Alexandre R.J. Francois

With the Holidays around the corner, many news outlets have already compiled lists of best gadgets and revolutionary devices, that have, or will, revolutionize everything and more. The iPhone has certainly been a source of hype and praise (and criticism). I do not have an iPhone, and I am unlikely to get one, because as cool as it is, I have no need for it. Here is what I really want in a portable, personal device: A screen that is readable, not too large, not too small A usable keyboard, one that does not require me to use my thumbs and/or press multiple times to get the letter I want Energy consumption and battery power that allow me to go unplugged for, say, a whole day Networking capabilities that allow me to remain connected no matter what, and does not subject me to the tyranny of cell phone companies or local IT policies An interface that does not get in the way of what I want to do (and if possible designed so that a kid could pick it up and go, kind of like a good video ga...

In most peer-review systems, the identity of the reviewers is kept secret. This is supposed to protect the reviewers from pressure or retaliation. Double-blind peer-review, in which the identity of the authors is kept from the reviewers, is a popular variant. The justifiction here is fairness, while in practice, true anonymity is difficult to ensure. In any case, the authors of a conference paper or journal article sign their name on their work. On the other hand, the reviewers who have a major influence on whether the work will be published, are never held publicly accountable for their reviews. If many reviewers take their role very seriously, many more hide behind their anonymity to produce inappropriate output. Worse, the program chairs and editors who rely on the reviewers's work, have no real incentive system to correct the situation. The quality of reviews could be dramatically improved by bringing the activity into the mainstream of research output, and counting it as...

Here is a personal thought on what "learner-centered" could mean: learning is so much easier and more natural than teaching that teachers should focus on developing and nurturing their student's interest in learning.

Pleasure is a fine balance between met expectations and surprise.

Here is a scheme that requires little beyond some formalization, thinking, and Google Scholar or similar technology. With the internet, anybody can publish anything. Whether anybody else is actually going to read it is another question entirely (but so is the case for a large number of scientific publications). So any researcher is free to publish papers, reports, articles that are readily available to the scientific community at large. In a scheme reminiscent of the good old time of personal correspondences, each researcher should then convince other researchers to read their reports and comment on them, write about them, reference them in their own writings. This solves the question of the number of publications: do not limit it, encourage proliferation (it is very low cost). If something is really good, it will gain acceptance through readership and references. This is the model followed by Blogs, and it also abolishes the somewhat artificial boundaries delimiting "fields....

Peer review determines what gets published and what gets funded in science and technology, at least in academia. Since most (all?) institutions evaluate their researchers based on their publication and fund raising records, the defining principle of scientific life. It is what distinguishes the respected professional from the mad scientist operating unchecked in his garage/home office. A bulletin from the Office of Management and Budget titled "Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review" ( www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/peer2004/peer_bulletin.pdf ) gives the following definition: "Peer review is one of the important procedures used to ensure that the quality of published information meets the standards of the scientific and technical community. It is a form of deliberation involving an exchange of judgments about the appropriateness of methods and the strength of the author's inferences. Peer review involves the review of a draft product for quality by spec...

"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is." -- J. H. Von Neumann One can wonder why computer vision (CV) has not benefited from the increase in computational power as much as computer graphics (CG), although the two fields grew from the same seminal work (Roberts, 1965). CG is a synthesis activity, that starts from mathematical models of some physical objects and their environment, and applies some mathematical models of light and material physics to create an image of the objects in their environments under various conditions. Better models, and computational power directly translate into more realistic images. The models are designed by humans. Computer vision is an analysis activity, that seeks to form models of objects, environments, situations, activities, etc., from images (still pictures or video streams). Depending on their intended purpose, these models are not necessarily of the same natur...

A screw is best used with a screw-driver. The screw-driver is as critical to screwing as the screw. If all one has is a hammer, and all one studies is nailing and hammering, it will be difficult to grasp, let alone come up with, the concept of screwing. Screws handled with a hammer bear the mark of laziness and short-term reward. But, once mastered, screwing should not be allowed to eclipse nailing: while some tasks require screwing, others clearly call for nailing. Only by understanding not only each independently, but also how they relate to each other, can one decide when to use them optimally. Then it is time to start learning about riveting...