The Bruce Schneier talk in the previous post was quite good; he is an excellent and entertaining speaker (an hour without any sort of slides or visual aids!), but was a little disappointing because he was very much preaching to the choir. Most of the (nearly auditorium-filling) audience was made up of upper-level CS students, and CS/EE faculty who are for the most part well versed (especially the many attendees with cognitive science background) in the high level conception of the perceived security/actual security/security model paradigm he discussed. The talk would have been excellent for a less focused audience, but I would have enjoyed hearing his thoughts on some interesting specific topic, either technical (his work on Skein?), or high profile (Chemically improbable liquid bomb plots? C6H12O6 + H2O2 ===> 6CO2 + 18H2O does not an airliner-destroying bomb make…), or a topic which he has not thoroughly saturated the geek news channels with his thoughts on. Several of the other attendees I spoke with afterward felt the same way. This is just a particularly strong instance of a general problem; the people who would get the most from a high-generality talk don’t know to come, and the people who do know to come already know the material. I have no idea what the solution is, finding and engaging the potentially interested on campus is nearly impossible (the noise levels are too high), and offering only highly technical seminars seems to violate the egalitarian ideal of public talks.
In other announcements, DorkbotLex#6 will be this Saturday (2009-09-18) at 4PM in room 101 of the Reynolds Building (349 Scott Street), with the following topics:
* “Twitter Cutups” Patrick Morissey
* “Propoganda Machine” Aaron Miller
* “Biofeedback software” Matt Ward
as always, it should be cool.
