AI Grammar Solver

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

  • Computer Dreams

    Computer Dreams

    Computer Dreams is a 1988 film created by Digital Vision Entertainment and released by MPI Home Video. Written, produced and directed by Geoffrey de Valois and hosted by Amanda Pays, it consists primarily of clips and behind-the-scenes work of early computer graphics animation. Notably included are Luxo Jr. and Red's Dream, the first two short films from Pixar. The film is an hour long and features an electronic score by Music Fantastic. It was revised and re-released on DVD as The History of Computer Animation, Volume 2. It won the Winner Gold Special Jury Award at the 1989 Houston International Film Festival, and the 1989 Golden Decade Award from the US Film & Video Festival. Music used includes: Gail Lennon - Desire, Gail Lennon - Like A Dream, Shandi Sinnamon - Making It,

    Read more →
  • Factorization of polynomials over finite fields

    Factorization of polynomials over finite fields

    In mathematics and computer algebra the factorization of a polynomial consists of decomposing it into a product of irreducible factors. This decomposition is theoretically possible and is unique for polynomials with coefficients in any field, but rather strong restrictions on the field of the coefficients are needed to allow the computation of the factorization by means of an algorithm. In practice, algorithms have been designed only for polynomials with coefficients in a finite field, in the field of rationals or in a finitely generated field extension of one of them. All factorization algorithms, including the case of multivariate polynomials over the rational numbers, reduce the problem to this case; see polynomial factorization. It is also used for various applications of finite fields, such as coding theory (cyclic redundancy codes and BCH codes), cryptography (public key cryptography by the means of elliptic curves), and computational number theory. As the reduction of the factorization of multivariate polynomials to that of univariate polynomials does not have any specificity in the case of coefficients in a finite field, only polynomials with one variable are considered in this article. == Background == === Finite field === The theory of finite fields, whose origins can be traced back to the works of Gauss and Galois, has played a part in various branches of mathematics. Due to the applicability of the concept in other topics of mathematics and sciences like computer science there has been a resurgence of interest in finite fields and this is partly due to important applications in coding theory and cryptography. Applications of finite fields introduce some of these developments in cryptography, computer algebra and coding theory. A finite field or Galois field is a field with a finite order (number of elements). The order of a finite field is always a prime or a power of prime. For each prime power q = pr, there exists exactly one finite field with q elements, up to isomorphism. This field is denoted GF(q) or Fq. If p is prime, GF(p) is the prime field of order p; it is the field of residue classes modulo p, and its p elements are denoted 0, 1, ..., p−1. Thus a = b in GF(p) means the same as a ≡ b (mod p). === Irreducible polynomials === Let F be a finite field. As for general fields, a non-constant polynomial f in F[x] is said to be irreducible over F if it is not the product of two polynomials of positive degree. A polynomial of positive degree that is not irreducible over F is called reducible over F. Irreducible polynomials allow us to construct the finite fields of non-prime order. In fact, for a prime power q, let Fq be the finite field with q elements, unique up to isomorphism. A polynomial f of degree n greater than one, which is irreducible over Fq, defines a field extension of degree n which is isomorphic to the field with qn elements: the elements of this extension are the polynomials of degree lower than n; addition, subtraction and multiplication by an element of Fq are those of the polynomials; the product of two elements is the remainder of the division by f of their product as polynomials; the inverse of an element may be computed by the extended GCD algorithm (see Arithmetic of algebraic extensions). It follows that, to compute in a finite field of non prime order, one needs to generate an irreducible polynomial. For this, the common method is to take a polynomial at random and test it for irreducibility. For sake of efficiency of the multiplication in the field, it is usual to search for polynomials of the shape xn + ax + b. Irreducible polynomials over finite fields are also useful for pseudorandom number generators using feedback shift registers and discrete logarithm over F2n. The number of irreducible monic polynomials of degree n over Fq is the number of aperiodic necklaces, given by Moreau's necklace-counting function Mq(n). The closely related necklace function Nq(n) counts monic polynomials of degree n which are primary (a power of an irreducible); or alternatively irreducible polynomials of all degrees d which divide n. === Example === The polynomial P = x4 + 1 is irreducible over Q but not over any finite field. On any field extension of F2, P = (x + 1)4. On every other finite field, at least one of −1, 2 and −2 is a square, because the product of two non-squares is a square and so we have If − 1 = a 2 , {\displaystyle -1=a^{2},} then P = ( x 2 + a ) ( x 2 − a ) . {\displaystyle P=(x^{2}+a)(x^{2}-a).} If 2 = b 2 , {\displaystyle 2=b^{2},} then P = ( x 2 + b x + 1 ) ( x 2 − b x + 1 ) . {\displaystyle P=(x^{2}+bx+1)(x^{2}-bx+1).} If − 2 = c 2 , {\displaystyle -2=c^{2},} then P = ( x 2 + c x − 1 ) ( x 2 − c x − 1 ) . {\displaystyle P=(x^{2}+cx-1)(x^{2}-cx-1).} === Complexity === Polynomial factoring algorithms use basic polynomial operations such as products, divisions, gcd, powers of one polynomial modulo another, etc. A multiplication of two polynomials of degree at most n can be done in O(n2) operations in Fq using "classical" arithmetic, or in O(nlog(n) log(log(n)) ) operations in Fq using "fast" arithmetic. A Euclidean division (division with remainder) can be performed within the same time bounds. The cost of a polynomial greatest common divisor between two polynomials of degree at most n can be taken as O(n2) operations in Fq using classical methods, or as O(nlog2(n) log(log(n)) ) operations in Fq using fast methods. For polynomials h, g of degree at most n, the exponentiation hq mod g can be done with O(log(q)) polynomial products, using exponentiation by squaring method, that is O(n2log(q)) operations in Fq using classical methods, or O(nlog(q)log(n) log(log(n))) operations in Fq using fast methods. In the algorithms that follow, the complexities are expressed in terms of number of arithmetic operations in Fq, using classical algorithms for the arithmetic of polynomials. == Factoring algorithms == Many algorithms for factoring polynomials over finite fields include the following three stages: Square-free factorization Distinct-degree factorization Equal-degree factorization An important exception is Berlekamp's algorithm, which combines stages 2 and 3. === Berlekamp's algorithm === Berlekamp's algorithm is historically important as being the first factorization algorithm which works well in practice. However, it contains a loop on the elements of the ground field, which implies that it is practicable only over small finite fields. For a fixed ground field, its time complexity is polynomial, but, for general ground fields, the complexity is exponential in the size of the ground field. === Square-free factorization === The algorithm determines a square-free factorization for polynomials whose coefficients come from the finite field Fq of order q = pm with p a prime. This algorithm firstly determines the derivative and then computes the gcd of the polynomial and its derivative. If it is not one then the gcd is again divided into the original polynomial, provided that the derivative is not zero (a case that exists for non-constant polynomials defined over finite fields). This algorithm uses the fact that, if the derivative of a polynomial is zero, then it is a polynomial in xp, which is, if the coefficients belong to Fp, the pth power of the polynomial obtained by substituting x by x1/p. If the coefficients do not belong to Fp, the pth root of a polynomial with zero derivative is obtained by the same substitution on x, completed by applying the inverse of the Frobenius automorphism to the coefficients. This algorithm works also over a field of characteristic zero, with the only difference that it never enters in the blocks of instructions where pth roots are computed. However, in this case, Yun's algorithm is much more efficient because it computes the greatest common divisors of polynomials of lower degrees. A consequence is that, when factoring a polynomial over the integers, the algorithm which follows is not used: one first computes the square-free factorization over the integers, and to factor the resulting polynomials, one chooses a p such that they remain square-free modulo p. Algorithm: SFF (Square-Free Factorization) Input: A monic polynomial f in Fq[x] where q = pm Output: Square-free factorization of f R ← 1 # Make w be the product (without multiplicity) of all factors of f that have # multiplicity not divisible by p c ← gcd(f, f′) w ← f/c # Step 1: Identify all factors in w i ← 1 while w ≠ 1 do y ← gcd(w, c) fac ← w / y R ← R · faci w ← y; c ← c / y; i ← i + 1 end while # c is now the product (with multiplicity) of the remaining factors of f # Step 2: Identify all remaining factors using recursion # Note that these are the factors of f that have multiplicity divisible by p if c ≠ 1 then c ← c1/p R ← R·SFF(c)p end if Output(R) The idea is to identify the product of all irreducible factors of f with the same multiplicity. This is done in two steps. The first step uses the formal d

