Things have been a bit busy around CRA world headquarters recently, which is why blogging has been a little infrequent. Apologies to those who’ve noticed. 🙂
One of the recent events worth mentioning was the 2004 edition of the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing conference held two weeks ago in Chicago. This year’s event marked the 10-year anniversary of the Hopper Conferences and was the most well-attended yet — over 800 women in computing came for the talks or the posters or just the chance to meet their colleagues and network.
Both CRA and CRA’s Committee on the Status of Women in Computing (CRA-W) used the occasion to present a couple of important awards. CRA recognized the winner of our Outstanding Female Undergraduate award — Anna Cavender, from the University of Oregon — along with the runner-up (Heather Wake, University of South Carolina) and those who received Honorable Mentions. Here’s my poor attempt at capturing the group (the professional photographers photo will be much better, I’m sure): Enlarge (opens in a new window) From left: Kristin Vadas, Georgia Tech; Erika Shehan, Purdue; Arati Kurani, DePaul; Heather Wake; Jan Cuny, CRA-W member; Anna Cavender; Dong Hui-Xu, DePaul; Katrina Ligett, Brown; Jane Tougas, Dalhousie; Andrew Bernat, CRA Executive Director
CRA-W used the occasion to present its Anita Borg Early Career Award for 2004 to University of British Columbia professor Johanna McGrenere.
The award honors the late Anita Borg, who was an early member of CRA-W and an inspiration for her commitment in increasing the participation of women in computing research. Dr. McGrenere is the first recipient of this award to be given annually by CRA-W to a woman in computer science and/or engineering who has made significant research contributions and who has contributed to her profession, especially in the outreach to women. This award recognizes work in areas of academia and industrial research labs that has had a positive and significant impact on advancing women in the computing research community and is targeted at women that are relatively early in their careers (no more than 10 years past the Ph.D.).
Dr. McGrenere has made outstanding contributions to the field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI). Particularly relevant to this award is her leadership on the Aphasia Project – a large, multi-disciplinary effort spanning several academic fields, institutions and organizations in participatory technology research and design. Anita Borg, who suffered from aphasia as a result of brain injury from her cancer, was the first participant of McGrenere’s Aphasia project. The technology aided Anita (and now others suffering from aphasia) to continue with daily activities. Two of the ideas that Dr. McGrenere’s group is developing are an icon-based recipe book and a digital planner.
You can read the whole release here. Johanna wasn’t able to attend the conference (she was in the late-term stages of pregnancy), but sent her graduate student Karyn Moffatt: Enlarge Moffatt accepts the Anita Borg Award on behalf of McGrenere from CRA-W member Mary Jane Irwin, while CRA-W co-chair Carla Ellis acts as MC.
It was a great event and I was thrilled to have spent some time chatting with the members of CRA-W at the banquet (thanks for letting me crash your table) and with a number of attendees throughout the conference. (Though as good as the conference was, I hope everyone was able to sneak out a bit and enjoy the amazingfallweather in Chicago. 🙂 )
RSS (Rich Site Summary ) is a way to disseminate information on the Web that is somewhere between the push of email and the pull of browsing web portals. In that sense, it is like the venerable Unix newsgroups, but differs in that anyone can start an RSS channel by putting it on the Web and the content is under your complete control. RSS is viewed as a lightweight tool for the syndication of web site content to be incorporated into web pages, portals, and personalized information sources. As more and more information becomes available via RSS feeds, it is becoming a valuable tool to deal with the overwhelming amount of information available today. How It Works
RSS is a XML standard for publishing summaries of articles or news itemsfor example, a headline, date, short description, and a link to the full item. The full specifications define about 20 metadata fields and the XML encoding supports additional extensibility. Information providers, like the CRA, Slashdot, The New York Times, and bloggers publish RSS feeds or channels as XML files at an advertised URLs. As the original content changes, for example, new stories are posted to Slashdot, the corresponding RSS channel is updated, typically including only the 10 or 15 most recent items. Most blogging systems can automatically update an RSS feed containing the summaries of recent items at the same time as it publishes the regular blog pages. RSS files are also easy to maintain with simple programs or to generate from other sources such as databases….
SiliconValley.com is running an interesting online discussion of e-voting featuring a few of the luminaries in the field, including Avi Rubin and David Dill. I even saw an appearance by Jim Horning, former member of CRA’s board.
Worth a view.
[Via Slashdot.]
As expected, the Senate yesterday passed HR 4516, the High End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004, which would authorize the creation of a “leadership class” supercomputer at DOE and a “High-end Software Development Center.” The bill is expected to be re-passed in the House during a lame-duck session and signed by the President.
The bill is a melding of the House version of HR 4516, introduced by Reps. Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Senate bill S. 2176, introduced by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Both bills are loosely based on the recommendations from the High End Computing Revitalization Task Force Workshop CRA hosted in June, 2003. (We’ve covered both bills hererecently.)
