HTK (Hidden Markov Model Toolkit) is a proprietary software toolkit for handling HMMs. It is mainly intended for speech recognition, but has been used in many other pattern recognition applications that employ HMMs, including speech synthesis, character recognition and DNA sequencing. Originally developed at the Machine Intelligence Laboratory (formerly known as the Speech Vision and Robotics Group) of the Cambridge University Engineering Department (CUED), HTK is now being widely used among researchers who are working on HMMs.
Expectation propagation
Expectation propagation (EP) is a technique in Bayesian machine learning. EP finds approximations to a probability distribution. It uses an iterative approach that uses the factorization structure of the target distribution. It differs from other Bayesian approximation approaches such as variational Bayesian methods. More specifically, suppose we wish to approximate an intractable probability distribution p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} with a tractable distribution q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(\mathbf {x} )} . Expectation propagation achieves this approximation by minimizing the Kullback–Leibler divergence K L ( p | | q ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} (p||q)} . Variational Bayesian methods minimize K L ( q | | p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} (q||p)} instead. If q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(\mathbf {x} )} is a Gaussian N ( x | μ , Σ ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mathbf {x} |\mu ,\Sigma )} , then K L ( p | | q ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} (p||q)} is minimized with μ {\displaystyle \mu } and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } being equal to the mean of p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} and the covariance of p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} , respectively; this is called moment matching. == Applications == Expectation propagation via moment matching plays a vital role in approximation for indicator functions that appear when deriving the message passing equations for TrueSkill.
The Dodo (website)
The Dodo is an American online publisher focused on animals. The website was launched in January 2014 by Izzie Lerer, the daughter of media executive Kenneth Lerer, and journalist Kerry Lauerman. The Dodo has become one of the most popular Facebook publishers, garnering 1 billion video views from the social network in November 2015. The Dodo is headquartered in New York, New York. == History == The company—named after the first recorded species that humans drove to extinction—was founded by Lerer out of "a personal passion for the subject manner". Lerer has a PhD in animal studies with a focus on animal ethics and human relationships from Columbia University, launching the website after noticing the viral success of animal videos online but seeing no one "really owned the space." The Dodo's editorial and video production staff unionized with the Writers Guild of America, East in April 2018.
Haul video
A haul video is a video recording posted to the Internet in which a person discusses items that they recently purchased, sometimes going into detail about their experiences during the purchase and the cost of the items they bought. The posting of haul videos (or hauls) was a growing trend between 2008 and 2016. Often the items bought are books, clothing, groceries, household goods, makeup, or jewellery. == Details == The posting of haul videos grew as a trend between 2008 and 2016. By late 2010, nearly a quarter of a million haul videos had been shared on the website YouTube alone. Certain videos have each received tens of millions of views. Many young adults (mostly women) have displayed their shopping hauls, while including their beauty and design commentary in the narration. The videos are often grouped by store name or by the type of product (cosmetics, accessories, shoes, postage stamps, etc.). Before haul videos became an online trend, millions of people spent time watching other people, in technical product videos unbox their latest new gadgets and technology. The trend of "unboxing videos" had emerged during 2006. Haul videos have led to celebrity status for some people. Other haul video bloggers have entered sponsorship deals and advertising programs from major brands. The videos are rarely negative about the products being reviewed. This aspect of the genre of haul videos makes sponsorship by brand advertisers particularly appealing. Brands including J.C. Penney contacted haulers as part of their marketing efforts for Back to School 2010. Haul videos also convinced three San Francisco Bay Area area natives to launch HaulBlog–a parody site that creates fake haul videos which poke fun at the phenomenon. The site is also home to the original monthly web series "The Haul Monitor" a humorous commentary show that features haul videos from around the community. == Fashion media == Sarah Sykes and John Zimmerman of Carnegie Mellon University, HCII and School of Design wrote an article "Making Sense of Haul Videos: Self-created Celebrities Fill a Fashion Media Gap". They discuss their analysis and research project examining what makes video bloggers so popular on YouTube, as well as how it affects fashion media through the production of haul videos. == Federal Trade Commission == The United States Federal Trade Commission recently enacted laws to regulate many types of online publishers and content creators. The posted information includes blogging and podcasting in text, images, audio, and video. While any publishers (including the haul-video creators) are allowed to accept free merchandise and advertising, the gifts or payments must be fully (and clearly) disclosed to reveal being paid by a brand name, as a sponsor, to review a product. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is also closely monitoring such Internet activities.
