In telecommunications, an interference is that which modifies a signal in a disruptive manner, as it travels along a communication channel between its source and receiver. The term is often used to refer to the addition of unwanted signals to a useful signal. Common examples include: Electromagnetic interference (EMI) Co-channel interference (CCI), also known as crosstalk Adjacent-channel interference (ACI) Intersymbol interference (ISI) Inter-carrier interference (ICI), caused by doppler shift in OFDM modulation (multitone modulation). Common-mode interference (CMI) Conducted interference Noise is a form of interference but not all interference is noise. Radio resource management aims at reducing and controlling the co-channel and adjacent-channel interference. == Interference alignment == A solution to interference problems in wireless communication networks is interference alignment, which was crystallized by Syed Ali Jafar at the University of California, Irvine. A specialized application was previously studied by Yitzhak Birk and Tomer Kol for an index coding problem in 1998. For interference management in wireless communication, interference alignment was originally introduced by Mohammad Ali Maddah-Ali, Abolfazl S. Motahari, and Amir Keyvan Khandani, at the University of Waterloo, for communication over wireless X channels. Interference alignment was eventually established as a general principle by Jafar and Viveck R. Cadambe in 2008, when they introduced "a mechanism to align an arbitrarily large number of interferers, leading to the surprising conclusion that wireless networks are not essentially interference limited." This led to the adoption of interference alignment in the design of wireless networks. Jafar explained: My research group crystallized the concept of interference alignment and showed that through interference alignment, it is possible for everyone to access half of the total bandwidth free from interference. Initially this result was shown under a number of idealized assumptions that are typical in theoretical studies. We have since continued to work on peeling off these idealizations one at a time, to bring the theory closer to practice. Along the way we have made numerous discoveries through the lens of interference alignment, which reveal new and powerful signaling schemes. According to New York University senior researcher Paul Horn: Syed Jafar revolutionized our understanding of the capacity limits of wireless networks. He demonstrated the astounding result that each user in a wireless network can access half of the spectrum without interference from other users, regardless of how many users are sharing the spectrum. This is a truly remarkable result that has a tremendous impact on both information theory and the design of wireless networks.
Residual neural network
A residual neural network (also referred to as a residual network or ResNet) is a deep learning architecture in which the layers learn residual functions with reference to the layer inputs. It was developed in 2015 for image recognition, and won the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) of that year. As a point of terminology, "residual connection" refers to the specific architectural motif of x ↦ f ( x ) + x {\displaystyle x\mapsto f(x)+x} , where f {\displaystyle f} is an arbitrary neural network module. The motif had been used previously (see §History for details). However, the publication of ResNet made it widely popular for feedforward networks, appearing in neural networks that are seemingly unrelated to ResNet. The residual connection stabilizes the training and convergence of deep neural networks with hundreds of layers, and is a common motif in deep neural networks, such as transformer models (e.g., BERT, and GPT models such as ChatGPT), the AlphaGo Zero system, the AlphaStar system, and the AlphaFold system. == Mathematics == === Residual connection === In a multilayer neural network model, consider a (non-residual) subnetwork with a certain number of stacked layers (e.g., 2 or 3). Let H ( x ; α ) {\displaystyle H(x;\alpha )} denote the subnetwork. Suppose H ∗ {\displaystyle H^{}} is the desired optimal output of this subnetwork. Residual learning simply adds x {\displaystyle x} directly to the output, such that the optimal learned output now becomes be H ∗ − x {\displaystyle H^{}-x} , which is interpreted as a "residual" with respect to x {\displaystyle x} . The operation of "adding x {\displaystyle x} " is implemented via a "skip connection" that performs an identity mapping to connect the input of the subnetwork with its output. This connection is referred to as a "residual connection" in later work. Let F ( x ; α ) = H ( x ; a ) + x {\displaystyle F(x;\alpha )=H(x;a)+x} . The function F {\displaystyle F} is often represented by matrix multiplication interlaced with activation functions and normalization operations (e.g., batch normalization or layer normalization). As a whole, one of these subnetworks is referred to as a "residual block". A deep residual network is constructed by simply stacking these blocks. Long short-term memory (LSTM) has a memory mechanism that serves as a residual connection. In an LSTM without a forget gate, an input x t {\displaystyle