Gollum browser is a discontinued web browser for accessing Wikipedia. Since 2017, Gollum is no longer accessible online. Gollum is designed to browse Wikipedia in an easier way than directly using the web browser. Links external to Wikipedia are opened in the user's regular browser. Gollum is opened from a regular browser and makes a window that puts the Wikipedia search bar on the toolbar. Gollum was created by Harald Hanek in 2005 using PHP and Ajax. According to one blogger, Gollum provides a way to bypass censorship of Wikipedia in China. == Languages == Though the website is available only in English and German, Gollum's GUI is available in more than 32 languages and can browse nearly 50 Wikipedia editions. === Gollum's GUI === === Browsable Wikipedia editions ===
Lexxe
Lexxe is an internet search engine that applies Natural Language Processing in its semantic search technology. Founded in 2005 by Dr. Hong Liang Qiao, Lexxe is based in Sydney, Australia. Today, Lexxe's key focus is on sentiment search with the launch of a news sentiment search site at News & Moods (www.newsandmoods.com). Lexxe has experienced several stages of change of focus in search technology: Lexxe launched its Alpha version in 2005, featuring Natural Language question answering (i.e. users could ask questions in English to the search engine apart from keyword searches — this feature has been suspended for redevelopment since 2010). It used only algorithms to extract answers from web pages, with no question-answer pair databases prepared in advance. In 2011, Lexxe launched a beta version with a new search technology called Semantic Key. Semantic Keys enable users to query with a conceptual keyword (or a keyword with a special meaning, hence the term Semantic Key) in order to find instances under the concept, e.g. price → $5.95 or €200, color → red, yellow, white. For example, “price: a pound of apples”, “color: ferrari”. With initial 500 Semantic Keys at the Beta launch, Lexxe became the first search engine in the world to offer this unique and useful search technology to the users. The cost of building Semantic Keys was too heavy though. In 2017, Lexxe launched News & Moods (www.newsandmoods.com), an open platform for news sentiment search, a first step towards sentiment search feature for the entire Internet search in Lexxe search engine. News & Moods also comes with smartphone apps in Android and iOS.
Self-verifying finite automaton
In automata theory, a self-verifying finite automaton (SVFA) is a special kind of a nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) with a symmetric kind of nondeterminism introduced by Hromkovič and Schnitger. Generally, in self-verifying nondeterminism, each computation path is concluded with any of the three possible answers: yes, no, and I do not know. For each input string, no two paths may give contradictory answers, namely both answers yes and no on the same input are not possible. At least one path must give answer yes or no, and if it is yes then the string is considered accepted. SVFA accept the same class of languages as deterministic finite automata (DFA) and NFA but have different state complexity. == Formal definition == An SVFA is represented formally by a 6-tuple, A=(Q, Σ, Δ, q0, Fa, Fr) such that (Q, Σ, Δ, q0, Fa) is an NFA, and Fa, Fr are disjoint subsets of Q. For each word w = a1a2 … an, a computation is a sequence of states r0,r1, …, rn, in Q with the following conditions: r0 = q0 ri+1 ∈ Δ(ri, ai+1), for i = 0, …, n−1. If rn ∈ Fa then the computation is accepting, and if rn ∈ Fr then the computation is rejecting. There is a requirement that for each w there is at least one accepting computation or at least one rejecting computation but not both. == Results == Each DFA is a SVFA, but not vice versa. Jirásková and Pighizzini proved that for every SVFA of n states, there exists an equivalent DFA of g ( n ) = Θ ( 3 n / 3 ) {\displaystyle g(n)=\Theta (3^{n/3})} states. Furthermore, for each positive integer n, there exists an n-state SVFA such that the minimal equivalent DFA has exactly g ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)} states. Other results on the state complexity of SVFA were obtained by Jirásková and her colleagues.
AI Essay Writers Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026
Trying to pick the best AI essay writer? An AI essay writer is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI essay writer slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Foma (software)
Foma is a free and open source finite-state toolkit created and maintained by Mans Hulden. It includes a compiler, programming language, and C library for constructing finite-state automata and transducers (FST's) for various uses, most typically Natural Language Processing uses such as morphological analysis. Foma can replace the proprietary Xerox Finite State Toolkit for compiling and running FST's written in the lexc and xfst formalisms. The speed is comparable with the Xerox tools for most lexicons, although Foma can be 3 or 4 times slower for very large lexicons (e.g. >100,000 words). Foma is also one of the possible backends of the free and open source Helsinki Finite State Toolkit (where other backends provide support for further formalisms). There are several FOSS morphologies written in lexc/xfst compatible with foma, e.g. for the Sámi, Cornish, Faroese, Finnish, Komi, Mari, Udmurt, Buriat, Greenlandic language and Iñupiaq languages.
