AI Grammar And Vocabulary Checker

AI Grammar And Vocabulary Checker — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  List of robotics journals

  List of robotics journals includes notable academic and scientific journals that focus on research in the field of robotics and automation. == Journals == Acta Mechanica et Automatica Advanced Robotics Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters IEEE Transactions on Robotics IEEE Transactions on Field Robotics The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology International Journal of Humanoid Robotics International Journal of Robotics Research Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Journal of Field Robotics Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems Paladyn Robotics and Autonomous Systems Robotics Science Robotics SLAS Technology

  Read more →
• 

  Comet (programming)

  Comet is a web application model in which a long-held HTTPS request allows a web server to push data to a browser, without the browser explicitly requesting it. Comet is an umbrella term, encompassing multiple techniques for achieving this interaction. All these methods rely on features included by default in browsers, such as JavaScript, rather than on non-default plugins. The Comet approach differs from the original model of the web, in which a browser requests a complete web page at a time. The use of Comet techniques in web development predates the use of the word Comet as a neologism for the collective techniques. Comet is known by several other names, including Ajax Push, Reverse Ajax, Two-way-web, HTTP Streaming, and HTTP server push among others. The term Comet is not an acronym, but was coined by Alex Russell in his 2006 blog post. In recent years, the standardisation and widespread support of WebSocket and Server-sent events has rendered the Comet model obsolete. == History == === Early Java applets === The ability to embed Java applets into browsers (starting with Netscape Navigator 2.0 in March 1996) made two-way sustained communications possible, using a raw TCP socket to communicate between the browser and the server. This socket can remain open as long as the browser is at the document hosting the applet. Event notifications can be sent in any format – text or binary – and decoded by the applet. === The first browser-to-browser communication framework === The very first application using browser-to-browser communications was Tango Interactive, implemented in 1996–98 at the Northeast Parallel Architectures Center (NPAC) at Syracuse University using DARPA funding. TANGO architecture has been patented by Syracuse University. TANGO framework has been extensively used as a distance education tool. The framework has been commercialized by CollabWorx and used in a dozen or so Command&Control and Training applications in the United States Department of Defense. === First Comet applications === The first set of Comet implementations dates back to 2000, with the Pushlets, Lightstreamer, and KnowNow projects. Pushlets, a framework created by Just van den Broecke, was one of the first open source implementations. Pushlets were based on server-side Java servlets, and a client-side JavaScript library. Bang Networks – a Silicon Valley start-up backed by Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen – had a lavishly financed attempt to create a real-time push standard for the entire web. In April 2001, Chip Morningstar began developing a Java-based (J2SE) web server which used two HTTP sockets to keep open two communications channels between the custom HTTP server he designed and a client designed by Douglas Crockford; a functioning demo system existed as of June 2001. The server and client used a messaging format that the founders of State Software, Inc. assented to coin as JSON following Crockford's suggestion. The entire system, the client libraries, the messaging format known as JSON and the server, became the State Application Framework, parts of which were sold and used by Sun Microsystems, Amazon.com, EDS and Volkswagen. In March 2006, software engineer Alex Russell coined the term Comet in a post on his personal blog. The new term was a play on Ajax (Ajax and Comet both being common household cleaners in the USA). In 2006, some applications exposed those techniques to a wider audience: Meebo’s multi-protocol web-based chat application enabled users to connect to AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft chat platforms through the browser; Google added web-based chat to Gmail; JotSpot, a startup since acquired by Google, built Comet-based real-time collaborative document editing. New Comet variants were created, such as the Java-based ICEfaces JSF framework (although they prefer the term "Ajax Push"). Others that had previously used Java-applet based transports switched instead to pure-JavaScript implementations. == Implementations == Comet applications attempt to eliminate the limitations of the page-by-page web model and traditional polling by offering two-way sustained interaction, using a persistent or long-lasting HTTP connection between the server and the client. Since browsers and proxies are not designed with server events in mind, several techniques to achieve this have been developed, each with different benefits and drawbacks. The biggest hurdle is the HTTP 1.1 specification, which states "this specification... encourages clients to be conservative when opening multiple connections". Therefore, holding one connection open for real-time events has a negative impact on browser usability: the browser may be blocked from sending a new request while waiting for the results of a previous request, e.g., a series of images. This can be worked around by creating a distinct hostname for real-time information, which is an alias for the same physical server. This strategy is an application of domain sharding. Specific methods of implementing Comet fall into two major categories: streaming and long polling. === Streaming === An application using streaming Comet opens a single persistent connection from the client browser to the server for all Comet events. These events are incrementally handled and interpreted on the client side every time the server sends a new event, with neither side closing the connection. Specific techniques for accomplishing streaming Comet include the following: ==== Hidden iframe ==== A basic technique for dynamic web application is to use a hidden iframe HTML element (an inline frame, which allows a website to embed one HTML document inside another). This invisible iframe is sent as a chunked block, which implicitly declares it as infinitely long (sometimes called "forever frame"). As events occur, the iframe is gradually filled with script tags, containing JavaScript to be executed in the browser. Because browsers render HTML pages incrementally, each script tag is executed as it is received. Some browsers require a specific minimum document size before parsing and execution is started, which can be obtained by initially sending 1–2 kB of padding spaces. One benefit of the iframes method is that it works in every common browser. Two downsides of this technique are the lack of a reliable error handling method, and the impossibility of tracking the state of the request calling process. ==== XMLHttpRequest ==== The XMLHttpRequest (XHR) object, a tool used by Ajax applications for browser–server communication, can also be pressed into service for server–browser Comet messaging by generating a custom data format for an XHR response, and parsing out each event using browser-side JavaScript; relying only on the browser firing the onreadystatechange callback each time it receives new data. === Ajax with long polling === None of the above streaming transports work across all modern browsers without negative side-effects. This forces Comet developers to implement several complex streaming transports, switching between them depending on the browser. Consequently, many Comet applications use long polling, which is easier to implement on the browser side, and works, at minimum, in every browser that supports XHR. As the name suggests, long polling requires the client to poll the server for an event (or set of events). The browser makes an Ajax-style request to the server, which is kept open until the server has new data to send to the browser, which is sent to the browser in a complete response. The browser initiates a new long polling request in order to obtain subsequent events. IETF RFC 6202 "Known Issues and Best Practices for the Use of Long Polling and Streaming in Bidirectional HTTP" compares long polling and HTTP streaming. Specific technologies for accomplishing long-polling include the following: ==== XMLHttpRequest long polling ==== For the most part, XMLHttpRequest long polling works like any standard use of XHR. The browser makes an asynchronous request of the server, which may wait for data to be available before responding. The response can contain encoded data (typically XML or JSON) or Javascript to be executed by the client. At the end of the processing of the response, the browser creates and sends another XHR, to await the next event. Thus the browser always keeps a request outstanding with the server, to be answered as each event occurs. ==== Script tag long polling ==== While any Comet transport can be made to work across subdomains, none of the above transports can be used across different second-level domains (SLDs), due to browser security policies designed to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. That is, if the main web page is served from one SLD, and the Comet server is located at another SLD (which does not have cross-origin resource sharing enabled), Comet events cannot be used to modify the HTML and DOM of the main page, using those transports. This problem can be sidestepped by creating a proxy server in

  Read more →
• 

  Kimchi (software)

  Kimchi is a web management tool to manage Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) infrastructure. Developed with HTML5, Kimchi is developed to intuitively manage KVM guests, create storage pools, manage network interfaces (bridges, VLANs, NAT), and perform other related tasks. The name is an extended acronym for KVM infrastructure management. It is an Apache-licensed project hosted on GitHub, and incubated by oVirt.org.