x_{t}} is processed by a function F {\displaystyle F} and added to a memory cell c t {\displaystyle c_{t}} , resulting in c t + 1 = c t + F ( x t ) {\displaystyle c_{t+1}=c_{t}+F(x_{t})} . An LSTM with a forget gate essentially functions as a highway network. To stabilize the variance of the layers' inputs, it is recommended to replace the residual connections x + f ( x ) {\displaystyle x+f(x)} with x / L + f ( x ) {\displaystyle x/L+f(x)} , where L {\displaystyle L} is the total number of residual layers. === Projection connection === If the function F {\displaystyle F} is of type F : R n → R m {\displaystyle F:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} ^{m}} where n ≠ m {\displaystyle n\neq m} , then F ( x ) + x {\displaystyle F(x)+x} is undefined. To handle this special case, a projection connection is used: y = F ( x ) + P ( x ) {\displaystyle y=F(x)+P(x)} where P {\displaystyle P} is typically a linear projection, defined by P ( x ) = M x {\displaystyle P(x)=Mx} where M {\displaystyle M} is a m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} matrix. The matrix is trained via backpropagation, as is any other parameter of the model. === Signal propagation === The introduction of identity mappings facilitates signal propagation in both forward and backward paths. ==== Forward propagation ==== If the output of the ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } -th residual block is the input to the ( ℓ + 1 ) {\displaystyle (\ell +1)} -th residual block (assuming no activation function between blocks), then the ( ℓ + 1 ) {\displaystyle (\ell +1)} -th input is: x ℓ + 1 = F ( x ℓ ) + x ℓ {\displaystyle x_{\ell +1}=F(x_{\ell })+x_{\ell }} Applying this formulation recursively, e.g.: x ℓ + 2 = F ( x ℓ + 1 ) + x ℓ + 1 = F ( x ℓ + 1 ) + F ( x ℓ ) + x ℓ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}x_{\ell +2}&=F(x_{\ell +1})+x_{\ell +1}\\&=F(x_{\ell +1})+F(x_{\ell })+x_{\ell }\end{aligned}}} yields the general relationship: x L = x ℓ + ∑ i = ℓ L − 1 F ( x i ) {\displaystyle x_{L}=x_{\ell }+\sum _{i=\ell }^{L-1}F(x_{i})} where L {\textstyle L} is the index of a residual block and ℓ {\textstyle \ell } is the index of some earlier block. This formulation suggests that there is always a signal that is directly sent from a shallower block ℓ {\textstyle \ell } to a deeper block L {\textstyle L} . ==== Backward propagation ==== The residual learning formulation provides the added benefit of mitigating the vanishing gradient problem to some extent. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the vanishing gradient issue is not the root cause of the degradation problem, which is tackled through the use of normalization. To observe the effect of residual blocks on backpropagation, consider the partial derivative of a loss function E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} with respect to some residual block input x ℓ {\displaystyle x_{\ell }} . Using the equation above from forward propagation for a later residual block L > ℓ {\displaystyle L>\ell } : ∂ E ∂ x ℓ = ∂ E ∂ x L ∂ x L ∂ x ℓ = ∂ E ∂ x L ( 1 + ∂ ∂ x ℓ ∑ i = ℓ L − 1 F ( x i ) ) = ∂ E ∂ x L + ∂ E ∂ x L ∂ ∂ x ℓ ∑ i = ℓ L − 1 F ( x i ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}}{\partial x_{\ell }}}&={\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}}{\partial x_{L}}}{\frac {\partial x_{L}}{\partial x_{\ell }}}\\&={\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}}{\partial x_{L}}}\left(1+{\frac {\partial }{\partial x_{\ell }}}\sum _{i=\ell }^{L-1}F(x_{i})\right)\\&={\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}}{\partial x_{L}}}+{\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}}{\partial x_{L}}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x_{\ell }}}\sum _{i=\ell }^{L-1}F(x_{i})\end{aligned}}} This formulation suggests that the gradient computation of a shallower layer, ∂ E ∂ x ℓ {\textstyle {\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}}{\partial x_{\ell }}}} , always has a later term ∂ E ∂ x L {\textstyle {\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}}{\partial x_{L}}}} that is directly added. Even if the gradients of the F ( x i ) {\displaystyle F(x_{i})} terms are small, the total gradient ∂ E ∂ x ℓ {\textstyle {\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}}{\partial x_{\ell }}}} resists vanishing due to the added term ∂ E ∂ x L {\textstyle {\frac {\partial {\mathcal {E}}}{\partial x_{L}}}} . == Variants of residual blocks == === Basic block === A basic block is the simplest building block studied in the original ResNet. This block consists of two sequential 3x3 convolutional layers and a residual connection. The input and output dimensions of both layers are equal. === Bottleneck block === A bottleneck block consists of three sequential convolutional layers and a residual connection. The first layer in this block is a 1×1 convolution for dimension reduction (e.g., to 1/2 of the input dimension); the second layer performs a 3×3 convolution; the last layer is another 1×1 convolution for dimension restoration. The models of ResNet-50, ResNet-101, and ResNet-152 are all based on bottleneck blocks. === Pre-activation block === The pre-activation residual block applies activation functions before applying the residual