    Read more →
  • Intent-based network

    Intent-based network

    Intent-Based Networking (IBN) is an approach to network management that shifts the focus from manually configuring individual devices to specifying desired outcomes or business objectives, referred to as "intents". == Description == Rather than relying on low-level commands to configure the network, administrators define these high-level intents, and the network dynamically adjusts itself to meet these requirements. IBN simplifies the management of complex networks by ensuring that the network infrastructure aligns with the desired operational goals. For example, an implementer can explicitly state a network purpose with a policy such as "Allow hosts A and B to communicate with X bandwidth capacity" without the need to understand the detailed mechanisms of the underlying devices (e.g. switches), topology or routing configurations. == Architecture == Advances in Natural Language Understanding (NLU) systems, along with neural network-based algorithms like BERT, RoBERTa, GLUE, and ERNIE, have enabled the conversion of user queries into structured representations that can be processed by automated services. This capability is crucial for managing the increasing complexity of network services. Intent-Based Networking (IBN) leverages these advancements to simplify network management by abstracting network services, reducing operational complexity, and lowering costs. A proposed three-layered architecture integrates intent-based automation into network management systems. In the business layer, intents are based on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs), reflecting business objectives. The intent layer evaluates and re-plans actions dynamically, where a Knowledge module abstracts and reasons about intents, while an Agent interfaces with network objects to execute actions. The data layer observes network objects, updates topology information, and interacts with the Knowledge and Agent modules to ensure accurate and timely responses to network changes. At the bottom, the network layer contains the physical infrastructure, transforming network data into a usable format for the intent layer to act upon.

    Read more →
  • Data set (IBM mainframe)

    Data set (IBM mainframe)