  Read more →
• 

  Enterprise social software

  Enterprise social software (also known as or regarded as a major component of Enterprise 2.0), comprises social software as used in "enterprise" (business/commercial) contexts. It includes social and networked modifications to corporate intranets and other classic software platforms used by large companies to organize their communication. In contrast to traditional enterprise software, which imposes structure prior to use, enterprise social software tends to encourage use prior to providing structure. Carl Frappaolo and Dan Keldsen defined Enterprise 2.0 in a report written for Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM) as "a system of web-based technologies that provide rapid and agile collaboration, information sharing, emergence and integration capabilities in the extended enterprise". == Applications == === Functionality === Social software for an enterprise must (according to Andrew McAfee, Associate Professor, Harvard Business School) have the following functionality to work well: Search: allowing users to search for other users or content Links: grouping similar users or content together Authoring: including blogs and wikis Tags: allowing users to tag content Extensions: recommendations of users; or content based on profile Signals: allowing people to subscribe to users or content with RSS feeds McAfee recommends installing easy-to-use software which does not impose any rigid structure on users. He envisages an informal roll-out, but on a common platform to enable future collaboration between areas. He also recommends strong and visible managerial support to achieve this. In 2007 Dion Hinchcliffe expanded the list above by adding the following four functions: Freeform function: no barriers to authorship (meaning free from a learning curve or from restrictions) Network-oriented function, requiring web-addressable content in all cases Social function: stressing transparency (to access), diversity (in content and community members) and openness (to structure) Emergence function: requiring the provision of approaches that detect and leverage the collective wisdom of the community Enterprise search differs from a typical web search in its focus on "use within an organization by employees seeking information held internally, in a variety of formats and locations, including databases, document management systems, and other repositories". === Criticism === There has been recent criticism that the adaptation of the social paradigm (e.g. openness and altruistic behavior) does not always work well for the enterprise setting, which led some authors to question the proper functioning of enterprise social software. The findings from a novel study suggests that free and non-anonymous sharing of trusted information (beyond marketing or product information) is significantly influenced by concerns from business users.

  Read more →
• 

  Dr. Sbaitso

  Dr. Sbaitso ( SPAYT-soh) is an artificial intelligence speech synthesis program released late in 1991 by Creative Labs in Singapore for MS-DOS-based personal computers. The name is an acronym for "SoundBlaster Acting Intelligent Text-to-Speech Operator." == History == Dr. Sbaitso was distributed with various sound cards manufactured by Creative Technology in the early 1990s. The text-to-speech engine used is a version of Monologue, which was developed by First Byte Software. Monologue is a later release of First Byte's "SmoothTalker" software from 1984. The program "conversed" with the user as if it were a psychologist, though most of its responses were along the lines of "WHY DO YOU FEEL THAT WAY?" rather than any sort of complicated interaction. When confronted with a phrase it could not understand, it would often reply with something such as "THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM." Dr. Sbaitso repeated text out loud that was typed after the word "SAY." Repeated swearing or abusive behavior on the part of the user caused Dr. Sbaitso to "break down" in a "PARITY ERROR" before resetting itself. The same would happen, if the user types "SAY PARITY." The program introduced itself with the following lines: HELLO [UserName], MY NAME IS DOCTOR SBAITSO. I AM HERE TO HELP YOU. SAY WHATEVER IS IN YOUR MIND FREELY, OUR CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE. MEMORY CONTENTS WILL BE WIPED OFF AFTER YOU LEAVE, SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS. The program was designed to showcase the digitized voices the cards were able to produce, though the quality was far from lifelike. Additionally, there was a version of this program for Microsoft Windows through the use of a program called Prody Parrot; this version of the software featured a more detailed graphical user interface. The text-to-speech was also used as the voice of 1st Prize from the Baldi's Basics series, albeit slowed down. == Commands == If the user submits "HELP", a list of commands will appear. If the user then submits "M", more commands will appear. There are three pages of commands in total, with guidance on how to use each of the features.

  Read more →
• 

  KKday

  KKday is an online travel e-commerce platform focused on connecting independent travelers with authentic, curated local experiences, tours, activities, and attraction tickets. == History == KKday was founded in 2014 in Taipei, Taiwan, by CEO Ming Chen, who previously started and led both Star Travel and Ezfly to IPO. In March of 2016, the company raised US$4.5 million in a Series A round led by AppWorks Ventures with participation by 91Capital. The raise allowed KKday to open offices and expand into Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Singapore by 2016. By the end of 2016, KKday offered over 6,000 travel experiences across 53 countries and 174 cities, marking early international expansion with its official launch in Singapore in October 2016, accompanied by promotional campaigns to attract regional users. Expansion into Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines continued throughout 2017 and into 2018, with the company opening offices in Indonesia and mainland China. KKday rapidly expanded its inventory, reaching over 10,000 experiences in more than 500 cities across 80 countries by 2018, with key markets in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea. In February 2018, KKday raised $10.5 million in a funding round led by Japanese travel giant H.I.S., allowing integration with larger travel networks and further global growth. Forbes reports that by the end of 2018, the company operated in 11 countries and regions, employed around 400 staff, and recorded over 4 million weekly website views with more than 1 million app downloads. A combination of a Japanese and South Korean trade dispute, along with the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, lead KKday to pivot quickly toward domestic staycations and local experiences while initially raising $70m in their Series C which, was later extended to $95m. The Series C funds were partially used to accelerate and expand Rezio. Launched in 2019, Rezio is KKday's B2B SaaS booking management platform for travel providers, allowing them to track inventory, manage reservations and sell tickets. FineDayClub was launched in 2020 by KKday as a personalized luxury subscription travel service to cater to high end clients. KKday’s CFO, Jenny Tsai pivoted to lead KKday’s new venture. KKday was able to successfully navigate and adapt to travel patterns during the Covid-19 pandemic by reducing user acquisition costs by two thirds and focusing on domestic travel experiences to drive bookings and revenue. KKday was particularly successful in Vietnam, with bookings increased by 2,000% through 2022 and the company's travel operator platform Rezio, onboarding over 1,200 operators inside the country. In 2021, KKday acquired Activity Japan, a domestic focused travel company, founded by Kimiharu Obuchi in 2014. The successful acquisition, a key factor in KKday’s rapid expansion in the Japanese market, was facilitated by H.I.S., a common early investor in both platforms. In 2023 KKday inked a partnership with Rail Europe to create an all-in-one platform for 150 rail lines over 33 European countries with the intent of increasing ridership across Europe. In late 2024, KKday completed its Series D at $70M, bringing the total amount of capital raised to over $250M. The funds are to be earmarked for continued global expansion, artificial intelligence integration and enhanced partnerships, similar to the partnership with Tablelog, which now allows users to book restaurant reservations at 42,000 restaurants in Japan through the platform. == Platform == KKDay is an e-commerce online travel agency operating in 92 countries with over 350,000 travel experiences available for booking. The company started with focus on authentic local travel experiences in the Asian Pacific market and has expanded to a more global focus. KKday connects travelers with travel services and experiences such as attraction tickets, theme parks, cultural experiences, and seasonal events. KKday has positioned itself as an all-in-one travel super app with booking for hotels, rental cars, flights, sim cards, rail passes, dining and tickets. === Rezio === Rezio is a cloud-based SaaS booking management platform developed by KKday specifically for tour operators, activity providers, and attractions in the travel industry. It serves as an all-in-one system designed to help these businesses digitize their operations, particularly those previously relying on offline processes. Features include a mobile app for on-the-go order management, customer information checks, and voucher scanning, as well as channel management, analytics for customer data, and integrations with multiple OTAs and payment providers. Unlike KKday, which is an OTA marketplace for consumer exposure (with commissions), Rezio focuses on backend operations for suppliers, allowing brand independence, operational efficiency, and direct customer relationships while optionally connecting to OTAs like KKday. Rezio supports over 5,000 merchants, 30,000 experiences, and 10 million travelers worldwide, with a strong presence in Asia. One of the brands successful implementations was at the Nikko Toshogu Shrine where Rezio was implemented to help with long lines and wait times due to over-tourism. The shrine was able to implement the inventory management features to allow online booking and cashless payments onsite. === FineDayClub === FineDayClub is a membership-based travel concierge service launched in late 2020 by KKday. It is aimed at families, and organizations seeking customized travel experiences. It offers one-on-one advisory services. === ActivityJapan === ActivityJapan is a Japanese comprehensive online travel site that specializes in authentic Japanese travel experiences. It was purchased by KKday in 2021 but continues to operate independently.

