Comments for Emery Blogger

Comment on AutoMan: A Platform for Integrating Human-Based and Digital Computation by Margolis

Margolis — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:44:50 +0000

Great!

Comment on AutoMan: A Platform for Integrating Human-Based and Digital Computation by emeryberger

emeryberger — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 01:06:01 +0000

You are right – the JAR file is there, but the source is not. We will remedy this situation soon; expect a new release this week or next, with the source.

Comment on AutoMan: A Platform for Integrating Human-Based and Digital Computation by Margolis

Margolis — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:47:31 +0000

I’m probably missing something obvious, but I don’t see any link to the source code on the site.

Comment on AutoMan: A Platform for Integrating Human-Based and Digital Computation by emeryberger

emeryberger — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:42:20 +0000

Thanks for your interest. The source code is available at automan-lang.org.

Comment on AutoMan: A Platform for Integrating Human-Based and Digital Computation by Margolis

Margolis — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:32:16 +0000

This is an interesting platform. Are you planning on open-sourcing the code?

Comment on Dthreads: Efficient Deterministic Multithreading by emeryberger

emeryberger — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:06:50 +0000

The programs we examined in the Dthreads paper are from the PARSEC and Phoenix benchmark suites. You can obtain these at the following sites: http://parsec.cs.princeton.edu/ http://mapreduce.stanford.edu/ Best, -- Emery

Comment on Dthreads: Efficient Deterministic Multithreading by Abhishek Pandey

Abhishek Pandey — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 03:20:32 +0000

Hi Emery,
Thank you for providing the source code. Could you please post some of the examples/test programs that you used?

Regards,
Abhishek

Comment on Take a Stand for Double-Blind Reviewing! by Ranjit Jhala (@RanjitJhala)

Ranjit Jhala (@RanjitJhala) — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:52:02 +0000

Indeed. This is a bit like the switch to allowing PC submissions which I am sure (or like to think) was helped by the hassle of getting qualified PC members to serve.

Comment on Take a Stand for Double-Blind Reviewing! by emeryberger

emeryberger — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:47:59 +0000

I am not sure what other reasons people may have for refusing to serve; I do feel strongly about this particular topic.

But as I point out in my post, even just bringing up double-blind is often enough to get the PC to adopt it. If enough of us do at least that, I believe we will change our communities for the better.

Comment on Take a Stand for Double-Blind Reviewing! by Jason Flinn

Jason Flinn — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:42:24 +0000

Interesting post. I am generally in favor of double-blind reviewing (though I have flip-flopped at least a few times on the issue).

I am troubled, however, by the recent(?) trend to refuse to serve on a PC unless the conference changes . If there are a lot of ‘s, then the community is deeply hurt by not getting the best PC and overworking more flexible members.

If this is something you feel very deeply about, sure. But, it’s also important to realize that there can be legitimate differences of opinion over an issue and work to change those opinions in less harmful ways.