    In the context of IBM mainframe computers in the IBM System/360 line and its successors, a data set (IBM preferred) or dataset is a computer file having a record organization. Use of this term began with, e.g., DOS/360 and OS/360, and is still used by their successors, including the current VSE and z/OS. Documentation for these systems historically preferred this term rather than file. A data set is typically stored on a direct access storage device (DASD) or magnetic tape, however unit record devices, such as punch card readers, card punches, line printers and page printers can provide input/output (I/O) for a data set (file). Data sets are not unstructured streams of bytes, but rather are organized in various logical record and block structures determined by the DSORG (data set organization), RECFM (record format), and other parameters. These parameters are specified at the time of the data set allocation (creation), for example with Job Control Language DD statements. Within a running program they are stored in the Data Control Block (DCB) or Access Control Block (ACB), which are data structures used to access data sets using access methods. Records in a data set may be fixed, variable, or “undefined” length. == Data set organization == For OS/360, the DCB's DSORG parameter specifies how the data set is organized. It may be CQ Queued Telecommunications Access Method (QTAM) in Message Control Program (MCP) CX Communications line group DA Basic Direct Access Method (BDAM) GS Graphics device for Graphics Access Method(GAM) IS Indexed Sequential Access Method (ISAM) MQ QTAM message queue in application PO Partitioned Organization PS Physical Sequential among others. Data sets on tape may only be DSORG=PS. The choice of organization depends on how the data is to be accessed, and in particular, how it is to be updated. Programmers utilize various access methods (such as QSAM or VSAM) in programs for reading and writing data sets. Access method depends on the given data set organization. == Record format (RECFM) == Regardless of organization, the physical structure of each record is essentially the same, and is uniform throughout the data set. This is specified in the DCB RECFM parameter. RECFM=F means that the records are of fixed length, specified via the LRECL parameter. RECFM=V specifies a variable-length record. V records when stored on media are prefixed by a Record Descriptor Word (RDW) containing the integer length of the record in bytes and flag bits. With RECFM=FB and RECFM=VB, multiple logical records are grouped together into a single physical block on tape or DASD. FB and VB are fixed-blocked, and variable-blocked, respectively. RECFM=U (undefined) is also variable length, but the length of the record is determined by the length of the block rather than by a control field. The BLKSIZE parameter specifies the maximum length of the block. RECFM=FBS could be also specified, meaning fixed-blocked standard, meaning all the blocks except the last one were required to be in full BLKSIZE length. RECFM=VBS, or variable-blocked spanned, means a logical record could be spanned across two or more blocks, with flags in the RDW indicating whether a record segment is continued into the next block and/or was continued from the previous one. This mechanism eliminates the need for using any "delimiter" byte value to separate records. Thus data can be of any type, including binary integers, floating-point, or characters, without introducing a false end-of-record condition. The data set is an abstraction of a collection of records, in contrast to files as unstructured streams of bytes. == Partitioned data set == A partitioned data set (PDS) is a data set containing multiple members, each of which holds a separate sub-data set, similar to a directory in other types of file systems. This type of data set is often used to hold load modules (old format bound executable programs), source program libraries (especially Assembler macro definitions), ISPF screen definitions, and Job Control Language. A PDS may be compared to a Zip file or COM Structured Storage. A Partitioned Data Set can only be allocated on a single volume and have a maximum size of 65,535 tracks. Besides members, a PDS contains also a directory. Each member can be accessed indirectly via the directory structure. Once a member is located, the data stored in that member are handled in the same manner as a PS (sequential) data set. Whenever a member is deleted, the space it occupied is unusable for storing other data. Likewise, if a member is re-written, it is stored in a new spot at the back of the PDS and leaves wasted “dead” space in the middle. The only way to recover “dead” space is to perform file compression. Compression, which is done using the IEBCOPY utility, moves all members to the front of the data space and leaves free usable space at the back. (Note that in modern parlance, this kind of operation might be called defragmentation or garbage collection; data compression nowadays refers to a different, more complicated concept.) PDS files can only reside on DASD, not on magnetic tape, in order to use the directory structure to access individual members. Partitioned data sets are most often used for storing multiple job control language files, utility control statements, and executable modules. An improvement of this scheme is a Partitioned Data Set Extended (PDSE or PDS/E, sometimes just libraries) introduced with DFSMSdfp for MVS/XA and MVS/ESA systems. A PDS/E library can store program objects or other types of members, but not both. BPAM cannot process a PDS/E containing program objects. PDS/E structure is similar to PDS and is used to store the same types of data. However, PDS/E files have a better directory structure which does not require pre-allocation of directory blocks when the PDS/E is defined (and therefore does not run out of directory blocks if not enough were specified). Also, PDS/E automatically stores members in such a way that compression operation is not needed to reclaim "dead" space. PDS/E files can only reside on DASD in order to use the directory structure to access individual members. == Generation Data Group == A Generation Data Group (GDG) is a group of non-VSAM data sets that are successive generations of historically-related data stored on an IBM mainframe (running OS/360 and its successors or DOS/360 and its successors). A GDG is usually cataloged. An individual member of the GDG collection is called a "Generation Data Set." The latter may be identified by an absolute number, ACCTG.OURGDG(1234), or a relative number: (-1) for the previous generation, (0) for the current one, and (+1) the next generation. A GDG specifies how many generations of a data set are to be kept and at what age a generation will be deleted. Whenever a new generation is created, the system checks whether one or more obsolete generations are to be deleted. The purpose of GDGs is to automate archival, using the command language JCL, the data set name given is generic. When DSN appears, the GDG data set appears along with the history number, where (0) is the most recent version (-1), (-2), ... are previous generations (+1) a new generation (see DD) Another use of GDGs is to be able to address all generations simultaneously within a JCL script without having to know the number of currently available generations. To do this, you have to omit the parentheses and the generation number in the JCL when specifying the dataset. === GDG JCL & features === Generation Data Groups are defined using either the BLDG statement of the IEHPROGM utility or the DEFINE GENERATIONGROUP statement of the newer IDCAMS utility, which allows setting various parameters. LIMIT(10) would limit the number of generations limit to 10. SCRATCH FOR (91) would retain each member, up to the limited#generations, at least 91 days. IDCAMS can also delete (and optionally uncatalog) a GDG. ==== Example ==== Creation of a standard GDG for five safety scopes, each at least 35 days old: Delete a standard GDG:

    Read more →
  • List of 3D rendering software

    List of 3D rendering software

    3D rendering software products are the dedicated engines used for rendering computer-generated imagery. This is not the same as 3D modeling software, which involves the creation of 3D models, for which the software listed below can produce realistically rendered visualisations.General-purpose packages which can have their own built-in rendering capabilities are not listed here; these can be found in the list of 3D computer graphics software and list of 3D animation software. See 3D computer graphics software for more discussion about the distinctions.

    Read more →
  • Social film

    Social film

    A social film is a type of interactive film that is presented through the lens of social media. A social film is distributed digitally and integrates with a social networking service, such as Facebook or YouTube. It combines features of web video, social network games and social media. == Key elements == Social films are a more recent phenomenon, and, in turn, there are few precedents for their format. Although there are not many examples of this genre of film, the medium has certain identifiable elements: Casual entertainment Social media User-generated content Game mechanics Using just one of these factors or a combination of them, a social film engages viewers to interact directly with the work. This can be done through usual social media functionality like comments and ranking or adding directly to the narrative itself. Just as with memes, social film distribution relies on the viral spread enabled by social media. This is based on the viral expansion loops model, in which a viewer benefits from sharing the application with friends, exponentially creating new viewers compelled to share the application. == History == One of the first social films to be created was from the YouTube channel lonelygirl15. This social film started in 2006 and was created by Miles Beckett , Mesh Flinders, and Greg Goodfried. They used YouTube posts to create an interactive video series about a fictional character who showcased her life in a vlog format. As the videos went on, more bizarre things would keep happening to the main character, Bree, before she just stopped uploading. This channel was not only the first viral social film, but went on to be one of the first viral YouTube channels to be created. It did take a few years to see any more films in this genre, but 2011 saw many people start to try their hand at making these films. The first social film in this year was a film called Him, Her and Them which was produced and released by Murmur in April 2011. It was distributed exclusively through Facebook and promoted as the first “Facebook film.” The film is composed of short video clips and interactive slideshows, integrating Facebook's Social Graph API. Users participate via text-based additions to the story, which are viewable only by friends within their social network. In May 2011, Canon and Ron Howard teamed up to create Project Imagin8ion, which was a photo contest where photographers submitted photos and the top 8 photos would be the inspiration for a short film. This short film was called "When You Find Me" and could be found exclusively on YouTube. In July 2011, Intel and Toshiba partnered together to create Hollywood's first Social Film experience, a thriller called Inside, directed by D.J. Caruso and starring Emmy Rossum. The project is broken up into several segments across multiple social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. In this instance, the audience is challenged to help Emmy Rossum's character, Christina, safely make it out of the room she's been trapped in. This particular form of social film is a major undertaking in that it combines social media activity with A-list acting talent to create a user experience that all happens in real time. Although not quite the same idea, Hollywood also started experimenting with the idea of interactive and crowd-sourced films. One of the first examples of this was a short film called "Life In A Day" directed by Kevin Macdonald and produced by Ridley Scott. Kevin asked people from all over the world to submit videos onto YouTube of what they were doing on July 24th, 2010. They combined all of the best videos that were submitted together to create one film of people doing different things all around the world, no matter how boring or simple those things seemed. They took this short to film festivals before releasing it to the public on YouTube in 2011. In August 2012, Intel and Toshiba partnered again to create The Beauty Inside, directed by Drake Doremus, starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Topher Grace. It's Hollywood's first social film that gives everyone in the audience a chance to play Alex, the lead role. The experience will be broken up into six filmed episodes interspersed with real-time interactive storytelling that all takes place on Alex's Facebook timeline. In August 2013, Intel and Toshiba released their third entry into the category, The Power Inside, directed by Will Speck and Josh Gordon and starring Harvey Keitel, Analeigh Tipton, and Craig Roberts. It's Hollywood's first social film that asks the audience to audition to help save or destroy the world. The experience is broken up into six filmed episodes interspersed with user-generated content and interactive storytelling on the main character's Facebook timeline. In 2015, Intel partnered with Dell for their fourth entry, What Lives Inside directed by Robert Stromberg and starring Colin Hanks, Catherine O'Hara, and J. K. Simmons. The first of four episodes was released on Hulu on March 25, 2015.