  Read more →
• 

  Key & See

  Key & See is a variation of the TV Key service that forms part of the open, standards-based interactive TV services platform provided by Miniweb Interactive. Key & See allows viewers to access the interactive TV content made available by broadcasters and channel owners while leaving quarter of their screen tuned to the programme they are already watching Like TV Key, Key & See can be used with interactive TV services on UK satellite TV provider Sky Digital (BSkyB) Key & See works in the same way as a TV Key but the numeric shortcut code is associated with a broadcaster and a particular TV channel or programme. Miniweb Interactive offers commercial brands and broadcasters the chance to utilise TV Key and Key & See technology as part of its interactive TV services platform

  Read more →
• 

  Are We Dating The Same Guy?

  Are We Dating The Same Guy?, also abbreviated AWDTSG is a series of over 200 individual Facebook groups where women share dating profiles of men they matched with on dating networks to seek the opinion of other women who may have dated the same man in the past. The first group was created by Paola Sanchez and aimed at women living in the New York City environs. The groups have over 3.5 million members as of January 2024. The group's function is to post screenshots of a man's dating profile to that city's designated Facebook group, after which the poster asks "any tea?". Other users in the group will then share information about the man and share warnings. The groups are moderated by volunteers, and have been described as a feminist group. The groups have rules saying that personal information such as addresses must not be included in the Facebook posts. Users attempting to join the group are also examined to prevent fake profiles. The group is mainly for straight women. According to Vice, the men being posted about have no way to defend against accusations made about them, and on the other hand, posters cannot prove their stories unless backed up by others. Often times, members post pictures alongside personal information such as names, which may infringe on subjects' legal right to privacy. Lawyers have said these issues can lead to defamation lawsuits, and members can make false allegations and create fabricated stories. If members tell a man that he's been talked about on the group, the "snitch" will be banned and be "exposed to the whole group". == History == The first Are We Dating The Same Guy group was created by Paola Sanchez. The first group was created in March 2022 in New York City. A male counterpart, named "Are We Dating the Same Girl NYC" was created for New York, with mostly the same guidelines and rules to the original. When the original Are We Dating The Same Guy group found it, they denounced the new group. == Operations == Administrators are told not to respond to men asking to have posts about them removed, and to not remove said posts. The people being posted about have reported being questioned by their employers about things they have not done. Members of the groups sometimes criticise the physical appearance of the men being posted about. According to the Evening Standard, the groups "frequent[ly] mock" the appearance or dating profiles of the men who are posted about, despite being against the rules. For this behaviour, women are sometimes kicked out, or the group is disciplined en masse by admins. The groups have rules against hate towards men, but the rules can be difficult to enforce in large groups, with some having over 100,000 members. Some men have also been able to join the groups without being noticed. == Reception == In October 2023, Sera Bozza of Body+Soul wrote that consistently using Are We Dating The Same Guy can "affect your real-world view". She wrote that "A few stories of cheating may persuade you to believe that all men are unfaithful". Some lawyers and commentators have expressed concern that the groups fail to acknowledge the legal right to privacy and users can create false allegations and fabricated stories, and cyberbully men without them being able to defend themselves. This may lead to civil lawsuits against the author for defamation, harassment, and other related privacy torts. Netsafe, an online safety organisation in New Zealand, advises users of a similar group to familiarise themselves with the Harmful Digital Communications Act to ensure that posts do not lead to "harmful consequences". The Independent reported that men who have been posted on the dating groups have felt violated, and that even if reviewed positively by potentially thousands of strangers, the men being discussed about may have their reputation slightly decreased due to the association with being on the groups. The Independent also reported that some men believe that the groups are created to spread lies or mock them. Mashable reported that the growth of AWDTSG in recent years has led to the rise of a small industry of online reputation and content removal services, as increasing numbers of men seek assistance. A co-founder of Maximatic Media, one such agency offering these removal services, stated that many of the men contacting the firm do so in a state of panic after learning that allegations about them have circulated among tens of thousands of participants without their knowledge. Mashable similarly reported that the growing visibility of AWDTSG and similar platforms has contributed to what commentators describe as a "public trial" dynamic, where subjective accounts about dating behavior are interpreted as factual assessments and can influence a person's reputation among large audiences within their locale. The Oklahoman reported that anonymous, unverified claims in these groups have led some men to experience social and dating repercussions, although legal analysts argue that the benefits of community-based safety networks still outweigh these concerns in modern, app based dating environments. UTV/ITV News reportedly spoke to a man who was posted who alleged he attempted suicide, was clinically dead for three minutes, and spent three weeks in a psychiatric hospital as a result of the posts made about him. Many other men have talked about malicious false claims made about them. Self-described men’s rights activists have taken a dislike to these groups and have gotten multiple North American groups shut down by running campaigns, threatening lawsuits, and mass Facebook reporting. They also have Reddit communities dedicated to getting rid of such groups. Women who have posted in the groups have felt that they have put their safety at risk, with some having been confronted by the men they posted about. The group has been noted for exposing men who use dating apps while already in a relationship, misrepresent their ages, or repeatedly stand up the women they meet through apps, among other bad dating behaviors. For example, some members of the group had matched on a dating site with a man who had, several years prior, killed a stranger while having a mental break. After this information came to light, members of the group were warned. The group has also been noted to be complimentary of some men. == Lawsuits == In 2023, a 41-year-old man sued the administrators of the London group for $35,000 under defamation, alleging that the group "called names, accused of sending lewd photos and of being a bad parent". In January 2024 a man sued Meta, the owner of Facebook, along with Patreon, GoFundMe, and the AWDTSG website, as well as almost 30 group members due to alleged defamation, emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. Claiming that the groups violate anti-doxxing laws and do not fact check, seeking $75,000 in damages. He claims that the group shared fake images of him sending women texts containing harassment, his name and photo. His attorneys claim that if the images were real, they would fall under free speech in the First Amendment. By February, groups had raised $80,000. The Washington Post said that this case caused AWDTSG to "explode into public view". The case was dismissed in 2025 by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 15, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to renew the case in D'Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al. The plaintiff and his attorneys, Marc Trent and Aaron Walner of Trent Law Firm, were sanctioned "for frivolously appealing the dismissal of the claims," "misrepresentations of law," in connection with falsified citations included in the plaintiff's brief, and " disputing at oral argument without any evidentiary basis that [the plaintiff] client sent the text message she attributed to him." == By country == === Australia === In Australia, there are groups for multiple cities including Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Rockhampton with many having several thousand members. The Sydney group has 30,000 members. In March 2023, the Adelaide version of the group, which had 7,000 members, was shut down. In 2024, groups titled "Sis, Are We Dating The Same Guy" stopped accepting new posts after an admin was sued for defamation and had to pay over AU$20,000 in legal fees. The case was settled out of court. The administrator announcing these closures cited a 2021 defamation High Court case involving detainee Dylan Voller, which led to the High Court saying that owners of Facebook groups can be held liable for defamatory comments, even if they did not know the comments had been made. === Canada === In 2023, a group was started for Ottawa. The founder previously was in a relationship full of "cheating and lies", which prompted her to creating the Facebook community. In 2023, the group for Vancouver and British Columbia was shut down after concerns about men being unable to protect themselves against fa

