Update after intro

README.md

@@ -10,17 +10,17 @@ The course is based on a series of seminars where the PhD student prepares a sem
 
 
 
-| Date    | Time  | Room             | Speaker            | Paper Title    | Report   | 
-|---      |---    |---               |---                 |---|---|
-| Sep. 14 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | Mikael Asplund     | Course introduction | |
-| Oct. 6  | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | Seminar 1          | |
-| Oct. 10 | 10-12 | Donald Knuth     | Seminar 2          | |
-| Oct. 13 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | Seminar 3          | |
-| Oct. 18 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | Seminar 4          | |
-| Oct. 27 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | Seminar 5          | |
-| Nov. 3  | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | Seminar 6          | |
-| Nov. 10 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | Seminar 7          | |
-| Nov. 24 | 13-15 | John von Neumann | Seminar 8          | |
+| Date    | Time  | Room             | Speaker                | Paper Title    | Report   | 
+|---      |---    |---               |---                     |---|---|
+| Sep. 14 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | Mikael Asplund         | Course introduction | |
+| Oct. 6  | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | 0: Valency Colaco      | |
+| Oct. 10 | 10-12 | Donald Knuth     | 1: David Hasselquist   | |
+| Oct. 13 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | 2: Roland Plaka        | |
+| Oct. 18 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | 3: Reyhane Falanji     | |
+| Oct. 27 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | 4: Ahmad Usman         | |
+| Nov. 3  | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | 5: Johannes Wilson     | |
+| Nov. 10 | 13-15 | Donald Knuth     | 6: Navya Sivaraman     | |
+| Nov. 24 | 13-15 | John von Neumann | 7: Carl Magnus Bruhner | |
 
 ### Meeting Structure
 | Time  | Activity  | 
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ The course is based on a series of seminars where the PhD student prepares a sem
 0. You select one paper from a top conference _(see list below)_. Be sure to pick a work you find interesting and that has important contributions
 1. **TWO WEEKS** before your seminar slot: Send the paper details and a short summary of **why** you chose this work to me (Mikael) 
 2. Get an approval for your choice by me. _(if this does not arrive within 2 days, send me a reminder)_
-3. **ONE WEEK BEFORE**: Write and send me a two-page **report/review** on the paper (see instructions below) 
+3. **ONE WEEK BEFORE**: Write and send me a 1-2 page **report/review** on the paper (see instructions below) 
 4. Prepare a **50 minutes presentation** about the work you selected
 5. Prepare a **quiz** to assess your peers' learning of your topic
 6. **TWO DAYS BEFORE**: send me (a link to) the quiz you designed and get my approaval 
@@ -51,6 +51,17 @@ ACSAC, AsiaCCS, CCS, CSF, DSN, ESORICS, IEEE S&P, NDSS, RAID, and Usenix Securit
 
 If you wish to present a paper from a different venue contact me with a valid argument and I may make an exception. 
 
+### Writing the Report
+The structure of your report should be similar to a paper review: 
+
+* Background knowlege (~1 page)
+* Summary of the paper's contributions (~0.5 page)
+* Importance of the presented results in the field
+* What is good about it
+* What is bad or could be improved
+
+The report is expected to be **1-2 pages long**. 
+
 ### Seminar Structure
 **Introduction** - this should be high level and accessable to anyone, set the paper into a context and perspective
 
@@ -72,16 +83,6 @@ You can choose your favourite quiz platform (it might be fun to experiment with
 2. the correct answers are not immediately displayed (this is because the quiz will be taken twice)
 3. it should be possible to re-take the quiz (in the end of the lecture)
 
-### Writing the Report
-The structure of your report should be similar to a paper review: 
-
-* Background knowlege (~1 page)
-* Summary of the paper's contributions (~0.5 page)
-* Importance of the presented results in the field
-* What is good about it
-* What is bad or could be improved
-
-The report is expected to be **2-3 pages long**. 
 
 ### Feedback
 For every seminar, half of the students will give a written feedback on the speaker's report, the other half gives a written feedback on the oral presentation.