function F {\displaystyle F} . Formally, the computation of a pre-activation residual block can be written as: x ℓ + 1 = F ( ϕ ( x ℓ ) ) + x ℓ {\displaystyle x_{\ell +1}=F(\phi (x_{\ell }))+x_{\ell }} where ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } can be any activation (e.g. ReLU) or normalization (e.g. LayerNorm) operation. This design reduces the number of non-identity mappings between residual blocks, and allows an identity mapping directly from the input to the output. This design was used to train models with 200 to over 1000 layers, and was found to consistently outperform variants where the residual path is not an identity function. The pre-activation ResNet with 200 layers took 3 weeks to train for ImageNet on 8 GPUs in 2016. Since GPT-2, transformer blocks have been mostly implemented as pre-activation blocks. This is often referred to as "pre-normalization" in the literature of transformer models. == Applications == Originally, ResNet was designed for computer vision. All transformer architectures include residual connections. Indeed, very deep transformers cannot be trained without them. The original ResNet paper made no claim on being inspired by biological systems. However, later research has related ResNet to biologically-plausible algorithms. A study published in Science in 2023 disclosed the complete connectome of an insect brain (specifically that of a fruit fly larva). This study discovered "multilayer shortcuts" that resemble the skip connections in artificial neural networks, including ResNets. == History == === Previous work === Residual connections were noticed in neu
The Sword in the Stoned
"The Sword in the Stoned" is the fifth episode of the second season of the American fantasy comedy television series Ted. Written by Julius Sharpe, and directed by Seth MacFarlane, it premiered on the American streaming service Peacock, along with the rest of season two, on March 5, 2026. The series acts as a precursor to the Ted film franchise, showcasing the childhood lives of the protagonists. The series, set in 1994, focuses on John Bennett (Max Burkholder), the series' primary protagonist, an awkward high-school aged boy; along with Ted (MacFarlane), the series' titular anthropomorphic teddy bear. The two live with John's family, Susan (Alanna Ubach), his mild mannered mother, and Matty (Scott Grimes), his conservative father. Also residing with the family is Blaire (Giorgia Whigham), his radically liberal cousin whom often clashes with Matty. In the episode, Ted and John join the school play so they can have more extracurricular activities for their college applications, but the latter grows a connection with the school's popular teenager, Erin (Francesca Xuereb). Concurrently, Susan and Matty get a job at Dunkin' Donuts to help with their financial troubles, and Matty is given an opportunity to tell off Bill Clinton. Burkholder wore prop armor during the episode's play scenes. Bill Clinton’s appearance in the episode was portrayed by MacFarlane. After conventional makeup and visual techniques failed to convincingly resemble Clinton, the production used artificial intelligence to digitally replace MacFarlane's face with Clinton's likeness. Upon release, the episode received generally positive reviews from critics, though the use of AI in the Clinton scene was polarizing among audiences and reviewers. == Plot == John tells Ted that he is the last single guy left at their school, to which Ted points out the popular, single cheerleader, Erin, but John dismisses this. At home, Blaire tells John that he needs extracurricular activities to get into college, while Susan and Matty discuss their financial troubles, especially regarding John's college tuition. Looking over their options, they decide to audition for a school production of the play Camelot. Matty takes a job at Dunkin' Donuts, despite being told that nobody will give him a tip, and having to wear an incorrect name tag. Waiting for their auditions, John and Ted watch several poor auditions for the play before seeing Erin's, who delivers a flawless performance; John and Ted do less serious auditions, getting cast as knights, while Erin gets the role of Guinevere. Matty complains about his low salary, and Susan decides to get a job at Dunkin' Donuts beside him to help earn more income. Erin clashes with Lancelot's actor while rehearsing, and John compliments her performance, which she ignores, but, seeing Ted and John give good performances in a repetition exercise, she becomes interested in him, particularly since he treats her better than her stage-partner. Matty and Susan watch an employee training video, explaining how they should treat customers politely, not affecting Matty's nihilistic attitude. The manager announces that Bill Clinton is visiting their Dunkin' Donuts for publicity, and Matty sees this as a chance to tell Bill off. John and Erin practice lines, as she reveals the show is being taped so it can be sent to Emerson College in hopes of her getting in; Erin asks John to go out with her after the show. At dinner, Matty enthusiastically reveals what he plans to tell Bill, as John becomes stressed about the play when Susan tells there will be a large audience. Bill comes to the