AI Chatbot Online Characters

AI Chatbot Online Characters — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Lazy learning

(Not to be confused with the lazy learning regime, see Neural tangent kernel). In machine learning, lazy learning is a learning method in which generalization of the training data is, in theory, delayed until a query is made to the system, as opposed to eager learning, where the system tries to generalize the training data before receiving queries. The primary motivation for employing lazy learning, as in the K-nearest neighbors algorithm, used by online recommendation systems ("people who viewed/purchased/listened to this movie/item/tune also ...") is that the data set is continuously updated with new entries (e.g., new items for sale at Amazon, new movies to view at Netflix, new clips at YouTube, new music at Spotify or Pandora). Because of the continuous update, the "training data" would be rendered obsolete in a relatively short time especially in areas like books and movies, where new best-sellers or hit movies/music are published/released continuously. Therefore, one cannot really talk of a "training phase". Lazy classifiers are most useful for large, continuously changing datasets with few attributes that are commonly queried. Specifically, even if a large set of attributes exist - for example, books have a year of publication, author/s, publisher, title, edition, ISBN, selling price, etc. - recommendation queries rely on far fewer attributes - e.g., purchase or viewing co-occurrence data, and user ratings of items purchased/viewed. == Advantages == The main advantage gained in employing a lazy learning method is that the target function will be approximated locally, such as in the k-nearest neighbor algorithm. Because the target function is approximated locally for each query to the system, lazy learning systems can simultaneously solve multiple problems and deal successfully with changes in the problem domain. At the same time they can reuse a lot of theoretical and applied results from linear regression modelling (notably PRESS statistic) and control. It is said that the advantage of this system is achieved if the predictions using a single training set are only developed for few objects. This can be demonstrated in the case of the k-NN technique, which is instance-based and function is only estimated locally. == Disadvantages == Theoretical disadvantages with lazy learning include: The large space requirement to store the entire training dataset. In practice, this is not an issue because of advances in hardware and the relatively small number of attributes (e.g., as co-occurrence frequency) that need to be stored. Particularly noisy training data increases the case base unnecessarily, because no abstraction is made during the training phase. In practice, as stated earlier, lazy learning is applied to situations where any learning performed in advance soon becomes obsolete because of changes in the data. Also, for the problems for which lazy learning is optimal, "noisy" data does not really occur - the purchaser of a book has either bought another book or hasn't. Lazy learning methods are usually slower to evaluate. In practice, for very large databases with high concurrency loads, the queries are not postponed until actual query time, but recomputed in advance on a periodic basis - e.g., nightly, in anticipation of future queries, and the answers stored. This way, the next time new queries are asked about existing entries in the database, the answers are merely looked up rapidly instead of having to be computed on the fly, which would almost certainly bring a high-concurrency multi-user system to its knees. Larger training data also entail increased cost. Particularly, there is the fixed amount of computational cost, where a processor can only process a limited amount of training data points. There are standard techniques to improve re-computation efficiency so that a particular answer is not recomputed unless the data that impact this answer has changed (e.g., new items, new purchases, new views). In other words, the stored answers are updated incrementally. This approach, used by large e-commerce or media sites, has long been used in the Entrez portal of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) to precompute similarities between the different items in its large datasets: biological sequences, 3-D protein structures, published-article abstracts, etc. Because "find similar" queries are asked so frequently, the NCBI uses highly parallel hardware to perform nightly recomputation. The recomputation is performed only for new entries in the datasets against each other and against existing entries: the similarity between two existing entries need not be recomputed. == Examples of Lazy Learning Methods == K-nearest neighbors, which is a special case of instance-based learning. Local regression. Lazy naive Bayes rules, which are extensively used in commercial spam detection software. Here, the spammers keep getting smarter and revising their spamming strategies, and therefore the learning rules must also be continually updated.
Read more →
Hi uTandem

Hi uTandem, also known as uTandem, is a free language exchange mobile app. It helps people to connect with other language learners in order to carry out face-to-face language exchange sessions and also offers learners lists of businesses in the field of language learning or language exchange. == Use == Hi uTandem is built around the concept of language exchange, which is a method of language learning based on mutual oral linguistic exchange between partners. Ideally, each partner is a native speaker of the language they are helping their counterpart to learn. The app designed for users to chat with other users and translate messages, find suitable language partners and to locate language schools, bars, cafés and language exchange groups around them. == Team and development == Hi uTandem was released in January, 2016. The initial idea was conceived by Alberto Rodríguez as part of a team of eight Spanish youngsters. Hi uTandem belongs to the company Velvor Tech S.L., founded by the same members and registered in Ronda (Spain). == Reception == Hi uTandem was listed on the Top 4 Apps to Learn Languages list by ElPlural.com and since its launch it has been featured in numerous online and physical sources, including 20 minutos, Europapress, ABC Andalucía and Telefónica's Think Big Blog.
Read more →
Retained mode

Retained mode in computer graphics is a major pattern of API design in graphics libraries, in which the graphics library, instead of the client, retains the scene (complete object model of the rendering primitives) to be rendered and the client calls into the graphics library do not directly cause actual rendering, but make use of extensive indirection to resources, managed – thus retained – by the graphics library. It does not preclude the use of double-buffering. Immediate mode is an alternative approach. Historically, retained mode has been the dominant style in GUI libraries; however, both can coexist in the same library and are not necessarily exclusionary in practice. == Overview == In retained mode the client calls do not directly cause actual rendering, but instead update an abstract internal model (typically a list of objects) which is maintained within the library's data space. This allows the library to optimize when actual rendering takes place along with the processing of related objects. Some techniques to optimize rendering include: managing double buffering treatment of hidden surfaces by backface culling/occlusion culling (Z-buffering) only transferring data that has changed from one frame to the next from the application to the library Example of coexistence with immediate mode in the same library is OpenGL. OpenGL has immediate mode functions that can use previously defined server side objects (textures, vertex buffers and index buffers, shaders, etc.) without resending unchanged data. Examples of retained mode rendering systems include Windows Presentation Foundation, SceneKit on macOS, and PHIGS.
Read more →
I Am Rich