  Read more →
• 

  Mistral Vibe

  Mistral Vibe or Vibe (Le Chat until May 2026), is a chatbot that uses generative artificial intelligence developed in France by Mistral AI. Mistral Vibe is available in iOS and Android. Its services are operated on a freemium model. == History == In February 2024, Mistral AI released Le Chat. In January 2025, Mistral AI made a content deal with Agence France-Presse (AFP) that lets Le Chat query AFP's entire archive dating back to 1983. On 6 February 2025, a mobile app for Le Chat was released for iOS and Android, and a subscription tier, Pro, was introduced at a cost of $14.99 per month. In July 2025, Mistral AI released Voxtral, an open-source language model that understands and generates audio. Mistral introduced a voice mode for chatting that uses Voxtral, and projects, which allows grouping chats and files. In September 2025, Le Chat introduced the capability to remember previous conversations. In May 2026, Mistral AI announced the rebrand from Le Chat to Mistral Vibe and new features were introduced at the same time.

  Read more →
• 

  Problematic social media use

  Excessive use of social media can lead to problems including impaired functioning and a reduction in overall wellbeing, for both users and those around them. Such usage is associated with a risk of mental health problems, sleep problems, academic struggles, and daytime fatigue. Psychological or behavioural dependence on social media platforms can result in significant negative functions in peoples daily lives. The risk of problems is also related to the type of platform of social media or online community being used. People of different ages and genders may be affected in different ways by problematic social media use. == Signs and symptoms == Signs of social media addiction or excessive use of social media include many behaviours similar to substance use disorders, including mood modification, salience, tolerance, stress withdrawal symptoms, psychological distress, anxiety and depression, conflict, and relapse, and low self esteem. People with problematic social media habits are at risk of being addicted and may require more time on social media as time passes. Frequent social media use may also be associated with self-reported symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Social anxiety (or fear of missing out) is another potential symptom. Social anxiety is defined as having intense anxiety or fear of being judged, negatively evaluated, or rejected in a social or performance situation. The fear of missing out can contribute to excessive usage due to frequent checking the media constantly throughout the day to check in and see what others are doing instead of doing other activities. Common signs include displacement, or replacing meaningful other activities with social media, and loneliness. == Causes and mechanisms == There are many theories for the mechanism or cause behind a person having problematic social media use. The transition from normal to problematic social media use occurs when a person relies on it to relieve stress, loneliness, depression, or provide continuous rewards. Cognitive-behavioral model – People increase their use of social media when they are in unfamiliar environments or awkward situations; Social skill model – People pull out their phones and use social media when they prefer virtual communication as opposed to face-to-face interactions because they lack self-presentation skills; Socio-cognitive model – This person uses social media because they love the feeling of people liking and commenting on their photos and tagging them in pictures. They are attracted to the positive outcomes they receive on social media. There are parallels to the gambling industry inherent to the design of various social media sites, with "'ludic loops' or repeated cycles of uncertainty, anticipation and feedback" potentially contributing to problematic social media use. Another factor directly facilitating the development of addiction to social media is the implicit attitude toward the IT artifact. Social media use may also stimulate the reward pathway in the brain. There is also a theory that social media addiction fulfills a basic evolutionary drives in the wake of mass urbanization worldwide. The basic psychological needs of "secure, predictable community life that evolved over millions of years" remain unchanged, leading some to find online communities to cope with the new individualized way of life in some modern societies. The "Evolutionary Mismatch" hypothesis holds that modern digital platforms amplify social competition and comparison in ways our ancestors never faced, possibly triggering maladaptive patterns such as anxiety, depression, or compulsive use. Similarly, some scholars compare social media to "junk food": The approach taken to develop social media platforms may contribute to problematic social media use. The ability to scroll and stream content endlessly and how app developers distort time by affecting the 'flow' of content when scrolling, potentially resulting in the Zeigarnik effect (the human brain will continue to pursue an unfinished task until a satisfying closure. Autoplay modes, the personalized nature of the content results in emotional attachment (the user values this above its actual value, which is referred to as the endowment effect), and the exposure effect (repeated exposure to a distinct stimulus by the user can condition the user into an enhanced or improved attitude toward it). The interactive nature of the platforms, including the ability to "like" content has also been linked. Even though social media can satisfy personal communication needs, those who use it at higher rates are shown to have higher levels of psychological distress. == Diagnosis == While there is no official diagnostic term or measurement, problematic social media use is conceptualized as a non-substance-related disorder, resulting in preoccupation and compulsion to engage excessively in social media platforms despite negative consequences. No diagnosis exists for problematic social media use in either the ICD-11 or DSM-5. Excessive use of an activity, like social media, does not directly equate with addiction. There are other factors that could lead to someone's social media addiction including personality traits and pre-existing tendencies. While the extent of social media use and addiction are positively correlated, it is erroneous to employ use (the degree to which one makes use of the site's features, the effort exerted during use sessions, access frequency, etc.) as a proxy for addiction. Indicators of a potential dependence on social media include: Mood swings: a person uses social media to regulate his or her mood, or as a means of escaping real world conflicts. Relevance: social media starts to dominate a person's thoughts at the expense of other activities. Salience: social media becomes the most important part of someone's life. Tolerance: a person increases their time spent on social media to experience previously associated feelings they had while using social media. Withdrawal: when a person can not access social media their sleeping or eating habits change or signs of depression or anxiety can become present. Conflicts in real life: when social media is used excessively, it can affect real-life relationships with family and friends. Relapse: the tendency for previously affected individuals to revert to previous patterns of excessive social media use. There have been several scales developed and validated that help to understand the issues regarding problematic social media use. There is not one single scale that is being used by all researchers. == Treatment == Screen time recommendations for children and families have been developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Possible therapeutic interventions published include: Self-help interventions, including application-specific timers; Cognitive behavioural therapy; and Organisational and schooling support. Medications have not been shown to be effective in randomized, controlled trials for the related conditions of Internet addiction disorder or gaming disorder. == Prevention == Prevention approaches include screen time monitoring apps and other tech-based approaches to improve efficiency and decrease screen time and tools to help with addiction to online platform products. Parents' methods for monitoring, regulating, and understanding their children's social media use are referred to as parental mediation. Parental mediation strategies include active, restrictive, and co-using methods. Active mediation involves direct parent-child conversations that are intended to educate children on social media norms and safety, as well as the variety and purposes of online content. Restrictive mediation entails the implementation of rules, expectations, and limitations regarding children's social media use and interactions. Co-use is when parents jointly use social media alongside their children, and is most effective when parents are actively participating (like asking questions, making inquisitive/supportive comments) versus being passive about it. Active mediation is the most common strategy used by parents, though the key to success for any mediation strategy is consistency/reliability. When parents reinforce rules inconsistently, have no mediation strategy, or use highly restrictive strategies for monitoring their children's social media use, there is an observable increase in children's aggressive behaviours. When parents openly express that they are supportive of their child's autonomy and provide clear, consistent rules for media use, problematic usage and aggression decreases. Knowing that consistent, autonomy-supportive mediation has more positive outcomes than inconsistent, controlling mediation, parents can consciously foster more direct, involved, and genuine dialogue with their children. This can help prevent or reduce problematic social media use in children and teenagers. == Outcomes == === Adolescents and teens === Increased social medi

