AI Data Center Kentucky

AI Data Center Kentucky — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Commitment ordering

  Commitment ordering (CO) is a class of interoperable serializability techniques in concurrency control of databases, transaction processing, and related applications. It allows optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. With the proliferation of multi-core processors, CO has also been increasingly utilized in concurrent programming, transactional memory, and software transactional memory (STM) to achieve serializability optimistically. CO is also the name of the resulting transaction schedule (history) property, defined in 1988 with the name dynamic atomicity. In a CO compliant schedule, the chronological order of commitment events of transactions is compatible with the precedence order of the respective transactions. CO is a broad special case of conflict serializability and effective means (reliable, high-performance, distributed, and scalable) to achieve global serializability (modular serializability) across any collection of database systems that possibly use different concurrency control mechanisms (CO also makes each system serializability compliant, if not already). Each not-CO-compliant database system is augmented with a CO component (the commitment order coordinator—COCO) which orders the commitment events for CO compliance, with neither data-access nor any other transaction operation interference. As such, CO provides a low overhead, general solution for global serializability (and distributed serializability), instrumental for global concurrency control (and distributed concurrency control) of multi-database systems and other transactional objects, possibly highly distributed (e.g., within cloud computing, grid computing, and networks of smartphones). An atomic commitment protocol (ACP; of any type) is a fundamental part of the solution, utilized to break global cycles in the conflict (precedence, serializability) graph. CO is the most general property (a necessary condition) that guarantees global serializability, if the database systems involved do not share concurrency control information beyond atomic commitment protocol (unmodified) messages and have no knowledge of whether transactions are global or local (the database systems are autonomous). Thus CO (with its variants) is the only general technique that does not require the typically costly distribution of local concurrency control information (e.g., local precedence relations, locks, timestamps, or tickets). It generalizes the popular strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) property, which in conjunction with the two-phase commit protocol (2PC), is the de facto standard to achieve global serializability across (SS2PL based) database systems. As a result, CO compliant database systems (with any different concurrency control types) can transparently join such SS2PL based solutions for global serializability. In addition, locking based global deadlocks are resolved automatically in a CO based multi-database environment, a vital side-benefit (including the special case of a completely SS2PL based environment; a previously unnoticed fact for SS2PL). Furthermore, strict commitment ordering (SCO; Raz 1991c), the intersection of Strictness and CO, provides better performance (shorter average transaction completion time and resulting in better transaction throughput) than SS2PL whenever read-write conflicts are present (identical blocking behavior for write-read and write-write conflicts; comparable locking overhead). The advantage of SCO is especially during lock contention. Strictness allows both SS2PL and SCO to use the same effective database recovery mechanisms. Two major generalizing variants of CO exist, extended CO (ECO; Raz 1993a) and multi-version CO (MVCO; Raz 1993b). They also provide global serializability without local concurrency control information distribution, can be combined with any relevant concurrency control, and allow optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. Both use additional information for relaxing CO constraints and achieving better concurrency and performance. Vote ordering (VO or Generalized CO (GCO); Raz 2009) is a container schedule set (property) and technique for CO and all its variants. Local VO is necessary for guaranteeing global serializability if the atomic commitment protocol (ACP) participants do not share concurrency control information (have the generalized autonomy property). CO and its variants inter-operate transparently, guaranteeing global serializability and automatic global deadlock resolution together in a mixed, heterogeneous environment with different variants. == Overview == The Commitment ordering (CO; Raz 1990, 1992, 1994, 2009) schedule property has been referred to also as Dynamic atomicity (since 1988), commit ordering, commit order serializability, and strong recoverability (since 1991). The latter is a misleading name since CO is incomparable with recoverability, and the term "strong" implies a special case. This means that a substantial recoverability property does not necessarily have the CO property and vice versa. In 2009 CO has been characterized as a major concurrency control method, together with the previously known (since the 1980s) three major methods: Locking, Time-stamp ordering, and Serialization graph testing, and as an enabler for the interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple and possibly Distributed databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is still serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. The problem of achieving global serializability effectively had been characterized as open until the public disclosure of CO in 1991 by its inventor Yoav Raz (Raz 1991a; see also Global serializability). Enforcing CO is an effective way to enforce conflict serializability globally in a distributed system since enforcing CO locally in each database (or other transactional objects) also enforces it globally. Each database may use any, possibly different, type of concurrency control mechanism. With a local mechanism that already provides conflict serializability, enforcing CO locally does not cause any other aborts, since enforcing CO locally does not affect the data access scheduling strategy of the mechanism (this scheduling determines the serializability related aborts; such a mechanism typically does not consider the commitment events or their order). The CO solution requires no communication overhead since it uses (unmodified) atomic commitment protocol messages only, already needed by each distributed transaction to reach atomicity. An atomic commitment protocol plays a central role in the distributed CO algorithm, which enforces CO globally by breaking global cycles (cycles that span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph. CO, its special cases, and its generalizations are interoperable and achieve global serializability while transparently being utilized together in a single heterogeneous distributed environment comprising objects with possibly different concurrency control mechanisms. As such, Commitment ordering, including its special cases, and together with its generalizations (see CO variants below), provides a general, high performance, fully distributed solution (no central processing component or central data structure are needed) for guaranteeing global serializability in heterogeneous environments of multidatabase systems and other multiple transactional objects (objects with states accessed and modified only by transactions; e.g., in the framework of transactional processes, and within Cloud computing and Grid computing). The CO solution scales up with network size and the number of databases without any negative impact on performance (assuming the statistics of a single distributed transaction, e.g., the average number of databases involved with a single transaction, are unchanged). With the proliferation of Multi-core processors, Optimistic CO (OCO) has also been increasingly utilized to achieve serializability in software transactional memory, and numerous STM articles and patents utilizing "commit order" have already been published (e.g., Zhang et al. 2006). == The commitment ordering solution for global serializability == === General characterization of CO === Commitment ordering (CO) is a special case of conflict serializability. CO can be enforced with non-blocking mechanisms (each transaction can complete its task without having its data-access blocked, which allows optimistic concurrency control; however, commitment could be blo

  Read more →
• 

  Star Awards for Social Media Award

  The Star Awards for Social Media Award was an award presented annually from 2014 to 2016 at the Star Awards, where Mediacorp of Singapore recognises entertainers under their employment with awards for artistic and technical merit for outstanding performances of the year. == History == The category was introduced in 2014, at the 20th Star Awards ceremony; Jeanette Aw received the award and it is given in honour of a Mediacorp artiste with the most social media engagement. The results are based on the calculations from three international social media analysis systems; artistes must be active on at least one of the following platforms in order to qualify: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Since its inception, the award has been given to two artistes. Carrie Wong is the most recent and final winner in this category. Since the ceremony held in 2016, Aw remains as the only artiste to win in this category twice, surpassing Wong who has one win. The award was discontinued from 2017 onwards as the popularity element of the award is already represented in the Top 10 Most Popular Male Artistes and Top 10 Most Popular Female Artistes awards. == Recipients ==

