me to believe the IEEE (like many stock investors) was duped in a rush to get their foot in the door of the Next Big Thing In China.

Lots of organizations do something vaguely like that, although the IEEE does seem to be worse than most. Even if you look only at their own, "branded" journals (IEEE Transactions on Foo), they seem to be founding new ones ever other week, which range in quality all the way from well respected in their field, to kooky. If they aren't careful, they're going to start getting an Elsevier-level reputation.

IEEE Transactions on Software-Generated Papers (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221901)

Even if you look only at their own, "branded" journals (IEEE Transactions on Foo), they seem to be founding new ones ever other week, which range in quality all the way from well respected in their field, to kooky.

Don't criticize it, legalize it. Why not have an IEEE conference on Software-Generated Papers?

It may sound wacky, but it will probably solicit plenty of entries.

Hmmm ... so then the peer reviewers would also have to be Software-Generated. And Software-Generated attendees?

I can see the host convention center manager saying, "These computer folks seem to get kookier every day."

Poster session (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220707)

Looking at the linked PDF of the conference proceedings, this was actually only accepted to a poster session. Hundreds of papers were accepted to be presented at the poster session, generally without much review.

As far as session chairing goes, that's just a organizational title for the person who introduces the speakers and makes sure they don't run over time, etc. (i.e. a thankless menial task imposed on conference attendees).

Reminds me of the Sokal affair (4, Informative)

NinthAgendaDotCom (1401899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220815)

Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair [wikipedia.org]

related, but somewhat different (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221137)

These seem to be testing different things. One of Sokal's claims, which he intended to demonstrate, was that gibberish and "postmodernist" academic writing are indistinguishable, even by people in the field. This was done especially through the wordplay connections of e.g. the "axiom of choice" with pro-choice politics, which is a fairly common but kind of weird tactic in a certain subset of that milieu. He more or less demonstrated that claim by his experiment especially the fact that at least one of the journal editors, months later, refused to believe that it was actually a hoax: he suggested instead that Sokal had been pressured/embarrassed into retroactively claiming a legitimate paper was a hoax, in order to avoid ridicule by the conservative physics establishment.

This paper, on the other hand, demonstrates a different academic flaw: the proliferation of low-quality, minimal-to-no-review computer-science conferences. It is quite likely that nobody actually read this paper, and that the conference was not really run as a legitimate attempt to foster academic discourse, but as a way to either get money for someone, or pad a CV line for some editors/organizers, or both.

Re:related, but somewhat different (1, Insightful)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221653)

Yes, but the effect is the same. A nonsense paper got accepted by a prestigious institution. The only thing that makes the mirror-image of this nerds-get-a-dose-of-their-own-medicine-hoax incomplete, is that it wasn't perpetrated by a professor of literature. But that's all. Gloating over the Sokal affair by science students is from now on off-limits, you could say.

What does this really say? (2, Insightful)

thinktech (1278026) | more than 5 years ago | (#26220819)

Maybe the really pathetic thing about this story isn't the fake paper getting through, but rather the inane nature of the other real papers.

The conference looks like formal.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26220969)

According to the conference website, here is a description, which is surpringly formal and looks like decent..

[quote]
This conference is sponsored by IEEE Computer Society, Wuhan University, University of California at Irvine and University of
Wisconsin La Crosse. All papers accepted will be included in IEEE Xplore and indexed by EI.
For more information, please contact: csse@highsci.org.
[/endquote]

That gives a blow to IEEE credibility (5, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221015)

If only the paper looked like a legitimate thesis... But reading the abstract makes it obvious it is a joke :

Recent advances in cooperative technology and classical communication are based entirely on the assumption that the Internet and active networks are not in conflict with object-oriented languages. In fact, few information theorists would disagree with the visualization of DHTs that made refining and possibly simulating 8 bitarchitectures a reality, which embodies the compelling principles of electrical engineering. In this work we better understand how digital-to-analog converters can be applied to the development of e-commerce.

The first person to show me how digital-to-analog converters can be applied to the development of e-commerce wins an Internet.

Re:That gives a blow to IEEE credibility (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221335)

I just happen to have a digital-to-analog money converter right here. Send me your credit card number and I'll demonstrate it's usefulness.

Re:That gives a blow to IEEE credibility (1)

supersat (639745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221409)

By the time dial-up Internet was available, the PSTN was being switched digitally. You couldn't connect to the Internet without going through a DAC. DACs continue to be a vital component in many Internet access techonologies, such as cable modems, DSL modems, and wifi NICs. In fact, given the difficulty of getting purely digital signals to go long distances, I'm not sure the Internet (at reasonable speeds) would have existed without DACs.

So, I'm pretty sure DACs are essential to e-commerce.

Re:That gives a blow to IEEE credibility (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221819)

Interestingly, you've picked the once part of that paper which could be represented in reality.