    Read more →
  • Sharenting

    Sharenting

    "Sharenting" is a portmanteau of "sharing" and "parenting", describing the practice of parents publicizing a large amount of potentially sensitive content about their children on internet platforms, most notably on social media. While the term was coined as recently as 2010, sharenting has become an international phenomenon with widespread presence in the United States, Spain, France, and the United Kingdom. Proponents of sharenting frame the practice as a natural expression of parental pride in their children and argue that critics take sharenting-related posts out of context. Detractors find that it violates child privacy and hurts a parent–child relationship. Academic research has been conducted over the potential social motivations for sharenting and legal frameworks to balance child privacy with this parental practice. Researchers have conducted several psychological surveys, outlining social media accessibility, parental self-identification with children, and social pressure as potential causes for sharenting. Legal scholars have identified international human rights laws, labor protections, and recent online child privacy statutes as potential legal standards to check sharenting abuses. == History == The origins of the term "sharenting" have been attributed to the Wall Street Journal, where they called it "oversharenting," a portmanteau of "oversharing" and "parenting." Priya Kumar suggests that recording life moments of children rearing is not a new practice: people have been using diaries, scrapbooks and baby log books as the media of documentation for centuries. Scholars assert that sharenting has become popular as a result of social media, which has made many people more comfortable with sharing their lives and those of their children online. The trend of oversharing on social media has raised public attention in the 2010s and become the focus of a number of editorials and academic research projects. It was also added to Times Word of the Day in February 2013 and Collins English Dictionary in 2016 given its influence. == Popularity == Several studies describe sharenting as an international phenomenon with widespread prevalence across households. In the United States, researchers at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital found that almost 75% of American parents were familiar with someone who over-shared information about their child on social media, and an AVG survey determined that 92% of all American two-year-olds had some presence on the internet. In Australia, Fisher-Price conducted a survey which revealed that 90% of Australian parents admitted to over-sharing. In Spain and Czech Republic, a survey of approximately 1,500 parents found that 70-80% participated in sharenting. In the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy, a Research Now report revealed that almost three-quarters of surveyed parents said that they were "willing to share images of their infants". Some claim that sharenting presents a violation of child privacy, and this backlash includes anti-sharenting sites and apps that block baby pictures. One particular outlet of protest was the blog STFU Parents, founded in 2009 to criticize parental oversharing on social media. Some parents felt that these criticisms of sharenting often took posts out of context and neglected some positive aspects of the practice, including advancing a stronger sense of online community. Others, while acknowledging the potential privacy violations of sharenting, suggested a more tailored approach that would only permit posting under certain conditions, notwithstanding audience and identification restrictions for social media posts. == Motivations == Research has suggested that sharenting is associated with a mix of parent self-identification with children, mothering pressures, and the accessibility of social media. Conducting 17 interviews with mothers in the United Kingdom, a London School of Economics study found that parent bloggers often re-explained their sharing practices in terms of expressing their own personal identity, representing their own child as part of themselves. In particular, the report surveyed the use of blogs as a networking vehicle to connect parents with similar family situations and found that sharenting parents, by filtering self-presentation through their parent-child relationship, adopted a more relational identity on social media websites. This included identifying oneself in terms of parental circumstances, whether it be raising a child with a disability or being a single mother. Alternatively, some have suggested that these online expressions indicate the infiltration of individual pride into the sphere of parenting, as family photography becomes a means to "show off" one's children to the others and strengthens a parent's sense of individuated self. Addressing the prevalence of mothers engaging in sharenting, those who purport this view argue that the rise of digital communication has pressured mothers into performing the role of a "good" parent on social media platforms. They claim that these developments may reinforce a dominant vision of a "normal" family, as sharenting posts could be motivated by the need to converge to a normative interpretation of family. == Controversy == While some people assert that online platforms enable parents to establish a community and seek parenting support, others are concerned about the children's data privacy and their lack of informed consent. Sharing content may not only embarrass children but also creates an initial digital footprint, a history of online activity, that the children themselves have no control over. This might bring some negative consequences, such as being ridiculed at school or leaving a negative impression on future employers. === Parental benefits === Many parents use social media to seek parenting advice and share information about their children. With the convenience of online platforms, parent bloggers can easily connect with other people in similar situations as well as those who are willing to contribute meaningful advice. By forming a community, parents can receive encouragement from empathetic peers and assistance from experts in children rearing. Parents whose children need special educational accommodations or have disabilities often found themselves detached from the mainstream parenting style. Therefore, they regard online blogs as a means to gain support from others and support back. Online blogging enables parents of children with disabilities and special needs to connect with other parents. The advice from similarly situated families can open up new possibilities that help the parents "negotiate the complexities of social services, health care, and schools". However, in some cases, posting online about a parent's struggles can cause a backlash, as advocates may accuse the parent of presenting people with that condition in a bad light, or wonder how the child will feel, if they later read these posts and see how much their parents struggled to care for them. Such advantages of social media are not limited to particular groups of parents. In general, most parents benefit from exchanging parenting experience. Statistically speaking, 72% of parents rate social media useful for emotional connection and affirmations, and 74% of them receive support about parenting from friends on social media. Sharenting also plays a role in fostering interpersonal relationships. As the images and words about children's lives initiate conversations, parents use sharenting to stay connected with distant friends and relatives. In particular, mothers, as a research study reveals, are willing to engage in sharenting since they believe that the positive contents can help avoid digital conflicts and maintain close relations with those in their social circles. Researchers also found that female participants in this study carefully chose photos and phrases to express love and present laudable behaviors of children in their updates, which indicates their intention to convey positive messages. These messages also promote a close social network for a child as the parents invites supportive family members and friends into daily life. === Children's privacy === Given the potential misuse of digital data, people are critical about sharenting, and the majority of parents are cautious about the wrongdoing with online posts. The disclosure of minors' personal information, such as geographic location, name, date of birth, pictures, and the schools they attend, might expose them to illegal practices by recipients with malicious intentions. Sharented information is often abused for "identity theft", when imposters manage to track, stalk, commit fraud against children, or even blackmail the family. According to Barclays, online fraud targeting the young generation will contribute to a loss of £670 million (approximately $790 million) by 2030, and two-thirds of identity fraud will be related to s

