AI Code Unlimited

AI Code Unlimited — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Conversational user interface

    Conversational user interface

    A conversational user interface (CUI) is a user interface for computers that emulates a conversation with a human. Historically, computers have relied on text-based user interfaces and graphical user interfaces (GUIs) (such as the user pressing a "back" button) to translate the user's desired action into commands the computer understands. While an effective mechanism of completing computing actions, there is a learning curve for the user associated with GUI. Instead, CUIs provide opportunity for the user to communicate with the computer in their natural language rather than in a syntax specific commands.

    Read more →
  • Pridgen v University of Calgary

    Pridgen v University of Calgary

    Pridgen v University of Calgary was freedom of speech case which took place in Alberta, Canada, in 2010. The case deals with two university students, Keith and Steven Pridgen, who were found guilty and punished by the University of Calgary in 2008, on grounds of "non-academic misconduct". The University of Calgary defines "non-academic misconduct" as:(a) conduct which causes injury to a person and/or damage to University property and/or the property of any member of the University community; (b) unauthorized removal and/or unauthorized possession of University property; and (c) conduct which seriously disrupts the lawful educational and related activities of other students and/or University staff.The Court of the Queen's Bench of Alberta found the University of Calgary to be wrong in prosecuting ten students, including the Pridgen brothers, in regards to comments made about a professor on Facebook. The key ruling in this case was that the universities are not exempt from, and that these students were in fact protected under, section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case is notable as it highlights the jurisdiction of the Charter in terms of both new media technologies and university institutions in Canada. == Background == Keith and Steven Pridgen were undergraduate students at the University of Calgary in 2008. The twin brothers shared a Law and Society class being taught by Aruna Mitra. Professor Mitra was teaching this class for the first time in her career, and many of the students were very critical of her knowledge of the course. A Facebook page entitled “I NO Longer Fear Hell, I Took a Course with Aruna Mitra” was created, and many students began posting comments. In particular, Steven Pridgen's comment on November 13, 2007, read: “Somehow I think she just got lazy and gave everybody a 65....that's what I got. Does anybody know how to apply to have it remarked?” Many students had similar concerns to Pridgen's and after having their work re-marked, a number of them did in fact receive higher grades. Keith Pridgen also commented on August 26, 2008: “Hey fellow LWSO. Homees.. So I am quite sure Mitra is NO LONGER TEACHING ANY COURSES WITH THE U OF C !!!!! Remember when she told us she was a long-term professor? Well, Actually she was only sessional and picked up our class at the last moment because another prof wasn't able to do it ...lucky us. Well, anyways I think we should all congratulate ourselves for leaving a Mitra-free legacy for future students!” On September 4, 2008, Aruna Mitra complained about the Facebook page to the Interim Dean of the Faculty of Communication and Culture at the University of Calgary. Dean Tettey called a meeting for the ten students who posted material about Mitra on the Facebook page. The meeting took place on September 18, 2008, and included four professors from the department as well as the Dean. At this meeting, all ten students, including the Pridgen brothers, were found guilty of non-academic misconduct. On November 20, 2008, the Appellant's received a letter from Dean Tettey advising them that their comments “clearly caused unwarranted professional and personal injury to Prof. Mitra and clearly meets the criteria for non-academic misconduct as outlined in the University of Calgary Calendar”. Keith Pridgen was put on probation for 24 months, and both brothers were required to write a letter of apology to Prof. Mitra and refrain from posting or circulating defamatory material regarding any faculty members of the University of Calgary. The Pridgen brothers appealed the decision to the University of Calgary Review Committee and later to the Board of Governors of the University of Calgary however neither of these attempts succeeded in having the decision overturned. == Opinion of the Court == Eight main issues to be determined were laid out by the Honourable Madam Justice J. Strekaf: (a) Does the Charter apply to the disciplinary proceedings taken by the Respondent; (b) If, so were the Applicants' Charter rights infringed; (c) Were the actions taken by the University ultra vires the jurisdiction of the Province of Alberta; (d) Did the Board of Governors err in refusing to hear the Applicants appeals; (e) Were the Applicants' denied a fair hearing; (f) Did the Review Committee provide adequate reasons for its decisions; (g) Did the Review Committee err in concluding that the activities of the Applicants constituted non-academic misconduct; and (h) What, if any, remedy should be granted to the Applicants. The Court determined from previous cases that "a non-government entity may still be subject to the Charter of Rights and freedoms when implementing a specific government policy or program". Justice Strekaf distinguished that the University was acting as agent of the provincial government in providing accessible post-secondary education services to students in Alberta pursuant to the provisions of the PSL Act. Justice Strekaf felt there was sufficient evidence to show that universities in Alberta have some level of reliance on government funds and therefore they are not a "Charter free zone". Justice Strekaf concluded that comments made by Keith and Steven Pridgen, regarding Professor Mitra, on Facebook did not constitute academic misconduct and the Pridgen brothers' right to freedom of expression, under section 2(b) of the Charter, was infringed by the University of Calgary Review Committee.

    Read more →
  • Media Block

    Media Block

    A Media Block or Integrated Media Block (IMB) is a component in a digital cinema projection system. Its purpose is to convert the Digital Cinema Package (DCP) content into data that ultimately produces picture and sound in a theater in compliance with DCI anti-piracy encryption requirements. == Terminology == DCI specification allows for two different security system architectures. In the first the Media Block is outside of the projector. This design is simply referred to as a "Media Block" and is typically a device attached directly to the motherboard of a Digital Cinema server. The media block is usually connected to the projector by dual-link SDI cables. Such media block is limited to processing 2K output, downscaling 4K DCPs if necessary. The second architecture describes an "Integrated Media Block". This refers to a device attached and integrated directly into the projector, which receives image data from the server, usually via a cat6 Ethernet connection. They can process 2K and 4K output. Some hardware implementations integrate the entire server on a single board and are able to work both as a MB as well as an IMB. == Security features == All security functions are contained within a Secure Processing Block (SPB), a tamper-proof physical device. Upon ingestion into a DCP server, Key Delivery Messages (KDM) are stored on flash memory in the media block or IMB. A KDM is written to enable the playback of a specific DCP during a specific time window and on a specific media block or IMB, identified by its serial number during the authoring process. Media blocks and IMBs also contain a secure clock that is set in the factory cannot be altered by the end user, which the DCP servers to which they are attached use to determine showtimes. The secure clock prevents theaters from showing encrypted movies outside the times authorized by the KDM (e.g. after it has expired) by simply changing the date and time in the server's BIOS. Media blocks and IMBs also typically include anti-tamper devices, designed to self-destruct the unit if unauthorized modification of its hardware, software or secure clock is attempted.