  Read more →
• 

  Distributed operating system

  A distributed operating system is system software over a collection of independent software, networked, communicating, and physically separate computational nodes. They handle jobs which are serviced by multiple CPUs. Each individual node holds a specific software subset of the global aggregate operating system. Each subset is a composite of two distinct service provisioners. The first is a ubiquitous minimal kernel, or microkernel, that directly controls that node's hardware. Second is a higher-level collection of system management components that coordinate the node's individual and collaborative activities. These components abstract microkernel functions and support user applications. The microkernel and the management components collection work together. They support the system's goal of integrating multiple resources and processing functionality into an efficient and stable system. This seamless integration of individual nodes into a global system is referred to as transparency, or single system image; describing the illusion provided to users of the global system's appearance as a single computational entity. == Description == A distributed OS provides the essential services and functionality required of an OS but adds attributes and particular configurations to allow it to support additional requirements such as increased scale and availability. To a user, a distributed OS works in a manner similar to a single-node, monolithic operating system. That is, although it consists of multiple nodes, it appears to users and applications as a single-node. Separating minimal system-level functionality from additional user-level modular services provides a "separation of mechanism and policy". Mechanism and policy can be simply interpreted as "what something is done" versus "how something is done," respectively. This separation increases flexibility and scalability. == Overview == === The kernel === At each locale (typically a node), the kernel provides a minimally complete set of node-level utilities necessary for operating a node's underlying hardware and resources. These mechanisms include allocation, management, and disposition of a node's resources, processes, communication, and input/output management support functions. Within the kernel, the communications sub-system is of foremost importance for a distributed OS. In a distributed OS, the kernel often supports a minimal set of functions, including low-level address space management, thread management, and inter-process communication (IPC). A kernel of this design is referred to as a microkernel. Its modular nature enhances reliability and security, essential features for a distributed OS. === System management === System management components are software processes that define the node's policies. These components are the part of the OS outside the kernel. These components provide higher-level communication, process and resource management, reliability, performance and security. The components match the functions of a single-entity system, adding the transparency required in a distributed environment. The distributed nature of the OS requires additional services to support a node's responsibilities to the global system. In addition, the system management components accept the "defensive" responsibilities of reliability, availability, and persistence. These responsibilities can conflict with each other. A consistent approach, balanced perspective, and a deep understanding of the overall system can assist in identifying diminishing returns. Separation of policy and mechanism mitigates such conflicts. === Working together as an operating system === The architecture and design of a distributed operating system must realize both individual node and global system goals. Architecture and design must be approached in a manner consistent with separating policy and mechanism. In doing so, a distributed operating system attempts to provide an efficient and reliable distributed computing framework allowing for an absolute minimal user awareness of the underlying command and control efforts. The multi-level collaboration between a kernel and the system management components, and in turn between the distinct nodes in a distributed operating system is the functional challenge of the distributed operating system. This is the point in the system that must maintain a perfect harmony of purpose, and simultaneously maintain a complete disconnect of intent from implementation. This challenge is the distributed operating system's opportunity to produce the foundation and framework for a reliable, efficient, available, robust, extensible, and scalable system. However, this opportunity comes at a very high cost in complexity. === The price of complexity === In a distributed operating system, the exceptional degree of inherent complexity could easily render the entire system an anathema to any user. As such, the logical price of realizing a distributed operation system must be calculated in terms of overcoming vast amounts of complexity in many areas, and on many levels. This calculation includes the depth, breadth, and range of design investment and architectural planning required in achieving even the most modest implementation. These design and development considerations are critical and unforgiving. For instance, a deep understanding of a distributed operating system's overall architectural and design detail is required at an exceptionally early point. An exhausting array of design considerations are inherent in the development of a distributed operating system. Each of these design considerations can potentially affect many of the others to a significant degree. This leads to a massive effort in balanced approach, in terms of the individual design considerations, and many of their permutations. As an aid in this effort, most rely on documented experience and research in distributed computing power. == History == Research and experimentation efforts began in earnest in the 1970s and continued through the 1990s, with focused interest peaking in the late 1980s. A number of distributed operating systems were introduced during this period; however, very few of these implementations achieved even modest commercial success. Fundamental and pioneering implementations of primitive distributed operating system component concepts date to the early 1950s. Some of these individual steps were not focused directly on distributed computing, and at the time, many may not have realized their important impact. These pioneering efforts laid important groundwork, and inspired continued research in areas related to distributed computing. In the mid-1970s, research produced important advances in distributed computing. These breakthroughs provided a solid, stable foundation for efforts that continued through the 1990s. The accelerating proliferation of multi-processor and multi-core processor systems research led to a resurgence of the distributed OS concept. === The DYSEAC === One of the first efforts was the DYSEAC, a general-purpose synchronous computer. In one of the earliest publications of the Association for Computing Machinery, in April 1954, a researcher at the National Bureau of Standards – now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – presented a detailed specification of the DYSEAC. The introduction focused upon the requirements of the intended applications, including flexible communications, but also mentioned other computers: Finally, the external devices could even include other full-scale computers employing the same digital language as the DYSEAC. For example, the SEAC or other computers similar to it could be harnessed to the DYSEAC and by use of coordinated programs could be made to work together in mutual cooperation on a common task… Consequently[,] the computer can be used to coordinate the diverse activities of all the external devices into an effective ensemble operation. The specification discussed the architecture of multi-computer systems, preferring peer-to-peer rather than master-slave. Each member of such an interconnected group of separate computers is free at any time to initiate and dispatch special control orders to any of its partners in the system. As a consequence, the supervisory control over the common task may initially be loosely distributed throughout the system and then temporarily concentrated in one computer, or even passed rapidly from one machine to the other as the need arises. …the various interruption facilities which have been described are based on mutual cooperation between the computer and the external devices subsidiary to it, and do not reflect merely a simple master-slave relationship. This is one of the earliest examples of a computer with distributed control. The Dept. of the Army reports certified it reliable and that it passed all acceptance tests in April 1954. It was completed and delivered on time, in May 1954. This was a "portable comput

