AI Video Tools

Explore the best AI Video Tools — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

AppValley

AppValley is an independent American digital distribution service operated and trademarked by AppValley LLC. It serves as an alternative app store for the iOS mobile operating system, which allows users to download applications that are not available on the App Store, most commonly tweaked "++" apps, jailbreak apps, and apps including paid apps on the app store. == Legality == AppValley is among several services that violate enterprise developer certificates from Apple. The terms under which these are granted make clear that they are for companies who wish to distribute apps to their employees. AppValley uses these certificates to distribute software directly to non-employees, thereby bypassing the AppStore. AppValley's conduct had implications in U.S. sanctioned markets like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, which have all been subject to commercial sanctions. Among the software offered by AppValley and other services is pirated software, including paid apps on the app store and premium versions of Instagram, Spotify, Pokémon Go, and others. For instance, AppValley distributes an ad-free version of the music streaming app Spotify even on the free tier. == History == The website was founded in May 2017, releasing late that month with a very basic version of the app. There were less than 100 apps available for download at this time. On Jan 19, 2018, a new version dubbed AppValley 2.0 was released bringing dark mode, more categories, a search, and a much faster interface. On February 14, 2019, a Chinese partner "Jason Wu" allegedly took control of the main Twitter account and domain, causing the original AppValley developers to migrate to the domain app-valley.vip and the Twitter account handle @App_Valley_vip. As of September 2024, the app-valley.vip domain now redirects to appvalley.signulous.com. Today, AppValley continues to offer an alternative to Apple's App Store where app developers can publish their applications. == Features == AppValley is a mobile app installer which can also support iOS version that can be installed and downloaded on the mobile or the devices of the people who wish to get access to many different applications available. AppValley also contains apps that have been modified or tweaked for user preferences, and allows the user to by pass national restrictions on the use of apps, without having to resort to jailbreaking. As of June 2, 2020, there are over 1300 apps available for download.
Read more →
Algorithm engineering

Algorithm engineering focuses on the design, analysis, implementation, optimization, profiling and experimental evaluation of computer algorithms, bridging the gap between algorithmics theory and practical applications of algorithms in software engineering. It is a general methodology for algorithmic research. == Origins == In 1995, a report from an NSF-sponsored workshop "with the purpose of assessing the current goals and directions of the Theory of Computing (TOC) community" identified the slow speed of adoption of theoretical insights by practitioners as an important issue and suggested measures to reduce the uncertainty by practitioners whether a certain theoretical breakthrough will translate into practical gains in their field of work, and tackle the lack of ready-to-use algorithm libraries, which provide stable, bug-free and well-tested implementations for algorithmic problems and expose an easy-to-use interface for library consumers. But also, promising algorithmic approaches have been neglected due to difficulties in mathematical analysis. The term "algorithm engineering" was first used with specificity in 1997, with the first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE97), organized by Giuseppe F. Italiano. == Difference from algorithm theory == Algorithm engineering does not intend to replace or compete with algorithm theory, but tries to enrich, refine and reinforce its formal approaches with experimental algorithmics (also called empirical algorithmics). This way it can provide new insights into the efficiency and performance of algorithms in cases where the algorithm at hand is less amenable to algorithm theoretic analysis, formal analysis pessimistically suggests bounds which are unlikely to appear on inputs of practical interest, the algorithm relies on the intricacies of modern hardware architectures like data locality, branch prediction, instruction stalls, instruction latencies which the machine model used in Algorithm Theory is unable to capture in the required detail, the crossover between competing algorithms with different constant costs and asymptotic behaviors needs to be determined. == Methodology == Some researchers describe algorithm engineering's methodology as a cycle consisting of algorithm design, analysis, implementation and experimental evaluation, joined by further aspects like machine models or realistic inputs. They argue that equating algorithm engineering with experimental algorithmics is too limited, because viewing design and analysis, implementation and experimentation as separate activities ignores the crucial feedback loop between those elements of algorithm engineering. === Realistic models and real inputs === While specific applications are outside the methodology of algorithm engineering, they play an important role in shaping realistic models of the problem and the underlying machine, and supply real inputs and other design parameters for experiments. === Design === Compared to algorithm theory, which usually focuses on the asymptotic behavior of algorithms, algorithm engineers need to keep further requirements in mind: Simplicity of the algorithm, implementability in programming languages on real hardware, and allowing code reuse. Additionally, constant factors of algorithms have such a considerable impact on real-world inputs that sometimes an algorithm with worse asymptotic behavior performs better in practice due to lower constant factors. === Analysis === Some problems can be solved with heuristics and randomized algorithms in a simpler and more efficient fashion than with deterministic algorithms. Unfortunately, this makes even simple randomized algorithms difficult to analyze because there are subtle dependencies to be taken into account. === Implementation === Huge semantic gaps between theoretical insights, formulated algorithms, programming languages and hardware pose a challenge to efficient implementations of even simple algorithms, because small implementation details can have rippling effects on execution behavior. The only reliable way to compare several implementations of an algorithm is to spend an considerable amount of time on tuning and profiling, running those algorithms on multiple architectures, and looking at the generated machine code. === Experiments === See: Experimental algorithmics === Application engineering === Implementations of algorithms used for experiments differ in significant ways from code usable in applications. While the former prioritizes fast prototyping, performance and instrumentation for measurements during experiments, the latter requires thorough testing, maintainability, simplicity, and tuning for particular classes of inputs. === Algorithm libraries === Stable, well-tested algorithm libraries like LEDA play an important role in technology transfer by speeding up the adoption of new algorithms in applications. Such libraries reduce the required investment and risk for practitioners, because it removes the burden of understanding and implementing the results of academic research. == Conferences == Two main conferences on Algorithm Engineering are organized annually, namely: Symposium on Experimental Algorithms (SEA), established in 1997 (formerly known as WEA). SIAM Meeting on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), established in 1999. The 1997 Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'97) was held in Venice (Italy) on September 11–13, 1997. The Third International Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'99) was held in London, UK in July 1999. The first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experimentation (ALENEX99) was held in Baltimore, Maryland on January 15–16, 1999. It was sponsored by DIMACS, the Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (at Rutgers University), with additional support from SIGACT, the ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory, and SIAM, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Read more →
Run-to-completion scheduling

Run-to-completion scheduling or nonpreemptive scheduling is a scheduling model in which each task runs until it either finishes, or explicitly yields control back to the scheduler. Run-to-completion systems typically have an event queue which is serviced either in strict order of admission by an event loop, or by an admission scheduler which is capable of scheduling events out of order, based on other constraints such as deadlines. Some preemptive multitasking scheduling systems behave as run-to-completion schedulers in regard to scheduling tasks at one particular process priority level, at the same time as those processes still preempt other lower priority tasks and are themselves preempted by higher priority tasks.
Read more →
Algorithm engineering