    Read more →
  • Elonis v. United States

    Elonis v. United States

    Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether conviction of threatening another person over interstate lines (under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)) requires proof of subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening. In controversy were the purported threats of violent rap lyrics written by Anthony Douglas Elonis and posted to Facebook under a pseudonym. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner. It was the first time the Court has heard a case considering true threats and the limits of speech on social media. == Background == In May 2010, Elonis was in the process of divorce and made a number of public Facebook posts. Prior to his postings, he had lost his job at an amusement park. He "posted the script of a sketch" by The Whitest Kids U' Know, which originally referenced saying "I want to kill the President of the United States" and replaced the president with his wife: Elonis ended the post with this statement: "Art is about pushing limits. I'm willing to go to jail for my constitutional rights. Are you?" A week later, Elonis posted about local law enforcement and a kindergarten class, which caught the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Then, he wrote a post on Facebook about one of the agents who visited him: He concluded: == Arrest and Conviction == These actions led to Elonis's arrest on December 8, 2010. He was indicted by a grand jury on five counts of threats to his estranged ex-wife, park employees and visitors, local law enforcement, an FBI agent, and a kindergarten class that had been relayed through interstate communication. At the district court, Elonis moved to dismiss the indictment for failing to allege that he had intended to threaten anyone, claiming his Facebook post was not were not intended as a threat. He argued that, as an aspiring rap artist, his posts were intended to be a form of artistic expression to help him cope with his recent loses. According to him, he did not mean anything said in his posts in a literal sense. His motion was denied. He requested a jury instruction that "the government must prove that he intended to communicate a true threat", which was also denied. He was convicted on the last four of the five counts, and was sentenced to 44 months in prison and three years on supervised release. He appealed unsuccessfully to the Third Circuit, renewing his challenge to the jury instructions. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court based on lack of any attempt to show intent to threaten and on First Amendment rights. == Decision == On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Elonis's conviction in an 8–1 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a seven-justice majority, Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, and Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion. The finding of the circuit court was reversed and the matter remanded. === Majority opinion === The majority opinion, written by Roberts, did not rule on First Amendment matters or on the question of whether recklessness was sufficient mens rea to show intent. It ruled that mens rea was required to prove the commission of a crime under §875(c). Importantly, the mens rea issue had been preserved for review, since Elonis had raised that objection at every stage of the previous proceedings. The government contended that the presence of the words "intent to extort" in §875(b) and §875(d) implied that the absence in §875(c) was constructive. The court disagreed, holding that the absence of the language in §875(c) was because the section was intended to have a broader scope than threats relating to extortion. The opinion drew on many Supreme Court cases holding that in criminal law, mens rea was required though it had not been mentioned explicitly in statute. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elonis. === Alito's concurrence === Justice Samuel Alito, concurring in part and dissenting in part, opined that while agreeing that mens rea was required and specifically that showing negligence was not sufficient, the court should have ruled on the question of recklessness. He further opined that recklessness was sufficient to show a crime under that provision on the basis that going further would amount to amending the statute, rather than interpreting it. Since Elonis explicitly argued that recklessness was not sufficient, Alito said: I would therefore remand for the Third Circuit to determine if Elonis’s failure (indeed, refusal) to argue for recklessness prevents reversal of his conviction. The Third Circuit should also have the opportunity to consider whether the conviction could be upheld on harmless error grounds. Alito also addressed the First Amendment question, elided by the majority opinion. He held that "lyrics in songs that are performed for an audience or sold in recorded form are unlikely to be interpreted as a real threat to a real person. ... Statements on social media that are pointedly directed at their victims, by contrast, are much more likely to be taken seriously." === Thomas's dissent === Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting, wrote against discarding the "general intent" standard without replacing it with a clearer standard. Thomas argued that "there is no historical practice requiring more than general intent when a statute regulates speech." Thomas cited Rosen v. United States, arguing that general intent was sufficient in this case. However, the majority opinion offers refutation in that Rosen turned on ignorance of the law: knowledge as to whether material was legally obscene, not on whether it was intended to be obscene. Thomas also supported the government's claim that the presence of "intent to extort" language in the adjacent §875(b) and did not address the majority's reasoning on that language. Thomas used precedent, notably from the states and 18th-century England based on other but similar and, arguably, influencing legislation to support his "general intent" claim. Thomas also drew a parallel with general intent in tort. While he sought to address the First Amendment issues, he never strayed far from "general intent". == Aftermath == On remand, the Third Circuit reaffirmed the conviction "concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Elonis would have been convicted if the jury had been properly instructed" and therefore was harmless error. In 2022, Elonis was once again arrested and indicted on three counts of cyberstalking involving three people. It was discovered that between 2018 and 2021, Elonis had sent numerous threatening messages over email, text, voice mail, and social media platforms like Twitter to a former prosecutor of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, his ex-girlfriend, and ex-wife. On August 5, after a five-day trial, Elonis was found guilty on all three counts, and on March 23, 2023, he was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Edward G. Smith of Easton, Pennsylvania to twelve years and seven months in prison.

    Read more →
  • Image destriping

    Image destriping

    Image destriping is the process of removing stripes or streaks from images and videos without disrupting the original image/video. These artifacts plague a range of fields in scientific imaging including atomic force microscopy, light sheet fluorescence microscopy, and planetary satellite imaging. The most common image processing techniques to reduce stripe artifacts is with Fourier filtering. Unfortunately, filtering methods risk altering or suppressing useful image data. Methods developed for multiple-sensor imaging systems in planetary satellites use statistical-based methods to match signal distribution across multiple sensors. More recently, a new class of approaches leverage compressed sensing, to regularize an optimization problem, and recover stripe free images. In many cases, these destriped images have little to no artifacts, even at low signal to noise ratios.

    Read more →
  • Infone

    Infone

    Infone was a service launched by Metro One Telecommunications in 2003. The service was discontinued effective December 14, 2005. == How it worked == Infone included directory assistance and other services via a toll-free phone number. A user could call 888-411-1111 to request directory assistance, directions, traffic information, movie times, call completion, dinner reservation assistance and other services. Infone provided a number of innovative 411 'concierge'-like services, including movie listings from a live operator, and offered a feature where they could provide information from a linked Microsoft Outlook calendar when set up in advance. For a period of time they advertised heavily on U.S. television, featuring ads with then Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura, emphasizing their use of all U.S. based operators. The price offered was $0.89 per call up to 15 minutes (for use when the operator connects you to the requested number, as well as for additional information requests afterwards), with $0.05 for each additional minute, making Infone also a competitively priced long-distance service. New users received 5–10 free calls. Infone identified a registered user (along with billing information; the service was only payable by credit card) by caller ID (numbers were registered on signing up) and by an advanced voiceprint recognition system (VPRS) from SpeechWorks that identified the user when the user called from an unregistered telephone number (or no caller ID) through the use of a personal phrase spoken by the user (e.g., "Hello Infone!") after the welcome tone.