  Read more →
• 

  TikTokification

  TikTokification (also written TikTok-ification) is a term used to describe the widespread adoption of TikTok's short-form, vertical video format and its algorithmic content-delivery model across the broader social media landscape. The phenomenon encompasses the strategic and cultural changes made by competing platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, and LinkedIn in response to TikTok's global dominance. Beyond platform design, the term is also used more broadly to describe shifts in media consumption habits, advertising strategies, and, more critically, the potential cognitive and psychological effects associated with constant short-form video consumption. == Background == === Origins of short-form video === The short-form video format predates TikTok. Vine, launched in 2013, popularised six-second looping videos before shutting down in 2017. TikTok itself, known as Douyin in the Chinese market, was created by the Chinese technology company ByteDance in September 2016. Following its international expansion and its 2018 merger with Musical.ly, TikTok grew rapidly. By 2020, the application had surpassed two billion total downloads worldwide, with over 800 million monthly active users. A key driver of TikTok's success was its recommendation algorithm. The platform's "For You Page" (FYP) serves content to users based on behaviour rather than follower count, making it possible for unknown creators to achieve widespread reach organically. Analysts noted that TikTok serves "fast, visually engaging, and authentic videos that feel more like entertainment than advertising," fundamentally reshaping consumer expectations of digital content. TikTok has been described as "the center of the internet for young people," where users go for entertainment, news, trends, and shopping. As of the mid-2020s, TikTok had approximately 1.12 billion monthly active users. == Platform responses == TikTok's success compelled nearly every major social media platform to restructure its product around short-form video. In 2020, Instagram launched Reels and YouTube launched Shorts, both directly in response to TikTok's growth. Platforms like Meta's Instagram Reels and Google's YouTube Shorts subsequently expanded aggressively, launching new features, creator tools, and even considering separate standalone applications to compete. LinkedIn, traditionally a professional networking site, began experimenting with TikTok-style short-form vertical video feeds. Facebook launched a singular unified video feed combining Reels, long videos, and live videos, similar in structure to TikTok's feed. Snapchat redesigned its application to combine Stories and Spotlight into a unified entertainment feed. YouTube extended its Shorts format to allow videos up to three minutes in length, up from the previous limit of sixty seconds, as of October 2024. Despite these adaptations, experts noted that none of TikTok's rivals had matched its algorithmic precision as of mid-2025. == Societal and cultural impact == === Media and journalism === News organisations have also been affected by TikTokification. Short-form video grew rapidly as a format for news content, driven in large part by TikTok's popularity. According to Pew Research Center, 17% of adults in the United States reported regularly getting news from TikTok in 2024, with 63% of teenagers saying they used the platform as a news source. In response, major publishers began creating bespoke short-form content for TikTok's audience, with organisations such as the BBC building dedicated internal TikTok teams. === Advertising and commerce === TikTokification has had significant effects on the advertising industry. US social video advertising spending was projected to surpass linear television advertising spending for the first time in 2025. Global social commerce sales were projected to reach approximately $900 billion in 2025, with platforms like Douyin and TikTok driving a large share of that growth. TikTok itself generated an estimated $23.6 billion in advertising revenue in 2024. Short-form video has been described as bridging the gap between brand awareness and direct conversion. Surveys have found that consumers trust user-generated content 8.7 times more than influencer content and 6.6 times more than branded content, prompting brands to favour creator-led video formats. === Attention spans and cognitive effects === A growing body of research has examined the cognitive consequences of heavy short-form video consumption, a set of effects sometimes referred to as "TikTok Brain." A large systematic review and meta-analysis published in Psychological Bulletin, analysing data from 98,299 participants across 71 studies, found that the more short-form video content a person watches, the poorer their cognitive performance in attention and inhibitory control. The review also found that greater engagement with short-form video was associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression, and stress, as well as sleep disturbances. The platform's inherent demand for engaging content has resulted in the proliferation of sludge content, a genre of split screen video with the main video on the top and an unrelated attention-grabbing video on the bottom, typically repetitive gameplay (notably of the endless runner mobile game Subway Surfers) or oddly satisfying videos, designed to maximize viewer retention in cases where the main video may appear uninteresting and would normally cause the viewer to skip it. Sludge content is often described as overstimulating, reflecting and contributing to declining attention spans, though the scholarly evidence supporting such claims is not conclusive. Dr. Yann Poncin, associate professor at the Child Study Center at Yale University, noted that "infinite scrolling and short-form video are designed to capture your attention in short bursts," contrasting this with earlier entertainment formats that guided audiences through longer narratives. Research suggests that children and teenagers may be particularly vulnerable, with early exposure to rapid frame changes potentially conditioning the brain's neural pathways to require constant stimulation, making it more challenging to engage with slower-paced activities. A separate study published in Nature Communications by researchers at the Technical University of Denmark documented a notable decrease in collective attention span over time, attributing it in part to the increasing volume and pace of content production and consumption online. Researchers caution, however, that the majority of relevant studies are cross-sectional, meaning they capture data at a single point in time and cannot establish causality. It remains possible that individuals with pre-existing conditions such as anxiety or attention deficits may be more likely to engage heavily with these platforms as a coping mechanism. === Academic and sociological analysis === Scholars have framed TikTokification within the context of the attention economy. A 2024 academic analysis described TikTok as representing "a new paradigm of social media communication" shaped by youth culture, mobile technology, and the economics of attention, in which spectators become active contributors to a shared content pipeline. The same analysis noted that TikTok "reflects a new mode of communication influenced by avant-garde cinema, the use of mobile technology, and the social habits of particular social groups." US social media users were projected to spend 61.1% of their time on social networks watching videos in 2025, up from 33.3% in 2019, before TikTok became widely popular, underscoring the scale of the behavioural shift. == Monetisation challenges == Despite high engagement levels, monetising short-form video has remained difficult for platforms and creators alike. Unlike long-form YouTube content, short clips offer limited space for advertisers to insert advertisements. YouTube Shorts pays approximately four cents per 1,000 views, considerably less than its long-form counterpart. From 2025 onward, platforms began introducing creator funds, advertisements, and AI-driven content recommendations as part of broader efforts to make short-form video economically sustainable for creators.

  Read more →
• 

  Interplanetary Internet

  The interplanetary Internet is a conceived computer network in space, consisting of a set of network nodes that can communicate with each other. These nodes are the planet's orbiters and landers, and the Earth ground stations. For example, the orbiters collect the scientific data from the Curiosity rover on Mars through near-Mars communication links, transmit the data to Earth through direct links from the Mars orbiters to the Earth ground stations via the NASA Deep Space Network, and finally the data routed through Earth's internal internet. Interplanetary communication is greatly delayed by interplanetary distances, as data transmission can only go as fast as the speed of light, so a new set of protocols and technologies that are tolerant to large delays and errors are required. The interplanetary Internet has been envisioned as a store and forward network of internets that is often disconnected, has a wireless backbone fraught with error-prone links and delays ranging from tens of minutes to even hours, even when there is a connection. As of 2024 agencies and companies working towards bringing the network to fruition include NASA, ESA, SpaceX and Blue Origin. == Challenges and reasons == In the core implementation of Interplanetary Internet, satellites orbiting a planet communicate to other planet's satellites. Simultaneously, these planets revolve around the Sun with long distances, and thus many challenges face the communications. The reasons and the resultant challenges are: The motion and long distances between planets: The interplanetary communication is greatly delayed due to the interplanetary distances and the motion of the planets. The delay is variable and long, ranging from a couple of minutes (Earth-to-Mars), to a couple of hours (Pluto-to-Earth), depending on their relative positions. The interplanetary communication also suspends due to the solar conjunction, when the sun's radiation hinders the direct communication between the planets. As such, the communication characterizes lossy links and intermittent link connectivity. Low embeddable payload: Satellites can only carry a small payload, which poses challenges to the power, mass, size, and cost for communication hardware design. An asymmetric bandwidth would be the result of this limitation. This asymmetry reaches ratios up to 1000:1 as downlink:uplink bandwidth portion. Absence of fixed infrastructure: The graph of participating nodes in a specific planet-to-planet communication keeps changing over time, due to the constant motion. The routes of the planet-to-planet communication are planned and scheduled rather than being opportunistic. The Interplanetary Internet design must address these challenges to operate successfully and achieve good communication with other planets. It also must use the few available resources efficiently in the system. == Development == Space communication technology has steadily evolved from expensive, one-of-a-kind point-to-point architectures, to the re-use of technology on successive missions, to the development of standard protocols agreed upon by space agencies of many countries. This last phase has gone on since 1982 through the efforts of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS), a body composed of the major space agencies of the world. It has 11 member agencies, 32 observer agencies, and over 119 industrial associates. The evolution of space data system standards has gone on in parallel with the evolution of the Internet, with conceptual cross-pollination where fruitful, but largely as a separate evolution. Since the late 1990s, familiar Internet protocols and CCSDS space link protocols have integrated and converged in several ways; for example, the successful FTP file transfer to Earth-orbiting STRV 1B on January 2, 1996, which ran FTP over the CCSDS IPv4-like Space Communications Protocol Specifications (SCPS) protocols. Internet Protocol use without CCSDS has taken place on spacecraft, e.g., demonstrations on the UoSAT-12 satellite, and operationally on the Disaster Monitoring Constellation. Having reached the era where networking and IP on board spacecraft have been shown to be feasible and reliable, a forward-looking study of the bigger picture was the next phase. The Interplanetary Internet study at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) was started by a team of scientists at JPL led by internet pioneer Vinton Cerf and the late Adrian Hooke. Cerf was appointed as a distinguished visiting scientist at JPL in 1998, while Hooke was one of the founders and directors of CCSDS. While IP-like SCPS protocols are feasible for short hops, such as ground station to orbiter, rover to lander, lander to orbiter, probe to flyby, and so on, delay-tolerant networking is needed to get information from one region of the Solar System to another. It becomes apparent that the concept of a region is a natural architectural factoring of the Interplanetary Internet. A region is an area where the characteristics of communication are the same. Region characteristics include communications, security, the maintenance of resources, perhaps ownership, and other factors. The Interplanetary Internet is a "network of regional internets". What is needed then, is a standard way to achieve end-to-end communication through multiple regions in a disconnected, variable-delay environment using a generalized suite of protocols. Examples of regions might include the terrestrial Internet as a region, a region on the surface of the Moon or Mars, or a ground-to-orbit region. The recognition of this requirement led to the concept of a "bundle" as a high-level way to address the generalized Store-and-Forward problem. Bundles are an area of new protocol development in the upper layers of the OSI model, above the Transport Layer with the goal of addressing the issue of bundling store-and-forward information so that it can reliably traverse radically dissimilar environments constituting a "network of regional internets". Delay-tolerant networking (DTN) was designed to enable standardized communications over long distances and through time delays. At its core is the Bundle Protocol (BP), which is similar to the Internet Protocol, or IP, that serves as the heart of the Internet here on Earth. The big difference between the regular Internet Protocol (IP) and the Bundle Protocol is that IP assumes a seamless end-to-end data path, while BP is built to account for errors and disconnections — glitches that commonly plague deep-space communications. Bundle Service Layering, implemented as the Bundling protocol suite for delay-tolerant networking, will provide general-purpose delay-tolerant protocol services in support of a range of applications: custody transfer, segmentation and reassembly, end-to-end reliability, end-to-end security, and end-to-end routing among them. The Bundle Protocol was first tested in space on the UK-DMC satellite in 2008. An example of one of these end-to-end applications flown on a space mission is the CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP), used on the Deep Impact comet mission. CFDP is an international standard for automatic, reliable file transfer in both directions. CFDP should not be confused with Coherent File Distribution Protocol, which has the same acronym and is an IETF-documented experimental protocol for rapidly deploying files to multiple targets in a highly networked environment. In addition to reliably copying a file from one entity (such as a spacecraft or ground station) to another entity, CFDP has the capability to reliably transmit arbitrarily small messages defined by the user, in the metadata accompanying the file, and to reliably transmit commands relating to file system management that are to be executed automatically on the remote end-point entity (such as a spacecraft) upon successful reception of a file. == Protocol == The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) packet telemetry standard defines the protocol used for the transmission of spacecraft instrument data over the deep-space channel. Under this standard, an image or other data sent from a spacecraft instrument is transmitted using one or more packets. === CCSDS packet definition === A packet is a block of data with length that can vary between successive packets, ranging from 7 to 65,542 bytes, including the packet header. Packetized data is transmitted via frames, which are fixed-length data blocks. The size of a frame, including frame header and control information, can range up to 2048 bytes. Packet sizes are fixed during the development phase. Because packet lengths are variable but frame lengths are fixed, packet boundaries usually do not coincide with frame boundaries. === Telecom processing notes === Data in a frame is typically protected from channel errors by error-correcting codes. Even when the channel errors exceed the correction capability of the error-correcting code, the presence of errors is nearly always detected by the e