I Am Rich is a discontinued 2008 mobile app for iPhones which had minimal function and was priced at US$999.99 (equivalent to $1,495 in 2025). The app was pulled from the App Store less than 24 hours after its launch. Receiving negative reviews from critics, only eight copies were sold. In the years since, several similar applications have been released at lower prices. == Overview == I Am Rich was developed as a joke by German software developer, Armin Heinrich, after he saw iPhone users complaining about software priced above $0.99. The app only showed a glowing red gem and an icon that, when pressed, displayed the following mantra in large text: I am richI deserv [sic] itI am good,healthy & successful Heinrich told The New York Times that "I regard it as art. I did not expect many people to buy it and did not expect all the fuss about it." The application is described as "a work of art with no hidden function at all", with its only purpose being to show other people that they were able to afford it. Vox writer Zachary Crockett called it "the ultimate Veblen good in app form". == Release == Heinrich released and distributed I Am Rich through the App Store on 5 August 2008. The app was sold for US$999.99 (equivalent to $1,495 in 2025), €799.99 (equivalent to €1,078 in 2023), and £599.99 (equivalent to £978.12 in 2025)—the highest prices Apple allowed for App Store content. Without explanation, the application was removed from the App Store by Apple less than a day after its release. === Purchases === Eight people bought the application, at least one of whom claimed to have done so accidentally. Six US sales and two European sales netted $5,600 for Heinrich and $2,400 for Apple (respectively equivalent to $8,374 and $3,589 in 2025). In correspondence with the Los Angeles Times, Heinrich told the newspaper that Apple had refunded two purchasers of his app, and that he was happy to not have dissatisfied customers. == Reception == Discussing the app on the website Silicon Alley Insider, Dan Frommer described the program as a "scam", "worthless", and finally "a joke that smells like a scammy rip-off" on August 5, 6, and 8, respectively. Without purchasing the app, Fox News's Paul Wagenseil guessed that the secret mantra was "German for 'Sucker!'" (Heinrich is German). Wired's Brian X. Chen described I Am Rich as a waste of money to "prove you're a jerk", and contrasted the expenditure with donating to cancer foundations and Third World countries. Heinrich told the Los Angeles Times's Mark Milian that he had received correspondence from satisfied customers: "I've got e-mails from customers telling me that they really love the app [... and that they had] no trouble spending the money". In an interview with The New York Times, though, he told of receiving many insulting emails and telephone messages. == Similar applications == The next year, Heinrich released I Am Rich LE. Priced at US$9.99 (equivalent to $14.99 in 2025), the new app has several new features (including a calculator, "help system", and the "famous mantra without the spelling mistakes") to meet Apple's requirement that apps have "definable content". Some customers were disappointed by the new functionality, poorly rating the app due to its ostensible improvements. On 23 February 2009, CNET Asia reported on the "conceptually similar" app, I Am Richer, developed by Mike DG for Google's Android. The app was released on the Android Market for US$200 (equivalent to $300.14 in 2025), a limit imposed by Google, who had no objection to the application. With the same name, the I Am Rich that was released on the Windows Phone Marketplace on 22 December 2010, was developed by DotNetNuzzi. Described by MobileCrunch as equally useless as the original, this app cost US$499.99 (equivalent to $738.2 in 2025), the price cap imposed by Microsoft.
Read more →
Meta-Labeling