    Read more →
  • Mini-STX

    Mini-STX

    Mini-STX (mSTX, Mini Socket Technology EXtended, originally "Intel 5x5") is a computer motherboard form factor that was released by Intel in 2015 (as "Intel 5x5"). These motherboards measure 147mm by 140mm (5.8" x 5.5"), making them larger than "4x4" NUC (102x102mm / 4.01" x 4.01" inches) and Nano-ITX (120x120mm / 4.7" x 4.7") boards, but notably smaller than the more common Mini-ITX (170x170mm / 6.7" x 6.7") boards. Unlike these standards, which use a square shape, the Mini-STX form factor is 7mm longer from front-to-rear, making it slightly rectangular. == Mini-STX design elements == The Mini-STX design suggests (but does not require) support for: Socketed processors (e.g. LGA or PGA CPUs) Onboard power regulation circuitry, enabling direct DC power input IO ports embedded on the front and rear of the motherboard (akin to NUC, but unlike typical motherboards which often use headers instead to connect built-in ports on enclosures) == Adoption by manufacturers == This motherboard form factor is still not in particularly common use with consumer-PC manufacturers, although there are a few offerings: ASRock offers both DeskMini kits (that use mini-STX boards) and standalone motherboards, Asus offer VivoMini kits (that use mini-STX boards) and standalone motherboards, Gigabyte offers a few motherboards, and industrial PC suppliers (e.g. Kontron, Iesy, ASRock Industrial) also provide some options for mini-STX equipment. == Derivatives == ASRock developed a derivative of mini-STX, dubbed micro-STX, for their 'DeskMini GTX/RX' small form-factor PCs and industrial motherboards. Micro-STX adds an MXM slot which allows the use of special PCI Express expansion cards, including graphics or machine learning accelerators, but increases the width of the board to be extended two inches, resulting in measurements of 147 x 188 mm (5.8" x 7.4")

    Read more →
  • Packard Bell Statesman

    Packard Bell Statesman

    The Packard Bell Statesman was an economy line of notebook-sized laptops introduced in 1993 by Packard Bell. They were slower in performance and lacked features compared to most competitor products, but they were lower in price. It was created in a collaboration between Packard Bell and Zenith Data Systems. The Statesman series was essentially a rebrand of Zenith Data Systems Z-Star 433 series, with the only notable difference of the logo in the middle and text on the front bezel. == History == In June 1993 Zenith Data Systems announced an alliance with Packard Bell. Zenith acquired about 20% of Packard Bell and they would both now work together to design and build PC's. Zenith would also provide Packard Bell with private-label versions of their portable PC's. The Packard Bell Statesman was a rebrand of the Zenith Z-Star notebook computer series. While the Statesman was being advertised by Packard Bell, the Z-Star series was also still being sold by Zenith. The Statesman was first introduced on October 4, 1993. Prices started at $1,500 for a monochrome or color DSTN model with a 33 MHz Cyrix Cx486SLC, 4 MB of RAM, 200 MB hard disk drive, internal 1.44 MB floppy disk drive, and MS-DOS 6.0 with Windows 3.1 for the included software. A "J mouse" pointing device was included, similar to the TrackPoint. The Statesman was expected to begin shipping within the next few weeks. == Specifications == === Hardware === CPU The first two models, the 200M and 200C, used the Cyrix Cx486SLC. This was Cyrix's first processor, which was a 386SX pin-compatible chip with on-board L1 cache and 486 instructions, being known as a "hybrid chip". The processor was clocked at 33 MHz and had 1 KB of L1 cache. It was a 16-bit processor and was pin compatible with the Intel 80386SX. On the bottom of the unit, the motherboard had an empty socket for a Cyrix FasMath co-processor, which could improve floating-point math performance. The 200M and 200C plus models had a Cyrix Cx486SLC2 clocked at 50 MHz, which was 50% faster than the original 486SLC. The SLC2 similarly had 1 KB of on-board cache and was pin compatible with the previous model. Graphics & Display For video all models used three versions of the Chips & Technologies 655xx, the CT65520, 65525, and 65530. The 65520 was first introduced in early 1992 as the first controller with Super VGA resolution. It supported resolutions up to 1024x768 in 16 colors or shades of gray. If in 800x600 resolution, it can display up to 256 colors. All 3 chips were the same, with the CT65525 identifying as a CT65530. The CT65530 had an ability of 5V and 3.3V mixed operation and linear video memory addressing. All models used a 9.5in 800x600 resolution DSTN LCD. The 200M and 200M Plus had a monochrome display, while the 200C and 200C Plus had a color display. Audio All models had only basic audio available, with just a piezo speaker soldered onto the motherboard and no sound controller. Memory Standard RAM included was 4-8 MB of EDO RAM. The RAM was on a proprietary SIPP package that could only be upgraded to 12 MB maximum if the user had compatible modules. Storage For storage all models used a hard drive with a size of 100 or 200 MB, and all models had an internal 1.44 MB floppy disk drive located on the side of the unit. The maximum capacity hard drive compatible if the user wanted to upgrade was 500 MB.Ports & Expansion For ports all models had 1x serial, 1x parallel, 1x VGA output, and 1x PS/2 keyboard/mouse input. For expansion all models only had one PCMCIA type II slot. Keyboard & Mouse All models used a small-scale keyboard with control keys. One interesting feature of the keyboard is that the J key also acted as a mouse, working similar to IBM's ThinkPad TrackPoint. On some models additional keys such as S, D, F, G and space let you do other mouse actions such as right click, left click, double click, and middle mouse click. === Software === The series shipped with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 as the included operating system. == Model Comparison == Statesman 200M — The first Statesman model, it came with a DSTN monochrome screen, and a Nickel-cadmium battery pack which could last up to 4 hours. It weighed 7.4 lb and was $1500. Statesman 200C — The second Statesman model, it was the same as the 200M with the only notable differences of a DSTN color display rather than monochrome and a slightly decreased battery life of about 3 hours. It cost $700 more than the 200M at $2200. Statesman 200M/200C Plus — The 200M/200C Plus were both identical to their previous base models, with the only difference of them having a Cx486SLC2 running at 50 MHz. In 1994 it cost around $2,295 for the 200C plus with 4 MB of ram, with 8 MB costing an extra $400. == Reception == The Statesman received fair reception, with most reviewers giving positivity for the low price and high battery life, but mainly criticizing the performance and screen quality of the model line. A review by PC World writer Rex Farrance and Owen Linderholm said the 200M had a good price, being only $1500, and a good battery life which lasted about 4 hours. In benchmarks however, the 200M performed "noticeably below the average". It was noted that the 200M's worst feature was its monochrome display, being "cloudy and a bit dim for our tastes". The J mouse was considered a decent choice, and was said to be "highly usable" after some practice. The 200M was listed as number 3 on PC World's top 20 budget PC list. PC World also reviewed the 200C, saying the color display is only a "marginal, although an improvement on the monochrome version". The 200C placed 9 on the PC World top 20 budget PC list. Compute! Magazine reviewed the 200C Plus in September 1994 stating it "lagged far behind the others, especially the DXs, but then speed isn't everything". It was given pros for low cost and good display, but criticized for its low performance, not having a trackball, and poor external monitor support.