Algorithm engineering focuses on the design, analysis, implementation, optimization, profiling and experimental evaluation of computer algorithms, bridging the gap between algorithmics theory and practical applications of algorithms in software engineering. It is a general methodology for algorithmic research. == Origins == In 1995, a report from an NSF-sponsored workshop "with the purpose of assessing the current goals and directions of the Theory of Computing (TOC) community" identified the slow speed of adoption of theoretical insights by practitioners as an important issue and suggested measures to reduce the uncertainty by practitioners whether a certain theoretical breakthrough will translate into practical gains in their field of work, and tackle the lack of ready-to-use algorithm libraries, which provide stable, bug-free and well-tested implementations for algorithmic problems and expose an easy-to-use interface for library consumers. But also, promising algorithmic approaches have been neglected due to difficulties in mathematical analysis. The term "algorithm engineering" was first used with specificity in 1997, with the first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE97), organized by Giuseppe F. Italiano. == Difference from algorithm theory == Algorithm engineering does not intend to replace or compete with algorithm theory, but tries to enrich, refine and reinforce its formal approaches with experimental algorithmics (also called empirical algorithmics). This way it can provide new insights into the efficiency and performance of algorithms in cases where the algorithm at hand is less amenable to algorithm theoretic analysis, formal analysis pessimistically suggests bounds which are unlikely to appear on inputs of practical interest, the algorithm relies on the intricacies of modern hardware architectures like data locality, branch prediction, instruction stalls, instruction latencies which the machine model used in Algorithm Theory is unable to capture in the required detail, the crossover between competing algorithms with different constant costs and asymptotic behaviors needs to be determined. == Methodology == Some researchers describe algorithm engineering's methodology as a cycle consisting of algorithm design, analysis, implementation and experimental evaluation, joined by further aspects like machine models or realistic inputs. They argue that equating algorithm engineering with experimental algorithmics is too limited, because viewing design and analysis, implementation and experimentation as separate activities ignores the crucial feedback loop between those elements of algorithm engineering. === Realistic models and real inputs === While specific applications are outside the methodology of algorithm engineering, they play an important role in shaping realistic models of the problem and the underlying machine, and supply real inputs and other design parameters for experiments. === Design === Compared to algorithm theory, which usually focuses on the asymptotic behavior of algorithms, algorithm engineers need to keep further requirements in mind: Simplicity of the algorithm, implementability in programming languages on real hardware, and allowing code reuse. Additionally, constant factors of algorithms have such a considerable impact on real-world inputs that sometimes an algorithm with worse asymptotic behavior performs better in practice due to lower constant factors. === Analysis === Some problems can be solved with heuristics and randomized algorithms in a simpler and more efficient fashion than with deterministic algorithms. Unfortunately, this makes even simple randomized algorithms difficult to analyze because there are subtle dependencies to be taken into account. === Implementation === Huge semantic gaps between theoretical insights, formulated algorithms, programming languages and hardware pose a challenge to efficient implementations of even simple algorithms, because small implementation details can have rippling effects on execution behavior. The only reliable way to compare several implementations of an algorithm is to spend an considerable amount of time on tuning and profiling, running those algorithms on multiple architectures, and looking at the generated machine code. === Experiments === See: Experimental algorithmics === Application engineering === Implementations of algorithms used for experiments differ in significant ways from code usable in applications. While the former prioritizes fast prototyping, performance and instrumentation for measurements during experiments, the latter requires thorough testing, maintainability, simplicity, and tuning for particular classes of inputs. === Algorithm libraries === Stable, well-tested algorithm libraries like LEDA play an important role in technology transfer by speeding up the adoption of new algorithms in applications. Such libraries reduce the required investment and risk for practitioners, because it removes the burden of understanding and implementing the results of academic research. == Conferences == Two main conferences on Algorithm Engineering are organized annually, namely: Symposium on Experimental Algorithms (SEA), established in 1997 (formerly known as WEA). SIAM Meeting on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), established in 1999. The 1997 Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'97) was held in Venice (Italy) on September 11–13, 1997. The Third International Workshop on Algorithm Engineering (WAE'99) was held in London, UK in July 1999. The first Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experimentation (ALENEX99) was held in Baltimore, Maryland on January 15–16, 1999. It was sponsored by DIMACS, the Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (at Rutgers University), with additional support from SIGACT, the ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory, and SIAM, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Read more →
Vujak

VuJak is an early video sampler, a VJ remix and mashup tool created in 1992 by Brian Kane, Lisa Eisenpresser, and Jay Haynes. The original name of the project was Mideo, but it was later changed to VuJak. VuJak was based on MIDI control of video in real-time. It was created with MAX from Opcode Systems, and utilized the newly released QuickTime 1.0 movie object. The first working version of the program was built on a Mac IIfx with 8 megs of ram, and could jump in real-time across a 160 x 120 pixel QuickTime movie via a midi keyboard. Later versions could manipulate full screen video, included the first real-time video scratch feature, had looping, vari-speed, and random play features, and allowed for recording and editing of video sequences within the application. VuJak also had networking capabilities which allowed artists to "jam" in real time across standard phone lines. The first public exhibition of VuJak was at the Digital Hollywood conference in Beverly Hills in 1993, where it was promoted by Timothy Leary. VuJak was featured in Mondo 2000, CBS Evening News, Wired Magazine, Electronic Musician, Billboard Magazine, The Hollywood Reporter, and it was used to create promotional videos for MTV. In 1994, VuJak was a featured interactive exhibition at the Exploratorium in San Francisco. Development of VuJak ceased in 1995.
Read more →
Navigational database