Meta-labeling, also known as corrective AI, is a machine learning (ML) technique utilized in quantitative finance to enhance the performance of investment and trading strategies, developed in 2017 by Marcos López de Prado at Guggenheim Partners and Cornell University. The core idea is to separate the decision of trade direction (side) from the decision of trade sizing, addressing the inefficiencies of simultaneously learning both side and size predictions. The side decision involves forecasting market movements (long, short, neutral), while the size decision focuses on risk management and profitability. It serves as a secondary decision-making layer that evaluates the signals generated by a primary predictive model. By assessing the confidence and likely profitability of those signals, meta-labeling allows investors and algorithms to dynamically size positions and suppress false positives. == Motivation == Meta-labeling is designed to improve precision without sacrificing recall. As noted by López de Prado, attempting to model both the direction and the magnitude of a trade using a single algorithm can result in poor generalization. By separating these tasks, meta-labeling enables greater flexibility and robustness: Enhances control over capital allocation. Reduces overfitting by limiting model complexity. Allows the use of interpretability tools and tailored thresholds to manage risk. Enables dynamic trade suppression in unfavorable regimes. == Applications == Meta-labeling has been applied in a variety of financial ML contexts, including: Algorithmic trading: Filtering and sizing trades to reduce false positives. Portfolio optimization: Scaling exposure across multiple signals with differing confidence levels. Risk management: Dynamically disabling strategies in adverse market conditions. Model validation: Interpreting when and why a model may be underperforming due to regime shifts. == General architecture == Meta-labeling decouples two core components of systematic trading strategies: directional prediction and position sizing. The process involves training a primary model to generate trade signals (e.g., buy, sell, or hold) and then training a secondary model to determine whether each signal is likely to lead to a profitable trade. The second model outputs a probability that is interpreted as the confidence in the forecast, which can be used to adjust the position size or to filter out unreliable trades. Meta-labeling is typically implemented as a three-stage process: Primary model (M1): Predicts the direction or label of a financial outcome using features such as market prices, returns, or volatility indicators. A typical output is directional, e.g., Y ∈ {−1,0,1}, representing short, neutral, or long positions. Secondary model (M2): A binary classifier trained to predict whether the primary model's prediction will be profitable. The target variable is a binary meta-label F ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle F\in \{0,1\}} . Inputs can include features used in the primary model, performance diagnostics, or market regime data. Position sizing algorithm (M3): Translates the output probability of the secondary model into a position size. Higher confidence scores result in larger allocations, while lower confidence leads to reduced or zero exposure. === Stage 1: Forecasting side === Primary model architecture Figure 1 Figure 1 presents the architecture of a primary model. It focuses on forecasting the side of the trade. Following the example, this model (M1) takes in input data – such as open-high-low-close data and determines the side of the position to take: a negative number is a short position, and positive number is a long position, the range is set between −1 and 1 (the closer it is to −1 or 1, the stronger the models conviction is). When training the model, the labels are −1 and 1, based on the direction of forward returns for some predefined investment horizon. The researcher may decide to apply a recall check (τ: "Tau") by setting a minimum threshold that the initial output needs to be to qualify of a short or long position (if the threshold is not met, no side forecast is predicted, leading to closing of any open positions), this leads to the primary model output which is one of three possible side forecasts: −1, 0, or 1. The primary model also generates evaluation data which can be used by the secondary model, to improve performance of size forecasts. Some examples of evaluation data include rolling accuracy, F1, recall, precision, and AUC scores. === Stage 2: Filtering out false positives === General meta-labeling architecture Figure 2 Next comes the phase of filtering out false positives, by applying a secondary machine learning model (M2), which is a binary classifier trained to determine if the trade will be profitable or not. The model takes as input four general groupings of data: General input data which is predictive of a false positive. For example the last 30 days rolling volatility of the underlying asset. Evaluation data. Market state and regime data, one may find that macro economic data or clustering the market into regimes may help as specific trading strategies are known to perform better in particular regimes. Example: momentum based strategies perform best in periods with low volatility and strong directional moves. Primary models initial input which is a value between −1 and 1. This highlights the strength of the primary models conviction. The output of the model is a value between −1 and 1 (if using a Tanh function) which will indicate the strength of the conviction that a short or long position is profitable, or it could simply be between 0 and 1 (using a sigmoid function) if one only wanted to know if it made money or not. This output allows filtering out trades that are likely to lead to losses. One could stop at this point or use the outputs of the secondary model as inputs to a position sizing algorithm (M3) which could further enhance strategy performance metrics by translating the output probability of the secondary model into a position size. Higher confidence scores result in larger allocations, while lower confidence leads to reduced or zero exposure. === Stage 3: Optimizing position sizes === ==== Position sizing methods (M3) ==== Various algorithms have been proposed for transforming predicted probabilities into trade sizes: All-or-nothing: Allocate 100% of capital if the probability exceeds a predefined threshold (e.g., 0.5); otherwise, do not trade. Model confidence: Use the probability score directly as the fraction of capital allocated. Linear scaling: Rescale the model's probabilities using min-max normalization based on the training data. Normal CDF (NCDF): Use a normal cumulative distribution function applied to a z-statistic derived from the predicted probability. Empirical CDF (ECDF): Rank probabilities based on their percentile in the training data to ensure relative allocation. Sigmoid Optimal Position Sizing (SOPS): Applies a smooth non-linear sigmoid transformation optimized to maximize risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe ratio). ==== Model calibration ==== Each machine learning algorithm used in meta-labeling tends to produce outputs with different characteristic distributions; for example, some are approximately normally distributed, whereas others exhibit a pronounced U-shape, concentrating probabilities near the extremes. Due to these varying distributions, simply summing the outputs of different models can inadvertently lead to uneven weighting of signals, biasing trade decisions. To address this, model calibration techniques are essential to adjust the predicted probabilities towards frequentist probabilities, ensuring that model outputs reflect true likelihoods more accurately. Two common calibration techniques are: Platt scaling (Sigmoid scaling): Suitable for correcting S-shaped calibration plots typically produced by models such as support vector machines (SVMs). Isotonic regression: Fits a non-decreasing step function to probabilities and is effective particularly with larger datasets, though it can sometimes lead to overfitting. Transforming predictions to frequentist probabilities is crucial as it provides probabilistic outputs that are directly interpretable as the actual likelihood of an event occurring. Such calibration significantly enhances the effectiveness of fixed position sizing methods, reducing maximum drawdowns and increasing risk-adjusted returns. However, calibration has less impact on position sizing methods that directly estimate parameters from the training data, such as ECDF and SOPS, suggesting that calibration is a critical step mainly for fixed methods that rely heavily on raw model outputs. =
Read more →
AirDine

AirDine was a mobile app within the platform economy where individuals acted as both supplier and customer for a supper club. AirDine discontinued their service after 31 October 2017. == Operations == AirDine was an online marketplace for home dining that connected users that liked to cook with users looking for a dining experience. Users were categorized as "Hosts" and "Guests," both of whom needed to register with AirDine. AirDine acted as a two-sided market for home dining that allowed hosts and guests, and did not act as a restaurant or host any dinners itself. AirDine charged a service fee. Security and safety of the host were not vetted by AirDine and were completely left to users based on published reviews. Profiles included user reviews and shared social connections to build trust among users. AirDine also included a private messaging system.
Read more →
Object Data Management Group