    Read more →
  • Quantification (machine learning)

    Quantification (machine learning)

    In machine learning, quantification (variously called learning to quantify, or supervised prevalence estimation, or class prior estimation) is the task of using supervised learning in order to train models (quantifiers) that estimate the relative frequencies (also known as prevalence values) of the classes of interest in a sample of unlabelled data items. For instance, in a sample of 100,000 unlabelled tweets known to express opinions about a certain political candidate, a quantifier may be used to estimate the percentage of these tweets which belong to class `Positive' (i.e., which manifest a positive stance towards this candidate), and to do the same for classes `Neutral' and `Negative'. Quantification may also be viewed as the task of training predictors that estimate a (discrete) probability distribution, i.e., that generate a predicted distribution that approximates the unknown true distribution of the items across the classes of interest. Quantification is different from classification, since the goal of classification is to predict the class labels of individual data items, while the goal of quantification it to predict the class prevalence values of sets of data items. Quantification is also different from regression, since in regression the training data items have real-valued labels, while in quantification the training data items have class labels. It has been shown in multiple research works that performing quantification by classifying all unlabelled instances and then counting the instances that have been attributed to each class (the 'classify and count' method) usually leads to suboptimal quantification accuracy. This suboptimality may be seen as a direct consequence of 'Vapnik's principle', which states: If you possess a restricted amount of information for solving some problem, try to solve the problem directly and never solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. It is possible that the available information is sufficient for a direct solution but is insufficient for solving a more general intermediate problem. In our case, the problem to be solved directly is quantification, while the more general intermediate problem is classification. As a result of the suboptimality of the 'classify and count' method, quantification has evolved as a task in its own right, different (in goals, methods, techniques, and evaluation measures) from classification. == Quantification tasks == === Quantification tasks according to the set of classes === The main variants of quantification, according to the characteristics of the set of classes used, are: Binary quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are only n = 2 {\displaystyle n=2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Single-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n > 2 {\displaystyle n>2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Multi-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n ≥ 2 {\displaystyle n\geq 2} classes and each data item can belong to zero, one, or several classes at the same time; Ordinal quantification, corresponding to the single-label multiclass case in which a total order is defined on the set of classes. Regression quantification, a task which stands to 'standard' quantification as regression stands to classification. Strictly speaking, this task is not a quantification task as defined above (since the individual items do not have class labels but are labelled by real values), but has enough commonalities with other quantification tasks to be considered one of them. Most known quantification methods address the binary case or the single-label multiclass case, and only few of them address the multi-label, ordinal, and regression cases. Binary-only methods include the Mixture Model (MM) method, the HDy method, SVM(KLD), and SVM(Q). Methods that can deal with both the binary case and the single-label multiclass case include probabilistic classify and count (PCC), adjusted classify and count (ACC), probabilistic adjusted classify and count (PACC), the Saerens-Latinne-Decaestecker EM-based method (SLD), and KDEy. Methods for multi-label quantification include regression-based quantification (RQ) and label powerset-based quantification (LPQ). Methods for the ordinal case include ordinal versions of the above-mentioned ACC, PACC, and SLD methods, and ordinal versions of the above-mentioned HDy method. Methods for the regression case include Regress and splice and Adjusted regress and sum. === Quantification tasks according to the type of data === Several subtasks of quantification may be identified according to the type of data involved. Example such tasks are: Quantification of networked data. This task consists of performing quantification when the datapoints are members of a relation, i.e., are interlinked. As such, this task is a strict relative of collective classification. Quantification over time. This task consists of performing quantification on sets that become available in a temporal sequence, i.e., as a data stream, and finds application in contexts in which class prevalence values must be monitored over time. == Evaluation measures for quantification == Several evaluation measures can be used for evaluating the error of a quantification method. Since quantification consists of generating a predicted probability distribution that estimates a true probability distribution, these evaluation measures are ones that compare two probability distributions. Most evaluation measures for quantification belong to the class of divergences. Evaluation measures for binary quantification, single-label multiclass quantification, and multi-label quantification, are Absolute Error Squared Error Relative Absolute Error Kullback–Leibler divergence Pearson Divergence Evaluation measures for ordinal quantification are Normalized Match Distance (a particular case of the Earth Mover's Distance) Root Normalized Order-Aware Distance == Applications == Quantification is of special interest in fields such as the social sciences, epidemiology, market research, allocating resources, and ecological modelling, since these fields are inherently concerned with aggregate data. However, quantification is also useful as a building block for solving other downstream tasks, such as improving the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data, measuring classifier bias and ranker bias, and estimating the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data. == Resources == LQ 2021: the 1st International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2022: the 2nd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2023: the 3rd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2024: the 4th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2025: the 5th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2022: the 1st Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2024: the 2nd Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify QuaPy: An open-source Python-based software library for quantification QuantificationLib: A Python library for quantification and prevalence estimation

