Comments on: Scattered reflections on Science Online 2011 (#scio11)

By: Grant

Grant — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:59:05 +0000

they are ready and waiting to sign up.

For a few a contributing factor was that registration opened in the wee hours where they lived.

The on-line access to the meeting *is* very good despite that I was doing most of it after the fact owing to the time differences. There are few meetings I’m able to follow on-line like this and I really appreciated the attempts to include those calling in from afar. Others from outside the USA/Europe might want to take note of this!

By: Rhodes Boyson

Rhodes Boyson — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:21:08 +0000

Ed – fair enough. Are we any closer on the crossbow issue?

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:40:53 +0000

I’m saying that at 10pm on a Saturday night, given a choice between chatting about Chewbacca or Noam Chomsky, I’m going to choose Chewbacca

By: Rhodes Boyson

Rhodes Boyson — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:29:15 +0000

What have you got against Noam Chomsky? The man is a legend – I’m talking about his analysis of political & economic power, human rights and the mass media (esp in the US).

If you’re saying that linguistics is boring then I’m probably with you

By: Taylor Dobbs

Taylor Dobbs — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:16:06 +0000

I think I might be dreaming but I think *the* Ed Yong just mentioned me on his blog.

It was great meeting you at SciO, and I very much hope I can make it to #solo11 (kilt and all) and see you again.

By: John Hawks

John Hawks — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:18:57 +0000

Great to meet you, too!

I’m a little concerned that I may have been involved in that Chomsky thing….

By: Zuska

Zuska — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 03:12:40 +0000

Yep, you captured it. As I was leaving I said to someone, “I wish this lasted longer, except I think that might kill me.” Krulwich was amazing but so are you, Ed.

By: Shecky R.

Shecky R. — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:48:55 +0000

Why does it always take a Brit to so eloquently convey what goes on in America!
(I wasn’t even there this yr. but from attending previously and viewing this one online, I understand exactly what you mean.)
Cynics will say the conference is cliquish, over-hyped, and self-absorbed (and I don’t entirely disagree with some of that!), but more importantly it is re-invigorating, inspirational, idea-filled, mind-expanding… and we need that in the dead of winter! Every science communicator should try to go at least once (though I don’t know how they’ll ever top Krulwich as a keynoter).

By: Tom Levenson

Tom Levenson — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:00:21 +0000

Dear Ed,

Lovely summary of a great conference. Back at you on the conversations.

One of the things I love about the conference ties into one of your memorable moments. The Krulwich one (no — not that one, the other one): I was unable to make the opening evening, but was so clued in by the Twitter feeding frenzy from the hall that I was (a) able to get the gist and (b) able to enter the tweetstream sufficiently effectively that people thought I was in the room. Now that’s folks living the claim.

Great seeing you again here — and I hope to catch up with you across the water before next year’s Scio12.

By: Joanne Manaster

Joanne Manaster — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:22:42 +0000

Great summary of a great conference. Every last person who attends is enthusiastic for the goal of communicating science. The unconference works well because no one is especially shy…we are eager to share our thoughts. No prodding is required to get participants to speak up and join the conversation. Super to see you again, Ed.