The Object Data Management Group (ODMG) was conceived in the summer of 1991 at a breakfast with object database vendors that was organized by Rick Cattell of Sun Microsystems. In 1998, the ODMG changed its name from the Object Database Management Group to reflect the expansion of its efforts to include specifications for both object database and object–relational mapping products. The primary goal of the ODMG was to put forward a set of specifications that allowed a developer to write portable applications for object database and object–relational mapping products. In order to do that, the data schema, programming language bindings, and data manipulation and query languages needed to be portable. Between 1993 and 2001, the ODMG published five revisions to its specification. The last revision was ODMG version 3.0, after which the group disbanded. == Major components of the ODMG 3.0 specification == Object Model. This was based on the Object Management Group's Object Model. The OMG core model was designed to be a common denominator for object request brokers, object database systems, object programming languages, etc. The ODMG designed a profile by adding components to the OMG core object model. Object Specification Languages. The ODMG Object Definition Language (ODL) was used to define the object types that conform to the ODMG Object Model. The ODMG Object Interchange Format (OIF) was used to dump and load the current state to or from a file or set of files. Object Query Language (OQL). The ODMG OQL was a declarative (nonprocedural) language for query and updating. It used SQL as a basis, where possible, though OQL supports more powerful object-oriented capabilities. C++ Language Binding. This defined a C++ binding of the ODMG ODL and a C++ Object Manipulation Language (OML). The C++ ODL was expressed as a library that provides classes and functions to implement the concepts defined in the ODMG Object Model. The C++ OML syntax and semantics are those of standard C++ in the context of the standard class library. The C++ binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. Smalltalk Language Binding. This defined the mapping between the ODMG ODL and Smalltalk, which was based on the OMG Smalltalk binding for the OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL). The Smalltalk binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. Java Language Binding. This defined the binding between the ODMG ODL and the Java programming language as defined by the Java 2 Platform. The Java binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. == Status == ODMG 3.0 was published in book form in 2000.[1] By 2001, most of the major object database and object-relational mapping vendors claimed conformance to the ODMG Java Language Binding. Compliance to the other components of the specification was mixed.[2] In 2001, the ODMG Java Language Binding was submitted to the Java Community Process as a basis for the Java Data Objects specification. The ODMG member companies then decided to concentrate their efforts on the Java Data Objects specification. As a result, the ODMG disbanded in 2001. In 2004, the Object Management Group (OMG) was granted the right to revise the ODMG 3.0 specification as an OMG specification by the copyright holder, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. In February 2006, the OMG announced the formation of the Object Database Technology Working Group (ODBT WG) and plans to work on the 4th generation of an object database standard. == ODMG Compliant DBMS == Orient ODBMS: http://www.OrienTechnologies.com Objectivity/DB C++, Java and Smalltalk interfaces.
Read more →
Supertoroid

In geometry and computer graphics, a supertoroid or supertorus is usually understood to be a family of doughnut-like surfaces (technically, a topological torus) whose shape is defined by mathematical formulas similar to those that define the superellipsoids. The plural of "supertorus" is either supertori or supertoruses. The family was described and named by Alan Barr in 1994. Barr's supertoroids have been fairly popular in computer graphics as a convenient model for many objects, such as smooth frames for rectangular things. One quarter of a supertoroid can provide a smooth and seamless 90-degree joint between two superquadric cylinders. However, they are not algebraic surfaces (except in special cases). == Formulas == Alan Barr's supertoroids are defined by parametric equations similar to the trigonometric equations of the torus, except that the sine and cosine terms are raised to arbitrary powers. Namely, the generic point P(u, v) of the surface is given by P ( u , v ) = ( X ( u , v ) Y ( u , v ) Z ( u , v ) ) = ( ( a + C u s ) C v t ( b + C u s ) S v t S u s ) {\displaystyle P(u,v)=\left({\begin{array}{c}X(u,v)\\Y(u,v)\\Z(u,v)\end{array}}\right)=\left({\begin{array}{c}(a+C_{u}^{s})C_{v}^{t}\\(b+C_{u}^{s})S_{v}^{t}\\S_{u}^{s}\end{array}}\right)} where C θ ε = sgn ⁡ ( cos ⁡ θ ) | cos ⁡ θ | ε , S θ ε = sgn ⁡ ( sin ⁡ θ ) | sin ⁡ θ | ε , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}C_{\theta }^{\varepsilon }&=\operatorname {sgn} (\cos \theta )\,\left|\,\cos \theta \,\right|^{\varepsilon },\\S_{\theta }^{\varepsilon }&=\operatorname {sgn} (\sin \theta )\ \left|\,\sin \theta \ \right|^{\varepsilon },\end{aligned}}} sgn is the sign function, and the parameters u, v range from 0 to 360 degrees (0 to 2π radians). In these formulas, the parameter s > 0 controls the "squareness" of the vertical sections, t > 0 controls the squareness of the horizontal sections, and a, b ≥ 1 are the major radii in the x and y directions. With s = t = 1 and a = b = R one obtains the ordinary torus with major radius R and minor radius 1, with the center at the origin and rotational symmetry about the z-axis. In general, the supertorus defined as above spans the intervals: − ( a + 1 ) ≤ x ≤ + ( a + 1 ) − ( b + 1 ) ≤ y ≤ + ( b + 1 ) − 1 ≤ z ≤ + 1 {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{rcccl}-(a+1)&\leq &x&\leq &+(a+1)\\[4pt]-(b+1)&\leq &y&\leq &+(b+1)\\[4pt]-1&\leq &z&\leq &+1\end{array}}} The whole shape is symmetric about the planes x = 0, y = 0, and z = 0. The hole runs in the z direction and spans the intervals − ( a − 1 ) ≤ x ≤ + ( a − 1 ) − ( b − 1 ) ≤ y ≤ + ( b − 1 ) − ∞ ≤ z ≤ + ∞ {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{rcccl}-(a-1)&\leq &x&\leq &+(a-1)\\[4pt]-(b-1)&\leq &y&\leq &+(b-1)\\[4pt]-\infty &\leq &z&\leq &+\infty \end{array}}} A curve of constant u on this surface is a horizontal Lamé curve with exponent ⁠ 2 t , {\displaystyle {\tfrac {2}{t}},} ⁠ scaled in x and y and displaced in z. A curve of constant v, projected on the plane x = 0 or y = 0, is a Lamé curve with exponent ⁠ 2 s , {\displaystyle {\tfrac {2}{s}},} ⁠ scaled and horizontally shifted. If v = 0, the curve is planar and spans the intervals: a − 1 ≤ x ≤ a + 1 − 1 ≤ z ≤ + 1 {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{rcccl}a-1&\leq &x&\leq &a+1\\[4pt]-1&\leq &z&\leq &+1\end{array}}} and similarly if v = 90°, 180°, 270°. The curve is also planar if a = b. In general, if a ≠ b and v is not a multiple of 90 degrees, the curve of constant v will not be planar; and, conversely, a vertical plane section of the supertorus will not be a Lamé curve. The basic supertoroid shape defined above is often modified by non-uniform scaling to yield supertoroids of specific width, length, and vertical thickness. == Plotting code == The following GNU Octave code generates plots of a supertorus:
Read more →
RFPolicy

