Couch to 5K, abbreviated C25K, is an exercise plan that gradually progresses from beginner running toward a 5 kilometre (3.1 mile) run over nine weeks. == Operations == The Couch to 5K running plan, also known as C25K, created by Josh Clark in 1996, was developed with the expectation of creating a plan for new runners to start running. The plan is aimed to have users work out for 20 to 30 minutes, three days a week. Within the program, users can be expected to perform different tasks such as intervals of running with period of short walks in between to help build endurance in the weeks up to the final goal of a 5K run. During the nine weeks leading up to the race, the runner will learn to set their own pace and where their strengths and weaknesses are within running. Often, the daily workouts start with a five-minute warm-up walk and works up to running five kilometres without a walking break within nine weeks. Users are not expected to have any experience in running and can be some of the first running that they ever do. The main goal is to turn that unexperienced runner into someone who can run a 5K. Clark started the website Kick and featured C25K on the site. In 2001, Kick merged with Cool Running, a New England–based running site. Clark later sold his stake in Cool Running and the Couch to 5K program. Cool Running was absorbed into Active.com, operated by Active Network, LLC. Active Network provides mobile apps for Couch to 5K, as well as 5K to 10K, a follow-up program. The NHS in the UK provides downloadable podcasts and a smartphone app (Android and iOS) for the plan. A mobile app, created by Zen Labs, has training plans that are based on the Couch to 5K running plan from CoolRunning.com. It is one of the highest-rated health and fitness apps available on Android and iOS. As of 2016, the C25K app has been used by over 5 million people.
Sprayprinter
SprayPrinter is a device that attaches to aerosol paint cans whereby users can print images via Bluetooth from a smartphone onto a wall or almost any surface. == History == The technology behind SprayPrinter was developed by Mihkel Joala. He explained in a 2016 interview with New Atlas that his idea was inspired by the modern car engine and the Nintendo Wii console. "Engines nowadays use extremely fast valves to spray fuel to [the] combustion chamber," says Joala. "I realized I can use them to shoot paint with pinpoint accuracy." As of December 2021, the company appears to be no longer selling products. == Awards and Recognitions == In 2015, SprayPrinter received €8,000 from the Estonian prototyping contest Prototron for its initial prototype. In 2016, the SprayPrinter team won the grand prize of €30,000 from the televised pitching competition Ajujaht.
Radical trust
Radical trust is the confidence that any structured organization, such as a government, library, business, religion, or museum, has in collaboration and empowerment within online communities. Specifically, it pertains to the use of blogs, wiki and online social networking platforms by organizations to cultivate relationships with an online community that then can provide feedback and direction for the organization's interest. The organization 'trusts' and uses that input in its management. One of the first appearances of the notion of radical trust appears in an info graphic outlining the base principles of web 2.0 in Tim O'Reilly's weblog post "What is Web 2.0". Radical Trust is listed as the guiding example of trusting the validity of consumer generated media. This concept is considered to be an underlying assumption of Library 2.0. The adoption of radical trust by a library would require its management let go of some of its control over the library and building an organization without an end result in mind. The direction a library would take would be based on input provided by people through online communities. These changes in the organization may merely be anecdotal in nature, making this method of organization management dramatically distinct from data-based or evidence based management. In marketing, Collin Douma further describes the notion of radical trust as a key mindset required for marketers and advertisers to enter the social media marketing space. Conventional marketing dictates and maintains control of messages to cause the greatest persuasion in consumer decisions, but Douma argued that in the social media space, brands would need to cede that control in order to build brand loyalty.
