Team Form

CS 197 Freshman Honors Seminar
Spring 2002

Presentatation #2: Summary of Reviews

Attribute Team 1 Team 2 Team 3

Content Wide variety of topics discussed,good detail provided, discussion on use of nanotech and its impact. Well researched. Members delved deep into separate topics,thanks to partitioning. Biology was most in-depth.

Breadth/Depth No comments. Good layout of slides and partitioning of topics into 4 aspects.

Style Good use of diagrams and pictures. Good layout of slides and partitioning of topics into 4 aspects.

Suggestions How close is nano tech to replace curent methodsof computing? When is it likely to be available? Relate each topic to CS in some way.Can the presentation of "protein folding" be mademore lively? Evenly distributethe presentation amongst team members.What are Dynamic programming, Genetic Drift?

Security
To review: Team 2
Bioinformatics
To review: Team 3
AI
To review: Team 4

Attribute Team 4 Team 5

Content Somewhat informative.

Breadth/Depth Good job of explaining the basics of Quantum Dot Assembly,Dip-Pin Lithography.

Style Good use of pictures and other visual aids.

Suggestions Explore applications of Quantum dot assembly,cost, and feasibility.

Nanotechnology
To review: Team 7
Nanocomputing
To review: Team 6

Attribute Team 6 Team 7 Team 8

Content More content needed. Informative presentation. Second presentation was more in depth than the first. Examples seemed to be the main focus. The technology of neural networks was not discussed. Focused on one topic. How to avoid evesdroppers from interfering with the transmission?

Breadth/Depth Not in depth in neural networking and its applications. Broad but did not cover details. But this macde it easier to follow.

Style It was not clear if all members of the team were involved. Drwaing on the chalkboard wasd helpful in understanding the concepts. Trouble explaining the OR function? Very interesting presentation due to well selected examples and not concentrating exclusively on theories. However, examples seemed to be overused. Use of diagrams was good. DID NOT POST THE SLIDES!

Good presentation style.

Suggestions Narrow down the topic furtther. Explain thoroughly how a neural computer actually learns and the recent advancements in the field. Deeper explanation of technology and theories will help make connection between examples and research in this area. Post your slides on the web. Discuss the of security in greater depth.

Neural Networks
To review: Team 5
Neural Networks
To review: Team 8
Quantum Computing
To review: Team 9

Attribute Team 9 Team 10

Content Informative presentation; coverage of retrieval engines and answer extraction engines was good.

Breadth/Depth Good choice of depth over breadth.

Style Alternate speaker approach was good, pleasan,every member of the group got an opportunity to speak.

Suggestions More coverage of applications of IIS such as learning websites and also new research advancements.

Intelligent Information Systems
To review: Team 10
Computer Graphics
To review: Team 1

Created on: March 26, 2002
Last Revised: March 27, 2002

Attribute	Team 1	Team 2	Team 3
Content	Wide variety of topics discussed,good detail provided, discussion on use of nanotech and its impact. Well researched.	Members delved deep into separate topics,thanks to partitioning. Biology was most in-depth.
Breadth/Depth	No comments.	Good layout of slides and partitioning of topics into 4 aspects.
Style	Good use of diagrams and pictures.	Good layout of slides and partitioning of topics into 4 aspects.
Suggestions	How close is nano tech to replace curent methodsof computing? When is it likely to be available?	Relate each topic to CS in some way.Can the presentation of "protein folding" be mademore lively? Evenly distributethe presentation amongst team members.What are Dynamic programming, Genetic Drift?
	Security To review: Team 2	Bioinformatics To review: Team 3	AI To review: Team 4

Attribute	Team 4	Team 5
Content		Somewhat informative.
Breadth/Depth		Good job of explaining the basics of Quantum Dot Assembly,Dip-Pin Lithography.
Style		Good use of pictures and other visual aids.
Suggestions		Explore applications of Quantum dot assembly,cost, and feasibility.
	Nanotechnology To review: Team 7	Nanocomputing To review: Team 6

Attribute	Team 6	Team 7	Team 8
Content	More content needed. Informative presentation. Second presentation was more in depth than the first.	Examples seemed to be the main focus. The technology of neural networks was not discussed.	Focused on one topic. How to avoid evesdroppers from interfering with the transmission?
Breadth/Depth		Not in depth in neural networking and its applications.	Broad but did not cover details. But this macde it easier to follow.
Style	It was not clear if all members of the team were involved. Drwaing on the chalkboard wasd helpful in understanding the concepts. Trouble explaining the OR function?	Very interesting presentation due to well selected examples and not concentrating exclusively on theories. However, examples seemed to be overused. Use of diagrams was good.	DID NOT POST THE SLIDES! Good presentation style.
Suggestions	Narrow down the topic furtther. Explain thoroughly how a neural computer actually learns and the recent advancements in the field.	Deeper explanation of technology and theories will help make connection between examples and research in this area.	Post your slides on the web. Discuss the of security in greater depth.
	Neural Networks To review: Team 5	Neural Networks To review: Team 8	Quantum Computing To review: Team 9

Attribute	Team 9	Team 10
Content	Informative presentation; coverage of retrieval engines and answer extraction engines was good.
Breadth/Depth	Good choice of depth over breadth.
Style	Alternate speaker approach was good, pleasan,every member of the group got an opportunity to speak.
Suggestions	More coverage of applications of IIS such as learning websites and also new research advancements.
	Intelligent Information Systems To review: Team 10	Computer Graphics To review: Team 1