A navigational database is a type of database in which records or objects are found primarily by following references from other objects. The term was popularized by the title of Charles Bachman's 1973 Turing Award paper, The Programmer as Navigator. This paper emphasized the fact that the new disk-based database systems allowed the programmer to choose arbitrary navigational routes following relationships from record to record, contrasting this with the constraints of earlier magnetic-tape and punched card systems where data access was strictly sequential. One of the earliest navigational databases was Integrated Data Store (IDS), which was developed by Bachman for General Electric in the 1960s. IDS became the basis for the CODASYL database model in 1969. Although Bachman described the concept of navigation in abstract terms, the idea of navigational access came to be associated strongly with the procedural design of the CODASYL Data Manipulation Language. Writing in 1982, for example, Tsichritzis and Lochovsky state that "The notion of currency is central to the concept of navigation." By the notion of currency, they refer to the idea that a program maintains (explicitly or implicitly) a current position in any sequence of records that it is processing, and that operations such as GET NEXT and GET PRIOR retrieve records relative to this current position, while also changing the current position to the record that is retrieved. Navigational database programming thus came to be seen as intrinsically procedural; and moreover to depend on the maintenance of an implicit set of global variables (currency indicators) holding the current state. As such, the approach was seen as diametrically opposed to the declarative programming style used by the relational model. The declarative nature of relational languages such as SQL offered better programmer productivity and a higher level of data independence (that is, the ability of programs to continue working as the database structure evolves.) Navigational interfaces, as a result, were gradually eclipsed during the 1980s by declarative query languages. During the 1990s it started becoming clear that for certain applications handling complex data (for example, spatial databases and engineering databases), the relational calculus had limitations. At that time, a reappraisal of the entire database market began, with several companies describing the new systems using the marketing term NoSQL. Many of these systems introduced data manipulation languages which, while far removed from the CODASYL DML with its currency indicators, could be understood as implementing Bachman's "navigational" vision. Some of these languages are procedural; others (such as XPath) are entirely declarative. Offshoots of the navigational concept, such as the graph database, found new uses in modern transaction processing workloads. == Description == Navigational access is traditionally associated with the network model and hierarchical model of database, and conventionally describes data manipulation APIs in which records (or objects) are processed one at a time, iteratively. The essential characteristic as described by Bachman, however, is finding records by virtue of their relationship to other records: so an interface can still be navigational if it has set-oriented features. From this viewpoint, the key difference between navigational data manipulation languages and relational languages is the use of explicit named relationships rather than value-based joins: for department with name="Sales", find all employees in set department-employees versus find employees, departments where employee.department-code = department.code and department.name="Sales". In practice, however, most navigational APIs have been procedural: the above query would be executed using procedural logic along the lines of the following pseudo-code: On this viewpoint, the key difference between navigational APIs and the relational model (implemented in relational databases) is that relational APIs use "declarative" or logic programming techniques that ask the system what to fetch, while navigational APIs instruct the system in a sequence of steps how to reach the required records. Most criticisms of navigational APIs fall into one of two categories: Usability: application code quickly becomes unreadable and difficult to debug Data independence: application code needs to change whenever the data structure changes For many years the primary defence of navigational APIs was performance. Database systems that support navigational APIs often use internal storage structures that contain physical links or pointers from one record to another. While such structures may allow very efficient navigation, they have disadvantages because it becomes difficult to reorganize the physical placement of data. It is quite possible to implement navigational APIs without low-level pointer chasing (Bachman's paper envisaged logical relationships being implemented just as in relational systems, using primary keys and foreign keys), so the two ideas should not be conflated. But without the performance benefits of low-level pointers, navigational APIs become harder to justify. Hierarchical models often construct primary keys for records by concatenating the keys that appear at each level in the hierarchy. Such composite identifiers are found in computer file names (/usr/david/docs/index.txt), in URIs, in the Dewey decimal system, and for that matter in postal addresses. Such a composite key can be considered as representing a navigational path to a record; but equally, it can be considered as a simple primary key allowing associative access. As relational systems came to prominence in the 1980s, navigational APIs (and in particular, procedural APIs) were criticized and fell out of favour. The 1990s, however, brought a new wave of object-oriented databases that often provided both declarative and procedural interfaces. One explanation for this is that they were often used to represent graph-structured information (for example spatial data and engineering data) where access is inherently recursive: the mathematics originally underpinning SQL (specifically, first-order predicate calculus) does not have sufficient power to support recursive queries, even those as simple as a transitive closure. More recent SQL implementations do support hierarchical and recursive queries. A current example of a popular navigational API can be found in the Document Object Model (DOM) often used in web browsers and closely associated with JavaScript. The DOM is essentially an in-memory hierarchical database with an API that is both procedural and navigational. By contrast, the same data (XML or HTML) can be accessed using XPath, which can be categorized as declarative and navigational: data is accessed by following relationships, but the calling program does not issue a sequence of instructions to be followed in order. Languages such as SPARQL used to retrieve Linked Data from the Semantic Web are also simultaneously declarative and navigational. == Examples == IBM Information Management System IDMS
Read more →
Organizational information theory