Computer-aided software engineering
Computer-aided software engineering (CASE) is a domain of software tools used to design and implement applications. CASE tools are similar to and are partly inspired by computer-aided design (CAD) tools used for designing hardware products. CASE tools are intended to help develop high-quality, defect-free, and maintainable software. CASE software was often associated with methods for the development of information systems together with automated tools that could be used in the software development process. == History == The Information System Design and Optimization System (ISDOS) project, started in 1968 at the University of Michigan, initiated a great deal of interest in the whole concept of using computer systems to help analysts in the very difficult process of analysing requirements and developing systems. Several papers by Daniel Teichroew fired a whole generation of enthusiasts with the potential of automated systems development. His Problem Statement Language / Problem Statement Analyzer (PSL/PSA) tool was a CASE tool although it predated the term. Another major thread emerged as a logical extension to the data dictionary of a database. By extending the range of metadata held, the attributes of an application could be held within a dictionary and used at runtime. This "active dictionary" became the precursor to the more modern model-driven engineering capability. However, the active dictionary did not provide a graphical representation of any of the metadata. It was the linking of the concept of a dictionary holding analysts' metadata, as derived from the use of an integrated set of techniques, together with the graphical representation of such data that gave rise to the earlier versions of CASE. The next entrant into the market was Excelerator from Index Technology in Cambridge, Mass. While DesignAid ran on Convergent Technologies and later Burroughs Ngen networked microcomputers, Index launched Excelerator on the IBM PC/AT platform. While, at the time of launch, and for several years, the IBM platform did not support networking or a centralized database as did the Convergent Technologies or Burroughs machines, the allure of IBM was strong, and Excelerator came to prominence. Hot on the heels of Excelerator were a rash of offerings from companies such as Knowledgeware (James Martin, Fran Tarkenton and Don Addington), Texas Instrument's CA Gen and Andersen Consulting's FOUNDATION toolset (DESIGN/1, INSTALL/1, FCP). CASE tools were at their peak in the early 1990s. According to the PC Magazine of January 1990, over 100 companies were offering nearly 200 different CASE tools. At the time IBM had proposed AD/Cycle, which was an alliance of software vendors centered on IBM's Software repository using IBM DB2 in mainframe and OS/2: The application development tools can be from several sources: from IBM, from vendors, and from the customers themselves. IBM has entered into relationships with Bachman Information Systems, Index Technology Corporation, and Knowledgeware wherein selected products from these vendors will be marketed through an IBM complementary marketing program to provide offerings that will help to achieve complete life-cycle coverage. With the decline of the mainframe, AD/Cycle and the Big CASE tools died off, opening the market for the mainstream CASE tools of today. Many of the leaders of the CASE market of the early 1990s ended up being purchased by Computer Associates, including IEW, IEF, ADW, Cayenne, and Learmonth & Burchett Management Systems (LBMS). The other trend that led to the evolution of CASE tools was the rise of object-oriented methods and tools. Most of the various tool vendors added some support for object-oriented methods and tools. In addition new products arose that were designed from the bottom up to support the object-oriented approach. Andersen developed its project Eagle as an alternative to Foundation. Several of the thought leaders in object-oriented development each developed their own methodology and CASE tool set: Jacobson, Rumbaugh, Booch, etc. Eventually, these diverse tool sets and methods were consolidated via standards led by the Object Management Group (OMG). The OMG's Unified Modelling Language (UML) is currently widely accepted as the industry standard for object-oriented modeling. == CASE software == === Tools === CASE tools support specific tasks in the software development life-cycle. They can be divided into the following categories: Business and analysis modeling: Graphical modeling tools. E.g., E/R modeling, object modeling, etc. Development: Design and construction phases of the life-cycle. Debugging environments. E.g., IISE LKO. Verification and validation: Analyze code and specifications for correctness, performance, etc. Configuration management: Control the check-in and check-out of repository objects and files. E.g., SCCS, IISE. Metrics and measurement: Analyze code for complexity, modularity (e.g., no "go to's"), performance, etc. Project management: Manage project plans, task assignments, scheduling. Another common way to distinguish CASE tools is the distinction between Upper CASE and Lower CASE. Upper CASE Tools support business and analysis modeling. They support traditional diagrammatic languages such as ER diagrams, Data flow diagram, Structure charts, Decision Trees, Decision tables, etc. Lower CASE Tools support development activities, such as physical design, debugging, construction, testing, component integration, maintenance, and reverse engineering. All other activities span the entire life-cycle and apply equally to upper and lower CASE. === Workbenches === Workbenches integrate two or more CASE tools and support specific software-process activities. Hence they achieve: A homogeneous and consistent interface (presentation integration) Seamless integration of tools and toolchains (control and data integration) An example workbench is Microsoft's Visual Basic programming environment. It incorporates several development tools: a GUI builder, a smart code editor, debugger, etc. Most commercial CASE products tended to be such workbenches that seamlessly integrated two or more tools. Workbenches also can be classified in the same manner as tools; as focusing on Analysis, Development, Verification, etc. as well as being focused on the upper case, lower case, or processes such as configuration management that span the complete life-cycle. === Environments === An environment is a collection of CASE tools or workbenches that attempts to support the complete software process. This contrasts with tools that focus on one specific task or a specific part of the life-cycle. CASE environments are classified by Fuggetta as follows: Toolkits: Loosely coupled collections of tools. These typically build on operating system workbenches such as the Unix Programmer's Workbench or the VMS VAX set. They typically perform integration via piping