    Read more →
  • Death of Molly Russell

    Death of Molly Russell

    In November 2017, Molly Russell, a fourteen-year-old British schoolgirl from Harrow, London, was found dead in her bedroom by her parents. In an inquest, the coroner stated that she had died from an act of self-harm following depression and the results of social media consumption, including material on Instagram and Pinterest. She also had a Twitter account in which she documented her growing depression. == Life == Russell had been a pupil at Hatch End High School. At the inquest, the school's head teacher expressed shock that she was able to access distressing online content. Her parents stated that she had never shown any previous signs of struggle and was doing very well in school. It was revealed at the inquest that in the six months prior to her death, 2,100 of 16,300 pieces of content she had interacted with on Instagram were on topics such as self-harm, depression, and suicide. It was also noted that throughout her experience on social media, there were never any warning signs about the information she viewed on these platforms. == Subsequent events == Dr. Navin Venugopal, the child psychiatrist assigned to the case investigating her death, called the material she viewed "disturbing and distressing" and said he was unable to sleep well for weeks after viewing it. The coroner Andrew Walker concluded that Molly's death was "an act of self harm suffering from depression and the negative effects of online content". He issued a prevention of future deaths report regarding her death, in which he made a number of recommendations for operators of online platforms, including: separating platforms for adults and children age verification changes in policy on filtering of age-specific content adding features for parental supervision and control data retention of material viewed by children He suggested that this could be accomplished by either legislation or self-regulation. The lawyer representing her family at the inquest stated that the findings "captured all of the elements of why this material is so harmful." The case has been cited as a motivator for the passage of the Online Safety Act. A charity, the Molly Rose Foundation, was set up in her memory, with the goal of suicide prevention for young people. Meta and Pinterest are believed to have made substantial donations to the charity.

    Read more →
  • Kdan Mobile

    Kdan Mobile

    Kdan Mobile Software Limited is a software application development company based in Tainan City, Taiwan. Kdan also has branches in Taipei, Changsha, Irvine, California, Japan, and South Korea. The company was founded in 2009 by Kenny Su, the company's CEO. == History == Kdan Mobile was founded in 2009 by Kenny Su (蘇柏州) and develops an application for PDF documents. Su previously worked at the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) . In 2018, the company completed its Series B round of fundraising, in which it raised 16 million USD in total. Four global firms, Dattoz Partners (South Korea), WI Harper Group (U.S.), Taiwania Capital (Taiwan), and Golden Asia Fund Mitsubishi UFJ Capital (Japan), made up the Series B investment. Kdan previously raised 5 million USD in its Series A round in 2018.

    Read more →
  • Pivot to video

    Pivot to video

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

    Read more →
  • Key (cryptography)

    Key (cryptography)