  Read more →
• 

  Usage share of operating systems

  The usage share of an operating system is the percentage of computers running that operating system (OS). These statistics are estimates as wide scale OS usage data is difficult to obtain and measure. Reliable primary sources are limited and data collection methodology is not formally agreed. Currently devices connected to the internet allow for web data collection to approximately measure OS usage. As of December 2025, Android, which uses the Linux kernel, is the world's most popular operating system with 38.94% of the global market, followed by Windows with 29.99%, iOS with 15.66%, macOS with 2.14%, and other operating systems with 10.78%. This is for all device types excluding embedded devices. For smartphones and other mobile devices, Android has 72% market share, and Apple's iOS has 28%. For desktop computers and laptops, Microsoft Windows has 60.8%, followed by unknown operating systems at 19.7%, Mac OS at 14.4%, desktop Linux at 3.2%, then Google's ChromeOS at 1.6%, as of March 2026. For tablets, Apple's iPadOS (a variant of iOS) has 52% share and Android has 48% worldwide. For the top 500 most powerful supercomputers, Linux distributions have had 100% of the market share since 2017. The global server operating system market share has Linux leading with a 63.1% marketshare, followed by Windows, Unix and other operating systems. Linux is also most used for web servers, and the most common Linux distribution is Ubuntu, followed by Debian. Linux has almost caught up with the second-most popular (desktop) OS, macOS, in some regions, such as in South America, and in Asia it's at 6.4% (7% with ChromeOS) vs 9.7% for macOS. In the US, ChromeOS is third at 5.5%, followed by (desktop) Linux at 4.3%. The most numerous type of device with an operating system are embedded systems. Not all embedded systems have operating systems, instead running their application code on the "bare metal"; of those that do have operating systems, a high percentage are standalone or do not have a web browser, which makes their usage share difficult to measure. Some operating systems used in embedded systems are more widely used than some of those mentioned above; for example, modern Intel microprocessors contain an embedded management processor running a version of the Minix operating system. == Worldwide device shipments == Shipments (to stores) do not necessarily translate to sales to consumers, therefore suggesting the numbers indicate popularity and/or usage could be misleading. Not only do smartphones sell in higher numbers than PCs, but also a lot more by dollar value, with the gap only projected to widen, to well over double. According to Gartner, the following is the worldwide device shipments (referring to wholesale) by operating system from 2012 to 2016, which includes smartphones, tablets, laptops and PCs together. On 27 January 2016, Paul Thurrott summarized the operating system market, the day after Apple announced "one billion devices": Apple's "active installed base" is now one billion devices. [..] Granted, some of those Apple devices were probably sold into the marketplace years ago. But that 1 billion figure can and should be compared to the numbers Microsoft touts for Windows 10 (200 million, most recently) or Windows more generally (1.5 billion active users, a number that hasn’t moved, magically, in years), and that Google touts for Android (over 1.4 billion, as of September). My understanding of iOS is that the user base was previously thought to be around 800 million strong, and when you factor out Macs and other non-iOS Apple devices, that's probably about right. But as you can see, there are three big personal computing platforms. And only one of them is actually declining. We’ll see how Windows 10 fares over the long term, but even if Microsoft hits the 1 billion figure in 1-2 years as promised, it will by then still be the smallest of those three platforms. In 2018, Apple stopped revealing unit sales in its reports. Since 2018, the company have been publishing only revenues per device models which, nonetheless, allowed the analysers to extrapolate the unit sales from the model revenues by applying the wholesale device prices. Other hardware manufacturers usually do not report unit sales. === PC shipments === For 2015 (and earlier), Gartner reports for "the year, worldwide PC shipments declined for the fourth consecutive year, which started in 2012 with the launch of tablets" with an 8% decline in PC sales for 2015 (not including cumulative decline in sales over the previous years). Microsoft backed away from their goal of one billion Windows 10 devices in three years (or "by the middle of 2018") and reported on 26 September 2016 that Windows 10 was running on over 400 million devices, and in March 2019, on more than 800 million. In May 2020, Gartner predicted further decline in all market segments for 2020 due to COVID-19, predicting a decline of 13.6% for all devices. while the "Work from Home Trend Saved PC Market from Collapse", with only a decline of 10.5% predicted for PCs. However, in the end, according to Gartner, PC shipments grew 10.7% in the fourth quarter of 2020 and reached 275 million units in 2020, a 4.8% increase from 2019 and the highest growth in ten years." Apple in 4th place for PCs had the largest growth in shipments for a company in Q4 of 31.3%, while "the fourth quarter of 2020 was another remarkable period of growth for Chromebooks, with shipments increasing around 200% year over year to reach 11.7 million units. In 2020, Chromebook shipments increased over 80% to total nearly 30 million units, largely due to demand from the North American education market." Chromebooks sold more (30 million) than Apple's Macs worldwide (22.5 million) in pandemic year 2020. According to the Catalyst group, the year 2021 had record high PC shipments with total shipments of 341 million units (including Chromebooks), 15% higher than 2020 and 27% higher than 2019, while being the largest shipment total since 2012. According to Gartner, worldwide PC shipments declined by 16.2% in 2022, the largest annual decrease since the mid-1990s, due to geopolitical, economic, and supply chain challenges. In 2024 and 2025, due to lower adoption of Windows 11 and Microsoft ending its support to Windows 10, the number of PCs shipped with pre-installed Windows OS dropped. Pundits attribute the low Windows 11 acceptance to its steep hardware requirements and especially the TPM 2.0 ready chipset requirement and the 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages. Meanwhile, the macOS device market share in PC device shipments increased to new heights, with improved numbers seen for Linux devices too. In Q3 2025, the macOS pre-installed device shipments increased by 14.9% year-over-year (YoY), while the overall PC-shipments increased only by 8.1%, in Q2 2025, it grew 21.4% YoY while the global PC-shipments increased only by 6.5%, and in Q1 2025, it grew 7% YoY while the global PC-shipments increased by 4.8%. === Tablet computers shipments === In 2015, eMarketer estimated at the beginning of the year that the tablet installed base would hit one billion for the first time (with China's use at 328 million, which Google Play doesn't serve or track, and the United States's use second at 156 million). At the end of the year, because of cheap tablets – not counted by all analysts – that goal was met (even excluding cumulative sales of previous years) as: Sales quintupled to an expected 1 billion units worldwide this year, from 216 million units in 2014, according to projections from the Envisioneering Group. While that number is far higher than the 200-plus million units globally projected by research firms IDC, Gartner and Forrester, Envisioneering analyst Richard Doherty says the rival estimates miss all the cheap Asian knockoff tablets that have been churning off assembly lines.[..] Forrester says its definition of tablets "is relatively narrow" while IDC says it includes some tablets by Amazon — but not all.[..] The top tech purchase of the year continued to be the smartphone, with an expected 1.5 billion sold worldwide, according to projections from researcher IDC. Last year saw some 1.2 billion sold.[..] Computers didn’t fare as well, despite the introduction of Microsoft's latest software upgrade, Windows 10, and the expected but not realized bump it would provide for consumers looking to skip the upgrade and just get a new computer instead. Some 281 million PCs were expected to be sold, according to IDC, down from 308 million in 2014. Folks tend to be happy with the older computers and keep them for longer, as more of our daily computing activities have moved to the smartphone.[..] While Windows 10 got good reviews from tech critics, only 11% of the 1-billion-plus Windows user base opted to do the upgrade, according to Microsoft. This suggests Microsoft has a ways to go before the software gets "hit" status. Apple's new operating system El Capitan has been