The RFPolicy outlines a method for contacting vendors about security vulnerabilities found in their products. It was initially written in 2000 by hacker and security consultant Rain Forest Puppy. It was perhaps the second disclosure policy, following Simple Nomad's. The policy gives the vendor five working days to respond to the reporter of the bug. If the vendor fails to contact the reporter within those five days, the issue is recommended to be disclosed to the general community. The reporter should help the vendor reproduce the bug and work out a fix. The reporter should delay notifying the general community about the bug if the vendor provides feasible reasons for requiring so. If the vendor fails to respond or shuts down communication with the reporter of the problem within five working days, the reporter should disclose the issue to the general community. When issuing an alert or fix, the vendor should give the reporter proper credit for reporting the bug. Context for the history of vulnerability disclosure is available in a history article.
Read more →
Videotex

Videotex (or interactive videotex) was one of the earliest implementations of an end-user information system. From the late 1970s to early 2010s, it was used to deliver information (usually pages of text) to a user in computer-like format, typically to be displayed on a television or a dumb terminal. In a strict definition, videotex is any system that provides interactive content and displays it on a video monitor such as a television, typically using modems to send data in both directions. A close relative is teletext, which sends data in one direction only, typically encoded in a television signal. All such systems are occasionally referred to as viewdata. Unlike the modern Internet, traditional videotex services were highly centralized. Videotex in its broader definition can be used to refer to any such service, including teletext, the Internet, bulletin board systems, online service providers, and even the arrival/departure displays at an airport. This usage is no longer common. With the exception of Minitel in France, videotex elsewhere never managed to attract any more than a very small percentage of the universal mass market once envisaged. By the end of the 1980s its use was essentially limited to a few niche applications. == Initial development and technologies == === United Kingdom === The first attempts at a general-purpose videotex service were created in the United Kingdom in the late 1960s. In about 1970 the BBC had a brainstorming session in which it was decided to start researching ways to send closed captioning information to the audience. As the Teledata research continued the BBC became interested in using the system for delivering any sort of information, not just closed captioning. In 1972, the concept was first made public under the new name Ceefax. Meanwhile, the General Post Office (soon to become British Telecom) had been researching a similar concept since the late 1960s, known as Viewdata. Unlike Ceefax which was a one-way service carried in the existing TV signal, Viewdata was a two-way system using telephones. Since the Post Office owned the telephones, this was considered to be an excellent way to drive more customers to use the phones. Not to be outdone by the BBC, they also announced their service, under the name Prestel. ITV soon joined the fray with a Ceefax-clone known as ORACLE. In 1974, all the services agreed on a standard for displaying the information. The display would be a simple 40×24 grid of text, with some "graphics characters" for constructing simple graphics, revised and finalized in 1976. The standard did not define the delivery system, so both Viewdata-like and Teledata-like services could at least share the TV-side hardware, which was expensive at the time. The standard also introduced a new term that covered all such services, teletext. Ceefax first started operation in 1974 with a limited 30 pages, followed quickly by ORACLE and then Prestel in 1979. By 1981, Prestel International was available in nine countries, and a number of countries, including Sweden, The Netherlands, Finland and West Germany were developing their own national systems closely based on Prestel. General Telephone and Electronics (GTE) acquired an exclusive agency for the system for North America. In the early 1980s, videotex became the base technology for the London Stock Exchange's pricing service called TOPIC. Later versions of TOPIC, notably TOPIC2 and TOPIC3, were developed by Thanos Vassilakis and introduced trading and historic price feeds. === France === Development of a French teletext-like system began in 1973. A very simple 2-way videotex system called Tictac was also demonstrated in the mid-1970s. As in the UK, this led on to work to develop a common display standard for videotex and teletext, called Antiope, which was finalised in 1977. Antiope had similar capabilities to the UK system for displaying alphanumeric text and chunky "mosaic" character-based block