Organizational Information Theory (OIT) is a communication theory, developed by Karl Weick, offering systemic insight into the processing and exchange of information within organizations and among its members. Unlike the past structure-centered theory, OIT focuses on the process of organizing in dynamic, information-rich environments. Given that, it contends that the main activity of organizations is the process of making sense of equivocal information. Organizational members are instrumental to reduce equivocality and achieve sensemaking through some strategies — enactment, selection, and retention of information. With a framework that is interdisciplinary in nature, organizational information theory's desire to eliminate both ambiguity and complexity from workplace messaging builds upon earlier findings from general systems theory and phenomenology. == Inspiration and influence of pre-existing theories == 1. General Systems Theory The General Systems Theory, on its most basic premise, describes the phenomenon of a cohesive group of interrelated parts. When one part of the system is changed or affected, it will affect the system as a whole. Weick uses this theoretical framework from 1950 to influence his organizational information theory. Likewise, organizations can be viewed as a system of related parts that work together towards a common goal or vision. Applying this to Weick's organizational information theory, organizations must work to reduce ambiguity and complexity in the workplace to maximize cohesiveness and efficiency. Weick uses the term, coupling, to describe how organizations, like a system, can be composed of interrelated and dependent parts. Coupling looks at the relationship between people and work. There are two types of coupling: 1. Loose coupling Loose coupling describes that while people within the organization or system are connected and often work together, they do not depend on one another to continue or fully complete individual work. The dependencies are weak and workflow is flexible. For example, "if the whole Science department completely shuts down because all of teachers are sick or for whatsoever reason, the school can still continue to operate because other departments are still present." 2. Tight coupling Tight coupling describes when connections within an organization are strong and dependent. If one part of the organization is not operating correctly, the organization as a whole cannot continue to their fullest potential. " For instance, the format and ink section completely shuts down hence the succeeding steps cannot be continued, so the whole process of the organization will be dropped. Thus, components of a system are directly dependent on one another." 2. Theory of evolution The theory of evolution, by Charles Darwin, is a framework for survival of the fittest. According to Darwin, organisms attempt to adapt and live in an unforgiving environment. Those that are unsuccessful in adaptation do not survive, while the strong organisms continue to thrive and reproduce. Weick invokes inspiration from Darwin, to incorporate a biological perspective to his theory. It is natural for organizations to have to adapt to incoming information that often interfere with the preexisting environment. Organizations that are able to plan and alter strategies in accordance with their constant need of organizing and sense making, will survive and be the most successful. However, there is a notable difference between animal evolution and survival of the fittest in organizations, "A given animal is what it is; variation comes through mutation. But the nature of an organization can change when its members alter their behavior." == Assumptions == 1. Human organizations exist in an information environment Unlike senders and receivers models, OIT stands on the situational perspective. Karl Weick views a human organization as an open social system. People in that system develop a mechanism to establish goals, obtain and process information, or perceive the environment. In this process, people and the environment come to conclusions on "what's going on here?". Colville believes that this attributional process is retrospective. Take an education institution as an example. A university can obtain information regarding students' needs in numerous ways. It might create feedback section in its website. It could organize alumni panels or academic affairs to attract prospective students and collect concrete questions they are interested in. It may also conduct the survey or host focus group to get the information. After that, the staff of the university have to decide how to deal with these information, based on which, it has to set and accomplish its goals for current and prospective students. 2. The information an organization receives differs in terms of equivocality Weick posits that numerous feasible interpretations of reality exist when organizations process information. Their varying levels of understandability lead to different outcomes of information inputs. In other academic works, scholars tend to say that messages are uncertain or ambiguous. While according to OIT, messages are described to be equivocal. believes that people proactively exclude a number of possibilities to perceive what is going on in the environment. Due to OIT's situational perspective, the meanings of messages consist of the messages, the interpretations of receivers, and the interactional context. However, ambiguity and uncertainty can mean that a standard answer - the only one true objective interpretation - exists. Also, Weick emphasizes that "the equivocality is the engine that motivates people to organize". Maitlis and Christianson states that the equivocality trigger sensemaking for three reasons: environment jolts and organizational crises, threats to identity, and planned change interventions. 3. Human organizations engage in information processing to reduce equivocality of information Based upon the first two assumption, OIT proposes that information processing within organizations is a social activity. Sharing is the key feature of organizational information processing. In that particular context, members jointly make sense the reality by reducing equivocality. It other words, the sensemaking is a joint responsibility which includes numerous interdependent people to accomplish. In this process, organizations and its members combine actions and attributions together in order to find the balance between the complexity of thoughts and the simplicity of actions. Weick also proposes that people create their own environment though enactment, which is the action of making sense. This is because people have different perceptual schemas and selective perception, so people create different information environments. In creating different information environments, people can arrive at the same or close to the same understanding or solution through different thought processes and overall understanding. == Key concepts == === The organization === In order to place Weick's vision regarding Organizational Information Theory into proper working context, exploring his view regarding what constitutes the organization and how its individuals embody that construct might yield significant insights. From a fundamental standpoint, he shared a belief that organizational validation is derived---not through bricks and mortar, or locale—but from a series of events which enable entities to "collect, manage and use the information they receive." In elaborating further on what constitutes an organization during early writings outlining OIT, Weick said, "The word organization is a noun and it is also a myth. if one looks for an organization, one will not find it. What will be found is that there are events linked together, that transpire within concrete walls and these sequences, their pathways, their timing, are the forms we erroneously make into substances when we talk about an organization". When viewed in this modular fashion, the organization meets Weick's theoretical vision by encompassing parameters that are less bound by concrete, wood, and structural restraints and more by an ability to serve as a repository where information can be consistently and effectively channeled. Taking these defining characteristics into account, proper channel execution relies on maximization of messaging clarity, context, delivery and evolution through any system. One example as to how these interactions might unfold on a more granular level within these confines can be gleaned through Weick's double interact loop, which he considers the "building blocks of every organization". Simply put, double interacts describe interpersonal exchanges that, inherently, occur across the organizational chain of command and in life, itself. Thus: "An act occurs when you say something (Can I have a Popsicle?). An interact occurs when you say something and I respond ("No, it will spoil your dinner
Read more →
Organizational information theory