  Read more →
• 

  Connected-component labeling

  Connected-component labeling (CCL), connected-component analysis (CCA), blob extraction, region labeling, blob discovery, or region extraction is an algorithmic application of graph theory, where subsets of connected components are uniquely labeled based on a given heuristic. Connected-component labeling is not to be confused with segmentation. Connected-component labeling is used in computer vision to detect connected regions in binary digital images, although color images and data with higher dimensionality can also be processed. When integrated into an image recognition system or human-computer interaction interface, connected component labeling can operate on a variety of information. Blob extraction is generally performed on the resulting binary image from a thresholding step, but it can be applicable to gray-scale and color images as well. Blobs may be counted, filtered, and tracked. Blob extraction is related to but distinct from blob detection. == Overview == A graph, containing vertices and connecting edges, is constructed from relevant input data. The vertices contain information required by the comparison heuristic, while the edges indicate connected 'neighbors'. An algorithm traverses the graph, labeling the vertices based on the connectivity and relative values of their neighbors. Connectivity is determined by the medium; image graphs, for example, can be 4-connected neighborhood or 8-connected neighborhood. Following the labeling stage, the graph may be partitioned into subsets, after which the original information can be recovered and processed . == Definition == The usage of the term connected-component labeling (CCL) and its definition is quite consistent in the academic literature, whereas connected-component analysis (CCA) varies both in terminology and in its definition of the problem. Rosenfeld et al. define connected components labeling as the “[c]reation of a labeled image in which the positions associated with the same connected component of the binary input image have a unique label.” Shapiro et al. define CCL as an operator whose “input is a binary image and [...] output is a symbolic image in which the label assigned to each pixel is an integer uniquely identifying the connected component to which that pixel belongs.” There is no consensus on the definition of CCA in the academic literature. It is often used interchangeably with CCL. A more extensive definition is given by Shapiro et al.: “Connected component analysis consists of connected component labeling of the black pixels followed by property measurement of the component regions and decision making.” The definition for connected-component analysis presented here is more general, taking the thoughts expressed in into account. == Algorithms == The algorithms discussed can be generalised to arbitrary dimensions, albeit with increased time and space complexity. === One component at a time === This is a fast and very simple method to implement and understand. It is based on graph traversal methods in graph theory. In short, once the first pixel of a connected component is found, all the connected pixels of that connected component are labelled before going onto the next pixel in the image. This algorithm is part of Vincent and Soille's watershed segmentation algorithm, other implementations also exist. In order to do that a linked list is formed that will keep the indexes of the pixels that are connected to each other, steps (2) and (3) below. The method of defining the linked list specifies the use of a depth or a breadth first search. For this particular application, there is no difference which strategy to use. The simplest kind of a last in first out queue implemented as a singly linked list will result in a depth first search strategy. It is assumed that the input image is a binary image, with pixels being either background or foreground and that the connected components in the foreground pixels are desired. The algorithm steps can be written as: Start from the first pixel in the image. Set current label to 1. Go to (2). If this pixel is a foreground pixel and it is not already labelled, give it the current label and add it as the first element in a queue, then go to (3). If it is a background pixel or it was already labelled, then repeat (2) for the next pixel in the image. Pop out an element from the queue, and look at its neighbours (based on any type of connectivity). If a neighbour is a foreground pixel and is not already labelled, give it the current label and add it to the queue. Repeat (3) until there are no more elements in the queue. Go to (2) for the next pixel in the image and increment current label by 1. Note that the pixels are labelled before being put into the queue. The queue will only keep a pixel to check its neighbours and add them to the queue if necessary. This algorithm only needs to check the neighbours of each foreground pixel once and doesn't check the neighbours of background pixels. The pseudocode is: algorithm OneComponentAtATime(data) input : imageData[xDim][yDim] initialization : label = 0, labelArray[xDim][yDim] = 0, statusArray[xDim][yDim] = false, queue1, queue2; for i = 0 to xDim do for j = 0 to yDim do if imageData[i][j] has not been processed do if imageData[i][j] is a foreground pixel do check its four neighbors(north, south, east, west) : if neighbor is not processed do if neighbor is a foreground pixel do add it to queue1 else update its status to processed end if labelArray[i][j] = label (give label) statusArray[i][j] = true (update status) while queue1 is not empty do For each pixel in the queue do : check its four neighbors if neighbor is not processed do if neighbor is a foreground pixel do add it to queue2 else update its status to processed end if give it the current label update its status to processed remove the current element from queue1 copy queue2 into queue1 end While increase the label end if else update its status to processed end if end if end if end for end for === Two-pass === Relatively simple to implement and understand, the two-pass algorithm, (also known as the Hoshen–Kopelman algorithm) iterates through 2-dimensional binary data. The algorithm makes two passes over the image: the first pass to assign temporary labels and record equivalences, and the second pass to replace each temporary label by the smallest label of its equivalence class. The input data can be modified in situ (which carries the risk of data corruption), or labeling information can be maintained in an additional data structure. Connectivity checks are carried out by checking neighbor pixels' labels (neighbor elements whose labels are not assigned yet are ignored), or say, the north-east, the north, the north-west and the west of the current pixel (assuming 8-connectivity). 4-connectivity uses only north and west neighbors of the current pixel. The following conditions are checked to determine the value of the label to be assigned to the current pixel (4-connectivity is assumed) Conditions to check: Does the pixel to the left (west) have the same value as the current pixel? Yes – We are in the same region. Assign the same label to the current pixel No – Check next condition Do both pixels to the north and west of the current pixel have the same value as the current pixel but not the same label? Yes – We know that the north and west pixels belong to the same region and must be merged. Assign the current pixel the minimum of the north and west labels, and record their equivalence relationship No – Check next condition Does the pixel to the left (west) have a different value and the one to the north the same value as the current pixel? Yes – Assign the label of the north pixel to the current pixel No – Check next condition Do the pixel's north and west neighbors have different pixel values than current pixel? Yes – Create a new label id and assign it to the current pixel The algorithm continues this way, and creates new region labels whenever necessary. The key to a fast algorithm, however, is how this merging is done. This algorithm uses the union-find data structure which provides excellent performance for keeping track of equivalence relationships. Union-find essentially stores labels which correspond to the same blob in a disjoint-set data structure, making it easy to remember the equivalence of two labels by the use of an interface method E.g.: findSet(l). findSet(l) returns the minimum label value that is equivalent to the function argument 'l'. Once the initial labeling and equivalence recording is completed, the second pass merely replaces each pixel label with its equivalent disjoint-set representative element. A faster-scanning algorithm for connected-region extraction is presented below. On the first pass: Iterate through each element of the data by column, then by row (Raster Scanning) If the element is not the background Get the neighboring elements of the current element If there are no neighbors, uniquely