graphics. A difference however was that while in the UK standard control codes automatically also occupied one character position on screen, Antiope allowed for "non spacing" control codes. This gave Antiope slightly more flexibility in the use of colours in mosaic block graphics, and in presenting the accents and diacritics of the French language. Meanwhile, spurred on by the 1978 Nora/Minc report, the French government was determined to catch up on a perceived falling behind in its computer and communications facilities. In 1980 it began field trials issuing Antiope-based terminals for free to over 250,000 telephone subscribers in Ille-et-Vilaine region, where the French CCETT research centre was based, for use as telephone directories. The trial was a success, and in 1982 Minitel was rolled out nationwide. === Canada === Since 1970, researchers at the Communications Research Centre (CRC) in Ottawa had been working on a set of "picture description instructions", which encoded graphics commands as a text stream. Graphics were encoded as a series of instructions (graphics primitives) each represented by a single ASCII character. Graphic coordinates were encoded in multiple 6 bit strings of XY coordinate data, flagged to place them in the printable ASCII range so that they could be transmitted with conventional text transmission techniques. ASCII SI/SO characters were used to differentiate the text from graphic portions of a transmitted "page". In 1975, the CRC gave a contract to Norpak to develop an interactive graphics terminal that could decode the instructions and display them on a colour display, which was successfully up and running by 1977. Against the background of the developments in Europe, CRC was able to persuade the Canadian government to develop the system into a fully-fledged service. In August 1978, the Canadian Department of Communications publicly launched it as Telidon, a "second generation" videotex/teletext service, and committed to a four-year development plan to encourage rollout. Compared to the European systems, Telidon offered real graphics, as opposed to block-mosaic character graphics. The downside was that it required much more advanced decoders, typically featuring Zilog Z80 or Motorola 6809 processors. === Japan === Research in Japan was shaped by the demands of the large number of Kanji characters used in Japanese script. With 1970s technology, the ability to generate so many characters on demand in the end-user's terminal was seen as prohibitive. Instead, development focussed on methods to send pages to user terminals pre-rendered, using coding strategies similar to facsimile machines. This led to a videotex system called Captain ("Character and Pattern Telephone Access Information Network"), created by NTT in 1978, which went into full trials from 1979 to 1981. The system also lent itself naturally to photographic images, albeit at only moderate resolution. However, the pages typically took two or three times longer to load, compared to the European systems. NHK developed an experimental teletext system along similar lines, called CIBS ("Character Information Broadcasting Station"). Based on a 388×200 pixel resolution, it was first announced in 1976, and began trials in late 1978. (NHK's ultimate production teletext system launched in 1983). == Standards == Work to establish an international standard for videotex began in 1978 in CCITT. But the national delegations showed little interest in compromise, each hoping that their system would come to define what was perceived to be going to be an enormous new mass-market. In 1980 CCITT therefore issued recommendation S.100 (later T.100), noting the points of similarity but the essential incompatibility of the systems, and declaring all four to be recognised options. Trying to kick-start the market, AT&T Corporation entered the fray, and in May 1981 announced its own Presentation Layer Protocol (PLP). This was closely based on the Canadian Telidon system, but added to it some further graphics primitives and a syntax for defining macros, algorithms to define cleaner pixel spacing for the (arbitrarily sizeable) text, and also dynamically redefinable characters and a mosaic block graphic character set, so that it could reproduce content from the French Antiope. After some further revisions this was adopted in 1983 as ANSI standard X3.110, more commonly called NAPLPS, the North American Presentation Layer Protocol Syntax. It was also adopted in 1988 as the presentation-layer syntax for NABTS, the North American Broadcast Teletext Specification. Meanwhile, the European national Postal Telephone and Telegraph (PTT) agencies were also increasingly interested in videotex, and had convened discussions in European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) to co-ordinate developments, which had been diverging along national lines. As well as the British and French standards, the Swedes had proposed extending the British Prestel standard with a new se
Read more →
Zero-day vulnerability