FedEx et al. are DACs with respect to changing the discreet values presented at Amazon.com and other on-line vendors (a form of distributed hash table, storing product characteristics in the object-oriented subsets of English and other human languages) into tangible products with continuous values reflected as utility for each user. It would be possible to analyse the different implementations with respect to the degree to which the presentation and interpolation of the digital data corresponds with the anticipated analog outputs (I suspect marketing already does this in the form of satisfaction surveys, etc.). Lancaster, Schmookler, Lane, Bourdieu, Latour and many others in the social sciences have worked for decades in this problem space, using a different set of vocabulary. Given that most humans have an L1 cache of approximately 7-10 attributes (phone number lengths, fingers), it would be plausible to simulate the purchasing behaviour of consumers based on presenting different assortments of information bits (Google Analytics allows webmasters to perform this type of experiment with page layout and such details on approximately 2 bits at a time).

The anthropologist in me could probably write that paper and the simulation in about a week, but: a) it wouldn't be new (see affinity cards, supermarket shelf design); b) a competent pair of second-year CS or statistics or marketing students could write a much better paper on the same topic in a month or so; and c) it would not be a paper in the generally accepted fields of engineering.

-M5B

Paranoid (1)

mnajem (642318) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221019)

This will hinder people from publishing through IEEE later on.

is this a quality conference? (3, Insightful)

kwikrick (755625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221125)

I do not personally know this conference, I've never attended or tried to get something published there. But I am a computer scientist, working in academia, and I always write my papers for conferences that are specific to my specialization (computer/graphics, CAD etc). This conference is so general in the topics that it accepts, I would expect the quality of papers (and therefore the review process) to be quite low. This is a conference you would send your paper to if you cannot get it accepted at a better conference.

I think it would be much harder to get computer generated bla bla accepted at a conference on a specific topic.

Why does IEEE sponsor such crap conferences? Because it's big business. Easy money. Other have said it here already: that's the problem with science these days, it's all about quantity, not quality. Hit your university board over the head with this stuff.

Could tell from the abstract (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221187)

I could tell from the abstract that this is utter bullshit. Were the reviewers on crack, or did they have a quota to fill? (Or both?)

I think the scientific publishing needs a major revolution!

Official Review Comment (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221359)

.. was found on Wikipedia and is really awesome. It seems that somebody with no idea about computer science wrote this.

"This paper presents cooperative technology and classical Communication. In conclusion, the result shows that though the much-touted amphibious algorithm for the refinement of randomized algorithms is impossible, the well-known client-server algorithm for the analysis of voice-over- IP by Kumar and Raman runs in _(n) time. The authors can clearly identify important features of visualization of DHTs and analyze them insightfully. It is recommended that the authors should develop ideas more cogently, organizes them more logically, and connects them with clear transitions"

Normal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221439)

All respectable conferences may accept by accident a few bad papers.

Professor Nagib Callaos

Review system flawed (5, Interesting)

zbharucha (1331473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221479)

I am so glad that someone has gone ahead and done this to expose what an embarrassment the IEEE review system really is. A few months ago, I submitted a paper to the Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (http://www.ieee-wcnc.org/) which is also an IEEE conference. Since I had entered my research interests and since I had submitted a paper here, naturally I was also assigned some papers to review. Most of the papers I got were of extremely poor quality. By that I mean that besides the content being absolute rubbish, the authors could not even make their papers to conform to submission standards. In contrast, the paper we had written had gone through 4 stages of internal review and aside from me (the PhD student), the other three authors were very respected members of the community. I am not lying when I say that our paper was several orders of magnitude better than any of the ones I was given to review. Yet, when the deadline of notification for acceptance came, our paper had been rejected. All of us were shell-shocked when we saw the reviews. Three of the reviewers had not written a single comment but had just given haphazard grades. One of the reviewers seemed to be pissed off for some reason. I quote: "this paper is lying" was one of his scientific opinions of our paper. Out of 7 reviews, only one contained comments that were coherent, to the point and sensible. Another thing is that you can see when the reviewer was assigned the paper and when he reviewed it. Three of my reviewers literally took around 2 minutes to review my paper. How can you assess months of someone's work in 2 minutes. It just makes me so angry thinking about it! The problem with IEEE conferences is that they receive so many papers that the academics who are assigned to review them delegate them to their PhD and master's students. PhD students are fine, but anything lower than that is a complete travesty. The system itself is fundamentally flawed. If they could just reject papers that do not conform to the submission guidelines, IEEE could save themselves at least a third of the work. This way, people would have less papers to review thus being able to give each paper more of their attention. After all, this is someone's career here.

aaaahhhhhhh clippy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26221481)

is there anything you can't do?

Valid presentation (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221505)

The event will in part about the latest development in artificial intelligence, and that paper could be a good (or very bad) sample on that topic.

Or at least what an artificial intelligence (or natural stupidity) have to say about it.

Of Course (1)

Mr_Nitro (1174707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26221877)

To me this is a clear result of the topic picked itself, as all the 'e-commerce'.. and commerce in general , is just vapor... smelly ideas to support the wealth of few, so it's not uncommon that a totally fake (you could easily spot it from the abstract...- polygen anyone?) and meaningless text is a perfectly good 'biz talk' for these 'experts'. Humanity should move ahead....

Footnote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26222157)

Did you notice the footnote in the original PDF document? "This work was supported by the automatic CS paper generator". Right next to the IEEE computer society logo... *lol*

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...