  Read more →
• 

  Cambridge Semantics

  Cambridge Semantics is a privately held company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with an office in San Diego, California. The company is an enterprise big data management and exploratory analytics software company. == History == Cambridge Semantics was founded in 2007 by Sean Martin, Lee Feigenbaum, Simon Martin, Rouben Meschian, Ben Szekely and Emmett Eldred who all previously worked at IBM's Advanced Technology Internet Group. In 2012, Cambridge Semantics appointed Chuck Pieper as chief executive. Pieper was previously at Credit Suisse. In January 2016, Cambridge Semantics acquired SPARQL City and its graph database intellectual property. On April 18, 2024, Altair Engineering acquired Cambridge Semantics. On 26 March 2025, Siemens announced the acquisition of Altair. == Products == Anzo Smart Data Lake uses Semantic Web Technologies. It allows IT departments and their business users to access data. AnzoGraph DB Graph database. AnzoGraph DB is a massively parallel processing (MPP) native graph database built for diverse data harmonization and analytics at scale (trillions of triples and more), speed and deep link insights. It is used for embedded analytics that require graph algorithms, graph views, named queries, aggregates, geospatial, built-in data science functions, data warehouse-style BI and reporting functions. It allows users to load and query RDF data using SPARQL or Cypher for OLAP-style analytics. == Marketing == Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2018 finalist. Cambridge Semantics named 2018 Gold Stevie Award Winner for 'Big Data Solutions'. Cambridge Semantics named KMWorld’s 2018 ‘100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management’. Cambridge Semantics named to Database Trends and Applications' 'Trend-Setting Products in Data and Information Management for 2018'. Cambridge Semantics named to KMWorld Trend-Setting Products of 2017. Cambridge Semantics named to Database Trends and Applications 'DBTA 100: The Companies That Matter Most in Data'. Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2017 winner for ‘Best Text Analytics and Semantic Technology Solution’. Cambridge Semantics named 2017 Silver Stevie Award Winner for 'Big Data Solutions'. Cambridge Semantics named KMWorld’s 2017 ‘100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management’. Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2016 finalist. Cambridge Semantics named KMWorld’s 2016 ‘100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management’ and KMWorld Trend-Setting Products of 2015. Cambridge Semantics named 2016 Bio-IT World Best of Show People's Choice Award Contenders and 2015 Bio-IT best of show finalist. Anzo Insider Trading Investigation and Surveillance named 2015 CODiE Award finalist. Cambridge Semantics Selected as Finalist for 2014 MIT Sloan CIO Symposium's Innovation Showcase. Cambridge Semantics named SIIA CODiE Award 2014 finalist. Cambridge Semantics Win 2013 SIIA CODiE Award for best business intelligence and analytics solution. Cambridge Semantics wins KMWorld 2012 Promise Award. Cambridge Semantics wins Best of Show at 2012 Bio-IT World Conference.

  Read more →
• 

  Hybrid argument (cryptography)

  In cryptography, the hybrid argument is a proof technique used to show that two distributions are computationally indistinguishable. == History == Hybrid arguments had their origin in a papers by Andrew Yao in 1982 and Shafi Goldwasser and Silvio Micali in 1983. == Formal description == Formally, to show two distributions D1 and D2 are computationally indistinguishable, we can define a sequence of hybrid distributions D1 := H0, H1, ..., Ht =: D2 where t is polynomial in the security parameter n. Define the advantage of any probabilistic efficient (polynomial-bounded time) algorithm A as A d v H i , H i + 1 d i s t ( A ) := | Pr [ x ← $ H i : A ( x ) = 1 ] − Pr [ x ← $ H i + 1 : A ( x ) = 1 ] | , {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Adv}}_{H_{i},H_{i+1}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} ):=\left|\Pr[x{\stackrel {\$}{\gets }}H_{i}:\mathbf {A} (x)=1]-\Pr[x{\stackrel {\$}{\gets }}H_{i+1}:\mathbf {A} (x)=1]\right|,} where the dollar symbol ($) denotes that we sample an element from the distribution at random. By triangle inequality, it is clear that for any probabilistic polynomial time algorithm A, A d v D 1 , D 2 d i s t ( A ) ≤ ∑ i = 0 t − 1 A d v H i , H i + 1 d i s t ( A ) . {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Adv}}_{D_{1},D_{2}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )\leq \sum _{i=0}^{t-1}{\mathsf {Adv}}_{H_{i},H_{i+1}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} ).} Thus there must exist some k s.t. 0 ≤ k < t(n) and A d v H k , H k + 1 d i s t ( A ) ≥ A d v D 1 , D 2 d i s t ( A ) / t ( n ) . {\displaystyle {\mathsf {Adv}}_{H_{k},H_{k+1}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )\geq {\mathsf {Adv}}_{D_{1},D_{2}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )/t(n).} Since t is polynomial-bounded, for any such algorithm A, if we can show that it has a fixed negligible advantage function ε(n) between distributions Hi and Hi+1 for every i, so in particular, ϵ ( n ) ≥ A d v H k , H k + 1 d i s t ( A ) ≥ A d v D 1 , D 2 d i s t ( A ) / t ( n ) , {\displaystyle \epsilon (n)\geq {\mathsf {Adv}}_{H_{k},H_{k+1}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )\geq {\mathsf {Adv}}_{D_{1},D_{2}}^{\mathsf {dist}}(\mathbf {A} )/t(n),} then it immediately follows that its advantage to distinguish the distributions D1 = H0 and D2 = Ht must also be negligible. == Applications == The hybrid argument is extensively used in cryptography. Some simple proofs using hybrid arguments are: If one cannot efficiently predict the next bit of the output of some number generator, then this generator is a pseudorandom number generator (PRG). We can securely expand a PRG with 1-bit output into a PRG with n-bit output.