Dunkin' Donuts, and, seeing Matty is nervously insulting him, stages a private meeting with him, where Bill yells at Matty, calling him a loser before posing for a picture with Matty and subsequently throwing the cold coffee onto him. To ease the pressure, Ted and John take edibles from Blaire, but learn at the show that they contained mushrooms, causing them to stress further. On stage, Ted and John yell nervously that they're on drugs as the latter urinates in his costume, causing Erin to angrily storm off. == Production == "The Sword in the Stoned" was directed by series creator and lead Seth MacFarlane, and written by Julius Sharpe in his third and final writing credit for the series. When Ted and John are doing repetition exercises, they tackle each other to the ground, which required a stuntman named Ashton to play the role of Ted, according to Max Burkholder, who portrays John. Burkholder also recalled that, when Ted was choking John in the scene, he kept making a noise during the choking, which made Bill, the cameraman, laugh, despite being a "stone face" that never laughs, noting that seeing him be amused by the noise he was making assured Burkholder that what he was doing was "hilarious". Burkholder found the filming of the play scenes "weird", as he was put in fake armor with a hose inside his suit—which was filled with water mixed with yellow food coloring—that was made to create the urine stream that comes out of John's armor in the episode; he also noted that it took around 45 minutes to put on and take off the armor. He revealed that he himself had to urinate during the filming, as doing a scene about a character having to do so "really [broke] my brain", with the fact that it took 45 minutes to get the suit off adding to the frustration. Jennifer Ashley Connell, who worked for wardrobe, had to repeatedly go to Burkholder quickly between takes to dry off his pants with two hair dryers to make it look like the fake urine hadn't already streamed down his pants, so they could get as many shots of it as possible. Francesca Xuereb guest stars in the episode as Erin, the cheerleader who stars in the play. Incumbent president Bill Clinton was portrayed by MacFarlane, with artificial intelligence (AI) being used to digitally make MacFarlane's face look like Clinton's during post-production. Before settling on AI, the crew tried to use traditional computer-generated imagery and prosthetics, which made him look "terrifying", resulting in them deciding that AI would give them a more accurate look. One of the original technologies considered was one where, after scanning MacFarlane, a mesh of his head was created, and they had to use computer graphics to replace MacFarlane's face with Clinton's. An issue was faced, however, when they found the archival footage used as reference from the Clinton Library—an official Presidential Library containing information related to Clinton—to be extremely low-quality, making it hard to properly emulate his face, since only still images were of acceptable quality, and there weren't references of his moving face to work off of. A forensic artist was hired to help with this, and they created a 3D model of Clinton's head in ZBrush, based off of his presidential portrait. The model head worked for still frames, but movement was still difficult to do realistically, due to it being made for a "single-point perspective", which made details like the cheekbones or other minor issues more noticeable when using it for the scene. Since this did not work, AI was ultimately chosen through the studio Deep Voodoo, which used large language models to teach the tool how to correctly replicate Clinton's appearance. Defending the episode's use of AI, MacFarlane noted that the crew did not want people to focus on the tool being used, trying to utilize it in a way that wouldn't distract from the humor and narrative. Like the rest of the series, the episode was shot using ViewScreen; MacFarlane was able to act live with the cast as Ted due to ViewScreen, a technology that allows the production crew to visualize what Ted will look like in each scene in real time. == Release and reception == "The Sword in the Stoned" was first released on March 5, 2026, on the American streaming service Peacock, along with the rest of the second season. Nate Richards of Collider highlighted the Dunkin' Donuts subplot as an example of Scott Grimes delivering a "lot of laughs" through his performance as Matty. Dustin Rowles of Pajiba called "The Sword in the Stoned" one of the season's many episodes he'd recommend, particularly for the scenes of Ted and John being high on mushrooms during the play. Oppositely, Nick Valdez of ComicBook.com ranked the episode as the worst of the second season, criticizing it for not having a "huge impact" on the Bennett family dynamic like other episodes of the season do, and Susan and Matty's side story as the main reason he felt it was "[kept] from being great". Valdez noted the episode for likely being an advertisement for Dunkin' Donuts, calling the plot's ending scene involving Clinton the reason "it just all sticks out like a sore thumb". === Response to AI usage === The episode's use of AI for MacFarlane's portrayal of Clinton proved controversial, mainly on social media, where audiences asserted that the crew should have gotten an actor that resembl