Raseef22
Raseef22 (Arabic: رصيف22) is a liberal Arabic media network founded in 2013 based in Beirut, Lebanon. It publishes content in Arabic and English from different Arab states and describes itself as an independent media platform. International Media Support mentions Raseef22 along with HuffPost Arabic and Al Jazeera as one of the biggest Pan-Arab online platforms. == Name == The Arabic word raseef (رَصِيف) means platform or pavement, and the number 22 refers to the number of states in the Arab League. == History == Kareem Sakka co-founded Raseef22 in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, which he cites as a source of inspiration. In an article in The Washington Post, he wrote that Raseef22 was created as a "digital space for those eager to know what was going on around them." Raseef22 was one of the 500 websites censored in Egypt in late 2017 after it published an article on Egyptian security agencies' vies to influence the media. After the site was blocked in Egypt, it was targeted in a cyber attack that took it offline in locations around the world. Jamal Khashoggi wrote for Raseef22 regularly. One of his notable articles was "Notes on the Freedom of the Arabs from Oslo, Norway," published June 5, 2018. The site was blocked in Saudi Arabia December 2018 when the Saudi Ministry of Communications and Information Technology ordered its censorship due to its "unprecedented response to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul." This decision might have also been related to Raseef22's coverage of Saudi-Israeli relations and interviews with activists later imprisoned or placed under house arrest coverage In 2019 the Association of LGBT Journalists (AJL) in Paris gave Raseef22 a golden foreign press award for its six-month series of articles on gender and sexuality issues. == Readership == According to its publisher in 2019, the news agency counted 12 million readers annually from 22 Arab nations. Of the readership, he wrote that it "believes in the talent and promise of the Arab mind and sees the ugliness of tyranny, patriarchy, misogyny and the futility of proxy rulers and wars." Al-Quds Al-Arabi described Raseef22 as "oriented to the youth."
INDECT
INDECT is a research project in the area of intelligent security systems performed by several European universities since 2009 and funded by the European Union. The purpose of the project is to involve European scientists and researchers in the development of solutions to and tools for automatic threat detection through e.g. processing of CCTV camera data streams, standardization of video sequence quality for user applications, threat detection in computer networks as well as data and privacy protection. The area of research, applied methods, and techniques are described in the public deliverables which are available to the public on the project's website. Practically, all information related to the research is public. Only documents that comprise information related to financial data or information that could negatively influence the competitiveness and law enforcement capabilities of parties involved in the project are not published. This follows regulations and practices applied in EU research projects. == Application and target users == The main end-user of INDECT solutions are police forces and security services. The principle of operation of the project is detecting threats and identifying sources of threats, without monitoring and searching for particular citizens or groups of citizens. Then, the system operator (i.e. police officer) decides whether an intervention of services responsible for public security are required or not. Further investigation eventually leading to persons related to threats is performed, preserving the presumption of innocence, based on existing procedures already used by police services and prosecutors. As it can be found in the project deliverables, INDECT does not involve storage of personal data (such as names, addresses, identity document numbers, etc.). A similar, behavior-based surveillance program was SAMURAI (Suspicious and Abnormal behavior Monitoring Using a netwoRk of cAmeras & sensors for sItuation awareness enhancement). == Expected results == The main expected results of the INDECT project are: Trial of intelligent analysis of video and audio data for threat detection in urban environments Creation of tools and technology for privacy and data protection during storage and transmission of information using quantum cryptography and new methods of digital watermarking Performing computer-aided detection of threats and targeted crimes in Internet resources with privacy-protecting solutions Construction of a search engine for rapid semantic search based on watermarking of content related to child pornography and human organ trafficking Implementation of a distributed computer system that is capable of effective intelligent processing == Controversy == Some media and other sources accuse INDECT of privacy abuse, collecting personal data, and keeping information from the public. Consequently, these issues have been commented and discussed by some Members of the European Parliament. As seen in the project's documentation, INDECT does not involve mobile phone tracking or call interception. The rumors about testing INDECT during 2012 UEFA European Football Championship also turned out to be false. The mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme to the European Parliament strongly urges the European Commission to immediately make all documents available and to define a clear and strict mandate for the research goal, the application, and the end users of INDECT, and stresses a thorough investigation of the possible impact on fundamental rights. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Paweł Kowal, MEP, the project had the ethical review on 15 March 2011 in Brussels with the participation of ethics experts from Austria, France, Netherlands, Germany and Great Britain.