  Read more →
• 

  Knapsack problem

  The knapsack problem is the following problem in combinatorial optimization: Given a set of items, each with a weight and a value, determine which items to include in the collection so that the total weight is less than or equal to a given limit and the total value is as large as possible. It derives its name from the problem faced by someone who is constrained by a fixed-size knapsack and must fill it with the most valuable items. The problem often arises in resource allocation where the decision-makers have to choose from a set of non-divisible projects or tasks under a fixed budget or time constraint, respectively. The knapsack problem has been studied for more than a century, with early works dating back to 1897. The subset sum problem is a special case of the decision and 0-1 problems where for each kind of item, the weight equals the value: w i = v i {\displaystyle w_{i}=v_{i}} . In the field of cryptography, the term knapsack problem is often used to refer specifically to the subset sum problem. The subset sum problem is one of Karp's 21 NP-complete problems. == Applications == Knapsack problems appear in real-world decision-making processes in a wide variety of fields, such as finding the least wasteful way to cut raw materials, selection of investments and portfolios, selection of assets for asset-backed securitization, and generating keys for the Merkle–Hellman and other knapsack cryptosystems. One early application of knapsack algorithms was in the construction and scoring of tests in which the test-takers have a choice as to which questions they answer. For small examples, it is a fairly simple process to provide the test-takers with such a choice. For example, if an exam contains 12 questions each worth 10 points, the test-taker need only answer 10 questions to achieve a maximum possible score of 100 points. However, on tests with a heterogeneous distribution of point values, it is more difficult to provide choices. Feuerman and Weiss proposed a system in which students are given a heterogeneous test with a total of 125 possible points. The students are asked to answer all of the questions to the best of their abilities. Of the possible subsets of problems whose total point values add up to 100, a knapsack algorithm would determine which subset gives each student the highest possible score. A 1999 study of the Stony Brook University Algorithm Repository showed that, out of 75 algorithmic problems related to the field of combinatorial algorithms and algorithm engineering, the knapsack problem was the 19th most popular and the third most needed after suffix trees and the bin packing problem. == Definition == The most common problem being solved is the 0-1 knapsack problem, which restricts the number x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} of copies of each kind of item to zero or one. Given a set of n {\displaystyle n} items numbered from 1 up to n {\displaystyle n} , each with a weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} and a value v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} , along with a maximum weight capacity W {\displaystyle W} , maximize ∑ i = 1 n v i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}v_{i}x_{i}} subject to ∑ i = 1 n w i x i ≤ W {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{i}x_{i}\leq W} and x i ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \{0,1\}} . Here x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} represents the number of instances of item i {\displaystyle i} to include in the knapsack. Informally, the problem is to maximize the sum of the values of the items in the knapsack so that the sum of the weights is less than or equal to the knapsack's capacity. The bounded knapsack problem (BKP) removes the restriction that there is only one of each item, but restricts the number x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} of copies of each kind of item to a maximum non-negative integer value c {\displaystyle c} : maximize ∑ i = 1 n v i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}v_{i}x_{i}} subject to ∑ i = 1 n w i x i ≤ W {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{i}x_{i}\leq W} and x i ∈ { 0 , 1 , 2 , … , c } . {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \{0,1,2,\dots ,c\}.} The unbounded knapsack problem (UKP) places no upper bound on the number of copies of each kind of item and can be formulated as above except that the only restriction on x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is that it is a non-negative integer. maximize ∑ i = 1 n v i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}v_{i}x_{i}} subject to ∑ i = 1 n w i x i ≤ W {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{i}x_{i}\leq W} and x i ∈ N . {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {N} .} One example of the unbounded knapsack problem is given using the figure shown at the beginning of this article and the text "if any number of each book is available" in the caption of that figure. == Computational complexity == The knapsack problem is interesting from the perspective of computer science for many reasons: The decision problem form of the knapsack problem (Can a value of at least V be achieved without exceeding the weight W?) is NP-complete, thus there is no known algorithm that is both correct and fast (polynomial-time) in all cases. There is no known polynomial algorithm which can tell, given a solution, whether it is optimal (which would mean that there is no solution with a larger V). This problem is co-NP-complete. There is a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm using dynamic programming. There is a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme, which uses the pseudo-polynomial time algorithm as a subroutine, described below. Many cases that arise in practice, and "random instances" from some distributions, can nonetheless be solved exactly. There is a link between the "decision" and "optimization" problems in that if there exists a polynomial algorithm that solves the "decision" problem, then one can find the maximum value for the optimization problem in polynomial time by applying this algorithm iteratively while increasing the value of k. On the other hand, if an algorithm finds the optimal value of the optimization problem in polynomial time, then the decision problem can be solved in polynomial time by comparing the value of the solution output by this algorithm with the value of k. Thus, both versions of the problem are of similar difficulty. One theme in research literature is to identify what the "hard" instances of the knapsack problem look like, or viewed another way, to identify what properties of instances in practice might make them more amenable than their worst-case NP-complete behaviour suggests. The goal in finding these "hard" instances is for their use in public-key cryptography systems, such as the Merkle–Hellman knapsack cryptosystem. More generally, better understanding of the structure of the space of instances of an optimization problem helps to advance the study of the particular problem and can improve algorithm selection. Furthermore, notable is the fact that the hardness of the knapsack problem depends on the form of the input. If the weights and profits are given as integers, it is weakly NP-complete, while it is strongly NP-complete if the weights and profits are given as rational numbers. However, in the case of rational weights and profits it still admits a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme. === Unit-cost models === The NP-hardness of the Knapsack problem relates to computational models in which the size of integers matters (such as the Turing machine). In contrast, decision trees count each decision as a single step. Dobkin and Lipton show an 1 2 n 2 {\displaystyle {1 \over 2}n^{2}} lower bound on linear decision trees for the knapsack problem, that is, trees where decision nodes test the sign of affine functions. This was generalized to algebraic decision trees by Steele and Yao. If the elements in the problem are real numbers or rationals, the decision-tree lower bound extends to the real random-access machine model with an instruction set that includes addition, subtraction and multiplication of real numbers, as well as comparison and either division or remaindering ("floor"). This model covers more algorithms than the algebraic decision-tree model, as it encompasses algorithms that use indexing into tables. However, in this model all program steps are counted, not just decisions. An upper bound for a decision-tree model was given by Meyer auf der Heide who showed that for every n there exists an O(n4)-deep linear decision tree that solves the subset-sum problem with n items. Note that this does not imply any upper bound for an algorithm that should solve the problem for any given n. == Solving == Several algorithms are available to solve knapsack problems, based on the dynamic programming approach, the branch and bound approach or hybridizations of both approaches. === Dynamic programming in-advance algorithm === The unbounded knapsack problem (UKP) places no restriction on the number of copies of each kind of item. Besides, here we assume that x i > 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}>0} m [ w ′ ] = max ( ∑ i = 1 n v i x i ) {\displaystyle m[w']=\max \left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}v_{i}x_{i}\right)} subject to ∑

  Read more →
• 

  Shader lamps

  Shader lamps is a computer graphic technique used to change the appearance of physical objects. The still or moving objects are illuminated, using one or more video projectors, by static or animated texture or video stream. The method was invented at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by Ramesh Raskar, Greg Welch, Kok-lim Low and Deepak Bandyopadhyay in 1999 [1] as a follow on to Spatial Augmented Reality [2] also invented at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1998 by Ramesh Raskar, Greg Welch and Henry Fuchs. A 3D graphic rendering software is typically used to compute the deformation caused by the non perpendicular, non-planar or even complex projection surface. Complex objects (or aggregation of multiple simple objects) create self shadows that must be compensated by using several projectors. The objects are typically replaced by neutral color ones, the projection giving all its visual properties, thus the name shader lamps. The technique can be used to create a sense of invisibility, by rendering transparency. The object is illuminated not by a replacement of its own visual properties, but by the corresponding visual surface placed behind the object as seen from an arbitrary viewing point.

  Read more →
• 

  Social knowledge management

  Social knowledge management is a business approach that aims to leverage the collective intelligence and social interactions of an organization’s members and stakeholders. It is a branch of knowledge management, which is a multidisciplinary field that deals with the creation, sharing, and use of knowledge in various domains, such as business, economics, psychology, and information management. Knowledge management seeks to enhance organizational performance, innovation, and competitiveness by managing the intangible assets of an organization, such as human capital, know-how, technology, customers, and networks. Social media plays a crucial role in social knowledge management by enhancing communication, collaboration, and learning among individuals and groups, both internally and externally. It offers valuable insights and feedback from customers, partners, and stakeholders, and aids in generating and disseminating new knowledge. In a business context, social media is utilized for various purposes, including sentiment analysis, social learning, social collaboration, and social knowledge management. Social knowledge management is one of the application areas of social media in a business context next to others like sentiment analysis, social learning or social collaboration. Social media use by businesses can strive to achieve the following things from social media strategy point of view: learn, listen, engage in conversation, measure and refine, develop capabilities, define activities, prioritize objectives etc. Social media are not only transforming private communication and interaction, they also will transform how people work. With social media knowledge work in organizations can be optimized extremely: like a better distribution sharing and access to knowledge. This will be more and more important, as in today's business world, speed and complexity increase dramatically, while work environments change constantly. == Examples of Social KM platforms == Elium, a European software application which combines social tagging, bookmarking and networking paradigms to address internal information management purposes. Sciomino was a startup enterprise social network for Social Knowledge Management.

  Read more →
• 

  Code (cryptography)