The compromise bill adopts the House’s less prescriptive (and lower) authorized funding amounts ($50 million in FY 05, $55 million in FY 06, $60 million in FY 07), but adds the software development center from the Senate bill and strips language added at the insistence of Rep. Brad Sherman that would have required a study on the implications of artificial intelligence research.
The House Science Committee issued a press release after the Senate passage, which I’ve included after the jump…
Heather Green has a great piece in this week’s issue of Business Week on the chilling effect of copyright legislation on research. Here’s a snippet:
Scientists like to probe the unknown and pioneer useful technologies. But in the spring of 2001, Edward W. Felten discovered that such efforts aren’t always welcome. A computer scientist at Princeton University, Felten took part in a contest sponsored by the Recording Industry Association of America to test technology for guarding music against piracy. He and his students quickly found flaws in the new antipiracy software and prepared to publish their results. But when the RIAA learned of the plan, it threatened to sue under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Congress passed it back in 1998 to block hackers from breaking copy protection. And they wisely included a provision designed to let researchers such as Felten carry out their important work. Still, the RIAA deemed Felten’s line of study too sensitive.
Ultimately, faced with Felten’s countersuit, the RIAA backed off. But by that time news of the confrontation had rocked the tech community. The lesson many scientists drew was that copyright protection takes priority over research. “The legal tools that are being used to rein in bad behavior are so blunt that they block a lot of perfectly benign behavior,” Felten says. “That worries me.”
It’s a concern that reverberates broadly in tech circles at a time when Congress is considering tough new antipiracy legislation. Most people agree that the music and film industries have the right to defend themselves against illegal copying. But society needs to consider the potential impact on innovation. Many high-tech business leaders fear that new laws could hobble researchers who are trying to come up with inventions such as next-generation TV systems or even the electronic components for those inventions.
Thanks to David Padgham (and USACM’s spiffy new blog) for pointing out this Wiredstory with the latest on sputtering talks to reach a compromise on the Induce Act.
It appears the tech community and the entertainment industry are still far apart on consensus language for the bill — originally designed to create a new form of secondary liability for copyright infringement that would hold technology makers and service providers liable for copyright violations by end users even if they never knew, contemplated, or intended to facilitate user infringement. Nevertheless, the Senate Judiciary Committee is still scheduled to consider the legislation at markup this morning.
We’ve covered thisbillpreviously, but we’ll have more details as they emerge. Update:Postponed again. Another Update:Ernest Miller says it’s dead (for now) and has some additional commentary and links….
Wiredreports that the Senate could enable, as part of it’s National Intelligence Reform Act, work on a system “that would let government counter-terrorist investigators instantly query a massive system of interconnected commercial and government databases that hold billions of records on Americans.”
The proposed network is based on the Markle Foundation Task Force’s December 2003 report, which envisioned a system that would allow FBI and CIA agents, as well as police officers and some companies, to quickly search intelligence, criminal and commercial databases. The proposal is so radical, the bill allocates $50 million just to fund the system’s specifications and privacy policies.
In contrast to the PR battle surrounding a similar previous effort — DARPA’s Terrorism Information Awareness project — privacy and civil liberties protections are being touted prominently in advance. CMU Distinguished Professor of Computer Science Dave Farber, a member of the Markle Task Force, has posted an open letter (which he authored, along with Esther Dyson and Tara Lemmey) on his influential Interesting People e-mail list endorsing the proposed system provided the recommendations of the Task Force were implemented (“as looks likely”).
During the course of the debate in Congress over the implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, valid questions have been raised over civil liberty concerns and role of such an information sharing network. We grappled with these same questions as we worked through our recommendations for the Task Force. We also learned important lessons from the problems of other efforts like the Total Information Awareness program (TIA) and MATRIX, both of which have raised serious privacy concerns. We eventually determined that you can achieve a balance between security and privacy if you ensure that strong guidelines, transparency, accountability and oversight are built into the network from the start.
In addition to the approach of building policy into the design of the network, the Task Force also designed the network not as a centralized database, but as a set of pointers and directories that allow only authorized users to gain access to information. The system also calls for regular and robust internal audits of how information is collected and stored and used. Privacy technologies such as anonymization, permission controls, and audit trails are built into the design of the network to prevent abuse. In addition, the Task Force also calls for a phased implementation to allow for appropriate public comment and a strong civil liberties board to oversee the system and ensure that privacy
The SHARE network capability, if implemented properly, would give us the ability to overcome the systematic barriers to information sharing that so seriously constrained our intelligence agencies prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and that unfortunately still exist today. It would also provide us with the best opportunity not only to balance security and privacy, but to enhance them both as well.