    Read more →
  • Hardware backdoor

    Hardware backdoor

    A hardware backdoor is a backdoor implemented within the physical components of a computer system, also known as its hardware. They can be created by introducing malicious code to a component's firmware, or even during the manufacturing process of an integrated circuit. Often, they are used to undermine security in smartcards and cryptoprocessors, unless investment is made in anti-backdoor design methods. They have also been considered for car hacking. Backdoors differ from hardware Trojans as backdoors are introduced intentionally by the original designer or during the design process, whereas hardware Trojans are inserted later by an external party. == Background == The existence of hardware backdoors poses significant security risks for several reasons. They are difficult to detect and are impossible to remove using conventional methods like antivirus software. They can also bypass other security measures, such as disk encryption. Hardware trojans can be introduced during manufacturing where the end-user lacks control over the production chain. == History == In 2008, the FBI reported the discovery of approximately 3,500 counterfeit Cisco network components in the United States, some of which were introduced in military and government infrastructure. In the same year, the possibility of a backdoor SPARC CPU was demonstrated with an FPGA running Linux that supported various hidden malicious services. A few years later, in 2011, Jonathan Brossard presented "Rakshasa", a proof-of-concept hardware backdoor. This backdoor could be installed by an individual with physical access to the hardware. It utilized coreboot to re-flash the BIOS with a SeaBIOS and iPXE-based bootkit composed of legitimate, open-source tools, allowing malware to be fetched from the internet during the boot process. The following year, in 2012, Sergei Skorobogatov and Christopher Woods from the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory reported the discovery of a backdoor in a military-grade FPGA device, which could be exploited to access and modify sensitive information. It has been said that this was proven to be a software problem and not a deliberate attempt at sabotage. This still brought to attention that equipment manufacturers should ensure that microchips operate as intended. Later that year, two mobile phones developed by the Chinese company ZTE were found to carry a root access backdoor. According to security researcher Dmitri Alperovitch, the exploit used a hard-coded password in its software. Starting in 2012, the United States stated that Huawei might have backdoors present in their products. In 2013, researchers at the University of Massachusetts devised a method of breaking a CPU's internal cryptographic mechanisms by introducing specific impurities into the crystalline structure of transistors to change Intel's random-number generator. Documents revealed from 2013 onwards during the surveillance disclosures initiated by Edward Snowden showed that the Tailored Access Operations (TAO) unit and other NSA employees intercepted servers, routers, and other network gear being shipped to organizations targeted for surveillance to install covert implant firmware onto them before delivery. These tools include custom BIOS exploits that survive the reinstallation of operating systems and USB cables with spy hardware and radio transceiver packed inside. In June 2016 it was reported that University of Michigan Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science had built a hardware backdoor that leveraged "analog circuits to create a hardware attack" so that after the capacitors store up enough electricity to be fully charged, it would be switched on, to give an attacker complete access to whatever system or device − such as a PC − that contains the backdoored chip. In the study that won the "best paper" award at the IEEE Symposium on Privacy and Security they also note that microscopic hardware backdoor wouldn't be caught by practically any modern method of hardware security analysis, and could be planted by a single employee of a chip factory. In October 2018 Bloomberg reported that an attack by Chinese spies reached almost 30 U.S. companies, including Amazon and Apple, by compromising America's technology supply chain. == Countermeasures == Skorobogatov has developed a technique capable of detecting malicious insertions into chips. New York University Tandon School of Engineering researchers have developed a way to corroborate a chip's operation using verifiable computing whereby "manufactured for sale" chips contain an embedded verification module that proves the chip's calculations are correct and an associated external module validates the embedded verification module. Another technique developed by researchers at University College London (UCL) relies on distributing trust between multiple identical chips from disjoint supply chains. Assuming that at least one of those chips remains honest the security of the device is preserved. Researchers at the University of Southern California Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the Photonic Science Division at the Paul Scherrer Institute have developed a new technique called Ptychographic X-ray laminography. This technique is the only current method that allows for verification of the chips blueprint and design without destroying or cutting the chip. It also does so in significantly less time than other current methods. Anthony F. J. Levi Professor of electrical and computer engineering at University of Southern California explains “It’s the only approach to non-destructive reverse engineering of electronic chips—[and] not just reverse engineering but assurance that chips are manufactured according to design. You can identify the foundry, aspects of the design, who did the design. It’s like a fingerprint.” This method currently is able to scan chips in 3D and zoom in on sections and can accommodate chips up to 12 millimeters by 12 millimeters easily accommodating an Apple A12 chip but not yet able to scan a full Nvidia Volta GPU. "Future versions of the laminography technique could reach a resolution of just 2 nanometers or reduce the time for a low-resolution inspection of that 300-by-300-micrometer segment to less than an hour, the researchers say."

    Read more →
  • Open Mashup Alliance

    Open Mashup Alliance

    The Open Mashup Alliance (OMA) is a non-profit consortium that promotes the adoption of mashup solutions in the enterprise through the evolution of enterprise mashup standards like EMML. The initial members of the OMA include some large technology companies such as Adobe Systems, Hewlett-Packard, and Intel and some major technology users such as Bank of America and Capgemini. According to Dion Hinchcliffe, "Ultimately, the OMA creates a standardized approach to enterprise mashups that creates an open and vibrant market for competing runtimes, mashups, and an array of important aftermarket services such as development/testing tools, management and administration appliances, governance frameworks, education, professional services, and so on." == Specification development == The initial focus of the OMA is developing EMML, which is a declarative mashup domain-specific language (DSL) aimed at creating enterprise mashups. The EMML language provides a comprehensive set of high-level mashup-domain vocabulary to consume and mash a variety of web data sources. EMML provides a uniform syntax to invoke heterogeneous service styles: REST, WSDL, RSS/ATOM, RDBMS, and POJO. EMML also provides the ability to mix and match diverse data formats: XML, JSON, JDBC, JavaObjects, and primitive types. The OMA website provides the EMML specification, the EMML schema, a reference runtime implementation capable of running EMML scripts, sample EMML mashup scripts, and technical documentation. The OMA is developing EMML under a Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives license. The eventual objective of the OMA is to submit the EMML specification and any other OMA specifications to a recognized industry standards body.