A.I.s
A.I.s is a themed anthology of science fiction short works edited by American writers Jack Dann and Gardner Dozois. It was first published in paperback by Ace Books in December 2004. It was reissued as an ebook by Baen Books in June 2013. The book collects ten novelettes and short stories by various science fiction authors, together with a preface by the editors. == Contents == "Preface" (Jack Dann and Gardner Dozois) "Antibodies" (Charles Stross) "Trojan Horse" (Michael Swanwick) "Birth Day" (Robert Reed) "The Hydrogen Wall" (Gregory Benford) "The Turing Test" (Chris Beckett) "Dante Dreams" (Stephen Baxter) "The Names of All the Spirits" (J. R. Dunn) "From the Corner of My Eye" (Alexander Glass) "Halfjack" (Roger Zelazny) "Computer Virus" (Nancy Kress)
Death of Elaine Herzberg
The death of Elaine Herzberg (August 2, 1968 – March 18, 2018) was the first recorded case of a pedestrian fatality involving a self-driving car, after a collision that occurred late in the evening of March 18, 2018. Herzberg was pushing a bicycle across a four-lane road in Tempe, Arizona, United States, when she was struck by an Uber test vehicle, which was operating in self-drive mode with a human safety backup driver sitting in the driving seat. Herzberg was taken to the local hospital where she died of her injuries. Following the fatal incident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a series of recommendations and sharply criticized Uber. The company suspended testing of self-driving vehicles in Arizona, where such testing had been approved since August 2016. Uber chose not to renew its permit for testing self-driving vehicles in California when it expired at the end of March 2018. Uber resumed testing in December 2018, starting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In March 2019, Arizona prosecutors ruled that Uber was not criminally responsible for the crash. The back-up driver of the vehicle was charged with negligent homicide, pled guilty to endangerment, and was sentenced to three years' probation. While Herzberg was the first pedestrian killed by a self-driving car, driver Gao Yaning died in a Tesla semi-autonomous car two years earlier. A reporter for The Washington Post compared Herzberg's fate with that of Bridget Driscoll who, in the United Kingdom in 1896, was the first pedestrian to be killed by an automobile. The Arizona incident has magnified the importance of collision avoidance systems for self-driving vehicles. == Collision summary == Herzberg was crossing Mill Avenue (North) from west to east, approximately 360 feet (110 m) south of the intersection with Curry Road, outside the designated pedestrian crosswalk, close to the Red Mountain Freeway. She was pushing a bicycle laden with shopping bags, and had crossed at least two lanes of traffic when she was struck at approximately 9:58 pm MST (UTC−07:00) by a prototype Uber self-driving car based on a Volvo XC90, which was traveling north on Mill. The vehicle had been operating in autonomous mode since 9:39 pm, nineteen minutes before it struck and killed Herzberg. The car's human safety backup driver, Rafaela Vasquez, did not intervene in time to prevent the collision. Vehicle telemetry obtained after the crash showed that the human operator responded by moving the steering wheel less than a second before impact, and she engaged the brakes less than a second after impact. == Cause investigation == The county district attorney's office recused itself from the investigation, due to a prior joint partnership with Uber promoting their services as an alternative to driving under the influence of alcohol. Accounts differ on the speed limit at the place of the incident. According to Tempe police the car was traveling in a 35 mph (56 km/h) zone, but this is contradicted by a posted speed limit of 45 mph (72 km/h). The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a team of federal investigators to gather data from vehicle instruments, and to examine vehicle condition along with the actions taken by the safety driver. Their preliminary findings were substantiated by multiple event data recorders and proved the vehicle was traveling 43 miles per hour (69 km/h) when Herzberg was first detected 6 seconds (378 feet (115 m)) before impact; during 4.7 seconds the self driving system did not infer that emergency braking was needed. A vehicle traveling 43 mph (69 km/h) can generally stop within 89 feet (27 m) once the brakes are applied. The machine needed to be 1.3 seconds (82 feet (25 m)) away prior to discerning that emergency braking was required, whereas at least that much distance was required to stop. The system failed to behave properly. A total stopping distance of 76 feet itself would imply a safe speed under 25 mph (40 km/h). Human intervention was still legally required. Computer perception–reaction time would have been a speed limiting factor had the technology been superior to humans in ambiguous situations; however, the nascent computerized braking technology was disabled the day of the crash, and the machine's apparent 4.7-second perception–reaction (alarm) time allowed the car to travel 250 feet (76 