CRA has argued in the past of the need to move forward with this sort of research and has faulted Congress for taking a heavy-handed approach in prohibiting similar work. Perhaps this new approach will allow some real progress in developing the technologies valuable in the war on terror while at the same time enabling the critical research needed to ensure that privacy and civil liberties concerns are met.
Thanks to Tom Jones for pointing out this story in the Financial Times on the increasing attention paid to supercomputing in the wake of the Japanese Earth Simulator’s 2 year reign at the top of the Top500.
Here’s a bit:
Hard drive by lobbyists helps US take supercomputer lead
By Simon London
An almost audible sigh of relief arose from Washington last week as Blue Gene/L, a computer built by International Business Machines, claimed the title of the world’s fastest supercomputer. Science and technology policymakers have spent the past two years fretting that the US was losing its lead in high-performance computing, with potentially serious implications for national competitiveness.
“We believe that to out-compete, we must out-compute,” said Deborah Wince-Smith, president of the Council on Competitiveness, one of many lobby groups pressing federal agencies to spend more on supercomputer research.
The lobbying campaign was sparked by the success of the Earth Simulator, a supercomputer built to model climate change by NEC, the Japanese electronics group. When full details of the Earth Simulator’s performance emerged in early 2002 it was clear that Japan had not only overtaken the US in terms of raw computing speed but done so by a metaphorical mile.
You can read the whole thing here.
And here’s our coverage of Blue Gene/L’s rise to the top.
Thanks to Rodney Peterson of Educause for pointing this out:
U.S. cybersecurity chief abruptly resigns, cites frustration
By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) The government’s cybersecurity chief has abruptly resigned after one year with the Department of Homeland Security, confiding to industry colleagues his frustration over what he considers a lack of attention paid to computer security issues within the agency.
Amit Yoran, a former software executive from Symantec Corp., informed the White House about his plans to quit as director of the National Cyber Security Division and made his resignation effective at the end of Thursday, effectively giving a single’s day notice of his intentions to leave.
Yoran said Friday he ”felt the timing was right to pursue other opportunities.” It was unclear immediately who might succeed him even temporarily. Yoran’s deputy is Donald ”Andy” Purdy, a former senior adviser to the White House on cybersecurity issues.
Yoran has privately described frustrations in recent months to colleagues in the technology industry, according to lobbyists who recounted these conversations on condition they not be identified because the talks were personal.
We’ve been harping on DHS and the Administration for not taking cyber security — especially cyber security R&D — seriously enough, but this still comes as a surprise.
More details as we figure them out. Update: Rodney Petersen has more at the Educause blog on the suddenness of Yoran’s departure and its implications for Higher Ed.
Catching Up: Hopper Conference
/In: People /by Peter HarshaThings have been a bit busy around CRA world headquarters recently, which is why blogging has been a little infrequent. Apologies to those who’ve noticed. 🙂
One of the recent events worth mentioning was the 2004 edition of the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing conference held two weeks ago in Chicago. This year’s event marked the 10-year anniversary of the Hopper Conferences and was the most well-attended yet — over 800 women in computing came for the talks or the posters or just the chance to meet their colleagues and network.
Both CRA and CRA’s Committee on the Status of Women in Computing (CRA-W) used the occasion to present a couple of important awards. CRA recognized the winner of our Outstanding Female Undergraduate award — Anna Cavender, from the University of Oregon — along with the runner-up (Heather Wake, University of South Carolina) and those who received Honorable Mentions. Here’s my poor attempt at capturing the group (the professional photographers photo will be much better, I’m sure):
Enlarge (opens in a new window)
From left: Kristin Vadas, Georgia Tech; Erika Shehan, Purdue; Arati Kurani, DePaul; Heather Wake; Jan Cuny, CRA-W member; Anna Cavender; Dong Hui-Xu, DePaul; Katrina Ligett, Brown; Jane Tougas, Dalhousie; Andrew Bernat, CRA Executive Director
CRA-W used the occasion to present its Anita Borg Early Career Award for 2004 to University of British Columbia professor Johanna McGrenere.
You can read the whole release here. Johanna wasn’t able to attend the conference (she was in the late-term stages of pregnancy), but sent her graduate student Karyn Moffatt:
Enlarge
Moffatt accepts the Anita Borg Award on behalf of McGrenere from CRA-W member Mary Jane Irwin, while CRA-W co-chair Carla Ellis acts as MC.
It was a great event and I was thrilled to have spent some time chatting with the members of CRA-W at the banquet (thanks for letting me crash your table) and with a number of attendees throughout the conference. (Though as good as the conference was, I hope everyone was able to sneak out a bit and enjoy the amazing fall weather in Chicago. 🙂 )
RSS Feeds – A Primer
/In: Misc. /by Peter HarshaFrom time to time I get questions about the Syndicate this Site (XML), Atom (XML) and Sub Bloglines links on the left side of this page. All represent various ways of accessing this site via an “RSS” feed. What’s an RSS feed? CRA Board Member Tim Finin at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County put together a handy guide to RSS feeds for the latest Computing Research News which is now available online.