    Read more →
  • Packard Bell Statesman

    Packard Bell Statesman

    The Packard Bell Statesman was an economy line of notebook-sized laptops introduced in 1993 by Packard Bell. They were slower in performance and lacked features compared to most competitor products, but they were lower in price. It was created in a collaboration between Packard Bell and Zenith Data Systems. The Statesman series was essentially a rebrand of Zenith Data Systems Z-Star 433 series, with the only notable difference of the logo in the middle and text on the front bezel. == History == In June 1993 Zenith Data Systems announced an alliance with Packard Bell. Zenith acquired about 20% of Packard Bell and they would both now work together to design and build PC's. Zenith would also provide Packard Bell with private-label versions of their portable PC's. The Packard Bell Statesman was a rebrand of the Zenith Z-Star notebook computer series. While the Statesman was being advertised by Packard Bell, the Z-Star series was also still being sold by Zenith. The Statesman was first introduced on October 4, 1993. Prices started at $1,500 for a monochrome or color DSTN model with a 33 MHz Cyrix Cx486SLC, 4 MB of RAM, 200 MB hard disk drive, internal 1.44 MB floppy disk drive, and MS-DOS 6.0 with Windows 3.1 for the included software. A "J mouse" pointing device was included, similar to the TrackPoint. The Statesman was expected to begin shipping within the next few weeks. == Specifications == === Hardware === CPU The first two models, the 200M and 200C, used the Cyrix Cx486SLC. This was Cyrix's first processor, which was a 386SX pin-compatible chip with on-board L1 cache and 486 instructions, being known as a "hybrid chip". The processor was clocked at 33 MHz and had 1 KB of L1 cache. It was a 16-bit processor and was pin compatible with the Intel 80386SX. On the bottom of the unit, the motherboard had an empty socket for a Cyrix FasMath co-processor, which could improve floating-point math performance. The 200M and 200C plus models had a Cyrix Cx486SLC2 clocked at 50 MHz, which was 50% faster than the original 486SLC. The SLC2 similarly had 1 KB of on-board cache and was pin compatible with the previous model. Graphics & Display For video all models used three versions of the Chips & Technologies 655xx, the CT65520, 65525, and 65530. The 65520 was first introduced in early 1992 as the first controller with Super VGA resolution. It supported resolutions up to 1024x768 in 16 colors or shades of gray. If in 800x600 resolution, it can display up to 256 colors. All 3 chips were the same, with the CT65525 identifying as a CT65530. The CT65530 had an ability of 5V and 3.3V mixed operation and linear video memory addressing. All models used a 9.5in 800x600 resolution DSTN LCD. The 200M and 200M Plus had a monochrome display, while the 200C and 200C Plus had a color display. Audio All models had only basic audio available, with just a piezo speaker soldered onto the motherboard and no sound controller. Memory Standard RAM included was 4-8 MB of EDO RAM. The RAM was on a proprietary SIPP package that could only be upgraded to 12 MB maximum if the user had compatible modules. Storage For storage all models used a hard drive with a size of 100 or 200 MB, and all models had an internal 1.44 MB floppy disk drive located on the side of the unit. The maximum capacity hard drive compatible if the user wanted to upgrade was 500 MB.Ports & Expansion For ports all models had 1x serial, 1x parallel, 1x VGA output, and 1x PS/2 keyboard/mouse input. For expansion all models only had one PCMCIA type II slot. Keyboard & Mouse All models used a small-scale keyboard with control keys. One interesting feature of the keyboard is that the J key also acted as a mouse, working similar to IBM's ThinkPad TrackPoint. On some models additional keys such as S, D, F, G and space let you do other mouse actions such as right click, left click, double click, and middle mouse click. === Software === The series shipped with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 as the included operating system. == Model Comparison == Statesman 200M — The first Statesman model, it came with a DSTN monochrome screen, and a Nickel-cadmium battery pack which could last up to 4 hours. It weighed 7.4 lb and was $1500. Statesman 200C — The second Statesman model, it was the same as the 200M with the only notable differences of a DSTN color display rather than monochrome and a slightly decreased battery life of about 3 hours. It cost $700 more than the 200M at $2200. Statesman 200M/200C Plus — The 200M/200C Plus were both identical to their previous base models, with the only difference of them having a Cx486SLC2 running at 50 MHz. In 1994 it cost around $2,295 for the 200C plus with 4 MB of ram, with 8 MB costing an extra $400. == Reception == The Statesman received fair reception, with most reviewers giving positivity for the low price and high battery life, but mainly criticizing the performance and screen quality of the model line. A review by PC World writer Rex Farrance and Owen Linderholm said the 200M had a good price, being only $1500, and a good battery life which lasted about 4 hours. In benchmarks however, the 200M performed "noticeably below the average". It was noted that the 200M's worst feature was its monochrome display, being "cloudy and a bit dim for our tastes". The J mouse was considered a decent choice, and was said to be "highly usable" after some practice. The 200M was listed as number 3 on PC World's top 20 budget PC list. PC World also reviewed the 200C, saying the color display is only a "marginal, although an improvement on the monochrome version". The 200C placed 9 on the PC World top 20 budget PC list. Compute! Magazine reviewed the 200C Plus in September 1994 stating it "lagged far behind the others, especially the DXs, but then speed isn't everything". It was given pros for low cost and good display, but criticized for its low performance, not having a trackball, and poor external monitor support.

    Read more →
  • Automatic summarization

    Automatic summarization

    Automatic summarization is the process of shortening a set of data computationally, to create a subset (a summary) that represents the most important or relevant information within the original content. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are commonly developed and employed to achieve this, specialized for different types of data. Text summarization is usually implemented by natural language processing methods, designed to locate the most informative sentences in a given document. On the other hand, visual content can be summarized using computer vision algorithms. Image summarization is the subject of ongoing research; existing approaches typically attempt to display the most representative images from a given image collection, or generate a video that only includes the most important content from the entire collection. Video summarization algorithms identify and extract from the original video content the most important frames (key-frames), and/or the most important video segments (key-shots), normally in a temporally ordered fashion. Video summaries simply retain a carefully selected subset of the original video frames and, therefore, are not identical to the output of video synopsis algorithms, where new video frames are being synthesized based on the original video content. == Commercial products == In 2022 Google Docs released an automatic summarization feature. == Approaches == There are two general approaches to automatic summarization: extraction and abstraction. === Extraction-based summarization === Here, content is extracted from the original data, but the extracted content is not modified in any way. Examples of extracted content include key-phrases that can be used to "tag" or index a text document, or key sentences (including headings) that collectively comprise an abstract, and representative images or video segments, as stated above. For text, extraction is analogous to the process of skimming, where the summary (if available), headings and subheadings, figures, the first and last paragraphs of a section, and optionally the first and last sentences in a paragraph are read before one chooses to read the entire document in detail. Other examples of extraction that include key sequences of text in terms of clinical relevance (including patient/problem, intervention, and outcome). === Abstractive-based summarization === Abstractive summarization methods generate new text that did not exist in the original text. This has been applied mainly for text. Abstractive methods build an internal semantic representation of the original content (often called a language model), and then use this representation to create a summary that is closer to what a human might express. Abstraction may transform the extracted content by paraphrasing sections of the source document, to condense a text more strongly than extraction. Such transformation, however, is computationally much more challenging than extraction, involving both natural language processing and often a deep understanding of the domain of the original text in cases where the original document relates to a special field of knowledge. "Paraphrasing" is even more difficult to apply to images and videos, which is why most summarization systems are extractive. === Aided summarization === Approaches aimed at higher summarization quality rely on combined software and human effort. In Machine Aided Human Summarization, extractive techniques highlight candidate passages for inclusion (to which the human adds or removes text). In Human Aided Machine Summarization, a human post-processes software output, in the same way that one edits the output of automatic translation by Google Translate. == Applications and systems for summarization == There are broadly two types of extractive summarization tasks depending on what the summarization program focuses on. The first is generic summarization, which focuses on obtaining a generic summary or abstract of the collection (whether documents, or sets of images, or videos, news stories etc.). The second is query relevant summarization, sometimes called query-based summarization, which summarizes objects specific to a query. Summarization systems are able to create both query relevant text summaries and generic machine-generated summaries depending on what the user needs. An example of a summarization problem is document summarization, which attempts to automatically produce an abstract from a given document. Sometimes one might be interested in generating a summary from a single source document, while others can use multiple source documents (for example, a cluster of articles on the same topic). This problem is called multi-document summarization. A related application is summarizing news articles. Imagine a system, which automatically pulls together news articles on a given topic (from the web), and concisely represents the latest news as a summary. Image collection summarization is another application example of automatic summarization. It consists in selecting a representative set of images from a larger set of images. A summary in this context is useful to show the most representative images of results in an image collection exploration system. Video summarization is a related domain, where the system automatically creates a trailer of a long video. This also has applications in consumer or personal videos, where one might want to skip the boring or repetitive actions. Similarly, in surveillance videos, one would want to extract important and suspicious activity, while ignoring all the boring and redundant frames captured. At a very high level, summarization algorithms try to find subsets of objects (like set of sentences, or a set of images), which cover information of the entire set. This is also called the core-set. These algorithms model notions like diversity, coverage, information and representativeness of the summary. Query based summarization techniques, additionally model for relevance of the summary with the query. Some techniques and algorithms which naturally model summarization problems are TextRank and PageRank, Submodular set function, Determinantal point process, maximal marginal relevance (MMR) etc. === Keyphrase extraction === The task is the following. You are given a piece of text, such as a journal article, and you must produce a list of keywords or key[phrase]s that capture the primary topics discussed in the text. In the case of research articles, many authors provide manually assigned keywords, but most text lacks pre-existing keyphrases. For example, news articles rarely have keyphrases attached, but it would be useful to be able to automatically do so for a number of applications discussed below. Consider the example text from a news article: "The Army Corps of Engineers, rushing to meet President Bush's promise to protect New Orleans by the start of the 2006 hurricane season, installed defective flood-control pumps last year despite warnings from its own expert that the equipment would fail during a storm, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press". A keyphrase extractor might select "Army Corps of Engineers", "President Bush", "New Orleans", and "defective flood-control pumps" as keyphrases. These are pulled directly from the text. In contrast, an abstractive keyphrase system would somehow internalize the content and generate keyphrases that do not appear in the text, but more closely resemble what a human might produce, such as "political negligence" or "inadequate protection from floods". Abstraction requires a deep understanding of the text, which makes it difficult for a computer system. Keyphrases have many applications. They can enable document browsing by providing a short summary, improve information retrieval (if documents have keyphrases assigned, a user could search by keyphrase to produce more reliable hits than a full-text search), and be employed in generating index entries for a large text corpus. Depending on the different literature and the definition of key terms, words or phrases, keyword extraction is a highly related theme. ==== Supervised learning approaches ==== Beginning with the work of Turney, many researchers have approached keyphrase extraction as a supervised machine learning problem. Given a document, we construct an example for each unigram, bigram, and trigram found in the text (though other text units are also possible, as discussed below). We then compute various features describing each example (e.g., does the phrase begin with an upper-case letter?). We assume there are known keyphrases available for a set of training documents. Using the known keyphrases, we can assign positive or negative labels to the examples. Then we learn a classifier that can discriminate between positive and negative examples as a function of the features. Some classifiers make a binary classification for a test example, while others assign a probability of being a keyphrase. For ins