  In cryptology, a code is a method used to encrypt a message that operates at the level of meaning; that is, words or phrases are converted into something else. A code might transform "change" into "CVGDK" or "cocktail lounge". The U.S. National Security Agency defined a code as "A substitution cryptosystem in which the plaintext elements are primarily words, phrases, or sentences, and the code equivalents (called "code groups") typically consist of letters or digits (or both) in otherwise meaningless combinations of identical length." A codebook is needed to encrypt, and decrypt the phrases or words. By contrast, ciphers encrypt messages at the level of individual letters, or small groups of letters, or even, in modern ciphers, individual bits. Messages can be transformed first by a code, and then by a cipher. Such multiple encryption, or "superencryption" aims to make cryptanalysis more difficult. Another comparison between codes and ciphers is that a code typically represents a letter or groups of letters directly without the use of mathematics. As such the numbers are configured to represent these three values: 1001 = A, 1002 = B, 1003 = C, ... . The resulting message, then would be 1001 1002 1003 to communicate ABC. Ciphers, however, utilize a mathematical formula to represent letters or groups of letters. For example, A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, ... . Thus the message ABC results by multiplying each letter's value by 13. The message ABC, then would be 13 26 39. Codes have a variety of drawbacks, including susceptibility to cryptanalysis and the difficulty of managing the cumbersome codebooks, so ciphers are now the dominant technique in modern cryptography. In contrast, because codes are representational, they are not susceptible to mathematical analysis of the individual codebook elements. In the example, the message 13 26 39 can be cracked by dividing each number by 13 and then ranking them alphabetically. However, the focus of codebook cryptanalysis is the comparative frequency of the individual code elements matching the same frequency of letters within the plaintext messages using frequency analysis. In the above example, the code group, 1001, 1002, 1003, might occur more than once and that frequency might match the number of times that ABC occurs in plain text messages. (In the past, or in non-technical contexts, code and cipher are often used to refer to any form of encryption). == One- and two-part codes == Codes are defined by "codebooks" (physical or notional), which are dictionaries of codegroups listed with their corresponding plaintext. Codes originally had the codegroups assigned in 'plaintext order' for convenience of the code designed, or the encoder. For example, in a code using numeric code groups, a plaintext word starting with "a" would have a low-value group, while one starting with "z" would have a high-value group. The same codebook could be used to "encode" a plaintext message into a coded message or "codetext", and "decode" a codetext back into plaintext message. In order to make life more difficult for codebreakers, codemakers designed codes with no predictable relationship between the codegroups and the ordering of the matching plaintext. In practice, this meant that two codebooks were now required, one to find codegroups for encoding, the other to look up codegroups to find plaintext for decoding. Such "two-part" codes required more effort to develop, and twice as much effort to distribute (and discard safely when replaced), but they were harder to break. The Zimmermann Telegram in January 1917 used the German diplomatic "0075" two-part code system which contained upwards of 10,000 phrases and individual words. == One-time code == A one-time code is a prearranged word, phrase or symbol that is intended to be used only once to convey a simple message, often the signal to execute or abort some plan or confirm that it has succeeded or failed. One-time codes are often designed to be included in what would appear to be an innocent conversation. Done properly they are almost impossible to detect, though a trained analyst monitoring the communications of someone who has already aroused suspicion might be able to recognize a comment like "Aunt Bertha has gone into labor" as having an ominous meaning. Famous example of one time codes include: In the Bible, Jonathan prearranges a code with David, who is going into hiding from Jonathan's father, King Saul. If, during archery practice, Jonathan tells the servant retrieving arrows "the arrows are on this side of you," David may safely return to court; if the command is "the arrows are beyond you," David must flee. "One if by land; two if by sea" in "Paul Revere's Ride" made famous in the poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow "Climb Mount Niitaka" - the signal to Japanese planes to begin the attack on Pearl Harbor During World War II the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas service frequently included "personal messages" as part of its regular broadcast schedule. The seemingly nonsensical stream of messages read out by announcers were actually one time codes intended for Special Operations Executive (SOE) agents operating behind enemy lines. An example might be "The princess wears red shoes" or "Mimi's cat is asleep under the table". Each code message was read out twice. By such means, the French Resistance were instructed to start sabotaging rail and other transport links the night before D-day. "Over all of Spain, the sky is clear" was a signal (broadcast on radio) to start the nationalist military revolt in Spain on July 17, 1936. Sometimes messages are not prearranged and rely on shared knowledge hopefully known only to the recipients. An example is the telegram sent to U.S. President Harry Truman, then at the Potsdam Conference to meet with Soviet premier Joseph Stalin, informing Truman of the first successful test of an atomic bomb. "Operated on this morning. Diagnosis not yet complete but results seem satisfactory and already exceed expectations. Local press release necessary as interest extends great distance. Dr. Groves pleased. He returns tomorrow. I will keep you posted." == Idiot code == An idiot code is a code that is created by the parties using it. This type of communication is akin to the hand signals used by armies in the field. Example: Any sentence where 'day' and 'night' are used means 'attack'. The location mentioned in the following sentence specifies the location to be attacked. Plaintext: Attack X. Codetext: We walked day and night through the streets but couldn't find it! Tomorrow we'll head into X. An early use of the term appears to be by George Perrault, a character in the science fiction book Friday by Robert A. Heinlein: The simplest sort [of code] and thereby impossible to break. The first ad told the person or persons concerned to carry out number seven or expect number seven or it said something about something designated as seven. This one says the same with respect to code item number ten. But the meaning of the numbers cannot be deduced through statistical analysis because the code can be changed long before a useful statistical universe can be reached. It's an idiot code... and an idiot code can never be broken if the user has the good sense not to go too often to the well. Terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp said that the men who carried out the September 11 attacks on the United States used basic e-mail and what he calls "idiot code" to discuss their plans. == Cryptanalysis of codes == While solving a monoalphabetic substitution cipher is easy, solving even a simple code is difficult. Decrypting a coded message is a little like trying to translate a document written in a foreign language, with the task basically amounting to building up a "dictionary" of the codegroups and the plaintext words they represent. One fingerhold on a simple code is the fact that some words are more common than others, such as "the" or "a" in English. In telegraphic messages, the codegroup for "STOP" (i.e., end of sentence or paragraph) is usually very common. This helps define the structure of the message in terms of sentences, if not their meaning, and this is cryptanalytically useful. Further progress can be made against a code by collecting many codetexts encrypted with the same code and then using information from other sources spies newspapers diplomatic cocktail party chat the location from where a message was sent where it was being sent to (i.e., traffic analysis) the time the message was sent, events occurring before and after the message was sent the normal habits of the people sending the coded messages etc. For example, a particular codegroup found almost exclusively in messages from a particular army and nowhere else might very well indicate the commander of that army. A codegroup that appears in messages preceding an attack on a particular location may very well stand for that location. Cribs can be an immediate giveaway to the definiti

  Read more →
• 

  Localhost

  In computer networking, localhost is a hostname that refers to the current computer used to access it. The name localhost is reserved for loopback purposes. It is used to access the network services that are running on the host via the loopback network interface. Using the loopback interface bypasses any local network interface hardware. == Loopback == The local loopback mechanism may be used to run a network service on a host without requiring a physical network interface, or without making the service accessible from the networks the computer may be connected to. For example, a locally installed website may be accessed from a Web browser by the URL http://localhost to display its home page. IPv4 network standards reserve the entire address block 127.0.0.0/8 (more than 16 million addresses) for loopback purposes. That means any packet sent to any of those addresses is looped back. The address 127.0.0.1 is the standard address for IPv4 loopback traffic; the rest are not supported by all operating systems. However, they can be used to set up multiple server applications on the host, all listening on the same port number. In the IPv6 addressing architecture there is only a single address assigned for loopback: ::1. The standard precludes the assignment of that address to any physical interface, as well as its use as the source or destination address in any packet sent to remote hosts. == Name resolution == The name localhost normally resolves to the IPv4 loopback address 127.0.0.1, and to the IPv6 loopback address ::1. This resolution is normally configured by the following lines in the operating system's hosts file: 127.0.0.1 localhost ::1 localhost The name may also be resolved by Domain Name System (DNS) servers, but there are special considerations governing the use of this name: An IPv4 or IPv6 address query for the name localhost must always resolve to the respective loopback address. Applications may resolve the name to a loopback address themselves, or pass it to the local name resolver mechanisms. When a name resolver receives an address (A or AAAA) query for localhost, it should return the appropriate loopback addresses, and negative responses for any other requested record types. Queries for localhost should not be sent to caching name servers. To avoid burdening the Domain Name System root servers with traffic, caching name servers should never request name server records for localhost, or forward resolution to authoritative name servers. When authoritative name servers receive queries for 'localhost' in spite of the provisions mentioned above, they should resolve them appropriately. In addition to the mapping of localhost to the loopback addresses (127.0.0.1 and ::1), localhost may also be mapped to other IPv4 (loopback) addresses and it is also possible to assign other, or additional, names to any loopback address. The mapping of localhost to addresses other than the designated loopback address range in the hosts file or in DNS is not guaranteed to have the desired effect, as applications may map the name internally. In the Domain Name System, the name .localhost is reserved as a top-level domain name, originally set aside to avoid confusion with the hostname localhost. Domain name registrars are precluded from delegating domain names in the top-level .localhost domain. == Historical notes == In 1981, the block 127.0.0.0/8 got a 'reserved' status, as not to assign it as a general purpose class A IP network. This block was officially assigned for loopback purposes in 1986. Its purpose as a Special Use IPv4 Address block was confirmed in 1994,, 2002, 2010,, and last in 2013. From the outset, in 1995, the single IPv6 loopback address ::1 was defined. Its purpose and definition was unchanged in 1998,, 2003,, and up to the current definition, in 2006. == Packet processing == The processing of any packet sent to a loopback address, is implemented in the link layer of the TCP/IP stack. Such packets are never passed to any network interface controller (NIC) or hardware device driver and must not appear outside of a computing system, or be routed by any router. This permits software testing and local services, even in the absence of any hardware network interfaces. Looped-back packets are distinguished from any other packets traversing the TCP/IP stack only by the special IP address they were addressed to. Thus, the services that ultimately receive them respond according to the specified destination. For example, an HTTP service could route packets addressed to 127.0.0.99:80 and 127.0.0.100:80 to different Web servers, or to a single server that returns different web pages. To simplify such testing, the hosts file may be configured to provide appropriate names for each address. Packets received on a non-loopback interface with a loopback source or destination address must be dropped. Such packets are sometimes referred to as Martian packets. As with any other bogus packets, they may be malicious and any problems they might cause can be avoided by applying bogon filtering. == Special cases == The releases of the MySQL database differentiate between the use of the hostname localhost and the use of the addresses 127.0.0.1 and ::1. When using localhost as the destination in a client connector interface of an application, the MySQL application programming interface connects to the database using a Unix domain socket, while a TCP connection via the loopback interface requires the direct use of the explicit address. One notable exception to the use of the 127.0.0.0/8 addresses is their use in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traceroute error detection, in which their property of not being routable provides a convenient means to avoid delivery of faulty packets to end users.