Here’s a sample:
Read the whole thing: CRA Policy Blog Available as an RSS Channel
Interesting Online E-Voting Discussion
/In: Misc. /by Peter HarshaSiliconValley.com is running an interesting online discussion of e-voting featuring a few of the luminaries in the field, including Avi Rubin and David Dill. I even saw an appearance by Jim Horning, former member of CRA’s board.
Worth a view.
[Via Slashdot.]
Senate Passes DOE Supercomputing Bill
/In: Research /by Peter HarshaAs expected, the Senate yesterday passed HR 4516, the High End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004, which would authorize the creation of a “leadership class” supercomputer at DOE and a “High-end Software Development Center.” The bill is expected to be re-passed in the House during a lame-duck session and signed by the President.
The bill is a melding of the House version of HR 4516, introduced by Reps. Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Senate bill S. 2176, introduced by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Both bills are loosely based on the recommendations from the High End Computing Revitalization Task Force Workshop CRA hosted in June, 2003. (We’ve covered both bills here recently.)
The compromise bill adopts the House’s less prescriptive (and lower) authorized funding amounts ($50 million in FY 05, $55 million in FY 06, $60 million in FY 07), but adds the software development center from the Senate bill and strips language added at the insistence of Rep. Brad Sherman that would have required a study on the implications of artificial intelligence research.
The House Science Committee issued a press release after the Senate passage, which I’ve included after the jump…
Read more →
Business Week Notes DMCA, Induce Act’s Chill on Innovation
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaHeather Green has a great piece in this week’s issue of Business Week on the chilling effect of copyright legislation on research. Here’s a snippet:
It’s a good read. Check out the whole thing. Felten has some additional commentary here, too.
No Compromise Reached on INDUCE, But Its Still Moving
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaThanks to David Padgham (and USACM’s spiffy new blog) for pointing out this Wired story with the latest on sputtering talks to reach a compromise on the Induce Act.
It appears the tech community and the entertainment industry are still far apart on consensus language for the bill — originally designed to create a new form of secondary liability for copyright infringement that would hold technology makers and service providers liable for copyright violations by end users even if they never knew, contemplated, or intended to facilitate user infringement.
Nevertheless, the Senate Judiciary Committee is still scheduled to consider the legislation at markup this morning.We’ve covered this bill previously, but we’ll have more details as they emerge.
Update: Postponed again.
Another Update: Ernest Miller says it’s dead (for now) and has some additional commentary and links….
Senate Poised to Enable Terror Data Mining
/In: Policy, Research /by Peter HarshaWired reports that the Senate could enable, as part of it’s National Intelligence Reform Act, work on a system “that would let government counter-terrorist investigators instantly query a massive system of interconnected commercial and government databases that hold billions of records on Americans.”
In contrast to the PR battle surrounding a similar previous effort — DARPA’s Terrorism Information Awareness project — privacy and civil liberties protections are being touted prominently in advance. CMU Distinguished Professor of Computer Science Dave Farber, a member of the Markle Task Force, has posted an open letter (which he authored, along with Esther Dyson and Tara Lemmey) on his influential Interesting People e-mail list endorsing the proposed system provided the recommendations of the Task Force were implemented (“as looks likely”).
CRA has argued in the past of the need to move forward with this sort of research and has faulted Congress for taking a heavy-handed approach in prohibiting similar work. Perhaps this new approach will allow some real progress in developing the technologies valuable in the war on terror while at the same time enabling the critical research needed to ensure that privacy and civil liberties concerns are met.
Financial Times Notes US Emphasis on Supercomputing
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaThanks to Tom Jones for pointing out this story in the Financial Times on the increasing attention paid to supercomputing in the wake of the Japanese Earth Simulator’s 2 year reign at the top of the Top500.
Here’s a bit:
You can read the whole thing here.
And here’s our coverage of Blue Gene/L’s rise to the top.
DHS Cyber Security Chief Abruptly Resigns
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaThanks to Rodney Peterson of Educause for pointing this out:
We’ve been harping on DHS and the Administration for not taking cyber security — especially cyber security R&D — seriously enough, but this still comes as a surprise.
More details as we figure them out.
Update: Rodney Petersen has more at the Educause blog on the suddenness of Yoran’s departure and its implications for Higher Ed.
Senate Postpones INDUCE Markup
/In: Policy /by Peter HarshaC-net News.com reports that the Senate committee vote on the Induce Act scheduled for today has been postponed.
Additional coverage here.