    A key in cryptography is a piece of information, usually a string of numbers or letters that are stored in a file, which, when processed through a cryptographic algorithm, can encode or decode cryptographic data. Based on the used method, the key can be different sizes and varieties, but in all cases, the strength of the encryption relies on the security of the key being maintained. A key's security strength is dependent on its algorithm, the size of the key, the generation of the key, and the process of key exchange. == Scope == The key is what is used to encrypt data from plaintext to ciphertext. There are different methods for utilizing keys and encryption. === Symmetric cryptography === Symmetric cryptography refers to the practice of the same key being used for both encryption and decryption. === Asymmetric cryptography === Asymmetric cryptography has separate keys for encrypting and decrypting. These keys are known as the public and private keys, respectively. == Purpose == Since the key protects the confidentiality and integrity of the system, it is important to be kept secret from unauthorized parties. With public key cryptography, only the private key must be kept secret, but with symmetric cryptography, it is important to maintain the confidentiality of the key. Kerckhoff's principle states that the entire security of the cryptographic system relies on the secrecy of the key. == Key sizes == Key size is the number of bits in the key defined by the algorithm. This size defines the upper bound of the cryptographic algorithm's security. The larger the key size, the longer it will take before the key is compromised by a brute force attack. Since perfect secrecy is not feasible for key algorithms, researches are now more focused on computational security. In the past, keys were required to be a minimum of 40 bits in length, however, as technology advanced, these keys were being broken quicker and quicker. As a response, restrictions on symmetric keys were enhanced to be greater in size. Currently, 2048 bit RSA is commonly used, which is sufficient for current systems. However, current RSA key sizes would all be cracked quickly with a powerful quantum computer. "The keys used in public key cryptography have some mathematical structure. For example, public keys used in the RSA system are the product of two prime numbers. Thus public key systems require longer key lengths than symmetric systems for an equivalent level of security. 3072 bits is the suggested key length for systems based on factoring and integer discrete logarithms which aim to have security equivalent to a 128 bit symmetric cipher." == Key generation == To prevent a key from being guessed, keys need to be generated randomly and contain sufficient entropy. The problem of how to safely generate random keys is difficult and has been addressed in many ways by various cryptographic systems. A key can directly be generated by using the output of a Random Bit Generator (RBG), a system that generates a sequence of unpredictable and unbiased bits. A RBG can be used to directly produce either a symmetric key or the random output for an asymmetric key pair generation. Alternatively, a key can also be indirectly created during a key-agreement transaction, from another key or from a password. Some operating systems include tools for "collecting" entropy from the timing of unpredictable operations such as disk drive head movements. For the production of small amounts of keying material, ordinary dice provide a good source of high-quality randomness. == Establishment scheme == The security of a key is dependent on how a key is exchanged between parties. Establishing a secured communication channel is necessary so that outsiders cannot obtain the key. A key establishment scheme (or key exchange) is used to transfer an encryption key among entities. Key agreement and key transport are the two types of a key exchange scheme that are used to be remotely exchanged between entities . In a key agreement scheme, a secret key, which is used between the sender and the receiver to encrypt and decrypt information, is set up to be sent indirectly. All parties exchange information (the shared secret) that permits each party to derive the secret key material. In a key transport scheme, encrypted keying material that is chosen by the sender is transported to the receiver. Either symmetric key or asymmetric key techniques can be used in both schemes. The Diffie–Hellman key exchange and Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) are the most two widely used key exchange algorithms. In 1976, Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman constructed the Diffie–Hellman algorithm, which was the first public key algorithm. The Diffie–Hellman key exchange protocol allows key exchange over an insecure channel by electronically generating a shared key between two parties. On the other hand, RSA is a form of the asymmetric key system which consists of three steps: key generation, encryption, and decryption. Key confirmation delivers an assurance between the key confirmation recipient and provider that the shared keying materials are correct and established. The National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends key confirmation to be integrated into a key establishment scheme to validate its implementations. == Management == Key management concerns the generation, establishment, storage, usage and replacement of cryptographic keys. A key management system (KMS) typically includes three steps of establishing, storing and using keys. The base of security for the generation, storage, distribution, use and destruction of keys depends on successful key management protocols. == Key vs password == A password is a memorized series of characters including letters, digits, and other special symbols that are used to verify identity. It is often produced by a human user or a password management software to protect personal and sensitive information or generate cryptographic keys. Passwords are often created to be memorized by users and may contain non-random information such as dictionary words. On the other hand, a key can help strengthen password protection by implementing a cryptographic algorithm which is difficult to guess or replace the password altogether. A key is generated based on random or pseudo-random data and can often be unreadable to humans. A password is less safe than a cryptographic key due to its low entropy, randomness, and human-readable properties. However, the password may be the only secret data that is accessible to the cryptographic algorithm for information security in some applications such as securing information in storage devices. Thus, a deterministic algorithm called a key derivation function (KDF) uses a password to generate the secure cryptographic keying material to compensate for the password's weakness. Various methods such as adding a salt or key stretching may be used in the generation.

    Read more →
  • Information leakage

    Information leakage

    Information leakage happens whenever a system that is designed to be closed to an eavesdropper reveals some information to unauthorized parties nonetheless. In other words: Information leakage occurs when secret information correlates with, or can be correlated with, observable information. For example, when designing an encrypted instant messaging network, a network engineer without the capacity to crack encryption codes could see when messages are transmitted, even if he could not read them. == Risk vectors == A modern example of information leakage is the leakage of secret information via data compression, by using variations in data compression ratio to reveal correlations between known (or deliberately injected) plaintext and secret data combined in a single compressed stream. Another example is the key leakage that can occur when using some public-key systems when cryptographic nonce values used in signing operations are insufficiently random. Bad randomness cannot protect proper functioning of a cryptographic system, even in a benign circumstance, it can easily produce crackable keys that cause key leakage. Information leakage can sometimes be deliberate: for example, an algorithmic converter may be shipped that intentionally leaks small amounts of information, in order to provide its creator with the ability to intercept the users' messages, while still allowing the user to maintain an illusion that the system is secure. This sort of deliberate leakage is sometimes known as a subliminal channel. Generally, only very advanced systems employ defenses against information leakage. Following are the commonly implemented countermeasures : Use steganography to hide the fact that a message is transmitted at all. Use chaffing to make it unclear to whom messages are transmitted (but this does not hide from others the fact that messages are transmitted). For busy re-transmitting proxies, such as a Mixmaster node: randomly delay and shuffle the order of outbound packets - this will assist in disguising a given message's path, especially if there are multiple, popular forwarding nodes, such as are employed with Mixmaster mail forwarding. When a data value is no longer going to be used, erase it from the memory.

    Read more →
  • AppyStore

    AppyStore

    AppyStore is a comprehensive learning videos and games app for kids up to the age of 8 years. The platform developed by Mauj Mobile, a mobile value-added services (VAS) provider curates content to help in child development by leveraging technology. Mauj is funded by Sequoia Capital, Westbridge Capital and Intel Capital. == Background == AppyStore was launched in 2014 as a platform providing content for kids between the ages of 1.5 and 6 years. AppyStore subsequently extended its services for kids up to 8 years of age. The company operates on a subscription-based model and claims to have 5,000 learning games and videos segregated in 18 learning areas developed to help children gain optimal skills and qualities. According to an article published in Business Standard, the application is claimed to be one of the top 5 apps that help to enhance the logical and imaginative capabilities of children. AppyStore was awarded the Best app for kids by Google Play in December 2017. == Service == The company provides content via a website and an Android app. The website and android app provide learning games, rhymes, phonics, reading, stories, science, numbers, maths, logic videos comprising puzzles, worksheets, videos and fun activities and the premium subscription also includes physical worksheets which are home delivered. This content is educational and has been handpicked by teachers and experts with an understanding of the major areas of child development milestones for children up to 8 years of age. The mobile application also allows parents to track the progress of their child on the basis of the number of videos viewed.