Packingham v. North Carolina
Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a North Carolina statute that prohibited registered sex offenders from using social media websites was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech. In 2010, Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender, posted on Facebook under a pseudonym to comment favorably on a recent traffic court experience. Police then identified Packingham and charged him with violating North Carolina's law. Packingham moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the state's law violated the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed this motion and ultimately convicted Packingham. A state appellate court initially reversed the trial court, holding that the law did violate the First Amendment, but the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, disagreed and reinstated the conviction. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court's judgment. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD, among many others—is a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech. The Court offered that North Carolina could protect children through less restrictive means, such as prohibiting "conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor". == Background == === North Carolina statute === In 2008, the state of North Carolina passed a law that made it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages". The law defined a "commercial social networking Web site" using four criteria. Specifically, the website must: be "operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the Web site". facilitate "the social introduction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchanges". allow "users to create Web pages or personal profiles that contain information such as the name or nickname of the user, photographs placed on the personal Web page by the user, other personal information about the user, and links to other personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site of friends or associates of the user that may be accessed by other users or visitors to the Web site". provide "users or visitors... mechanisms to communicate with other users, such as a message board, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger". The law exempted websites that "Provid[e] only one of the following discrete services: photo-sharing, electronic mail, instant messenger, or chat room or message board platform", as well as websites that have as their primary purpose "the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services between [their] members or visitors". === Facts of the case === In 2002, Lester Gerard Packingham was convicted of taking "indecent liberties with a child", a felony that required him to register as a sex offender. A North Carolina court sentenced him to 10–12 months in prison with 24 months of supervised release. He was given no other special instructions on his behavior outside of prison other than to "remain away from" the minor. In 2010, after a state court dismissed a traffic ticket against Packingham, he submitted a post on Facebook under the name "J. R. Gerrard", stating: "Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, no court cost, no nothing spent. . . . . .Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!" The Durham Police Department identified Packingham as the author of the post after cross-checking the time of the post with recently dismissed traffic tickets, and a grand jury indicted him for violating the North Carolina statute. === Lower court proceedings === Initially, Packingham moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that it violated the First Amendment. A North Carolina Superior Court judge denied this motion, and he was convicted of violating the North Carolina social media law. Packingham appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision in 2013. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court of appeals determined that North Carolina's law violated the First Amendment because it was too broad, applying to all registered sex offenders regardless of whether the offender had committed a crime involving a minor or whether the offender was a continuing threat to minors. The appeals court also stated that the law had been defined broadly enough to prohibit a registered sex offender from conducting a wide array of Internet activity, such as "conducting a 'Google' search, purchasing items on Amazon.com, or accessing a plethora of Web sites unrelated to online communication with minors". In 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, reversed the court of appeals, holding that the law was "constitutional in all respects". The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the statute was a "limitation on conduct" and did not impede any free speech. The state had a vested interest in “forestalling the illicit lurking and contact of minors” by registered sex offenders and potential future victims, and upheld Packingham's conviction. == Supreme Court ruling == Packingham filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal government also filed a brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant certiorari, arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly decided the case in favor of the state. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in October 2016. Amicus briefs in support of Packingham were filed by the libertarian Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union. The North Carolina Supreme Court filed a brief supporting its prior decision, urging the importance of protecting minors from being stalked online. === Oral argument === The oral argument took place in February 2017. Packingham’s lawyer, David T. Goldberg, argued that the law banned “vast swaths of First Amendment activity”, went too far in restricting which Internet sites could be accessed, and forbade use of the Internet in general. The law targeted speech on some of the platforms that Americans use most often, Goldberg noted, and that under the law Packingham could not even use Twitter to read the myriad messages discussing his own case. He further noted that the law imposes punishment without regard to whether the offender actually did anything wrong. North Carolina’s senior deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, argued for the state, and claimed that communication through social media sites is a “crucial channel”. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Montgomery to provide evidence as to the claim that by giving Packingham Internet privileges, he would commit another crime. Justice Stephen Breyer added that “It seems to be well-settled law that the state can’t (bar usage) unless there is a 'clear and present danger'." === Opinion of the Court === In June 2017 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in favor of Packingham, unanimously voting to reverse the state court's ruling. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the decision, joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan. Kennedy explained the decision: "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." He continued that "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." Citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as a precedent, Kennedy also wrote: "It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'." === Concurring opinion === Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. While Alito agreed that the state statute at issue violated the First Amendment, he noted that there are reasonable scenarios for which legal bans for sex offenders can be placed, such as for sites targeted at teenagers. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the decision of the case. == Impact == Packingham v. North Carolina was one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases to ana