m). Video released by the police on March 21 showed the safety driver was not watching the road moments before the vehicle struck Herzberg. === Environment === In widely disseminated remarks that would shape the narrative about the crash, which were later seen as prejudicial and subsequently contradicted by her own department, Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir was quoted stating that the collision was "unavoidable" based on the initial police investigation, which included a review of the video captured by an onboard camera. Moir faulted Herzberg for crossing the road in an unsafe manner: "It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available." According to Uber, safety drivers were trained to keep their hands very close to the wheel all the time while driving the vehicle so they were ready to quickly take control if necessary. The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them. His [sic] first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision. [...] it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway. Tempe police released video on March 21, 2018, showing footage recorded by two onboard cameras: one forward-looking, and one capturing the safety driver's actions. The forward-facing video shows that the self-driving car was traveling in the far right lane when it struck Herzberg. The driver-facing video shows the safety driver was looking down prior to the collision. The Uber operator is responsible for intervening and taking manual control when necessary as well as for monitoring diagnostic messages, which are displayed on a screen in the center console. In an interview conducted after the crash with NTSB, the driver stated she was monitoring the center stack at the time of the collision. After the Uber video was released, journalist Carolyn Said noted the police explanation of Herzberg's path meant she had already crossed two lanes of traffic before she was struck by the autonomous vehicle. The Marquee Theatre and Tempe Town Lake are west of Mill Avenue, and pedestrians commonly cross mid-street without detouring north to the crosswalk at Curry. According to reporting by the Phoenix New Times, Mill Avenue contains what appears to be a brick-paved path in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes; however, posted signs prohibit pedestrians from crossing in that location. When the second of the Mill Avenue bridges over the town lake was added in 1994 for northbound traffic, the X-shaped crossover in the median was installed to accommodate the potential closing of one of the two road bridges. The purpose of this brick-paved structure is purely to divert cars from one side to the other if a bridge is closed to traffic, and although it may look like a crosswalk for pedestrians, it is in fact a temporary roadway with vertical curbs and warning signs. === Software issues === Michael Ramsey, a self-driving car expert with Gartner, characterized the video as showing "a complete failure of the system to recognize an obviously seen person who is visible for quite some distance in the frame. Uber has some serious explaining to do about why this person wasn't seen and why the system didn't engage." The NTSB preliminary report, however, noted that the software did order the car to brake 1.3 seconds before the collision. A video shot from the vehicle's dashboard camera showed the safety driver looking down, away from the road. It also appeared that the driver's hands were not hovering above the steering wheel, which is what drivers are instructed to do so they can quickly retake control of the car. Uber had moved from two employees in every car to one. The paired employees had been splitting duties: one ready to take over if the autonomous system failed, and another to keep an eye on what the computers were detecting. The second person was responsible for keeping track of system performance as well as labeling data on a laptop computer. Mr. Kallman, the Uber spokesman, said the second person was in the car for purely data related tasks, not safety. When Uber moved to a single operator, some employees expressed safety concerns to managers, according to the two people familiar with Uber's operations. They were worried that going solo would make it harder to remain alert during hours of monotonous driving. The recorded telemetry showed the system had detected Herzberg six seconds before the crash, and classified her first as an unknown object, then as a
Plug computer