    Read more →
  • Social bot

    Social bot

    A social bot, refers to fully or partially automated social media accounts designed to perform most regular users’ actions, such as liking, posting content, and chatting with other users. Although their levels of autonomy vary, and often include a human-in-the-loop, social bots can use artificial intelligence to perform social media actions and can use large language models to mimic human dialogue. Social bots can operate alone or in groups that coordinate messaging as part of a network of coordinated inauthentic behavior. Social bots are often used to perform ad fraud by artificially boosting viewership and engagement metrics and to spread disinformation on social media. == Uses == Social bots are used for a large number of purposes on a variety of social media platforms, including Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. One common use of social bots is to inflate a social media user's apparent popularity, usually by artificially manipulating their engagement metrics with large volumes of fake likes, reposts, or replies. Social bots can similarly be used to artificially inflate a user's follower count with fake followers, creating a false perception of a larger and more influential online following than is the case. The use of social bots to create the impression of a large social media influence allows individuals, brands, and organizations to attract a higher number of human followers and boost their online presence. Fake engagement can be bought and sold in the black market of social media engagement. Corporations typically use automated customer service agents on social media to affordably manage high levels of support requests. Social bots are used to send automated responses to users’ questions, sometimes prompting the user to private message the support account with additional information. The increased use of automated support bots and virtual assistants has led to some companies laying off customer-service staff. Social bots are also often used to influence public opinion. Autonomous bot accounts can flood social media with large numbers of posts expressing support for certain products, companies, or political campaigns, creating the impression of organic grassroots support. This can create a false perception of the number of people who support a certain position, which may also have effects on the direction of stock prices or on elections. Messages with similar content can also influence fads or trends. Many social bots are also used to amplify phishing attacks. These malicious bots are used to trick a social media user into giving up their passwords or other personal data. This is usually accomplished by posting links claiming to direct users to news articles that would in actuality direct to malicious websites containing malware. Scammers often use URL shortening services such as TinyURL and bit.ly to disguise a link's domain address, increasing the likelihood of a user clicking the malicious link. The presence of fake social media followers and high levels of engagement help convince the victim that the scammer is in fact a trusted user. Social bots can be a tool for computational propaganda. Bots can also be used for algorithmic curation, algorithmic radicalization, and/or influence-for-hire, a term that refers to the selling of an account on social media platforms. == History == Bots have coexisted with computer technology since the earliest days of computing. Social bots have their roots in the 1950s with Alan Turing, whose work focused on machine intelligence with the development of the Turing Test. The following decades saw further progress made towards the goal of creating programs capable of mimicking human behavior, notably with Joseph Weizenbaum’s creation of ELIZA. Considered to be one of the first Chatbots, ELIZA could simulate natural conversations with human users through pattern matching. Its most famous script was DOCTOR, a simulation of a Rogerian psychotherapist that was programmed to chat with patients and respond to questions. With the growth of social media platforms in the early 2000s, these bots could be used to interact with much larger user groups in an inconspicuous manner. Early instances of autonomous agents on social media could be found on sites like MySpace, with social bots being used by marketing firms to inflate activity on a user’s page in an effort to make them appear more popular. Social bots have been observed on a large variety of social media websites, with Twitter being one of the most widely observed examples. The creation of Twitter bots is generally against the site’s terms of service when used to post spam or to automatically like and follow other users, but some degree of automation using Twitter’s API may be permitted if used for “entertainment, informational, or novelty purposes.” Other platforms such as Reddit and Discord also allow for the use of social bots as long as they are not used to violate policies regarding harmful content and abusive behavior. Social media platforms have developed their own automated tools to filter out messages that come from bots, although they cannot detect all bot messages. == Legal regulation == Due to the difficulty of recognizing social bots and separating them from "eligible" automation via social media APIs, it is unclear how legal regulation can be enforced. Social bots are expected to play a role in shaping public opinion by autonomously acting as influencers. Some social bots have been used to rapidly spread misinformation, manipulate stock markets, influence opinion on companies and brands, promote political campaigns, and engage in malicious phishing campaigns. In the United States, some states have started to implement legislation in an attempt to regulate the use of social bots. In 2019, California passed the Bolstering Online Transparency Act (the B.O.T. Act) to make it unlawful to use automated software to appear indistinguishable from humans for the purpose of influencing a social media user's purchasing and voting decisions. Other states such as Utah and Colorado have passed similar bills to restrict the use of social bots. The Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) in the European Union is the first comprehensive law governing the use of Artificial Intelligence. The law requires transparency in AI to prevent users from being tricked into believing they are communicating with another human. AI-generated content on social media must be clearly marked as such, preventing social bots from using AI in a manner that mimics human behavior. == Detection == The first generation of bots could sometimes be distinguished from real users by their often superhuman capacities to post messages. Later developments have succeeded in imprinting more "human" activity and behavioral patterns in the agent. With enough bots, it might be even possible to achieve artificial social proof. To unambiguously detect social bots as what they are, a variety of criteria must be applied together using pattern detection techniques, some of which are: cartoon figures as user pictures sometimes also random real user pictures are captured (identity fraud) reposting rate temporal patterns sentiment expression followers-to-friends ratio length of user names variability in (re)posted messages engagement rate (like/followers rate) analysis of the time series of social media posts Social bots are always becoming increasingly difficult to detect and understand. The bots' human-like behavior, ever-changing behavior of the bots, and the sheer volume of bots covering every platform may have been a factor in the challenges of removing them. Social media sites, like Twitter, are among the most affected, with CNBC reporting up to 48 million of the 319 million users (roughly 15%) were bots in 2017. Botometer (formerly BotOrNot) is a public Web service that checks the activity of a Twitter account and gives it a score based on how likely the account is to be a bot. The system leverages over a thousand features. An active method for detecting early spam bots was to set up honeypot accounts that post nonsensical content, which may get reposted (retweeted) by the bots. However, bots evolve quickly, and detection methods have to be updated constantly, because otherwise they may get useless after a few years. One method is the use of Benford's Law for predicting the frequency distribution of significant leading digits to detect malicious bots online. This study was first introduced at the University of Pretoria in 2020. Another method is artificial-intelligence-driven detection. Some of the sub-categories of this type of detection would be active learning loop flow, feature engineering, unsupervised learning, supervised learning, and correlation discovery. Some operations of bots work together in a synchronized way. For example, ISIS used Twitter to amplify its Islamic content by numerous orchestrated accounts which further pushed an item to the Hot List news, thus further a