Organizational Information Theory (OIT) is a communication theory, developed by Karl Weick, offering systemic insight into the processing and exchange of information within organizations and among its members. Unlike the past structure-centered theory, OIT focuses on the process of organizing in dynamic, information-rich environments. Given that, it contends that the main activity of organizations is the process of making sense of equivocal information. Organizational members are instrumental to reduce equivocality and achieve sensemaking through some strategies — enactment, selection, and retention of information. With a framework that is interdisciplinary in nature, organizational information theory's desire to eliminate both ambiguity and complexity from workplace messaging builds upon earlier findings from general systems theory and phenomenology. == Inspiration and influence of pre-existing theories == 1. General Systems Theory The General Systems Theory, on its most basic premise, describes the phenomenon of a cohesive group of interrelated parts. When one part of the system is changed or affected, it will affect the system as a whole. Weick uses this theoretical framework from 1950 to influence his organizational information theory. Likewise, organizations can be viewed as a system of related parts that work together towards a common goal or vision. Applying this to Weick's organizational information theory, organizations must work to reduce ambiguity and complexity in the workplace to maximize cohesiveness and efficiency. Weick uses the term, coupling, to describe how organizations, like a system, can be composed of interrelated and dependent parts. Coupling looks at the relationship between people and work. There are two types of coupling: 1. Loose coupling Loose coupling describes that while people within the organization or system are connected and often work together, they do not depend on one another to continue or fully complete individual work. The dependencies are weak and workflow is flexible. For example, "if the whole Science department completely shuts down because all of teachers are sick or for whatsoever reason, the school can still continue to operate because other departments are still present." 2. Tight coupling Tight coupling describes when connections within an organization are strong and dependent. If one part of the organization is not operating correctly, the organization as a whole cannot continue to their fullest potential. " For instance, the format and ink section completely shuts down hence the succeeding steps cannot be continued, so the whole process of the organization will be dropped. Thus, components of a system are directly dependent on one another." 2. Theory of evolution The theory of evolution, by Charles Darwin, is a framework for survival of the fittest. According to Darwin, organisms attempt to adapt and live in an unforgiving environment. Those that are unsuccessful in adaptation do not survive, while the strong organisms continue to thrive and reproduce. Weick invokes inspiration from Darwin, to incorporate a biological perspective to his theory. It is natural for organizations to have to adapt to incoming information that often interfere with the preexisting environment. Organizations that are able to plan and alter strategies in accordance with their constant need of organizing and sense making, will survive and be the most successful. However, there is a notable difference between animal evolution and survival of the fittest in organizations, "A given animal is what it is; variation comes through mutation. But the nature of an organization can change when its members alter their behavior." == Assumptions == 1. Human organizations exist in an information environment Unlike senders and receivers models, OIT stands on the situational perspective. Karl Weick views a human organization as an open social system. People in that system develop a mechanism to establish goals, obtain and process information, or perceive the environment. In this process, people and the environment come to conclusions on "what's going on here?". Colville believes that this attributional process is retrospective. Take an education institution as an example. A university can obtain information regarding students' needs in numerous ways. It might create feedback section in its website. It could organize alumni panels or academic affairs to attract prospective students and collect concrete questions they are interested in. It may also conduct the survey or host focus group to get the information. After that, the staff of the university have to decide how to deal with these information, based on which, it has to set and accomplish its goals for current and prospective students. 2. The information an organization receives differs in terms of equivocality Weick posits that numerous feasible interpretations of reality exist when organizations process information. Their varying levels of understandability lead to different outcomes of information inputs. In other academic works, scholars tend to say that messages are uncertain or ambiguous. While according to OIT, messages are described to be equivocal. believes that people proactively exclude a number of possibilities to perceive what is going on in the environment. Due to OIT's situational perspective, the meanings of messages consist of the messages, the interpretations of receivers, and the interactional context. However, ambiguity and uncertainty can mean that a standard answer - the only one true objective interpretation - exists. Also, Weick emphasizes that "the equivocality is the engine that motivates people to organize". Maitlis and Christianson states that the equivocality trigger sensemaking for three reasons: environment jolts and organizational crises, threats to identity, and planned change interventions. 3. Human organizations engage in information processing to reduce equivocality of information Based upon the first two assumption, OIT proposes that information processing within organizations is a social activity. Sharing is the key feature of organizational information processing. In that particular context, members jointly make sense the reality by reducing equivocality. It other words, the sensemaking is a joint responsibility which includes numerous interdependent people to accomplish. In this process, organizations and its members combine actions and attributions together in order to find the balance between the complexity of thoughts and the simplicity of actions. Weick also proposes that people create their own environment though enactment, which is the action of making sense. This is because people have different perceptual schemas and selective perception, so people create different information environments. In creating different information environments, people can arrive at the same or close to the same understanding or solution through different thought processes and overall understanding. == Key concepts == === The organization === In order to place Weick's vision regarding Organizational Information Theory into proper working context, exploring his view regarding what constitutes the organization and how its individuals embody that construct might yield significant insights. From a fundamental standpoint, he shared a belief that organizational validation is derived---not through bricks and mortar, or locale—but from a series of events which enable entities to "collect, manage and use the information they receive." In elaborating further on what constitutes an organization during early writings outlining OIT, Weick said, "The word organization is a noun and it is also a myth. if one looks for an organization, one will not find it. What will be found is that there are events linked together, that transpire within concrete walls and these sequences, their pathways, their timing, are the forms we erroneously make into substances when we talk about an organization". When viewed in this modular fashion, the organization meets Weick's theoretical vision by encompassing parameters that are less bound by concrete, wood, and structural restraints and more by an ability to serve as a repository where information can be consistently and effectively channeled. Taking these defining characteristics into account, proper channel execution relies on maximization of messaging clarity, context, delivery and evolution through any system. One example as to how these interactions might unfold on a more granular level within these confines can be gleaned through Weick's double interact loop, which he considers the "building blocks of every organization". Simply put, double interacts describe interpersonal exchanges that, inherently, occur across the organizational chain of command and in life, itself. Thus: "An act occurs when you say something (Can I have a Popsicle?). An interact occurs when you say something and I respond ("No, it will spoil your dinner
Read more →
Decision list

Decision lists are a representation for Boolean functions which can be easily learned from examples. Single term decision lists are more expressive than disjunctions and conjunctions; however, 1-term decision lists are less expressive than the general disjunctive normal form and the conjunctive normal form. The language specified by a k-length decision list includes as a subset the language specified by a k-depth decision tree. Learning decision lists can be used for attribute efficient learning, a type of machine learning. == Definition == A decision list (DL) of length r is of the form: if f1 then output b1 else if f2 then output b2 ... else if fr then output br where fi is the ith formula and bi is the ith boolean for i ∈ { 1... r } {\displaystyle i\in \{1...r\}} . The last if-then-else is the default case, which means formula fr is always equal to true. A k-DL is a decision list where all of formulas have at most k terms. Sometimes "decision list" is used to refer to a 1-DL, where all of the formulas are either a variable or its negation.
Read more →
SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award

The ACM SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award is a lifetime research achievement award given by the ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data, at its yearly flagship conference (also called SIGMOD). According to its homepage, it is given "for innovative and highly significant contributions of enduring value to the development, understanding, or use of database systems and databases". The award has been given since 1992. Until 2003, this award was known as the “SIGMOD Innovations Award.” In 2004, SIGMOD, with the unanimous approval of ACM Council, decided to rename the award to honor Dr. E.F. (Ted) Codd (1923 – 2003) who invented the relational data model and was responsible for the significant development of the database field as a scientific discipline. == Recipients ==
Read more →
Vocabulary-based transformation

In metadata, a vocabulary-based transformation (VBT) is a transformation aided by the use of a semantic equivalence statements within a controlled vocabulary. Many organizations today require communication between two or more computers. Although many standards exist to exchange data between computers such as HTML or email, there is still much structured information that needs to be exchanged between computers that is not standardized. The process of mapping one source of data into another is often a slow and labor-intensive process. VBT is a possible way to avoid much of the time and cost of manual data mapping using traditional extract, transform, load technologies. == History == The term vocabulary-based transformation was first defined by Roy Shulte of the Gartner Group around May 2003 and appeared in annual "hype-cycle" for integration. == Application == VBT allows computer systems integrators to more automatically "look up" the definitions of data elements in a centralized data dictionary and use that definition and the equivalent mappings to transform that data element into a foreign namespace. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) language also support three semantic equivalence statements. == Companies or products == IONA Technologies Contivo and Delta by Liaison Technologies enLeague Systems ItemField Unicorn Solutions Vitria Technology Zonar
Read more →
Research data archiving