A plug computer is a small-form-factor computer whose chassis contains the AC power plug, and thus plugs directly into the wall. Alternatively, the computer may resemble an AC adapter or a similarly small device. Plug computers are often configured for use in the home or office as compact computer. == Description == Plug computers consist of a high-performance, low-power system-on-a-chip processor, with several I/O hardware ports (USB ports, Ethernet connectors, etc.). Most versions do not have provisions for connecting a display and are best suited to running media servers, back-up services, or file sharing and remote access functions; thus acting as a bridge between in-home protocols (such as Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) and Server Message Block (SMB)) and cloud-based services. There are, however, plug computer offerings that have analog VGA monitor and/or HDMI connectors, which, along with multiple USB ports, permit the use of a display, keyboard, and mouse, thus making them full-fledged, low-power alternatives to desktop and laptop computers. They typically run any of a number of Linux distributions. Plug computers typically consume little power and are inexpensive. == History == A number of other devices of this type began to appear at the 2009 Consumer Electronics Show. On January 6, 2009 CTERA Networks launched a device called CloudPlug that provides online backup at local disk speeds and overlays a file sharing service. The device also transforms any external USB hard drive into a network-attached storage device. On January 7, 2009, Cloud Engines unveiled the Pogoplug network access server. On January 8, 2009, Axentra announced availability of their HipServ platform. On February 23, 2009, Marvell Technology Group announced its plans to build a mini-industry around plug computers. On August 19, 2009, CodeLathe announced availability of their TonidoPlug network access server. On November 13, 2009 QuadAxis launched its plug computing device product line and development platform, featuring the QuadPlug and QuadPC and running QuadMix, a modified Linux. On January 5, 2010, Iomega announced their iConnect network access server. On January 7, 2010 Pbxnsip launched its plug computing device the sipJack running pbxnsip: an IP Communications platform.
Computational law
Computational law is the branch of legal informatics concerned with the automation of legal reasoning. What distinguishes Computational Law systems from other instances of legal technology is their autonomy, i.e. the ability to answer legal questions without additional input from human legal experts. While there are many possible applications of Computational Law, the primary focus of work in the field today is compliance management, i.e. the development and deployment of computer systems capable of assessing, facilitating, or enforcing compliance with rules and regulations. Some systems of this sort already exist. TurboTax is a good example. And the potential is particularly significant now due to recent technological advances – including the prevalence of the Internet in human interaction and the proliferation of embedded computer systems (such as smart phones, self-driving cars, and robots). There are also applications that do not involve governmental laws. The regulations can just as well be the terms of contracts (e.g. delivery schedules, insurance covenants, real estate transactions, financial agreements). They can be the policies of corporations (e.g. constraints on travel, expenditure reporting, pricing rules). They can even be the rules of games (embodied in computer game playing systems). == History == Speculation about potential benefits to legal practice through applying methods from computational science and AI research to automate parts of the law date back at least to the middle 1940s. Further, AI and law and computational law do not seem easily separable, as perhaps most of AI research focusing on the law and its automation appears to utilize computational methods. The forms that speculation took are multiple and not all related in ways to readily show closeness to one another. This history will sketch them as they were, attempting to show relationships where they can be found to have existed. By 1949, a minor academic field aiming to incorporate electronic and computational methods to legal problems had been founded by American legal scholars, called jurimetrics. Though broadly said to be concerned with the application of the "methods of science" to the law, these methods were actually of a quite specifically defined scope. Jurimetrics was to be "concerned with such matters as the quantitative analysis of judicial behavior, the application of communication and information theory to legal expression, the use of mathematical logic in law, the retrieval of legal data by electronic and mechanical means, and the formulation of a calculus of legal predictability". These interests led in 1959 to the founding a journal, Modern Uses of Logic in Law, as a forum wherein articles would be published about the applications of techniques such as mathematical logic, engineering, statistics, etc. to the legal study and development. In 1966, this Journal was renamed as Jurimetrics. Today, however, the journal and meaning of jurimetrics seems to have broadened far beyond what would fit under the areas of applications of computers and computational methods to law. Today the journal not only publishes articles on such practices as found in computational law, but has broadened jurimetrical concerns to mean also things like the use of social science in law or the "policy implications [of] and legislative and administrative control of science". Independently in 1958, at the Conference for the Mechanization of Thought held at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, Middlesex, UK, the French jurist Lucien Mehl presented a paper both on the benefits of using computational methods for law and on the potential means to use such methods to automate law for a