    Read more →
  • G.hn

    G.hn

    Gigabit Home Networking (G.hn) is a specification for wired home networking that supports speeds up to 2 Gbit/s and operates over four types of legacy wires: telephone wiring, coaxial cables, power lines and plastic optical fiber. Some benefits of a multi-wire standard are lower equipment development costs and lower deployment costs for service providers (by allowing customer self-install). == History == G.hn was developed under the International Telecommunication Union's Telecommunication Standardization sector (the ITU-T) and promoted by the HomeGrid Forum and several other organizations. ITU-T Recommendation (the ITU's term for standard) G.9960, which received approval on October 9, 2009, specified the physical layers and the architecture of G.hn. The Data Link Layer (Recommendation G.9961) was approved on June 11, 2010. Prominent organizations, including CEPca, HomePNA, and UPA, who were creators of some of these interfaces, rallied behind the latest version of the standard, emphasizing its potential and significance in the home networking domain. Moreover, the ITU-T extended the technology with multiple input, multiple output (MIMO) technology to increase data rates and signaling distance. This new feature was approved in March 2012 under G.9963 Recommendation. The development and promotion of G.hn have been significantly supported by the HomeGrid Forum and several other organizations. The technology was not only designed to address home-networking challenges but also found applications beyond this initial scope, showcasing its versatility and potential in the networking domain. == Technical specifications == === Technical overview === G.hn specifies a single physical layer based on fast Fourier transform (FFT) orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) modulation and low-density parity-check code (LDPC) forward error correction (FEC) code. G.hn includes the capability to notch specific frequency bands to avoid interference with amateur radio bands and other licensed radio services. G.hn includes mechanisms to avoid interference with legacy home networking technologies and also with other wireline systems such as VDSL2 or other types of DSL used to access the home. OFDM systems split the transmitted signal into multiple orthogonal sub-carriers. In G.hn each one of the sub-carriers is modulated using QAM. The maximum QAM constellation supported by G.hn is 4096-QAM (12-bit QAM). The G.hn media access control is based on a time division multiple access (TDMA) architecture, in which a "domain master" schedules Transmission Opportunities (TXOPs) that can be used by one or more devices in the "domain". There are two types of TXOPs: Contention-Free Transmission Opportunities (CFTXOP), which have a fixed duration and are allocated to a specific pair of transmitter and receiver. CFTXOP are used for implementing TDMA Channel Access for specific applications that require quality of service (QoS) guarantees. Shared Transmission Opportunities (STXOP), which are shared among multiple devices in the network. STXOP are divided into Time Slots (TS). There are two types of TS: Contention-Free Time Slots (CFTS), which are used for implementing "implicit" token passing Channel Access. In G.hn, a series of consecutive CFTS is allocated to a number of devices. The allocation is performed by the "domain master" and broadcast to all nodes in the network. There are pre-defined rules that specify which device can transmit after another device has finished using the channel. As all devices know "who is next", there is no need to explicitly send a "token" between devices. The process of "passing the token" is implicit and ensures that there are no collisions during Channel access. Contention-Based Time Slots (CBTS), which are used for implementing CSMA/CARP Channel Access. In general, CSMA systems cannot completely avoid collisions, so CBTS are only useful for applications that do not have strict Quality of Service requirements. ==== Optimization for each medium ==== Although most elements of G.hn are common for all three media supported by the standard (power lines, phone lines and coaxial cable), G.hn includes media-specific optimizations for each media. Some of these media-specific parameters include: OFDM Carrier Spacing: 195.31 kHz in coaxial, 48.82 kHz in phone lines, 24.41 kHz in power lines. FEC Rates: G.hn's FEC can operate with code rates 1/2, 2/3, 5/6, 16/18 and 20/21. Although these rates are not media specific, it is expected that the higher code rates will be used in cleaner media (such as coaxial) while the lower code rates will be used in noisy environments such as power lines. Automatic repeat request (ARQ) mechanisms: G.hn supports operation both with and without ARQ (re-transmission). Although this is not media specific, it is expected that ARQ-less operation is sometimes appropriate for cleaner media (such as coaxial) while ARQ operation is appropriate for noisy environments such as power lines. Power levels and frequency bands: G.hn defines different power masks for each medium. MIMO support: Recommendation G.9963 includes provisions for transmitting G.hn signals over multiple AC wires (phase, neutral, ground), if they are physically available. In July 2016, G.9963 was updated to include MIMO support over twisted pairs. ==== Security ==== G.hn uses the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption algorithm (with a 128-bit key length) using the CCMP protocol to ensure confidentiality and message integrity. Authentication and key exchange is done following ITU-T Recommendation X.1035. G.hn specifies point-to-point security inside a domain, which means that each pair of transmitter and receiver uses a unique encryption key which is not shared by other devices in the same domain. For example, if node Alice sends data to node Bob, node Eve (in the same domain as Alice and Bob) will not be able to easily eavesdrop their communication. G.hn supports the concept of relays, in which one device can receive a message from one node and deliver it to another node farther away in the same domain. Relaying becomes critical for applications with complex network topologies that need to cover large distances, such as those found in industrial or utility applications. While a relay can read the source and target addresses, it cannot read the message's content due to its body being end-to-end-encrypted. ==== Profiles ==== The G.hn architecture includes the concept of profiles. Profiles are intended to address G.hn nodes with significantly different levels of complexity. In G.hn the higher complexity profiles are proper supersets of lower complexity profiles, so that devices based on different profiles can interoperate with each other. Examples of G.hn devices based on high complexity profiles are Residential Gateways or Set-Top Boxes. Examples of G.hn devices based on low complexity profiles are home automation, home security and smart grid devices. ==== Technical parameters ==== The chart depicts a summary of the crucial technical specifications of the G.hn standard. Many of these technical elements are consistent across different physical media, with variations seen in areas such as Tone Spacing and frequency ranges. This uniformity is essential as it allows silicon manufacturers to produce a singular chip capable of implementing all three media types, leading to cost savings. Presently, G.hn chipsets are compatible with all three media types. This compatibility allows system manufacturers to create devices that can adjust to any wiring type simply by modifying a software configuration in the equipment. === Spectrum === The G.hn spectrum depends on the medium as shown in the diagram below: === Protocol stack === G.hn specifies the physical layer and the data link layer, according to the OSI model. The G.hn Data Link Layer (Recommendation G.9961) is divided into three sub-layers: The Application Protocol Convergence (APC) Layer, which accepts frames (usually in Ethernet format) from the upper layer (Application Entity) and encapsulates them into G.hn APC protocol data units (APDUs). The maximum payload of each APDU is 214 bytes. The logical link control (LLC), which is responsible for encryption, aggregation, segmentation and automatic repeat-request. This sub-layer is also responsible for "relaying" of APDUs between nodes that may not be able to communicate through a direct connection. The medium access control (MAC), which schedules channel access. The G.hn physical layer (Recommendation G.9960) is divided into three sub-layers: The Physical Coding Sub-layer (PCS), responsible for generating PHY headers. The Physical Medium Attachment (PMA), responsible for scrambling and forward error correction coding/decoding. The Physical Medium Dependent (PMD), responsible for bit-loading and OFDM modulation. The interface between the Application Entity and the Data Link Layer is called A-interface. The interface between the Data Link Layer and the ph

    Read more →