Research data archiving is the long-term storage of scholarly research data, including the natural sciences, social sciences, and life sciences. The various academic journals have differing policies regarding how much of their data and methods researchers are required to store in a public archive, and what is actually archived varies widely between different disciplines. Similarly, the major grant-giving institutions have varying attitudes towards public archiving of data. In general, the tradition of science has been for publications to contain sufficient information to allow fellow researchers to replicate and therefore test the research. In recent years this approach has become increasingly strained as research in some areas depends on large datasets which cannot easily be replicated independently. Data archiving is more important in some fields than others. In a few fields, all of the data necessary to replicate the work is already available in the journal article. In drug development, a great deal of data is generated and must be archived so researchers can verify that the reports the drug companies publish accurately reflect the data. Often used interchangeably, Data preservation and data archiving are both about protecting data for the long term, but they serve different purposes. Data preservation focuses on preventing data from being lost, damaged, or destroyed by creating backups, storing data in secure locations, and ensuring it remains accessible when needed. Data archiving, on the other hand, involves moving data that is no longer actively used to a separate storage location for long-term keeping. Archived data is often combined and compressed, and while it can still be accessed, it is not intended for regular use or frequent updates. The requirement of data archiving is a recent development in the history of science. It was made possible by advances in information technology allowing large amounts of data to be stored and accessed from central locations. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) adopted their first policy on data archiving in 1993, about three years after the beginning of the WWW. This policy mandates that datasets cited in AGU papers must be archived by a recognised data center; it permits the creation of "data papers"; and it establishes AGU's role in maintaining data archives. But it makes no requirements on paper authors to archive their data. Prior to organized data archiving, researchers wanting to evaluate or replicate a paper would have to request data and methods information from the author. The academic community expects authors to share supplemental data. This process was recognized as wasteful of time and energy and obtained mixed results. Information could become lost or corrupted over the years. In some cases, authors simply refuse to provide the information. The need for data archiving and due diligence is greatly increased when the research deals with health issues or public policy formation. == Selected policies by journals == === Biotropica === Biotropica requires, as a condition for publication, that the data supporting the results in the paper and metadata describing them must be archived in an appropriate public archive such as Dryad, Figshare, GenBank, TreeBASE, or NCBI. Authors may elect to make the data publicly available as soon as the article is published or, if the technology of the archive allows, embargo access to the data up to three years after article publication. A statement describing Data Availability will be included in the manuscript as described in the instructions to authors. Exceptions to the required archiving of data may be granted at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief for studies that include sensitive information (e.g., the location of endangered species). Our Editorial explaining the motivation for this policy can be found here. A more comprehensive list of data repositories is available here. Promoting a culture of collaboration with researchers who collect and archive data: The data collected by tropical biologists are often long-term, complex, and expensive to collect. The Board of Editors of Biotropica strongly encourages authors who re-use data archives archived data sets to include as fully engaged collaborators the scientists who originally collected them. We feel this will greatly enhance the quality and impact of the resulting research by drawing on the data collector’s profound insights into the natural history of the study system, reducing the risk of errors in novel analyses, and stimulating the cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration and training for which the ATBC and Biotropica are widely recognized. NB: Biotropica is one of only two journals that pays the fees for authors depositing data at Dryad. === The American Naturalist === The American Naturalist requires authors to deposit the data associated with accepted papers in a public archive. For gene sequence data and phylogenetic trees, deposition in GenBank or TreeBASE, respectively, is required. There are many possible archives that may suit a particular data set, including the Dryad repository for ecological and evolutionary biology data. All accession numbers for GenBank, TreeBASE, and Dryad must be included in accepted manuscripts before they go to Production. If the data is deposited somewhere else, please provide a link. If the data is culled from published literature, please deposit the collated data in Dryad for the convenience of your readers. Any impediments to data sharing should be brought to the attention of the editors at the time of submission so that appropriate arrangements can be worked out. === Journal of Heredity === The primary data underlying the conclusions of an article are critical to the verifiability and transparency of the scientific enterprise, and should be preserved in usable form for decades in the future. For this reason, Journal of Heredity requires that newly reported nucleotide or amino acid sequences, and structural coordinates, be submitted to appropriate public databases (e.g., GenBank; the EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database; DNA Database of Japan; the Protein Data Bank; and Swiss-Prot). Accession numbers must be included in the final version of the manuscript. For other forms of data (e.g., microsatellite genotypes, linkage maps, images), the Journal endorses the principles of the Joint Data Archiving Policy (JDAP) in encouraging all authors to archive primary datasets in an appropriate public archive, such as Dryad, TreeBASE, or the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity. Authors are encouraged to make data publicly available at time of publication or, if the technology of the archive allows, opt to embargo access to the data for a period up to a year after publication. The American Genetic Association also recognizes the vast investment of individual researchers in generating and curating large datasets. Consequently, we recommend that this investment be respected in secondary analyses or meta-analyses in a gracious collaborative spirit. === Molecular Ecology === Molecular Ecology expects that data supporting the results in the paper should be archived in an appropriate public archive, such as GenBank, Gene Expression Omnibus, TreeBASE, Dryad, the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity, your own institutional or funder repository, or as Supporting Information on the Molecular Ecology web site. Data are important products of the scientific enterprise, and they should be preserved and usable for decades in the future. Authors may elect to have the data publicly available at time of publication, or, if the technology of the archive allows, may opt to embargo access to the data for a period up to a year after publication. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the editor, especially for sensitive information such as human subject data or the location of endangered species. === Nature === Such material must be hosted on an accredited independent site (URL and accession numbers to be provided by the author), or sent to the Nature journal at submission, either uploaded via the journal's online submission service, or if the files are too large or in an unsuitable format for this purpose, on CD/DVD (five copies). Such material cannot solely be hosted on an author's personal or institutional web site. Nature requires the reviewer to determine if all of the supplementary data and methods have been archived. The policy advises reviewers to consider several questions, including: "Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data to accompany the paper online? (Such data might include source code for modelling studies, detailed experimental protocols or mathematical derivations.) === Science === Science supports the efforts of databases that aggregate published data for the use of the scientific community. Therefore, before publication, large data sets (including microarray data, protein or DNA sequences, and atomic c
Read more →
PowerBuilder