  Read more →
• 

  Radioplayer

  Radioplayer is a radio technology platform, owned by UK radio broadcasters and operated under licence in some other countries. It operates an internet radio web tuner, a set of mobile phone apps, an in-car adaptor, and a growing range of integrations with other connected devices and platforms. Radioplayer is operated by UK Radioplayer Ltd which is a not-for-profit organisation owned by UK radio broadcasters. Initial shareholders were the BBC, Global Radio, GMG Radio, Absolute Radio and RadioCentre. After consolidation in the radio market, current shareholders are the BBC, Global Radio, Bauer Media Group and RadioCentre. == History == Launched in the UK on 31 March 2011, Radioplayer set out to offer a simple and accessible way to listen to radio via the internet. It contained 157 stations at launch. Initially working internally at the BBC for Tim Davie, then Director of BBC Audio & Music, Michael Hill led the project since March 2009; he was made Managing Director of UK Radioplayer Ltd on 28 July 2010. At launch, Radioplayer was a simple and straightforward Flash-based radio player, linked-to by radio stations on their own website. The player included searching and bookmarking across all of UK radio station content. On 5 October 2012, Radioplayer launched a mobile app on iOS phones with an Android version following shortly afterwards. The apps are unavailable for download outside the United Kingdom. This was followed by a tablet app on 25 September 2013. The apps also support Android Wear, Android Auto, Smart Device Link, Apple Watch and Apple CarPlay. They are also compatible with Chromecast and Airplay. In September 2016, Radioplayer announced it had been chosen by Amazon to integrate with their new voice-controlled 'Echo' device, ahead of its UK launch. In July 2017, Radioplayer integrated with the Sonos and Bose multi-room speaker platforms. UK Radioplayer currently contains around 500 UK stations, from Ofcom-licensed broadcasters. Online-only 'sister-stations' can also be added, but only by broadcasters with Ofcom licences which have been on the platform for over a year. == Radioplayer Car == Radioplayer Car was announced in September 2014 as a hybrid radio receiver that switches between FM, DAB and streaming to find the strongest signal. Speaking in Oslo in June 2015, Michael Hill said that he hoped to launch the product in the UK and Norway during the summer of 2015. In February 2017, Radioplayer Car was launched. It was marketed as the world’s first voice-controlled hybrid radio adaptor for car stereos. A small box, fitted behind the dashboard, links to the auxiliary input on an existing car radio. It connects wirelessly via Bluetooth to the driver’s smartphone by an app. The adaptor enabled drivers to listen to their own smartphone music collections using Bluetooth, take hands-free calls, listen to inbound text messages and receive instant audio travel news, customised by GPS to their location and direction of travel. The hardware was manufactured under licence by car audio interfaces supplier Connects2, and Hyde Park Corner was promoted as the preferred installer of the audio equipment. There were several spin-off benefits of the Radioplayer Car project, including the creation of the hybrid radio metadata API for cars, known as the 'WRAPI' (Worldwide Radioplayer API). == International == Through a separate company called Radioplayer Worldwide, Radioplayer technology is licensed to a number of different territories.

  Read more →
• 

  Pivot to video

  "Pivot to video" is a phrase referring to the trend, starting in 2015, of media publishing companies cutting staff resources for written content (generally published on their own web sites) in favor of short-form video content (often published on third-party platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok). These moves were generally presented by publishers as a response to changes in social media traffic or to changes in the media consumption habits of younger audiences. However, many media commentators have argued that this shift was primarily motivated by advertising revenue, and that only advertisers, not consumers, prefer video over text. The pivot's contribution to job loss in the media industry has given the phrase "pivot to video" an association with decline, especially in a business context. Commentators have also noted a lack of transparency and accuracy in the viewership metrics reported by platforms such as Facebook, pointing out that abrupt shifts in platforms' proprietary algorithms can have devastating effects on publishers' viewership, traffic, and revenue. Following a scandal in which Facebook revealed it had artificially inflated numbers to its advertisers about how long viewers watched ads, many journalists and industry analysts concluded that the shift to video was based on such misleading or inaccurate metrics, which created a false impression that there was customer demand for additional video content. == History == Streaming media technology has been available since the early 1990s, though it was relatively low-fidelity and not widely available until the mid-2000s. In 2007, traditional media publishers including the New York Times, Washington Post and Time Inc. created new divisions to develop web videos, and Facebook launched its video platform. Twitter purchased micro-video service Vine in October 2012, began adding native video streaming in late 2014, and acquired video-streaming service Periscope in January 2015. An August 2014 profile on BuzzFeed noted the publisher's large investment into video production, and observed that "the future of BuzzFeed may not even be on BuzzFeed.com. One of the company’s nascent ideas, BuzzFeed Distributed, will be a team of 20 people producing content that lives entirely on other popular platforms, like Tumblr, Instagram or Snapchat." On 7 January 2015, Facebook issued a statement about "the shift to video," reporting that "since June 2014, Facebook has averaged more than 1 billion video views every day." Media critic John Herrman argued that "What the shift to Facebook video means is that Facebook is more interested in hosting the things media companies make than just spreading them, that it views links to outside pages as a problem to be solved, and that it sees Facebook-hosted video as an example of the solution." In February 2015, the digital video-journalism publisher NowThis announced that it would operate without a home page, producing content to be published directly on social media platforms. In April 2016, Mashable fired much of its editorial staff, attempting to pivot away from hard news coverage while "growing Mashable across every platform" and doubling down on branded content and video. By December 2017, following a sale to Ziff Davis, Mashable retreated from this focus on video; Bernard Gershon, president of GershonMedia, said that the announcement of many such "pivots" were actually aimed primarily at investors. By 2017, "advertiser interest in video [was] insatiable... Any CFO is going to say 'How can we get more video?'" according to an executive of the publishers' trade association Digital Content Next. Publishers such as Vanity Fair, the Washington Post, and Sports Illustrated began adapting their own articles into cheap video content, either dictated by a newsreader or animated as a slideshow with captions, which could be shared on social platforms or even played alongside the articles themselves. June 2017 saw numerous high-profile pivots to video. Vocativ laid off at least 20 staff, including its entire newsroom, explaining that "as the industry evolves, we are undertaking a strategic shift to focus exclusively on video content that will be distributed via social media and other platforms." Fox Sports eliminated its entire writing staff to focus on creating "premium video across all platforms." And MTV News announced a restructuring that would cut its writing team. Less than two years earlier, MTV News had hired Grantland co-founder Dan Fierman to lead a significant investment in "longform" political and cultural reporting, but Fierman left in April 2017, and in June MTV announced it was "shifting resources into short-form video content more in line with young people's media consumption habits." In July, Vice Media laid off at least 60 employees, including the editor-in-chief of Vice Sports, while expanding video production. August 2017 saw Mic cut ten writers and directed the remainder of the newsroom to generate videos for social platforms. CEO Chris Altchek said "When you think about how many hours people spend watching video versus reading, the audience has already spoken." The move was ultimately unsuccessful, and Mic laid off the majority of its staff a year later before being sold to Bustle Media Group for a fraction of its former value. In September 2017, the for-profit wiki-hosting company Fandom began adding commercially produced videos to its otherwise user-generated wiki subdomains, explicitly citing the need to "keep up with user and advertiser expectations" by "diversifying our content," claiming without substantiation that "consumer patterns are changing," necessitating the addition of "complementary video" to accommodate that supposed need. Objection to the content in these videos and its sharp contrast against the content of the wiki sites to which they were applied led to vocal user backlash, leading Fandom CCO Dorth Raphaely to offer the following non-committal response: "I agree that with these videos in particular we did not deliver the right type of content experience." Movie Pilot CEO Tobi Bauckhage explained his company's fall 2017 layoffs as part of moving "from a text-based publishing model to video... a reaction to the fact that Facebook has changed their algorithms in favor of video instead of referral traffic over the last 12 months and we were losing money in the publishing bit of our business." As part of the company's change in direction, the majority of its staff was laid off and its parent company was sold to Webedia. In November 2017, magazine publisher Condé Nast cut jobs, reduced the frequency of several magazines, and shut down the print edition of Teen Vogue, then invested significant new resources in video production, with a senior executive saying "In the next 24 months, I hope that video is half our business... It’s critical. It’s the macro trend of content consumption." In February 2018, Vox Media cut approximately 50 employees, primarily those assigned to "social video," as Vox CEO Jim Bankoff admitted that those efforts were not "viable audience or revenue growth drivers." In August 2020, Facebook Inc. (now Meta Platforms) pivoted Instagram to video in an effort to replicate the success of TikTok and appeal to a younger audience, introducing "reels" as a form of video and promoting them aggressively. Reels accounted more than half the 20 most-viewed posts on Facebook; however, most of these reels were anonymous aggregations of content from TikTok. Elon Musk declared in early 2024 that X (formerly Twitter) was now a "video-first platform", which has been described by critics as a "pivot to video". == As euphemism == In 2017, Journalist Brian Feldman said that "'Pivoting to video' has become a business strategy for digital publishers common enough in recent months to be a kind of cliché — a slick way to describe something else: layoffs." In response, writers use the phrase as gallows humor shorthand for death or cancellation, as in "how do i tell my bf i want our relationship to pivot to video" (SkyNews' Mollie Goodfellow) or "Horse broke its leg, so we had to take it out back and help it 'pivot to video'" (blogger Anil Dash). == Facebook metrics controversy == In September 2016, Facebook admitted that it had reported artificially inflated numbers to its advertisers about how long viewers watched ads leading to an overestimation of 60-80%. Plaintiffs in a later court case allege the discrepancy was as high as 150-900%. Facebook apologized in an official statement and in multiple staff appearances at New York Advertising Week. Two months later, Facebook disclosed additional discrepancies in audience metrics. In October 2018, a California federal court unsealed the text of a class action lawsuit filed by advertisers against Facebook, alleging that Facebook had known since 2015 that its viewership numbers were highly inflated, that internal records showed it "was far from an hon

