Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Tue Sep 8 20:53:54 2009 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n893rs9L022987 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:53:54 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n893sQHJ028832 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:54:26 -0700 Message-Id: <200909090354.n893sQHJ028832@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs558@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Reg CS 558L Presentation Topic Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:54:26 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > I have a silly question:) In the class webpage you mentioned that 70% of the > presentation grade would be allotted to "good technical content". In my > paper most of the technical stuff is theoretical. It does not have any fancy > math equations/algorithms. I guess I don't really know what you meant by "theoretical". > So, my question is does good technical content require the use of > equations/algorithms? Right under where it says 70%, it says: ... good technical depth. This means that you need to give detailed description of difficult-to-understand concepts, algorithms, and/or protocols. If you just present a lot of math, but the math is not so difficult to understand, then it's not technically deep. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu