AI Generator Lyrics To Song

AI Generator Lyrics To Song — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Image-based modeling and rendering

  In computer graphics and computer vision, image-based modeling and rendering (IBMR) methods rely on a set of two-dimensional images of a scene to generate a three-dimensional model and then render some novel views of this scene. The traditional approach of computer graphics has been used to create a geometric model in 3D and try to reproject it onto a two-dimensional image. Computer vision, conversely, is mostly focused on detecting, grouping, and extracting features (edges, faces, etc.) present in a given picture and then trying to interpret them as three-dimensional clues. Image-based modeling and rendering allows the use of multiple two-dimensional images in order to generate directly novel two-dimensional images, skipping the manual modeling stage. == Light modeling == Instead of considering only the physical model of a solid, IBMR methods usually focus more on light modeling. The fundamental concept behind IBMR is the plenoptic illumination function which is a parametrisation of the light field. The plenoptic function describes the light rays contained in a given volume. It can be represented with seven dimensions: a ray is defined by its position ( x , y , z ) {\displaystyle (x,y,z)} , its orientation ( θ , ϕ ) {\displaystyle (\theta ,\phi )} , its wavelength ( λ ) {\displaystyle (\lambda )} and its time ( t ) {\displaystyle (t)} : P ( x , y , z , θ , ϕ , λ , t ) {\displaystyle P(x,y,z,\theta ,\phi ,\lambda ,t)} . IBMR methods try to approximate the plenoptic function to render a novel set of two-dimensional images from another. Given the high dimensionality of this function, practical methods place constraints on the parameters in order to reduce this number (typically to 2 to 4). == IBMR methods and algorithms == View morphing generates a transition between images Panoramic imaging renders panoramas using image mosaics of individual still images Lumigraph relies on a dense sampling of a scene Space carving generates a 3D model based on a photo-consistency check

  Read more →
• 

  List of assembly software and tools

  This is a list of assembly software and tools, including software used for assembly language programming, machine code generation, disassembly, debugging, binary analysis, reverse engineering, and instruction-set simulation. == Assemblers and machine-code generators == == Disassemblers and binary-analysis tools == == Debuggers with assembly-level features == == Educational IDEs, simulators and emulators == == Portable and intermediate assembly-like languages == == Assembly language families == Assembly language is not a single programming language, but a family of low-level languages associated with particular instruction set architectures and processor families. Examples include:

  Read more →
• 

  Directional cubic convolution interpolation

  Directional cubic convolution interpolation (DCCI) is an edge-directed image scaling algorithm created by Dengwen Zhou and Xiaoliu Shen. By taking into account the edges in an image, this scaling algorithm reduces artifacts common to other image scaling algorithms. For example, staircase artifacts on diagonal lines and curves are eliminated. The algorithm resizes an image to 2x its original dimensions, minus 1.

  Read more →
• 

  Iubenda

  iubenda (stylized in lowercase; Italian pronunciation: [juˈbɛnda]) is an Italian software company that develops tools intended to support website and application compliance with data protection and privacy regulations, including consent management platforms. The company was founded in 2011 in Milan by Andrea Giannangelo. In February 2022, the company was acquired by team.blue. == History == iubenda was founded in 2011 in Milan, Italy, initially focusing on automated privacy policy generation. In 2015, the company expanded its services to include cookie compliance tools following the implementation of ePrivacy regulations in Italy. In 2018, following the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, iubenda expanded its products to include consent management and compliance documentation services. In February 2022, iubenda was acquired by team.blue, which obtained a majority stake in the company. Italian media described the acquisition as one of the largest Italian technology startup exits in recent years. In October 2022, iubenda acquired consentmanager, a Sweden-based consent management provider. In 2025, the company acquired CookieFirst, a Netherlands-based consent management platform. In 2025, iubenda partnered with AccessiWay, a digital accessibility company owned by team.blue. == Activities == iubenda develops software tools intended to support compliance with data protection and privacy regulations. Its products include generators for privacy policies, cookie banners, terms and conditions documents, and consent management platforms. The company’s consent management platform integrates with frameworks used for online advertising and privacy compliance, including Google's Consent Mode. The platform is designed to support compliance with regulatory frameworks including the GDPR in the European Union, the UK GDPR, Brazil’s LGPD, Switzerland’s FADP and privacy laws in the United States. Its tools can be integrated with content management systems, web applications, and other digital platforms, including WordPress. The company operates internationally, with a customer base of more than 150,000 organisations, primarily in Europe and the Americas.

  Read more →
• 

  Exploration–exploitation dilemma

  The exploration–exploitation dilemma, also known as the explore–exploit tradeoff, is a fundamental concept in decision-making that arises in many domains. It is depicted as the balancing act between two opposing strategies. Exploitation involves choosing the best option based on current knowledge of the system (which may be incomplete or misleading), while exploration involves trying out new options that may lead to better outcomes in the future at the expense of an exploitation opportunity. Finding the optimal balance between these two strategies is a crucial challenge in many decision-making problems whose goal is to maximize long-term benefits. == Application in machine learning == In the context of machine learning, the exploration–exploitation tradeoff is fundamental in reinforcement learning (RL), a type of machine learning that involves training agents to make decisions based on feedback from the environment. Crucially, this feedback may be incomplete or delayed. The agent must decide whether to exploit the current best-known policy or explore new policies to improve its performance. === Multi-armed bandit methods === The multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem was a classic example of the tradeoff, and many methods were developed for it, such as epsilon-greedy, Thompson sampling, and the upper confidence bound (UCB). See the page on MAB for details. In more complex RL situations than the MAB problem, the agent can treat each choice as a MAB, where the payoff is the expected future reward. For example, if the agent performs an epsilon-greedy method, then the agent will often "pull the best lever" by picking the action that had the best predicted expected reward (exploit). However, it would pick a random action with probability epsilon (explore). Monte Carlo tree search, for example, uses a variant of the UCB method. === Exploration problems === There are some problems that make exploration difficult. Sparse reward. If rewards occur only once a long while, then the agent might not persist in exploring. Furthermore, if the space of actions is large, then the sparse reward would mean the agent would not be guided by the reward to find a good direction for deeper exploration. A standard example is Montezuma's Revenge. Deceptive reward. If some early actions give immediate small reward, but other actions give later large reward, then the agent might be lured away from exploring the other actions. Noisy TV problem. If certain observations are irreducibly noisy (such as a television showing random images), then the agent might be trapped exploring those observations (watching the television). === Exploration reward === This section based on. The exploration reward (also called exploration bonus) methods convert the exploration-exploitation dilemma into a balance of exploitations. That is, instead of trying to get the agent to balance exploration and exploitation, exploration is simply treated as another form of exploitation, and the agent simply attempts to maximize the sum of rewards from exploration and exploitation. The exploration reward can be treated as a form of intrinsic reward. We write these as r t i , r t e {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i},r_{t}^{e}} , meaning the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards at time step t {\displaystyle t} . However, exploration reward is different from exploitation in two regards: The reward of exploitation is not freely chosen, but given by the environment, but the reward of exploration may be picked freely. Indeed, there are many different ways to design r t i {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}} described below. The reward of exploitation is usually stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state gives the same reward), but the reward of exploration is non-stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state should give less and less reward). Count-based exploration uses N n ( s ) {\displaystyle N_{n}(s)} , the number of visits to a state s {\displaystyle s} during the time-steps 1 : n {\displaystyle 1:n} , to calculate the exploration reward. This is only possible in small and discrete state space. Density-based exploration extends count-based exploration by using a density model ρ n ( s ) {\displaystyle \rho _{n}(s)} . The idea is that, if a state has been visited, then nearby states are also partly-visited. In maximum entropy exploration, the entropy of the agent's policy π {\displaystyle \pi } is included as a term in the intrinsic reward. That is, r t i = − ∑ a π ( a | s t ) ln ⁡ π ( a | s t ) + ⋯ {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=-\sum _{a}\pi (a|s_{t})\ln \pi (a|s_{t})+\cdots } . === Prediction-based === This section based on. The forward dynamics model is a function for predicting the next state based on the current state and the current action: f : ( s t , a t ) ↦ s t + 1 {\displaystyle f:(s_{t},a_{t})\mapsto s_{t+1}} . The forward dynamics model is trained as the agent plays. The model becomes better at predicting state transition for state-action pairs that had been done many times. A forward dynamics model can define an exploration reward by r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − s t + 1 ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-s_{t+1}\|_{2}^{2}} . That is, the reward is the squared-error of the prediction compared to reality. This rewards the agent to perform state-action pairs that had not been done many times. This is however susceptible to the noisy TV problem. Dynamics model can be run in latent space. That is, r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-\phi (s_{t+1})\|_{2}^{2}} for some featurizer ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The featurizer can be the identity function (i.e. ϕ ( x ) = x {\displaystyle \phi (x)=x} ), randomly generated, the encoder-half of a variational autoencoder, etc. A good featurizer improves forward dynamics exploration. The Intrinsic Curiosity Module (ICM) method trains simultaneously a forward dynamics model and a featurizer. The featurizer is trained by an inverse dynamics model, which is a function for predicting the current action based on the features of the current and the next state: g : ( ϕ ( s t ) , ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ) ↦ a t {\displaystyle g:(\phi (s_{t}),\phi (s_{t+1}))\mapsto a_{t}} . By optimizing the inverse dynamics, both the inverse dynamics model and the featurizer are improved. Then, the improved featurizer improves the forward dynamics model, which improves the exploration of the agent. Random Network Distillation (RND) method attempts to solve this problem by teacher–student distillation. Instead of a forward dynamics model, it has two models f , f ′ {\displaystyle f,f'} . The f ′ {\displaystyle f'} teacher model is fixed, and the f {\displaystyle f} student model is trained to minimize ‖ f ( s ) − f ′ ( s ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|f(s)-f'(s)\|_{2}^{2}} on states s {\displaystyle s} . As a state is visited more and more, the student network becomes better at predicting the teacher. Meanwhile, the prediction error is also an exploration reward for the agent, and so the agent learns to perform actions that result in higher prediction error. Thus, we have a student network attempting to minimize the prediction error, while the agent attempting to maximize it, resulting in exploration. The states are normalized by subtracting a running average and dividing a running variance, which is necessary since the teacher model is frozen. The rewards are normalized by dividing with a running variance. Exploration by disagreement trains an ensemble of forward dynamics models, each on a random subset of all ( s t , a t , s t + 1 ) {\displaystyle (s_{t},a_{t},s_{t+1})} tuples. The exploration reward is the variance of the models' predictions. === Noise === For neural network–based agents, the NoisyNet method changes some of its neural network modules by noisy versions. That is, some network parameters are random variables from a probability distribution. The parameters of the distribution are themselves learnable. For example, in a linear layer y = W x + b {\displaystyle y=Wx+b} , both W , b {\displaystyle W,b} are sampled from Gaussian distributions N ( μ W , Σ W ) , N ( μ b , Σ b ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{W},\Sigma _{W}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b})} at every step, and the parameters μ W , Σ W , μ b , Σ b {\displaystyle \mu _{W},\Sigma _{W},\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b}} are learned via the reparameterization trick.

  Read more →
• 

  Cloud management

  Cloud management refers to the administration and oversight of cloud computing products and services. Public clouds are managed by cloud service providers, which operate the underlying infrastructure such as servers, storage, networking, and data center facilities. Users may also opt to manage their public cloud services with a third-party cloud management tool. Users of public cloud services can generally select from three basic cloud provisioning categories: User self-provisioning: Customers purchase cloud services directly from the provider, typically through a web form or console interface. The customer pays on a per-transaction basis. Advanced provisioning: Customers contract in advance a predetermined amount of resources, which are prepared in advance of service. The customer pays a flat fee or a monthly fee. Dynamic provisioning: The provider allocates resources when the customer needs them, then decommissions them when they are no longer needed. The customer is charged on a pay-per-use basis. Managing a private cloud requires software tools to help create a virtualized pool of compute resources, provide a self-service portal for end users and handle security, resource allocation, tracking and billing. Management tools for private clouds tend to be service driven, as opposed to resource driven, because cloud environments are typically highly virtualized and organized in terms of portable workloads. In hybrid cloud environments, compute, network and storage resources must be managed across multiple domains, so a good management strategy should start by defining what needs to be managed, and where and how to do it. Policies to help govern these domains should include configuration and installation of images, access control, and budgeting and reporting. Access control often includes the use of Single sign-on (SSO), in which a user logs in once and gains access to all systems without being prompted to log in again at each of them. == Characteristics of Cloud Management == Cloud management combines software and technologies in a design for managing cloud environments. Software developers have responded to the management challenges of cloud computing with a variety of cloud management platforms and tools. These tools include native tools offered by public cloud providers as well as third-party tools designed to provide consistent functionality across multiple cloud providers. Administrators must balance the competing requirements of efficient consistency across different cloud platforms with access to different native functionality within individual cloud platforms. The growing acceptance of public cloud and increased multicloud usage is driving the need for consistent cross-platform management. Rapid adoption of cloud services is introducing a new set of management challenges for those technical professionals responsible for managing IT systems and services. Cloud-management platforms and tools should have the ability to provide minimum functionality in the following categories. Functionality can be both natively provided or orchestrated via third-party integration. Provisioning and orchestration: create, modify, and delete resources as well as orchestrate workflows and management of workloads Automation: Enable cloud consumption and deployment of app services via infrastructure-as-code and other DevOps concepts Security and compliance: manage role-based access of cloud services and enforce security configurations Service request: collect and fulfill requests from users to access and deploy cloud resources. Monitoring and logging: collect performance and availability metrics as well as automate incident management and log aggregation Inventory and classification: discover and maintain pre-existing brownfield cloud resources plus monitor and manage changes Cost management and optimization: track and rightsize cloud spend and align capacity and performance to actual demand Migration, backup, and DR: enable data protection, disaster recovery, and data mobility via snapshots and/or data replication Organizations may group these criteria into key use cases including Cloud Brokerage, DevOps Automation, Governance, and Day-2 Life Cycle Operations. Enterprises with large-scale cloud implementations may require more robust cloud management tools which include specific characteristics, such as the ability to manage multiple platforms from a single point of reference, or intelligent analytics to automate processes like application lifecycle management. High-end cloud management tools should also have the ability to handle system failures automatically with capabilities such as self-monitoring, an explicit notification mechanism, and include failover and self-healing capabilities. == Multi-Cloud and Hybrid Cloud Management Challenges == Legacy management infrastructures, which are based on the concept of dedicated system relationships and architecture constructs, are not well suited to cloud environments where instances are continually launched and decommissioned. Instead, the dynamic nature of cloud computing requires monitoring and management tools that are adaptable, extensible and customizable. Cloud computing presents a number of management challenges. Companies using public clouds do not have ownership of the equipment hosting the cloud environment, and because the environment is not contained within their own networks, public cloud customers do not have full visibility or control. Users of public cloud services must also integrate with an architecture defined by the cloud provider, using its specific parameters for working with cloud components. Integration includes tying into the cloud APIs for configuring IP addresses, subnets, firewalls and data service functions for storage. Because control of these functions is based on the cloud provider’s infrastructure and services, public cloud users must integrate with the cloud infrastructure management. Capacity management is a challenge for both public and private cloud environments because end users have the ability to deploy applications using self-service portals. Applications of all sizes may appear in the environment, consume an unpredictable amount of resources, then disappear at any time. A possible solution is profiling the applications impact on computational resources. As result, the performance models allow the prediction of how resource utilization changes according to application patterns. Thus, resources can be dynamically scaled to meet the expected demand. This is critical to cloud providers that need to provision resources quickly to meet a growing demand by their applications. Charge-back—or, pricing resource use on a granular basis—is a challenge for both public and private cloud environments. Charge-back is a challenge for public cloud service providers because they must price their services competitively while still creating profit. Users of public cloud services may find charge-back challenging because it is difficult for IT groups to assess actual resource costs on a granular basis due to overlapping resources within an organization that may be paid for by an individual business unit, such as electrical power. For private cloud operators, charge-back is fairly straightforward, but the challenge lies in guessing how to allocate resources as closely as possible to actual resource usage to achieve the greatest operational efficiency. Exceeding budgets can be a risk. Hybrid cloud environments, which combine public and private cloud services, sometimes with traditional infrastructure elements, present their own set of management challenges. These include security concerns if sensitive data lands on public cloud servers, budget concerns around overuse of storage or bandwidth and proliferation of mismanaged images. Managing the information flow in a hybrid cloud environment is also a significant challenge. On-premises clouds must share information with applications hosted off-premises by public cloud providers, and this information may change constantly. Hybrid cloud environments also typically include a complex mix of policies, permissions and limits that must be managed consistently across both public and private clouds. == Cloud Management Platforms (CMP) == CMPs provide a means for a cloud service customer to manage the deployment and operation of applications and associated datasets across multiple cloud service infrastructures, including both on-premises cloud infrastructure and public cloud service provider infrastructure. In other words, CMPs provide management capabilities for hybrid cloud and multi-cloud environments. A cloud management platform (CMP) provides broad cloud management functionality atop both public cloud provider platforms and private cloud platforms. CMPs manage cloud services and resources that are distributed across multiple cloud platforms. The value of CMPs stands in delivering the maximum level of consistency between platforms without comp

  Read more →
• 

  Scroll (web service)

  Scroll was a subscription-based web service developed by Scroll Labs Inc., offering ad-free access to websites in exchange for a fee. Scroll was not an ad blocker; instead, it partnered directly with internet publishers who voluntarily removed ads from their sites for Scroll users in exchange for a portion of the subscription fee. In May 2021, Scroll was acquired by Twitter. In October 2021, Scroll sent out an email announcing its integration into Twitter Blue within 30 days. == Functionality == Scroll enabled users to browse websites that partnered with Scroll without encountering online advertising, in exchange for a subscription fee. Unlike ad blocker, which disable advertisements without compensating the publisher, Scroll sent a browser cookie indicating that the user was a subscriber. The Scroll software integrated into the website detected this cookie and served an ad-free version of the site. In exchange for disabling advertisements, partner websites received a portion of the subscription fee. As of January 2020, Scroll retained 30% of the subscription fee, with the remaining 70% distributed among publisher sites. Payments to sites were made individually by users based on their 'engagement and loyalty,' rather than from a single pool of all subscription revenue. Scroll did not grant subscribers access to partner sites behind a paywall; it only removed ads from the site if the user also paid the publication's subscription fee. == History == Scroll was founded in 2016 by former Chartbeat Chief Executive Tony Haile. Scroll raised US$3 million in its first round of funding in 2016, including investments from The New York Times, Uncork Capital, and Axel Springer SE. By October 2018, Scroll had raised US$10 million in funding. In 2018, Scroll signed its first partner websites, which included The Atlantic, Fusion Media Group, Business Insider, Slate, MSNBC, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Talking Points Memo. In February 2019, Scroll acquired the social media curation app Nuzzel. The same month, Mozilla and Scroll announced a partnership to run a "test pilot" together, but did not go into details. Scroll entered beta testing in 2019 and launched to the general public on January 28, 2020. In March 2020, Mozilla started offering Scroll as part of its "Firefox Better Web" service bundle. In May 2021, Scroll was acquired by Twitter, with the future of Scroll cited as being uncertain. An email to customers announcing the change said, "Later this year, Scroll will become part of a wider Twitter subscription that will expand on and adapt our services and functionality".

  Read more →
• 

  Dimensions CM

  Dimensions CM is a software change and configuration management product developed by OpenText Corporation. It includes revision control, change, build and release management capabilities. Since 2014 (v14.1) Dimensions CM includes PulseUno module providing Code review and Continuous integration capabilities. Starting with the version 14.5.2 (2020) it can also serve as a binary repository manager. == History == Previous product names: PCMS Dimensions (SQL Software) PVCS Dimensions (Merant, Intersolv)

  Read more →
• 

  Act! LLC

  ACT! (previously known as Activity Control Technology, Automated Contact Tracking, ACT! by Sage, and Sage ACT!) is a customer relationship management and marketing automation software platform designed for small and medium-sized businesses. It has over 2.8 million registered users as of December 2014. == History == The company Conductor Software was founded in 1986, in Dallas, Texas, by Pat Sullivan and Mike Muhney. The original name for the software was Activity Control Technology; it was renamed to Automated Contact Tracking, later abbreviated to ACT. The name of the company was subsequently changed to Contact Software International and it was sold in 1993 to Symantec Corporation, who in 1999 then sold it to SalesLogix. The Sage Group purchased Interact Commerce (formerly SalesLogix) in 2001 through Best Software, then its North American software division. Swiftpage acquired it in 2013. Beginning with the 2006 version, the name was styled ACT! by Sage, and in 2010 revised to Sage ACT!. Following its 2013 acquisition by Swiftpage, it was renamed to ACT! Swiftpage. In May 2018, ACT! was sold to SFW Advisors. In December 2018, Kuvana, a marketing automation software solution, was acquired by SFW and merged with ACT! This add-on is now a complementary service to the core CRM solution. In December 2019, ACT! hired Steve Oriola as chairman and CEO. In 2020, Swiftpage changed its company name to ACT!. In March 2023, ACT! hired Bruce Reading as President and CEO. == Software == ACT! features include contact, company and opportunity management, a calendar, marketing automation and e-marketing tools, reports, interactive dashboards with graphical visualizations, and the ability to track prospective customers. ACT! integrates with Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, Google Contacts, Gmail, and other applications via Zapier. For custom integrations, ACT! has an in-built API. ACT! can be accessed from Windows desktops (Win7 and later) with local or network shared database; synchronized to laptops or remote officers; Citrix or Remote Desktop; Web browsers (Premium only) with self or SaaS hosting; smartphones and tablets via HTML5 Web (Premium only); smartphones and tablets via sync with Handheld Contact.

  Read more →
• 

  SAP StreamWork

  SAP StreamWork is an enterprise collaboration tool from SAP SE released in March 2010, and discontinued in December 2015. StreamWork allowed real-time collaboration like Google Wave, but focused on business activities such as analyzing data, planning meetings, and making decisions. It incorporated technology from Box.net and Evernote to allow users to connect to online files and documents, and document-reader technology from Scribd allowed users to view documents directly within its environment. StreamWork supported the OpenSocial set of application programming interfaces (APIs), allowing it to connect to tools built by third-party developers, such as Google Docs. A version of StreamWork intended for large enterprises used a virtual appliance based on Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise to connect it to business systems, including those from SAP.

  Read more →
• 

  Web container

  A web container (also known as a servlet container; and compare "webcontainer") is the component of a web server that interacts with Jakarta Servlets. A web container is responsible for managing the lifecycle of servlets, mapping a URL to a particular servlet and ensuring that the URL requester has the correct access-rights. A web container handles requests to servlets, Jakarta Server Pages (JSP) files, and other types of files that include server-side code. The Web container creates servlet instances, loads and unloads servlets, creates and manages request and response objects, and performs other servlet-management tasks. A web container implements the web component contract of the Jakarta EE architecture. This architecture specifies a runtime environment for additional web components, including security, concurrency, lifecycle management, transaction, deployment, and other services. == List of Servlet containers == The following is a list of notable applications which implement the Jakarta Servlet specification from Eclipse Foundation, divided depending on whether they are directly sold or not. === Open source Web containers === Apache Tomcat (formerly Jakarta Tomcat) is an open source web container available under the Apache Software License. Apache Tomcat 6 and above are operable as general application container (prior versions were web containers only) Apache Geronimo is a full Java EE 6 implementation by Apache Software Foundation. Enhydra, from Lutris Technologies. GlassFish from Eclipse Foundation (an application server, but includes a web container). Jetty, from the Eclipse Foundation. Also supports SPDY and WebSocket protocols. Open Liberty, from IBM, is a fully compliant Jakarta EE server Virgo from Eclipse Foundation provides modular, OSGi based web containers implemented using embedded Tomcat and Jetty. Virgo is available under the Eclipse Public License. WildFly (formerly JBoss Application Server) is a full Java EE implementation by Red Hat, division JBoss. === Commercial Web containers === iPlanet Web Server, from Oracle. JBoss Enterprise Application Platform from Red Hat, division JBoss is subscription-based/open-source Jakarta EE-based application server. WebLogic Application Server, from Oracle Corporation (formerly developed by BEA Systems). Orion Application Server, from IronFlare. Resin Pro, from Caucho Technology. IBM WebSphere Application Server. SAP NetWeaver.

  Read more →
• 

  Fabric Connect

  Fabric Connect, in computer networking usage, is the name used by Extreme Networks to market an extended implementation of the IEEE 802.1aq and IEEE 802.1ah-2008 standards. The Fabric Connect technology was originally developed by the Enterprise Solutions R&D department within Nortel Networks. In 2009, Avaya, Inc acquired Nortel Networks Enterprise Business Solutions; this transaction included the Fabric Connect intellectual property together with all of the Ethernet Switching platforms that supported it. Subsequently, the Fabric Connect technology became part of the Extreme Networks portfolio by virtue of their 2017 purchase of the Avaya Networking business and assets. It was during the Avaya era that this technology was promoted as the lead element of the Virtual Enterprise Network Architecture (VENA). == Technologies == === Fabric Connect === Fabric Connect's provides network-wide, end-to-end, multi-layer virtualization. A network virtualization capability, based on an enhanced implementation of the IEEE 802.1aq Shortest Path Bridging (SPB) standard, Fabric Connect offers the ability to create a simplified network that can dynamically virtualize elements to efficiently provision and utilize resources, thus reducing the strain on the network and personnel. Extreme Networks base the Fabric Connect technology on the SPB standard, including support for RFC 6329, and have integrated IP Routing and IP Multicast support; this unified technology allows for the replacement of multiple conventional protocols such as Spanning Tree, RIP and/or OSPF, ECMP, and PIM. === Fabric Attach === An adjunct to the Fabric Connect technology, Fabric Attach allows network operators to extend network virtualization directly into conventional wiring closets (using existing non-Fabric Ethernet switches) and automate the provisioning of devices to their appropriate virtual network. This is particularly relevant for the mass of unattended network end-point that are now appearing, such as IP Phones, Wireless Access Points, and IP Cameras. Fabric Attach standardized protocols such as 802.1AB LLDP to exchange credentials and obtain provisioning information that allows "Client" Switches to be automatically re-configured on the fly with parameters that let Traffic Flows Map through to Fabric Connect Edge Switches (aka "Backbone Edge Bridge" in SPB definition) functioning as a Fabric Attach "Server" Switch. This method is described by an IETF "Internet Draft", pending further standardization activity. Fabric Attach is typically used to automate Wiring Closet connectivity, but has the potential to be extensible for use in the Data Center, with Virtual Machines being able to dynamically request VLAN/VSN (Virtual Service Network) assignment based upon application requirements. == Hardware products == === Virtual Services Platform 9000 Series === A range of modular chassis-based products, featuring a carrier-grade Linux operation system, and designed for high-performance deployment scenarios that need to scale to multiple terabits of switching capacity and support 10 and 40 gigabit Ethernet connections, and is designed eventually to support 100 gigabit Ethernet. === Virtual Services Platform 8000 Series === A compact form-factor platform delivering high-density 10/40 gigabit Ethernet connectivity, and targeted at mid-market through to mid-size enterprise core switch applications. === Virtual Services Platform 7000 Series === A range of high-end 10 gigabit Ethernet stackable switches that extend fabric-based networking to the data center top-of-rack. They support 40 gigabit Ethernet via the MDA Slot. === Virtual Services Platform 4000 Series === A range of high-end gigabit Ethernet stackable switches that extend Fabric-based networking to branch and metro locations. === Ethernet Routing Switch 5000 Series === A range of high-end gigabit Ethernet stackable switches that provides enterprise-class desktop features, including PoE, and offers 10 Gbit/s uplink connections. Each Switch supports up to 144 Gbit/s of virtual backplane capacity, delivering up to 1.152 Tbit/s for a system of eight, creating a virtual backplane through a stacking configuration. === Ethernet Routing Switch 4000 Series === A range of gigabit Ethernet stackable switches that provide enterprise-class desktop features, including PoE/PoE+, and offer 1/10 Gbit/s uplink connections. Each switch supports up to 48 Gbit/s of virtual backplane capacity, delivering up to 384 Gbit/s for a system of 8, creating a virtual backplane through a stacking configuration. === Ethernet Routing Switch 3500 Series === These entry-level gigabit Ethernet stackable switches provide enterprise-class desktop features, including PoE/PoE+, and 1 Gbit/s uplink connections.