Cloud management
Cloud management refers to the administration and oversight of cloud computing products and services. Public clouds are managed by cloud service providers, which operate the underlying infrastructure such as servers, storage, networking, and data center facilities. Users may also opt to manage their public cloud services with a third-party cloud management tool. Users of public cloud services can generally select from three basic cloud provisioning categories: User self-provisioning: Customers purchase cloud services directly from the provider, typically through a web form or console interface. The customer pays on a per-transaction basis. Advanced provisioning: Customers contract in advance a predetermined amount of resources, which are prepared in advance of service. The customer pays a flat fee or a monthly fee. Dynamic provisioning: The provider allocates resources when the customer needs them, then decommissions them when they are no longer needed. The customer is charged on a pay-per-use basis. Managing a private cloud requires software tools to help create a virtualized pool of compute resources, provide a self-service portal for end users and handle security, resource allocation, tracking and billing. Management tools for private clouds tend to be service driven, as opposed to resource driven, because cloud environments are typically highly virtualized and organized in terms of portable workloads. In hybrid cloud environments, compute, network and storage resources must be managed across multiple domains, so a good management strategy should start by defining what needs to be managed, and where and how to do it. Policies to help govern these domains should include configuration and installation of images, access control, and budgeting and reporting. Access control often includes the use of Single sign-on (SSO), in which a user logs in once and gains access to all systems without being prompted to log in again at each of them. == Characteristics of Cloud Management == Cloud management combines software and technologies in a design for managing cloud environments. Software developers have responded to the management challenges of cloud computing with a variety of cloud management platforms and tools. These tools include native tools offered by public cloud providers as well as third-party tools designed to provide consistent functionality across multiple cloud providers. Administrators must balance the competing requirements of efficient consistency across different cloud platforms with access to different native functionality within individual cloud platforms. The growing acceptance of public cloud and increased multicloud usage is driving the need for consistent cross-platform management. Rapid adoption of cloud services is introducing a new set of management challenges for those technical professionals responsible for managing IT systems and services. Cloud-management platforms and tools should have the ability to provide minimum functionality in the following categories. Functionality can be both natively provided or orchestrated via third-party integration. Provisioning and orchestration: create, modify, and delete resources as well as orchestrate workflows and management of workloads Automation: Enable cloud consumption and deployment of app services via infrastructure-as-code and other DevOps concepts Security and compliance: manage role-based access of cloud services and enforce security configurations Service request: collect and fulfill requests from users to access and deploy cloud resources. Monitoring and logging: collect performance and availability metrics as well as automate incident management and log aggregation Inventory and classification: discover and maintain pre-existing brownfield cloud resources plus monitor and manage changes Cost management and optimization: track and rightsize cloud spend and align capacity and performance to actual demand Migration, backup, and DR: enable data protection, disaster recovery, and data mobility via snapshots and/or data replication Organizations may group these criteria into key use cases including Cloud Brokerage, DevOps Automation, Governance, and Day-2 Life Cycle Operations. Enterprises with large-scale cloud implementations may require more robust cloud management tools which include specific characteristics, such as the ability to manage multiple platforms from a single point of reference, or intelligent analytics to automate processes like application lifecycle management. High-end cloud management tools should also have the ability to handle system failures automatically with capabilities such as self-monitoring, an explicit notification mechanism, and include failover and self-healing capabilities. == Multi-Cloud and Hybrid Cloud Management Challenges == Legacy management infrastructures, which are based on the concept of dedicated system relationships and architecture constructs, are not well suited to cloud environments where instances are continually launched and decommissioned. Instead, the dynamic nature of cloud computing requires monitoring and management tools that are adaptable, extensible and customizable. Cloud computing presents a number of management challenges. Companies using public clouds do not have ownership of the equipment hosting the cloud environment, and because the environment is not contained within their own networks, public cloud customers do not have full visibility or control. Users of public cloud services must also integrate with an architecture defined by the cloud provider, using its specific parameters for working with cloud components. Integration includes tying into the cloud APIs for configuring IP addresses, subnets, firewalls and data service functions for storage. Because control of these functions