discussion that included AI luminaries like Marvin Minsky. Mehl believed that the law could by automated by two basic distinct, though not wholly separable, types of machine. These were the "documentary or information machine", which would provide the legal researcher quick access to relevant case precedents and legal scholarship, and the "consultation machine", which would be "capable of answering any question put to it over a vast field of law". The latter type of machine would be able to basically do much of a lawyer's job by simply giving the "exact answer to a [legal] problem put to it". By 1970, Mehl's first type of machine, one that would be able to retrieve information, had been accomplished but there seems to have been little consideration of further fruitful intersections between AI and legal research. There were, however, still hopes that computers could model the lawyer's thought processes through computational methods and then apply that capacity to solve legal problems, thus automating and improving legal services via increased efficiency as well as shedding light on the nature of legal reasoning. By the late 1970s, computer science and the affordability of computer technology had progressed enough that the retrieval of "legal data by electronic and mechanical means" had been achieved by machines fitting Mehl's first type and were in common use in American law firms. During this time, research focused on improving the goals of the early 1970s occurred, with programs like Taxman being worked on in order to both bring useful computer technology into the law as practical aids and to help specify the exact nature of legal concepts. Nonetheless, progress on the second type of machine, one that would more fully automate the law, remained relatively inert. Research into machines that could answer questions in the way that Mehl's consultation machine would picked up somewhat in the late 1970s and 1980s. A 1979 convention in Swansea, Wales marked the first international effort solely to focus upon applying artificial intelligence research to legal problems in order to "consider how computers can be used to discover and apply the legal norms embedded within the written sources of the law". Considerable progress on the development of the second type of machine was made in the following decade, with the development of a variety of expert systems. According to Thorne McCarty, "these systems all have the following characteristics: They do backward chaining inference from a specified goal; they ask questions to elicit information from the user; and they produce a suggested answer along with a trace of the supporting legal rules." According to Prakken and Sartor the representation of the British Nationality Act as a logic program, which introduced this approach, was "hugely influential for the development of computational representations of legislation, showing how logic programming enables intuitively appealing representations that can be directly deployed to generate automatic inferences". In 2021, this work received the Inaugural CodeX Prize as "one of the first and best-known works in computational law, and one of the most widely cited papers in the field." In a 1988 review of Anne Gardner's book An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning (1987), the Harvard academic legal scholar and computer scientist Edwina Rissland wrote that "She plays, in part, the role of pioneer; artificial intelligence ("AI") techniques have not yet been widely applied to perform legal tasks. Therefore, Gardner, and this review, first describe and define the field, then demonstrate a working model in the domain of contract offer and acceptance." Eight years after the Swansea conference had passed, and still AI and law researchers merely trying to delineate the field could be described by their own kind as "pioneer[s]". In the 1990s and early 2000s more progress occurred. Computational research generated insights for law. The First International Conference on AI and the Law occurred in 1987, but it is in the 1990s and 2000s that the biannual conference began to build up steam and to delve more deeply into the issues involved with work intersecting computational methods, AI, and law. Classes began to be taught to undergraduates on the uses of computational methods to automating, understanding, and obeying the law. Further, by 2005, a team largely composed of Stanford computer scientists from the Stanford Logic group had devoted themselves to studying the uses of computational techniques to the law. Computational methods in fact advanced enough that members of the legal profession began in the 2000s to both analyze, predict and worry about the potential future of computational law and a new academic field of computational legal studies seems to be now well established. As insight into what such scholars see in the law's future due in part to computational law, here is quote from a recent conference about the "New Normal" for the legal profession: "Over the last 5 years, in the fallout of the Great Recession, the legal profession has entered the era of the New Normal. Notably, a series of forces related to technological change, globalization, and the pressure to do more with less (in both corpo