  Read more →
• 

  Data stream management system

  A data stream management system (DSMS) is a computer software system to manage continuous data streams. It is similar to a database management system (DBMS), which is, however, designed for static data in conventional databases. A DBMS also offers a flexible query processing so that the information needed can be expressed using queries. However, in contrast to a DBMS, a DSMS executes a continuous query that is not only performed once, but is permanently installed. Therefore, the query is continuously executed until it is explicitly uninstalled. Since most DSMS are data-driven, a continuous query produces new results as long as new data arrive at the system. This basic concept is similar to complex event processing so that both technologies are partially coalescing. == Functional principle == One important feature of a DSMS is the possibility to handle potentially infinite and rapidly changing data streams by offering flexible processing at the same time, although there are only limited resources such as main memory. The following table provides various principles of DSMS and compares them to traditional DBMS. == Processing and streaming models == One of the biggest challenges for a DSMS is to handle potentially infinite data streams using a fixed amount of memory and no random access to the data. There are different approaches to limit the amount of data in one pass, which can be divided into two classes. For the one hand, there are compression techniques that try to summarize the data and for the other hand there are window techniques that try to portion the data into (finite) parts. === Synopses === The idea behind compression techniques is to maintain only a synopsis of the data, but not all (raw) data points of the data stream. The algorithms range from selecting random data points called sampling to summarization using histograms, wavelets or sketching. One simple example of a compression is the continuous calculation of an average. Instead of memorizing each data point, the synopsis only holds the sum and the number of items. The average can be calculated by dividing the sum by the number. However, it should be mentioned that synopses cannot reflect the data accurately. Thus, a processing that is based on synopses may produce inaccurate results. === Windows === Instead of using synopses to compress the characteristics of the whole data streams, window techniques only look on a portion of the data. This approach is motivated by the idea that only the most recent data are relevant. Therefore, a window continuously cuts out a part of the data stream, e.g. the last ten data stream elements, and only considers these elements during the processing. There are different kinds of such windows like sliding windows that are similar to FIFO lists or tumbling windows that cut out disjoint parts. Furthermore, the windows can also be differentiated into element-based windows, e.g., to consider the last ten elements, or time-based windows, e.g., to consider the last ten seconds of data. There are also different approaches to implementing windows. There are, for example, approaches that use timestamps or time intervals for system-wide windows or buffer-based windows for each single processing step. Sliding-window query processing is also suitable to being implemented in parallel processors by exploiting parallelism between different windows and/or within each window extent. == Query processing == Since there are a lot of prototypes, there is no standardized architecture. However, most DSMS are based on the query processing in DBMS by using declarative languages to express queries, which are translated into a plan of operators. These plans can be optimized and executed. A query processing often consists of the following steps. === Formulation of continuous queries === The formulation of queries is mostly done using declarative languages like SQL in DBMS. Since there are no standardized query languages to express continuous queries, there are a lot of languages and variations. However, most of them are based on SQL, such as the Continuous Query Language (CQL), StreamSQL and ESP. There are also graphical approaches where each processing step is a box and the processing flow is expressed by arrows between the boxes. The language strongly depends on the processing model. For example, if windows are used for the processing, the definition of a window has to be expressed. In StreamSQL, a query with a sliding window for the last 10 elements looks like follows: This stream continuously calculates the average value of "price" of the last 10 tuples, but only considers those tuples whose prices are greater than 100.0. In the next step, the declarative query is translated into a logical query plan. A query plan is a directed graph where the nodes are operators and the edges describe the processing flow. Each operator in the query plan encapsulates the semantic of a specific operation, such as filtering or aggregation. In DSMSs that process relational data streams, the operators are equal or similar to the operators of the Relational algebra, so that there are operators for selection, projection, join, and set operations. This operator concept allows the very flexible and versatile processing of a DSMS. === Optimization of queries === The logical query plan can be optimized, which strongly depends on the streaming model. The basic concepts for optimizing continuous queries are equal to those from database systems. If there are relational data streams and the logical query plan is based on relational operators from the Relational algebra, a query optimizer can use the algebraic equivalences to optimize the plan. These may be, for example, to push selection operators down to the sources, because they are not so computationally intensive like join operators. Furthermore, there are also cost-based optimization techniques like in DBMS, where a query plan with the lowest costs is chosen from different equivalent query plans. One example is to choose the order of two successive join operators. In DBMS this decision is mostly done by certain statistics of the involved databases. But, since the data of a data streams is unknown in advance, there are no such statistics in a DSMS. However, it is possible to observe a data stream for a certain time to obtain some statistics. Using these statistics, the query can also be optimized later. So, in contrast to a DBMS, some DSMS allows to optimize the query even during runtime. Therefore, a DSMS needs some plan migration strategies to replace a running query plan with a new one. === Transformation of queries === Since a logical operator is only responsible for the semantics of an operation but does not consist of any algorithms, the logical query plan must be transformed into an executable counterpart. This is called a physical query plan. The distinction between a logical and a physical operator plan allows more than one implementation for the same logical operator. The join, for example, is logically the same, although it can be implemented by different algorithms like a Nested loop join or a Sort-merge join. Notice, these algorithms also strongly depend on the used stream and processing model. Finally, the query is available as a physical query plan. === Execution of queries === Since the physical query plan consists of executable algorithms, it can be directly executed. For this, the physical query plan is installed into the system. The bottom of the graph (of the query plan) is connected to the incoming sources, which can be everything like connectors to sensors. The top of the graph is connected to the outgoing sinks, which may be for example a visualization. Since most DSMSs are data-driven, a query is executed by pushing the incoming data elements from the source through the query plan to the sink. Each time when a data element passes an operator, the operator performs its specific operation on the data element and forwards the result to all successive operators. == Examples == AURORA, StreamBase Systems, Inc. Archived 23 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine Hortonworks DataFlow IBM Streams NIAGARA Query Engine NiagaraST: A Research Data Stream Management System at Portland State University Odysseus, an open source Java-based framework for Data Stream Management Systems Pipeline DB PIPES Archived 24 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine, webMethods Business Events QStream SAS Event Stream Processing SQLstream STREAM StreamGlobe StreamInsight TelegraphCQ WSO2 Stream Processor

  Read more →