A zero-day (also known as a 0-day) is a vulnerability or security hole in a computer system unknown to its developers or anyone capable of mitigating it. Until the vulnerability is remedied, threat actors can exploit it in a zero-day exploit, or zero-day attack. The term "zero-day" originally referred to the number of days since a new piece of software was released to the public, so "zero-day software" was obtained by hacking into a developer's computer before release. Eventually the term was applied to the vulnerabilities that allowed this hacking, and to the number of days that the vendor has had to fix them. Vendors who discover the vulnerability may create patches or advise workarounds to mitigate it, though users need to deploy that mitigation to eliminate the vulnerability in their systems. Zero-day attacks are severe threats. == Definition == Despite developers' goal of delivering a product that works entirely as intended, virtually all products contain software and hardware bugs. If a bug creates a security risk, it is called a vulnerability. Vulnerabilities vary in their ability to be exploited by malicious actors. Some are not usable at all, while others can be used to disrupt the device with a denial of service attack. The most dangerous allow the attacker to inject and run their own code, without the user being aware of it. Although the term "zero-day" initially referred to the time since the vendor had become aware of the vulnerability, zero-day vulnerabilities can also be defined as the subset of vulnerabilities for which no patch or other fix is available. A zero-day exploit is any exploit that takes advantage of such a vulnerability. == Exploits == An exploit is the delivery mechanism that takes advantage of the vulnerability to penetrate the target's systems, for such purposes as disrupting operations, installing malware, or exfiltrating data. Researchers Lillian Ablon and Andy Bogart write that "little is known about the true extent, use, benefit, and harm of zero-day exploits". Exploits based on zero-day vulnerabilities are considered more dangerous than those that take advantage of a known vulnerability. However, it is likely that most cyberattacks use known vulnerabilities, not zero-days. Governments of states are the primary users of zero-day exploits, not only because of the high cost of finding or buying vulnerabilities, but also the significant cost of writing the attack software. Nevertheless, anyone can use a vulnerability, and according to research by the RAND Corporation, "any serious attacker can always get an affordable zero-day for almost any target". Many targeted attacks and most advanced persistent threats rely on zero-day vulnerabilities. In 2017, the average time to develop an exploit from a zero-day vulnerability was estimated at 22 days. The difficulty of developing exploits has been increasing over time due to increased anti-exploitation features in popular software. === Window of vulnerability === Zero-day vulnerabilities are often classified as alive—meaning that there is no public knowledge of the vulnerability—and dead—the vulnerability has been disclosed, but not patched. If the software's maintainers are actively searching for vulnerabilities, it is a living vulnerability; such vulnerabilities in unmaintained software are called immortal. Zombie vulnerabilities can be exploited in older versions of the software but have been patched in newer versions. Even publicly known and zombie vulnerabilities are often exploitable for an extended period. Security patches can take months to develop, or may never be developed. A patch can have negative effects on the functionality of software and users may need to test the patch to confirm functionality and compatibility. Larger organizations may fail to identify and patch all dependencies, while smaller enterprises and personal users may not install patches. Research suggests that risk of cyberattack increases if the vulnerability is made publicly known or a patch is released. Cybercriminals can reverse engineer the patch to find the underlying vulnerability and develop exploits, often faster than users install the patch. According to research by RAND Corporation published in 2017, zero-day exploits remain usable for 6.9 years on average, although those purchased from a third party only remain usable for 1.4 years on average. The researchers were unable to determine if any particular platform or software (such as open-source software) had any relationship to the life expectancy of a zero-day vulnerability. Although the RAND researchers found that 5.7 percent of a stockpile of secret zero-day vulnerabilities will have been discovered by someone else within a year, another study found a higher overlap rate, as high as 10.8 percent to 21.9 percent per year. == Countermeasures == Because, by definition, there is no patch that can block a zero-day exploit, all systems employing the software or hardware with the vulnerability are at risk. This includes secure systems such as banks and governments that have all patches up to date. Security systems are designed around known vulnerabilities, and repeated exploitations of a zero-day exploit could continue undetected for an extended period of time. Although there have been many proposals for a system that is effective at detecting zero-day exploits, this remains an active area of research in 2023. Many organizations have adopted defense-in-depth tactics so that attacks are likely to require breaching multiple levels of security, which makes it more difficult to achieve. Conventional cybersecurity measures such as training and access control — including multi-factor authentication, least-privilege access, and air-gapping makes it harder to compromise systems with a zero-day exploit. Since writing perfectly secure software is impossible, some researchers argue that driving up the cost of exploits is considered a good strategy to reduce the burden of cyberattacks. == Market == Zero-day exploits can fetch millions of dollars. There are three main types of buyers: White: the vendor, or to third parties such as the Zero Day Initiative that disclose to the vendor. Often such disclosure is in exchange for a bug bounty. Not all companies respond positively to disclosures, as they can cause legal liability and operational overhead. It is not uncommon to receive cease-and-desist letters from software vendors after disclosing a vulnerability for free. Gray: the largest and most lucrative. Government or intelligence agencies buy zero-days and may use it in an attack, stockpile the vulnerability, or notify the vendor. The United States federal government is one of the largest buyers. As of 2013, the Five Eyes (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) captured the plurality of the market and other significant purchasers included Russia, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, North Korea, and Iran. Middle Eastern countries were poised to become the biggest spenders. Black: organized crime, which typically prefers exploit software rather than just knowledge of a vulnerability. These users are more likely to employ "half-days" where a patch is already available. In 2015, the markets for government and crime were estimated at least ten times larger than the white market. Sellers are often hacker groups that seek out vulnerabilities in widely used software for financial reward. Some will only sell to certain buyers, while others will sell to anyone. White market sellers are more likely to be motivated by non pecuniary rewards such as recognition and intellectual challenge. Selling zero-day exploits is legal. Despite calls for more regulation, law professor Mailyn Fidler says there is little chance of an international agreement because key players such as Russia and Israel are not interested. The sellers and buyers that trade in zero-days tend to be secretive, relying on non-disclosure agreements and classified information laws to keep the exploits secret. If the vulnerability becomes known, it can be patched and its value consequently crashes. Because the market lacks transparency, it can be hard for parties to find a fair price. Sellers might not be paid if the vulnerability was disclosed before it was verified, or if the buyer declined to purchase it but used it anyway. With the proliferation of middlemen, sellers could never know to what use the exploits could be put. Buyers could not guarantee that the exploit was not sold to another party. Both buyers and sellers advertise on the dark web. Research published in 2022 based on maximum prices paid as quoted by a single exploit broker found a 44 percent annualized inflation rate in exploit pricing. Remote zero-click exploits could fetch the highest price, while those that require local access to the device are much cheaper. Vulnerabilities in widely used software are also more expensive. They estimated that around 400 to 1,500 people sold exploits to th
Read more →
Hedgeable