PowerBuilder is an integrated development environment owned by SAP since the acquisition of Sybase in 2010. On July 5, 2016, SAP and Appeon entered into an agreement whereby Appeon, an independent company, would be responsible for developing, selling, and supporting PowerBuilder. Over the years, PowerBuilder has been updated with new standards. In 2010, a major upgrade of PowerBuilder was released to provide support for the Microsoft .NET Framework. In 2014, support was added for OData, dockable windows, and 64-bit native applications. In 2019 support was added for rapidly creating RESTful Web APIs and non-visual .NET assemblies using the C# language and the .NET Core framework. And PowerScript client app development was revamped with new UI technologies and cloud architecture. In 2025 the IDE was revamped with new code editor and ultra-fast compiler. Appeon has been releasing new features every 6-12 month cycles, which per the product roadmap focus on four key focus areas: sustaining core features, modernizing application UI, improving developer productivity, and incorporating more Cloud technology. == Features == PowerBuilder has a native data-handling component called a DataWindow, which can be used to create, edit, and display data from a database. This object gives the programmer a number of tools for specifying and controlling user interface appearance and behavior, and also provides simplified access to database content and JSON or XML from Web services. To some extent, the DataWindow frees the programmer from considering the differences between Database Management Systems from different vendors. DataWindow can display data using multiple presentation styles and can connect to various data sources. == Usage == PowerBuilder is used primarily for building business-oriented CRUD applications. Although new software products are rarely built with PowerBuilder, many client-server ERP products and line-of-business applications built in the late 1980s to early 2000s with PowerBuilder still provide core database functions for large enterprises in government, higher education, manufacturing, insurance, banking, energy, and telecommunications. == History == === Early history === PowerBuilder originated from Computer Solutions Inc. (CSI), a software consulting firm founded in 1974 by Mitchell Kertzman in Massachusetts. CSI developed GrowthPower, an MRP II software package with integrated financial modules released in 1981, which ran exclusively on the HP 3000 platform and achieved over 1,000 customer installations at its peak. In the late 1980s, as demand increased for graphical user interfaces amid the rise of Microsoft Windows, Kertzman partnered with Dave Litwack, former executive vice president of product development at Cullinet Software (acquired by Computer Associates in 1989). Litwack joined the company in 1988 as head of research and development to develop a client/server GUI tool, leading to its rebranding as Powersoft Corporation in 1990. PowerBuilder 1.0 was released in July 1991 as a rapid application development tool featuring the DataWindow and PowerScript language. Powersoft went public on February 3, 1993, with shares closing at $38 from an initial $20 price. Sybase announced its acquisition of Powersoft on November 15, 1994, in a stock swap valued at approximately $940 million; the merger closed on February 14, 1995, at a revised value of about $904 million due to Sybase's stock fluctuations. === Recent history === In December 2013 SAP announced the new version going directly to number 15 and released a beta version. Key features included support for the .NET Framework v4.5, SQL Server 2012, Oracle 12, Windows 8, OData and Dockable Windows. SAP later released this as version 12.6. On May 31, 2019, PowerBuilder 2019 was released by Appeon. This release supports C# development. It provides a new C# IDE, .NET data access objects, C# migration solution, Web API client, and UI themes. On April 3, 2020, PowerBuilder 2019 R2 was launched by Appeon. This release includes a first-ever PowerScript-to-C# code converter, which can automatically migrate 80-95% of PowerBuilder business logic and DataWindows to C#. Interoperability between PowerScript and .NET programming languages is also now supported. Many existing features have also been enhanced. On January 22, 2021, PowerBuilder 2019 R3 was launched by Appeon. This release provides a groundbreaking new app deployment technology called PowerClient, which securely automates the installation and update of client apps over HTTPS. C# Web API development has been greatly enhanced with asynchronous programming and support for Amazon Aurora and Azure cloud databases. Aside from many other new features, PowerBuilder 2019 R3 is a long-term support (LTS) version that replaces previous LTS versions On August 6, 2021, PowerBuilder 2021 was launched by Appeon. The Cloud deployment capability of the PowerBuilder 2021 IDE, in conjunction with the matching PowerServer 2021 runtime, was revamped, bringing PowerBuilder up-to-date with the latest .NET technologies. The presentation layer now executes PowerScript natively on Windows devices. The middle-tier has been rebuilt around REST API standard with a pure .NET Core implementation. A new CI/CD utility that integrates with Git/SVN and Jenkins, witch compiles all PowerBuilder projects using the command-line interface, was added alongside other features. On September 4, 2022, PowerBuilder 2022 was launched by Appeon. This release brings enhancements to the productivity of developing both client/server & installable cloud apps and more security measures to safeguard your apps. It includes many new features, including Windows 11 support, introducing time-saving functionalities to the IDE, such as Tabbed Code Editor, Jump to Objects, and Quick Code Search, and supports the latest HTTP/2 and TLS 1.3 protocols and two-way TLS authentication. On August 4, 2023, PowerBuilder 2022 R2 was launched by Appeon. This release introduces a range of new features aimed at helping developers build powerful, feature-rich, and secure client/server and installable cloud apps more efficiently, including tabbed windows, fillable PDFs, and SMTP client. On January 8, 2024, PowerBuilder 2022 R3 was launched by Appeon. This release is a long-term support version. Features previously released in earlier releases have been enhanced and/or corrected. On May 7, 2025, PowerBuilder 2025 was launched by Appeon. This release delivers a revamped IDE that boosts developer productivity throughout the SLDC—from writing and extending code to debugging, automating builds, and deploying applications. It features a new-generation code editor, ultra-fast compiler, automatic REST API creation, faster GIT operations, and codeless UI modernization features. == Features == PowerBuilder is an object-oriented programming language. Nearly all of the visual and non-visual objects support inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation. The programmer may utilize a common code framework such as PowerBuilder Foundation Classes, also known as PFC, to inherit objects from and leverage pre-existing code. The DataWindow is the key component (and selling point) of PowerBuilder. The DataWindow offers a visual SQL painter which supports outer joins, unions and subquery operations. It can convert SQL to visual representation and back, so the developer can use native SQL if desired. DataWindow updates are automatic — it produces the proper SQL at runtime based on the DBMS to which the user is currently connected. This feature makes it easier for developers who are not experienced with SQL. The DataWindow also has the built-in ability to both retrieve data and update data via stored procedures or REST Web APIs as well as import/export JSON data. The RESTClient object introduced in PowerBuilder 2017 facilitates bridging the DataWindow with REST Web APIs and requiring minimal coding. === RDBMS interfaces === PowerBuilder offers native interfaces to all major databases, as well as ODBC and OLE-DB, in the Enterprise version. There are many connectivity options that allow performance monitoring and tuning, such as: Integrated security Tracing of all SQL Isolation level Password expiration dialog Blocking factor Number of SQL statements to cache Use connection pool Thread safety Trace ODBC API calls Due to the information about the database schema (such as primary key information) that are stored in PowerBuilder's data dictionary, the code required to implement data display and browsing is greatly simplified, because the dictionary information allows generation of the appropriate SQL behind the scenes. PowerBuilder supports the following ways of interacting with a database: DataWindow this is the simplest approach, relying on automatically generated SQL. Embedded SQL Embedded SQL supports SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE and cursors. This option is used when the developer desires more control than is available with the
Read more →
Magic state distillation