  Read more →
• 

  Geofence warrant

  A geofence warrant or a reverse location warrant is a search warrant issued by a court to allow law enforcement to search a database to find all active mobile devices within a particular geo-fence area. Courts have granted law enforcement geo-fence warrants to obtain information from databases such as Google's Sensorvault, which collects users' historical geolocation data. Geo-fence warrants are a part of a category of warrants known as reverse search warrants. == History == Geofence warrants were first used in 2016. Google reported that it had received 982 such warrants in 2018, 8,396 in 2019, and 11,554 in 2020. A 2021 transparency report showed that 25% of data requests from law enforcement to Google were geo-fence data requests. Google is the most common recipient of geo-fence warrants and the main provider of such data, although companies including Apple, Snapchat, Lyft, and Uber have also received such warrants. == Legality == === United States === Some lawyers and privacy experts believe reverse search warrants are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires any search warrants be specific to what and to whom they apply. The Fourth Amendment specifies that warrants may only be issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Some lawyers, legal scholars, and privacy experts have likened reverse search warrants to general warrants, which were made illegal by the Fourth Amendment. Groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation have opposed geo-fence warrants in amicus briefs filed in motions to quash such orders to disclose geo-fence data. In 2024, a panel of the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals considered data acquired from Google’s Sensorvault not to be a search, but non-private business records when users opt-in to Google’s location history. However, upon a rehearing en banc, the Court vacated that decision. In April 2025, the full Court affirmed the judgment solely on the 'good faith' exception, leaving the underlying constitutional question of whether geofence warrants constitute a search unsettled in the Circuit. However, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that geofence warrants are "categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment." The split in Circuits prompted the United States Supreme Court to agree to hear Chatrie v. United States in January 2026.

  Read more →
• 

  Electronic submission

  Electronic submission refers to the submission of a document by electronic means: that is, via e-mail or a web form on the Internet, or on an electronic medium such as a compact disc, a hard disk or a USB flash drive. Traditionally, the term "manuscript" referred to anything that was explicitly "written by hand". However, in popular usage and especially in the context of computers and the internet, the term "manuscript" may even refer to documents (text or otherwise) typed out or prepared on typewriters and computers and can be extended to digital photographs and videos, and online surveys too. In other words, any manuscript prepared and submitted online can be considered to be an electronic submission. == History and early usage == There is no concrete data indicating when and by whom were electronic submissions used for the first time. However, research based universities in several countries have been encouraging the collection of course assignments and projects in the form of electronic submissions for almost a decade now. Several governments and organizations are also switching to electronic submissions for the collection of research papers, grant applications and government application forms. == Types of electronic submissions == Since modern computers can store and process information and data in virtually any format and with the Internet allowing easy transfer of this data, the number of scenarios in which submissions can be collected electronically has increased exponentially in the last few years. Some of these scenarios are described below. In most of these scenarios, submissions were collected on hard paper until the Information Technology revolution occurred. === Academic Submissions === Teachers, professors and teaching assistants often collect course assignments and projects electronically. Electronic submissions are usually collected using a web-based system which more often than not also helps in the management of submissions collected and stored on it. (Explained By Henny L, University of Lethbridge, AB, Canada) === Research Papers === In call-for-paper or academic conferences, prospective presenters are usually asked to submit a short abstract or a full paper on their presentation or research work electronically, which is reviewed before being accepted for the conference. === Proposals for Grants === Several grant-giving organizations like the NSA, W3C, NIA, NIH etc. require grant seekers to submit a proposal which if accepted result in the desired grants. A majority of these proposals are now submitted electronically on systems that also help in the managing and tracking the proposals submitted. === Articles for Publication === Magazines, newspapers and other publishing houses have begun accepting electronic submissions for articles from various sources - both internal (by journalists and writers hired by them) as well as external (by users and popular readers). The submitted articles are stored on a server hosted by the publication house or by a third-party Archived 2019-10-13 at the Wayback Machine vendor and are usually evaluated before being given a green signal. === Contests and Competition Entries === Almost every kind of contest or competition requires participants to submit an entry in a format described by the organizers of the contest. If the contest is an Internet-based one, then the entries or nominations for the contest are collected electronically using e-mail or other electronic means depending on feasibility and the choice of the organizers. === Government Applications === The governments of several countries are turning to electronic submission of applications and forms for various government procedures. Electronic submissions allow easier management of the applications and forms submitted. === Legal documents === Many legal documents may be submitted to the courts electronically. In England and Wales, the Civil Procedure Rules include a suitable "document exchange" as an acceptable "method of service". Case law in employment law cases has established that where a claim is submitted electronically, a prudent legal adviser should "check that it has been received and there must be systems in place for doing that". === Resumés and CVs === It has become commonplace for job-seekers to submit soft copies (electronic versions) of their resumés and CVs to recruiting agencies and online job portals. This is usually done over the Internet using e-mail or a pre-hosted web-based system. == Submission management systems == The art and science of collecting and managing electronic submissions is called Submission Management. Certain software vendors have begun developing submission management systems to assist in the collection, tracking and management of complex submission processes realized electronically. Most of these systems are web based and accessible from any device with a browser and an Internet connection. However, a majority of these systems are application specific and cannot be applied to all submission management scenarios. == Resistance to electronic submissions == Despite the easier management and tracking of electronic submissions compared to their paper-based counterparts, widespread adoption and use of electronic submissions and systems for managing them has been hampered by several facts, which include but are not limited to: Inconvenience while drawing figures, diagrams and equations on a computer Resistance to change and adoption of new technologies Lack of or limited access to the Internet.