    Read more →
  • HTTP compression

    HTTP compression

    HTTP compression is a capability that can be built into web servers and web clients to improve transfer speed and bandwidth utilization. HTTP data is compressed before it is sent from the server: compliant browsers will announce what methods are supported to the server before downloading the correct format; browsers that do not support compliant compression method will download uncompressed data. The most common compression schemes include gzip and Brotli; a full list of available schemes is maintained by the IANA. There are two different ways compression can be done in HTTP. At a lower level, a Transfer-Encoding header field may indicate the payload of an HTTP message is compressed. At a higher level, a Content-Encoding header field may indicate that a resource being transferred, cached, or otherwise referenced is compressed. Compression using Content-Encoding is more widely supported than Transfer-Encoding, and some browsers do not advertise support for Transfer-Encoding compression to avoid triggering bugs in servers. == Compression scheme negotiation == The negotiation is done in two steps, described in RFC 2616 and RFC 9110: 1. The web client advertises which compression schemes it supports by including a list of tokens in the HTTP request. For Content-Encoding, the list is in a field called Accept-Encoding; for Transfer-Encoding, the field is called TE. 2. If the server supports one or more compression schemes, the outgoing data may be compressed by one or more methods supported by both parties. If this is the case, the server will add a Content-Encoding or Transfer-Encoding field in the HTTP response with the used schemes, separated by commas. The web server is by no means obligated to use any compression method – this depends on the internal settings of the web server and also may depend on the internal architecture of the website in question. == Content-Encoding tokens == The official list of tokens available to servers and client is maintained by IANA, and it includes: br – Brotli, a compression algorithm specifically designed for HTTP content encoding, defined in RFC 7932 and implemented in all modern major browsers. compress – UNIX "compress" program method (historic; deprecated in most applications and replaced by gzip or deflate) deflate – compression based on the deflate algorithm (described in RFC 1951), a combination of the LZ77 algorithm and Huffman coding, wrapped inside the zlib data format (RFC 1950); exi – W3C Efficient XML Interchange gzip – GNU zip format (described in RFC 1952). Uses the deflate algorithm for compression, but the data format and the checksum algorithm differ from the "deflate" content-encoding. This method is the most broadly supported as of March 2011. identity – No transformation is used. This is the default value for content coding. pack200-gzip – Network Transfer Format for Java Archives zstd – Zstandard compression, defined in RFC 8478 In addition to these, a number of unofficial or non-standardized tokens are used in the wild by either servers or clients: bzip2 – compression based on the free bzip2 format, supported by lighttpd lzip – compression based on the free lzip format, supported by wget and Links lzma – compression based on (raw) LZMA is available in Opera 20, and in elinks via a compile-time option peerdist – Microsoft Peer Content Caching and Retrieval rsync – delta encoding in HTTP, implemented by a pair of rproxy proxies. xpress – Microsoft compression protocol used by Windows 8 and later for Windows Store application updates. LZ77-based compression optionally using a Huffman encoding. xz – LZMA2-based content compression, supported by a non-official Firefox patch; and fully implemented in mget since 2013-12-31. == Servers that support HTTP compression == SAP NetWeaver Microsoft IIS: built-in or using third-party module Apache HTTP Server, via mod_deflate (despite its name, only supporting gzip), and mod_brotli Hiawatha HTTP server: serves pre-compressed files Cherokee HTTP server, On the fly gzip and deflate compressions Oracle iPlanet Web Server Zeus Web Server lighttpd nginx – built-in Applications based on Tornado, if "compress_response" is set to True in the application settings (for versions prior to 4.0, set "gzip" to True) Jetty Server – built-into default static content serving and available via servlet filter configurations GeoServer Apache Tomcat IBM Websphere AOLserver Ruby Rack, via the Rack::Deflater middleware HAProxy Varnish – built-in. Works also with ESI Armeria – Serving pre-compressed files NaviServer – built-in, dynamic and static compression Caddy – built-in via encode Many content delivery networks also implement HTTP compression to improve speedy delivery of resources to end users. The compression in HTTP can also be achieved by using the functionality of server-side scripting languages like PHP, or programming languages like Java. Various online tools exist to verify a working implementation of HTTP compression. These online tools usually request multiple variants of a URL, each with different request headers (with varying Accept-Encoding content). HTTP compression is considered to be implemented correctly when the server returns a document in a compressed format. By comparing the sizes of the returned documents, the effective compression ratio can be calculated (even between different compression algorithms). == Problems preventing the use of HTTP compression == A 2009 article by Google engineers Arvind Jain and Jason Glasgow states that more than 99 person-years are wasted daily due to increase in page load time when users do not receive compressed content. This occurs when anti-virus software interferes with connections to force them to be uncompressed, where proxies are used (with overcautious web browsers), where servers are misconfigured, and where browser bugs stop compression being used. Internet Explorer 6, which drops to HTTP 1.0 (without features like compression or pipelining) when behind a proxy – a common configuration in corporate environments – was the mainstream browser most prone to failing back to uncompressed HTTP. Another problem found while deploying HTTP compression on large scale is due to the deflate encoding definition: while HTTP 1.1 defines the deflate encoding as data compressed with deflate (RFC 1951) inside a zlib formatted stream (RFC 1950), Microsoft server and client products historically implemented it as a "raw" deflated stream, making its deployment unreliable. For this reason, some software, including the Apache HTTP Server, only implements gzip encoding. == Security implications == Compression allows a form of chosen plaintext attack to be performed: if an attacker can inject any chosen content into the page, they can know whether the page contains their given content by observing the size increase of the encrypted stream. If the increase is smaller than expected for random injections, it means that the compressor has found a repeat in the text, i.e. the injected content overlaps the secret information. This is the idea behind CRIME. In 2012, a general attack against the use of data compression, called CRIME, was announced. While the CRIME attack could work effectively against a large number of protocols, including but not limited to TLS, and application-layer protocols such as SPDY or HTTP, only exploits against TLS and SPDY were demonstrated and largely mitigated in browsers and servers. The CRIME exploit against HTTP compression has not been mitigated at all, even though the authors of CRIME have warned that this vulnerability might be even more widespread than SPDY and TLS compression combined. In 2013, a new instance of the CRIME attack against HTTP compression, dubbed BREACH, was published. A BREACH attack can extract login tokens, email addresses or other sensitive information from TLS encrypted web traffic in as little as 30 seconds (depending on the number of bytes to be extracted), provided the attacker tricks the victim into visiting a malicious web link. All versions of TLS and SSL are at risk from BREACH regardless of the encryption algorithm or cipher used. Unlike previous instances of CRIME, which can be successfully defended against by turning off TLS compression or SPDY header compression, BREACH exploits HTTP compression which cannot realistically be turned off, as virtually all web servers rely upon it to improve data transmission speeds for users. As of 2016, the TIME attack and the HEIST attack are now public knowledge.