is based on the cloud provider’s infrastructure and services, public cloud users must integrate with the cloud infrastructure management. Capacity management is a challenge for both public and private cloud environments because end users have the ability to deploy applications using self-service portals. Applications of all sizes may appear in the environment, consume an unpredictable amount of resources, then disappear at any time. A possible solution is profiling the applications impact on computational resources. As result, the performance models allow the prediction of how resource utilization changes according to application patterns. Thus, resources can be dynamically scaled to meet the expected demand. This is critical to cloud providers that need to provision resources quickly to meet a growing demand by their applications. Charge-back—or, pricing resource use on a granular basis—is a challenge for both public and private cloud environments. Charge-back is a challenge for public cloud service providers because they must price their services competitively while still creating profit. Users of public cloud services may find charge-back challenging because it is difficult for IT groups to assess actual resource costs on a granular basis due to overlapping resources within an organization that may be paid for by an individual business unit, such as electrical power. For private cloud operators, charge-back is fairly straightforward, but the challenge lies in guessing how to allocate resources as closely as possible to actual resource usage to achieve the greatest operational efficiency. Exceeding budgets can be a risk. Hybrid cloud environments, which combine public and private cloud services, sometimes with traditional infrastructure elements, present their own set of management challenges. These include security concerns if sensitive data lands on public cloud servers, budget concerns around overuse of storage or bandwidth and proliferation of mismanaged images. Managing the information flow in a hybrid cloud environment is also a significant challenge. On-premises clouds must share information with applications hosted off-premises by public cloud providers, and this information may change constantly. Hybrid cloud environments also typically include a complex mix of policies, permissions and limits that must be managed consistently across both public and private clouds. == Cloud Management Platforms (CMP) == CMPs provide a means for a cloud service customer to manage the deployment and operation of applications and associated datasets across multiple cloud service infrastructures, including both on-premises cloud infrastructure and public cloud service provider infrastructure. In other words, CMPs provide management capabilities for hybrid cloud and multi-cloud environments. A cloud management platform (CMP) provides broad cloud management functionality atop both public cloud provider platforms and private cloud platforms. CMPs manage cloud services and resources that are distributed across multiple cloud platforms. The value of CMPs stands in delivering the maximum level of consistency between platforms without comp
Markovian discrimination
Markovian discrimination is a class of spam filtering methods used in CRM114 and other spam filters to filter based on statistical patterns of transition probabilities between words or other lexical tokens in spam messages that would not be captured using simple bag-of-words naive Bayes spam filtering. == Markovian Discrimination vs. Bag-of-Words Discrimination == A bag-of-words model contains only a dictionary of legal words and their relative probabilities in spam and genuine messages. A Markovian model additionally includes the relative transition probabilities between words in spam and in genuine messages, where the relative transition probability is the likelihood that a given word will be written next, based on what the current word is. Put another way, a bag-of-words filter discriminates based on relative probabilities of single words alone regardless of phrase structure, while a Markovian word-based filter discriminates based on relative probabilities of either pairs of words, or, more commonly, short sequences of words. This allows the Markovian filter greater sensitivity to phrase structure. Neither naive Bayes nor Markovian filters are limited to the word level for tokenizing messages. They may also process letters, partial words, or phrases as tokens. In such cases, specific bag-of-words methods would correspond to general bag-of-tokens methods. Modelers can parameterize Markovian spam filters based on the relative probabilities of any such tokens' transitions appearing in spam or in legitimate messages. == Visible and Hidden Markov Models == There are two primary classes of Markov models, visible Markov models and hidden Markov models, which differ in whether the Markov chain generating token sequences is assumed to have its states fully determined by each generated token (the visible Markov models) or might also have additional state (the hidden Markov models). With a visible Markov model, each current token is modeled as if it contains the complete information about previous tokens of the message relevant to the probability of future tokens, whereas a hidden Markov model allows for more obscure conditional relationships. Since those more obscure conditional relationships are more typical of natural language messages including both genuine messages and spam, hidden Markov models are generally preferred over visible Markov models for spam filtering. Due to storage constraints, the most commonly employed model is a specific type of hidden Markov model known as a Markov random field, typically with a 'sliding window' or clique size ranging between four and six tokens.