The Conference Plan that Didnt Work

draft

The hope was that once things settled down, and I had built some sort of lab/studio (done), and done some new work (done) that I would become a full member of ACM with access to their digital library (done) that I would attend a variety of conferences (not done). As a classic auto-didact,  the thought was that I would be able to meet new people and get up to date on a number of important fields. Such fields might include computer vision, machine learning, color theory, planetariums, advanced puppetry, Roman archaeology and so forth.  I did this sort of multi-conference attending when I was much younger and starting out so it seemed reasonable that I might do that again when trying to craft a new career. I might not be a member of those fields in any way beyond attendance, but that felt useful. Perfection was not required.

But there were some fatal flaws with this strategy and I have not been able to execute.  The reality as I understand it is described below.

1. It turns out that many of those those who are able to attend more than one conference are generally professional academics and they are expected to have grants to mostly cover the costs of this activity.  In some cases, these people are participants at a high level and may have some or all of their fees waived. But even when the fees are not waived, of course being a participant, even in a small way, can make the experience more valuable.  One friend who is a full professor of CS goes to at least 6 conferences a year (Or maybe it is six conferences in the year I was trying to keep track.  I know he plans to go to fewer in the future, not sure why, but a straightforward guess is that it is too disruptive to his other work. )

2. Those who have a real job are generally expected to attend one conference a year and those fees and expenses may be convered depending on the details.  A very few are like my friend CE who goes to perhaps a dozen conferences a year in association with Planetarium work (he guesses about 1/2 dozen).  Another exception is my friend MH who represents a very large and well known animation and theme park company at various conferences to encourage young people to develop in areas of interest to the long term vitality of her field(s).  A third exception to this are people who are in the "research" departments of a large corporation and they may go to as many conferences as the professional academic, above, but instead of grants the corporation pays the way.  Thus one may find at these conferences a fair number of people who are sponsored by corporations and not the university.

3. Then there are students.  As full time students in the field they receive generous discounts and opportunities, but this is only (theoretically) for full time students and not for others associated with academia, such as Adjuncts.

4. Finally, there are individuals, perhaps with a loose affiliation with some company or institution, but generally self financed.  These are people who have perhaps won the lottery, or inherited wealth, or simply done well earlier in life and can now afford to indulge their desire for self-study.

5. Not that I make mistakes, but if I did, here is a short list of some of them in conceiving this plan. The first mistake was to think I qualified for any discount, which, as an individual and independent I do not.  The hope was that an association with a university would be enough (e.g. adjunct) to qualify for a discount but that is incorrect. The second mistake was to underestimate what the real costs of attending would have to be, including travel, hotels, meals and local transportation on top of the full conference fees. The third mistake was to underestimate my aversion to travel because it is so expensive and for other, less rational, reasons.  And the fourth mistake was to underestimate the costs of my other activities which meant that I have less resources than expected.  

But if not this strategy, then what replaces it?  

Planetary Science and the Haiku

According to the online website of the Smithsonian Magazine, the 2013 Lunar and Planetary Science Conference has taken to publishing a version of the formal Japanese poetic form haiku to summarize each of their papers. The latest 2013 conference, URL above, had thirty-two such haiku published. 

The specific form of the haiku that they are using is the 5-7-5 form: three lines total, the first line has 5 syllables, the second 7 syllables, and the third line 5 syllables.

Now it turns out that a haiku is actually much more than just these simple rules.  But it is probably too much to ask planetary scientists to worry too much about such niceties and we should just applaud their efforts to find a pithy summary of their published work.  

Here are the four haiku that the author of the article particularly liked.  The article goes into much more detail about what the paper was about.  See the complete article about the conference here.

What a haiku is supposed to look like  

The haiku for a paper on the orbits of Phobos and Deimos, moons of Mars, was

        Two moons in the sky
        wandering by the Sun’s face
        their orbits constrained.


For a paper on the fate of benzene observed in a lake on Titan, a moon of Saturn, we have:

        Tiny little rings
        Drifting in a Titan lake
        Fade away slowly.

On the issue of the content of a meteorite, and whether it contained exotic materials, we have:

        Oh, “megachondrule”
        We were sadly mistaken
        You are impact melt.

Finally, a paper analyzing the data from an old Viking experiment to see if they could detect atmospheric conditions on Mars, has

        Whispers from the past
        Viking mostly felt the wind
        Let’s all look closer.

We have previously discussed haiku on Global Wahrman here:

http://globalwahrman.blogspot.com/2012/08/haiku-about-rodney-king.html