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  GeoNetwork opensource

  The GeoNetwork opensource (GNOS) project is a free and open source (FOSS) cataloging application for spatially referenced resources. It is a catalog of location-oriented information. == Outline == It is a standardized and decentralized spatial information management environment designed to enable access to geo-referenced databases, cartographic products and related metadata from a variety of sources, enhancing the spatial information exchange and sharing between organizations and their audience, using the capacities of the internet. Using the Z39.50 protocol it both accesses remote catalogs and makes its data available to other catalog services. As of 2007, OGC Web Catalog Service are being implemented. Maps, including those derived from satellite imagery, are effective communicational tools and play an important role in the work of decision makers (e.g., sustainable development planners and humanitarian and emergency managers) in need of quick, reliable and up-to-date user-friendly cartographic products as a basis for action and to better plan and monitor their activities; GIS experts in need of exchanging consistent and updated geographical data; and spatial analysts in need of multidisciplinary data to perform preliminary geographical analysis and make reliable forecasts. == Deployment == The software has been deployed to various organizations, the first being FAO GeoNetwork and WFP VAM-SIE-GeoNetwork, both at their headquarters in Rome, Italy. Furthermore, the WHO, CGIAR, BRGM, ESA, FGDC and the Global Change Information and Research Centre (GCIRC) of China are working on GeoNetwork opensource implementations as their spatial information management capacity. It is used for several risk information systems, in particular in the Gambia. Several related tools are packaged with GeoNetwork, including GeoServer. GeoServer stores geographical data, while GeoNetwork catalogs collections of such data.

  Read more →
• 

  Fuse Mediation Router

  Fuse Mediation Router is an open source tool for integrating services using Enterprise Integration Patterns based on Apache Camel for use in enterprise IT organizations. It is certified, productized and fully supported by the people who wrote the code. Fuse Mediation Router uses a standard method of notation to go from diagram to implementation without coding. Fuse Mediation Router is a rule-based routing and process mediation engine that combines the ease of basic POJO development with the clarity of the standard Enterprise Integration Patterns. It can be deployed inside any container or be used stand-alone, and works directly with any kind of transport or messaging model to rapidly integrate existing services and applications. Fuse Mediation Router is now a part of Red Hat JBoss Fuse. == Tooling == FuseSource offers graphical, Eclipse-based tooling for Apache Camel for download.

  Read more →