  Read more →
• 

  Harmonic

  In physics, acoustics, and telecommunications, a harmonic is a sinusoidal wave with a frequency that is a positive integer multiple of the fundamental frequency of a periodic signal. The fundamental frequency is also called the 1st harmonic; the other harmonics are known as higher harmonics. As all harmonics are periodic at the fundamental frequency, the sum of harmonics is also periodic at that frequency. The set of harmonics forms a harmonic series. The term is employed in various disciplines, including music, physics, acoustics, electronic power transmission, radio technology, and other fields. For example, if the fundamental frequency is 50 Hz, a common AC power supply frequency, the frequencies of the first three higher harmonics are 100 Hz (2nd harmonic), 150 Hz (3rd harmonic), 200 Hz (4th harmonic) and any addition of waves with these frequencies is periodic at 50 Hz. An n {\displaystyle \ n} th characteristic mode, for n > 1 , {\displaystyle \ n>1\ ,} will have nodes that are not vibrating. For example, the 3rd characteristic mode will have nodes at 1 3 L {\displaystyle \ {\tfrac {1}{3}}\ L\ } and 2 3 L , {\displaystyle \ {\tfrac {2}{3}}\ L\ ,} where L {\displaystyle \ L\ } is the length of the string. In fact, each n {\displaystyle \ n} th characteristic mode, for n {\displaystyle \ n\ } not a multiple of 3, will not have nodes at these points. These other characteristic modes will be vibrating at the positions 1 3 L {\displaystyle \ {\tfrac {1}{3}}\ L\ } and 2 3 L . {\displaystyle \ {\tfrac {2}{3}}\ L~.} If the player gently touches one of these positions, then these other characteristic modes will be suppressed. The tonal harmonics from these other characteristic modes will then also be suppressed. Consequently, the tonal harmonics from the n {\displaystyle \ n} th characteristic characteristic modes, where n {\displaystyle \ n\ } is a multiple of 3, will be made relatively more prominent. In music, harmonics are used on string instruments and wind instruments as a way of producing sound on the instrument, particularly to play higher notes and, with strings, obtain notes that have a unique sound quality or "tone colour". On strings, bowed harmonics have a "glassy", pure tone. On stringed instruments, harmonics are played by touching (but not fully pressing down the string) at an exact point on the string while sounding the string (plucking, bowing, etc.); this allows the harmonic to sound, a pitch which is always higher than the fundamental frequency of the string. == Terminology == Harmonics may be called "overtones", "partials", or "upper partials", and in some music contexts, the terms "harmonic", "overtone" and "partial" are used fairly interchangeably. But more precisely, the term "harmonic" includes all pitches in a harmonic series (including the fundamental frequency) while the term "overtone" only includes pitches above the fundamental. == Characteristics == A whizzing, whistling tonal character, distinguishes all the harmonics both natural and artificial from the firmly stopped intervals; therefore their application in connection with the latter must always be carefully considered. Most acoustic instruments emit complex tones containing many individual partials (component simple tones or sinusoidal waves), but the untrained human ear typically does not perceive those partials as separate phenomena. Rather, a musical note is perceived as one sound, the quality or timbre of that sound being a result of the relative strengths of the individual partials. Many acoustic oscillators, such as the human voice or a bowed violin string, produce complex tones that are more or less periodic, and thus are composed of partials that are nearly matched to the integer multiples of fundamental frequency and therefore resemble the ideal harmonics and are called "harmonic partials" or simply "harmonics" for convenience (although it's not strictly accurate to call a partial a harmonic, the first being actual and the second being theoretical). Oscillators that produce harmonic partials behave somewhat like one-dimensional resonators, and are often long and thin, such as a guitar string or a column of air open at both ends (as with the metallic modern orchestral transverse flute). Wind instruments whose air column is open at only one end, such as trumpets and clarinets, also produce partials resembling harmonics. However they only produce partials matching the odd harmonics—at least in theory. In practical use, no real acoustic instrument behaves as perfectly as the simplified physical models predict; for example, instruments made of non-linearly elastic wood, instead of metal, or strung with gut instead of brass or steel strings, tend to have not-quite-integer partials. Partials whose frequencies are not integer multiples of the fundamental are referred to as inharmonic partials. Some acoustic instruments emit a mix of harmonic and inharmonic partials but still produce an effect on the ear of having a definite fundamental pitch, such as pianos, strings plucked pizzicato, vibraphones, marimbas, and certain pure-sounding bells or chimes. Antique singing bowls are known for producing multiple harmonic partials or multiphonics. Other oscillators, such as cymbals, drum heads, and most percussion instruments, naturally produce an abundance of inharmonic partials and do not imply any particular pitch, and therefore cannot be used melodically or harmonically in the same way other instruments can. Building on of Sethares (2004), dynamic tonality introduces the notion of pseudo-harmonic partials, in which the frequency of each partial is aligned to match the pitch of a corresponding note in a pseudo-just tuning, thereby maximizing the consonance of that pseudo-harmonic timbre with notes of that pseudo-just tuning. == Partials, overtones, and harmonics == An overtone is any partial higher than the lowest partial in a compound tone. The relative strengths and frequency relationships of the component partials determine the timbre of an instrument. The similarity between the terms overtone and partial sometimes leads to their being loosely used interchangeably in a musical context, but they are counted differently, leading to some possible confusion. In the special case of instrumental timbres whose component partials closely match a harmonic series (such as with most strings and winds) rather than being inharmonic partials (such as with most pitched percussion instruments), it is also convenient to call the component partials "harmonics", but not strictly correct, because harmonics are numbered the same even when missing, while partials and overtones are only counted when present. This chart demonstrates how the three types of names (partial, overtone, and harmonic) are counted (assuming that the harmonics are present): In many musical instruments, it is possible to play the upper harmonics without the fundamental note being present. In a simple case (e.g., recorder) this has the effect of making the note go up in pitch by an octave, but in more complex cases many other pitch variations are obtained. In some cases it also changes the timbre of the note. This is part of the normal method of obtaining higher notes in wind instruments, where it is called overblowing. The extended technique of playing multiphonics also produces harmonics. On string instruments it is possible to produce very pure sounding notes, called harmonics or flageolets by string players, which have an eerie quality, as well as being high in pitch. Harmonics may be used to check at a unison the tuning of strings that are not tuned to the unison. For example, lightly fingering the node found halfway down the highest string of a cello produces the same pitch as lightly fingering the node ⁠ 1 / 3 ⁠ of the way down the second highest string. For the human voice see Overtone singing, which uses harmonics. While it is true that electronically produced periodic tones (e.g. square waves or other non-sinusoidal waves) have "harmonics" that are whole number multiples of the fundamental frequency, practical instruments do not all have this characteristic. For example, higher "harmonics" of piano notes are not true harmonics but are "overtones" and can be very sharp, i.e. a higher frequency than given by a pure harmonic series. This is especially true of instruments other than strings, brass, or woodwinds. Examples of these "other" instruments are xylophones, drums, bells, chimes, etc.; not all of their overtone frequencies make a simple whole number ratio with the fundamental frequency. (The fundamental frequency is the reciprocal of the longest time period of the collection of vibrations in some single periodic phenomenon.) == On stringed instruments == Harmonics may be singly produced [on stringed instruments] (1) by varying the point of contact with the bow, or (2) by slightly pressing the string at the nodes, or divisions of its aliquot parts ( 1 2 {\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{2}}} , 1

  Read more →