Magic state distillation is a method for creating more accurate quantum states from multiple noisy ones, which is important for building fault tolerant quantum computers. It has also been linked to quantum contextuality, a concept thought to contribute to quantum computers' power. The technique was first proposed by Emanuel Knill in 2004, and further analyzed by Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev the same year. Thanks to the Gottesman–Knill theorem, it is known that some quantum operations (operations in the Clifford group) can be perfectly simulated in polynomial time on a classical computer. In order to achieve universal quantum computation, a quantum computer must be able to perform operations outside this set. Magic state distillation achieves this, in principle, by concentrating the usefulness of imperfect resources, represented by mixed states, into states that are conducive for performing operations that are difficult to simulate classically. A variety of qubit magic state distillation routines and distillation routines for qubits with various advantages have been proposed. == Stabilizer formalism == The Clifford group consists of a set of n {\displaystyle n} -qubit operations generated by the gates {H, S, CNOT} (where H is Hadamard and S is [ 1 0 0 i ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&i\end{bmatrix}}} ) called Clifford gates. The Clifford group generates stabilizer states which can be efficiently simulated classically, as shown by the Gottesman–Knill theorem. This set of gates with a non-Clifford operation is universal for quantum computation. == Magic states == Magic states are purified from n {\displaystyle n} copies of a mixed state ρ {\displaystyle \rho } . These states are typically provided via an ancilla to the circuit. A magic state for the π / 6 {\displaystyle \pi /6} rotation operator is | M ⟩ = cos ⁡ ( β / 2 ) | 0 ⟩ + e i π 4 sin ⁡ ( β / 2 ) | 1 ⟩ {\displaystyle |M\rangle =\cos(\beta /2)|0\rangle +e^{i{\frac {\pi }{4}}}\sin(\beta /2)|1\rangle } where β = arccos ⁡ ( 1 3 ) {\displaystyle \beta =\arccos \left({\frac {1}{\sqrt {3}}}\right)} . A non-Clifford gate can be generated by combining (copies of) magic states with Clifford gates. Since a set of Clifford gates combined with a non-Clifford gate is universal for quantum computation, magic states combined with Clifford gates are also universal. == Purification algorithm for distilling |M〉 == The first magic state distillation algorithm, invented by Sergey Bravyi and Alexei Kitaev, is as follows. Input: Prepare 5 imperfect states. Output: An almost pure state having a small error probability. repeat Apply the decoding operation of the five-qubit error correcting code and measure the syndrome. If the measured syndrome is | 0000 ⟩ {\displaystyle |0000\rangle } , the distillation attempt is successful. else Get rid of the resulting state and restart the algorithm. until The states have been distilled to the desired purity.
Read more →
Information explosion

Information explosion is the rapid increase in the amount of published information or data and the effects of this abundance. As the amount of available data grows, the problem of managing the information becomes more difficult, which can lead to information overload. The Online Oxford English Dictionary indicates use of the phrase in a March 1964 New Statesman article. The New York Times first used the phrase in its editorial content in an article by Walter Sullivan on June 7, 1964, in which he described the phrase as "much discussed". The earliest known use of the phrase was in a speech about television by NBC president Pat Weaver at the Institute of Practitioners of Advertising in London on September 27, 1955. The speech was rebroadcast on radio station WSUI in Iowa City and excerpted in the Daily Iowan newspaper two months later. Many sectors are seeing this rapid increase in the amount of information available such as healthcare, supermarkets, and governments. Another sector that is being affected by this phenomenon is journalism. Such a profession, which in the past was responsible for the dissemination of information, may be suppressed by the overabundance of information today. Techniques to gather knowledge from an overabundance of electronic information (e.g., data fusion may help in data mining) have existed since the 1970s. Another common technique to deal with such amount of information is qualitative research. Such approaches aim to organize the information, synthesizing, categorizing and systematizing in order to be more usable and easier to search. == Growth patterns == The world's technological capacity to store information grew from, optimally compressed, 2.6 exabytes in 1986 to 15.7 in 1993, over 54.5 in 2000, and to 295 exabytes in 2007. The world's technological capacity to receive information through one-way broadcast networks was 432 exabytes of (optimally compressed) information in 1986, 715 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 1993, 1,200 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 2000, and 1,900 in 2007. The world's effective capacity to exchange information through two-way telecommunications networks was 0.281 exabytes of (optimally compressed) information in 1986, 0.471 in 1993, 2.2 in 2000, and 65 (optimally compressed) exabytes in 2007. A new metric that is being used in an attempt to characterize the growth in person-specific information, is the disk storage per person (DSP), which is measured in megabytes/person (where megabytes is 106 bytes and is abbreviated MB). Global DSP (GDSP) is the total rigid disk drive space (in MB) of new units sold in a year divided by the world population in that year. The GDSP metric is a crude measure of how much disk storage could possibly be used to collect person-specific data on the world population. In 1983, one million fixed drives with an estimated total of 90 terabytes were sold worldwide; 30MB drives had the largest market segment. In 1996, 105 million drives, totaling 160,623 terabytes were sold with 1 and 2 gigabyte drives leading the industry. By the year 2000, with 20GB drive leading the industry, rigid drives sold for the year are projected to total 2,829,288 terabytes Rigid disk drive sales to top $34 billion in 1997. According to Latanya Sweeney, there are three trends in data gathering today: Type 1. Expansion of the number of fields being collected, known as the “collect more” trend. Type 2. Replace an existing aggregate data collection with a person-specific one, known as the “collect specifically” trend. Type 3. Gather information by starting a new person-specific data collection, known as the “collect it if you can” trend. == Related terms == Since "information" in electronic media is often used synonymously with "data", the term information explosion is closely related to the concept of data flood (also dubbed data deluge). Sometimes the term information flood is used as well. All of those basically boil down to the ever-increasing amount of electronic data exchanged per time unit. A term that covers the potential negative effects of information explosion is information inflation. The awareness about non-manageable amounts of data grew along with the advent of ever more powerful data processing since the mid-1960s. == Challenges == Even though the abundance of information can be beneficial in several levels, some problems may be of concern such as privacy, legal and ethical guidelines, filtering and data accuracy. Filtering refers to finding useful information in the middle of so much data, which relates to the job of data scientists. A typical example of a necessity of data filtering (data mining) is in healthcare since in the next years is due to have EHRs (Electronic Health Records) of patients available. With so much information available, the doctors will need to be able to identify patterns and select important data for the diagnosis of the patient. On the other hand, according to some experts, having so much public data available makes it difficult to provide data that is actually anonymous. Another point to take into account is the legal and ethical guidelines, which relates to who will be the owner of the data and how frequently he/she is obliged to the release this and for how long. With so many sources of data, another problem will be accuracy of such. An untrusted source may be challenged by others, by ordering a new set of data, causing a repetition in the information. According to Edward Huth, another concern is the accessibility and cost of such information. The accessibility rate could be improved by either reducing the costs or increasing the utility of the information. The reduction of costs according to the author, could be done by associations, which should assess which information was relevant and gather it in a more organized fashion. == Web servers == As of August 2005, there were over 70 million web servers. As of September 2007 there were over 135 million web servers. == Blogs == According to Technorati, the number of blogs doubles about every 6 months with a total of 35.3 million blogs as of April 2006. This is an example of the early stages of logistic growth, where growth is approximately exponential, since blogs are a recent innovation. As the number of blogs approaches the number of possible producers (humans), saturation occurs, growth declines, and the number of blogs eventually stabilizes.
Read more →