    Read more →
  • Amplified conference

    Amplified conference

    An amplified conference is a conference or similar event in which the talks and discussions at the conference are 'amplified' through use of networked technologies in order to extend the reach of the conference deliberations. The term was originally coined by Lorcan Dempsey in a blog post. The term is now widely used within the academic and research community with Wankel proposing the following definition: The extension of a physical event (or a series of events) through the use of social media tools for expanding access to (aspects of) the event beyond physical and temporal bounds. Such amplification takes place in the context of intent to make the most of the intellectual content, discussion, networking, and discovery initiated by the event through the process of sharing with co-attendees, colleagues, friends and wider informed publics. A paper by Haider and others illustrates how amplified conferences are becoming mainstream in a discussion on "how social media have been employed as part of the project, particularly around event amplification". As described by Guy in the Ariadne ejournal the term is not a prescriptive one, but rather describes a pattern of behaviors which initially took place at IT and Web-oriented conferences once WiFi networks started to become available at conference venues and delegates started to bring with them networked devices such as laptops and, more recently, PDAs and mobile phones. == Different Approaches to 'Amplification' of Conferences == There are a number of ways in which conferences can be amplified through use of networked technologies: Amplification of the audiences' voice: Prior to the availability of real time chat technologies at events (whether use of IRC, Twitter, instant messaging clients, etc.) it was only feasible to discuss talks with immediate neighbours, and even then this may be considered rude. Amplification of the speaker's talk: The availability of video and audio-conferencing technologies make it possible for a speaker to be heard by an audience which isn't physically present at the conference. Although use of video technologies has been available to support conferences for some time, this has normally been expensive and require use of dedicated video-conferencing technologies. However the availability of lightweight desktop tools make it much easier to deploy such technologies, without even, requiring the involvement of conference organisers. Amplification across time: Video and audio technologies can also be used to allow a speaker's talk to be made available after the event, with use of podcasting or videocasting technologies allowing the talks to be easily syndicated to mobile devices as well as accessed on desktop computers. Amplification of the speaker's slides: The popularity of global repository services for slides, such as SlideShare, enable the slides used by a speaker to be more easily found, embedded on other Web sites and commented upon, in ways that were not possible when the slides, if made available at all, were only available on a conference Web site. Amplification of feedback to the speaker: Micro-blogging technologies, such as Twitter, are being used not only as a discussion channel for conference participants but also as a way of providing real-time feedback to a speaker during a talk. We are also now seeing dedicated microblogging technologies, such as Coveritlive and Scribblelive, being developed which aim to provide more sophisticated 'back channels' for use at conferences. Amplification of a conference's collective memory: The popularity of digital cameras and the photographic capabilities of many mobile phones is leading to many photographs being taken at conferences. With such photographs often being uploaded to popular photographic sharing services, such as Flickr, and such collections being made more easy to discover through agreed use of tags, we are seeing amplification of the memories of an event though the sharing of such resources. The ability of such photographic resources to be 'mashed up' with, say, accompanying music, can similarly help to enrich such collective experiences. Amplification of the learning: The ability to be able to follow links to resources and discuss the points made by a speaker during a talk can enrich the learning which takes place at an event, as described by Shabajee's article on "'Hot' or Not? Welcome to real-time peer review" published in the Times Higher Education Supplement in May 2003. Long term amplification of conference outputs: The availability in a digital format of conference resources, including 'official' resources such as slides, video and audio recordings, etc. which have been made by the conference organisers with the approval of speakers, together with more nebulous resources such as archives of conference back channels, and photographs and unofficial recordings taken at the event may help to provide a more authentic record of an event, which could potentially provide a valuable historical record. The amplification of conferences can be viewed as an example of how new technologies are altering standard practice. By using these techniques a different type of interaction is created at the conference itself, but also the boundaries around the conference can be seen as permeable, with remote participants engaging in discussion. An amplified conference also provides a considerably altered archive compared with a 'traditional' one. For the latter, the printed proceedings will be the main record, but for an amplified event this record is distributed across many media and takes in a wider range of content types, including the papers, videos of the presentations (for example on YouTube), the slides (e.g. on Slideshare), photos of the event (Flickr), interaction between participants (Twitter), reflections and comments (blogs), etc. The amplified conference represents an example of changing practice in digital scholarship.

    Read more →