Hedgeable, Inc. was a U.S. based financial services company and digital wealth management platform headquartered in New York City. Hedgeable was known for not following set allocations, and instead actively managing accounts in response to market movements. On August 9, 2018, Hedgeable closed its doors to new investors, with existing investors required to transfer out of the company. The company claimed that it was not shutting down but simply removing its SEC registration. == History == Hedgeable was founded in 2009 by twin brothers Michael and Matthew Kane, who previously worked at high-net worth investment managers such as Bridgewater Associates and Spruce Private Investors. Both Michael and Matthew graduated from Penn State University with degrees in finance. Hedgeable is a Registered Investment Advisor with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company has received funding from SixThirty and Route 66 Ventures as well as various other angel investors. On August 9, 2018, Hedgeable closed its doors to new investors. == Investing Strategies == Hedgeable did not follow a buy-and-hold approach, but instead actively manages accounts in response to market movements focusing on downside protection in bear markets. Their strategy was different from other robo-advisors, which use Modern Portfolio Theory. Hedgeable offered investment options including Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) to individual stocks, master limited partnerships, private equity and bitcoin. Mutual funds were not used in portfolios. Although the firm's focus was to provide a direct-to-consumer service, Hedgeable's investment strategies were available to financial advisors and institutions as well through a variety of platforms. == Product Features == When it was open to external clients, Hedgeable aimed to gamify their personal finance experience. Clients could open a new account or transfer an existing account. Hedgeable accepted retirement accounts, taxable accounts, business accounts and various other account types. Hedgeable offered the following features: Downside protection Account aggregation Alternative investments Alpha rewards API Mobile app It was awarded 4/5 for client transparency by Paladin Research. Hedgeable was the winner of the Finovate Fall 2015 Best of Show Award and the GREAT 2015 Tech Award (FinTech Category). In 2016, Hedgeable launched its first iOS mobile app in order to expand their product offerings.
Read more →
Object Data Management Group

The Object Data Management Group (ODMG) was conceived in the summer of 1991 at a breakfast with object database vendors that was organized by Rick Cattell of Sun Microsystems. In 1998, the ODMG changed its name from the Object Database Management Group to reflect the expansion of its efforts to include specifications for both object database and object–relational mapping products. The primary goal of the ODMG was to put forward a set of specifications that allowed a developer to write portable applications for object database and object–relational mapping products. In order to do that, the data schema, programming language bindings, and data manipulation and query languages needed to be portable. Between 1993 and 2001, the ODMG published five revisions to its specification. The last revision was ODMG version 3.0, after which the group disbanded. == Major components of the ODMG 3.0 specification == Object Model. This was based on the Object Management Group's Object Model. The OMG core model was designed to be a common denominator for object request brokers, object database systems, object programming languages, etc. The ODMG designed a profile by adding components to the OMG core object model. Object Specification Languages. The ODMG Object Definition Language (ODL) was used to define the object types that conform to the ODMG Object Model. The ODMG Object Interchange Format (OIF) was used to dump and load the current state to or from a file or set of files. Object Query Language (OQL). The ODMG OQL was a declarative (nonprocedural) language for query and updating. It used SQL as a basis, where possible, though OQL supports more powerful object-oriented capabilities. C++ Language Binding. This defined a C++ binding of the ODMG ODL and a C++ Object Manipulation Language (OML). The C++ ODL was expressed as a library that provides classes and functions to implement the concepts defined in the ODMG Object Model. The C++ OML syntax and semantics are those of standard C++ in the context of the standard class library. The C++ binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. Smalltalk Language Binding. This defined the mapping between the ODMG ODL and Smalltalk, which was based on the OMG Smalltalk binding for the OMG Interface Definition Language (IDL). The Smalltalk binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. Java Language Binding. This defined the binding between the ODMG ODL and the Java programming language as defined by the Java 2 Platform. The Java binding also provided a mechanism to invoke OQL. == Status == ODMG 3.0 was published in book form in 2000.[1] By 2001, most of the major object database and object-relational mapping vendors claimed conformance to the ODMG Java Language Binding. Compliance to the other components of the specification was mixed.[2] In 2001, the ODMG Java Language Binding was submitted to the Java Community Process as a basis for the Java Data Objects specification. The ODMG member companies then decided to concentrate their efforts on the Java Data Objects specification. As a result, the ODMG disbanded in 2001. In 2004, the Object Management Group (OMG) was granted the right to revise the ODMG 3.0 specification as an OMG specification by the copyright holder, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. In February 2006, the OMG announced the formation of the Object Database Technology Working Group (ODBT WG) and plans to work on the 4th generation of an object database standard. == ODMG Compliant DBMS == Orient ODBMS: http://www.OrienTechnologies.com Objectivity/DB C++, Java and Smalltalk interfaces.
Read more →
Computer Law & Security Review

The Computer Law & Security Review is an international peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier. It has been published six times a year since 1985 and is indexed in Scopus and SSCI. It is accessible to a wide range of professional legal and IT practitioners, businesses, academics, researchers, libraries and organisations in both the public and private sectors. The journal regularly covers: CLSR Briefing with special emphasis on UK/US developments European Union update National news from 10 European jurisdictions Pacific rim news column Refereed practitioner and academic papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection and freedom of information and many other topics. The Journal's Correspondent Panel includes more than 40 specialists in IT law and security. Each issue contains articles, case law analysis and current news on information and communications technology. Special Features High quality peer reviewed papers from internationally renowned practitioner and academic experts Latest developments reported in situ by more than 20 leading law firms from around the world Highly experienced and respected editor and correspondents panel Online access to all 23 volumes of CLSR with embedded web links to primary sources Contact details of all authors A pool of expertise that can collectively identify the key topics that need to be examined.
Read more →
Telebirr

Telebirr (Amharic: ቴሌብር) is a mobile payment service developed and was launched by Ethio telecom, the state owned telecommunication and Internet service provider in Ethiopia. It took five months to develop the end-to-end service. It facilitates the delivery of cashless transactions. The platform deployed currently has the capacity of processing up to 100 transactions per second (TPS) and can be scaled up to 1000 TPS. The service is accessible via SMS, USSD, and smartphone applications. Telebirr works in five languages. == Services == Though the service is fully accessible for any customer of Ethio telecom, the users need to register through the mobile application called Telebirr or using an authorized agent or Ethio telecom shop or Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD), 127# nationally. However, Telebirr also provides a “quick registration” by using any information that already exists in Ethio telecom's system.
Read more →