or some other basic mechanism to share data and pass control. The strength of easy integration is also one of the drawbacks. Simple passing of parameters via technologies such as shell scripting can't provide the kind of sophisticated integration that a common repository database can. Fourth generation: These environments are also known as 4GL standing for fourth generation language environments due to the fact that the early environments were designed around specific languages such as Visual Basic. They were the first environments to provide deep integration of multiple tools. Typically these environments were focused on specific types of applications. For example, user-interface driven applications that did standard atomic transactions to a relational database. Examples are Informix 4GL, and Focus. Language-centered: Environments based on a single often object-oriented language such as the Symbolics Lisp Genera environment or VisualWorks Smalltalk from Parcplace. In these environments all the operating system resources were objects in the object-oriented language. This provides powerful debugging and graphical opportunities but the code developed is mostly limited to the specific language. For this reason, these environments were mostly a niche within CASE. Their use was mostly for prototyping and R&D projects. A common core idea for these environments was the model–view–controller user interface that facilitated keeping multiple presentations of the same design consistent with the underlying model. The MVC architecture was adopted by the other types of CASE environments as well as many of the applications that were built with them. Integrated: These environments are an example of what most IT people tend to think of first when they think of CASE. Environments such as IBM's AD/Cycle, Andersen Consulting's FOUNDATION, the ICL CADES system, and DEC Cohesion. These environments attempt to cover the complete life-cycle from analysis to maintenance and provide an integrated database repository for storing all artifacts of the software pr
Data validation and reconciliation
Industrial process data validation and reconciliation, or more briefly, process data reconciliation (PDR), is a technology that uses process information and mathematical methods in order to automatically ensure data validation and reconciliation by correcting measurements in industrial processes. The use of PDR allows for extracting accurate and reliable information about the state of industry processes from raw measurement data and produces a single consistent set of data representing the most likely process operation. == Models, data and measurement errors == Industrial processes, for example chemical or thermodynamic processes in chemical plants, refineries, oil or gas production sites, or power plants, are often represented by two fundamental means: Models that express the general structure of the processes, Data that reflects the state of the processes at a given point in time. Models can have different levels of detail, for example one can incorporate simple mass or compound conservation balances, or more advanced thermodynamic models including energy conservation laws. Mathematically the model can be expressed by a nonlinear system of equations F ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(y)=0\,} in the variables y = ( y 1 , … , y n ) {\displaystyle y=(y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n})} , which incorporates all the above-mentioned system constraints (for example the mass or heat balances around a unit). A variable could be the temperature or the pressure at a certain place in the plant. === Error types === Data originates typically from measurements taken at different places throughout the industrial site, for example temperature, pressure, volumetric flow rate measurements etc. To understand the basic principles of PDR, it is important to first recognize that plant measurements are never 100% correct, i.e. raw measurement y {\displaystyle y\,} is not a solution of the nonlinear system F ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(y)=0\,\!} . When using measurements without correction to generate plant balances, it is common to have incoherencies. Measurement errors can be categorized into two basic types: random errors due to intrinsic sensor accuracy and systematic errors (or gross errors) due to sensor calibration or faulty data transmission. Random errors means that the measurement y {\displaystyle y\,\!} is a random variable with mean y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,\!} , where y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,\!} is the true value that is typically not known. A systematic error on the other hand is characterized by a measurement y {\displaystyle y\,\!} which is a random variable with mean y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}\,\!} , which is not equal to the true value y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,} . For ease in deriving and implementing an optimal estimation solution, and based on arguments that errors are the sum of many factors (so that the Central limit theorem has some effect), data reconciliation assumes these errors are normally distributed. Other sources of errors when calculating plant balances include process faults such as leaks, unmodeled heat losses, incorrect physical properties or other physical parameters used in equations, and incorrect structure such as unmodeled bypass lines. Other errors include unmodeled plant dynamics such as holdup changes, and other instabilities in plant operations that violate steady state (algebraic) models. Additional dynamic errors arise when measurements and samples are not taken at the same time, especially lab analyses. The normal practice of using time averages for the data input partly reduces the dynamic problems. However, that does not completely resolve timing inconsistencies for infrequently-sampled data like lab analyses. This use of average values, like a moving average, acts as a low-pass filter, so high frequency noise is mostly eliminated. The result is that, in practice, data reconciliation is mainly making adjustments to correct systematic errors like biases. === Necessity of removing measurement errors === ISA-95 is the international standard for the integration of enterprise and control systems It asserts that: Data reconciliation is a serious issue for enterprise-control integration. The data have to be valid to be useful for the enterprise system. The data must often be determined from physical measurements that have associated error factors. This must usually be converted into exact values for the enterprise system. This conversion may require manual, or intelligent reconciliation of the converted values [...]. Systems must be set up to ensure that accurate data are sent to production and from production. Inadvertent operator or clerical errors may result in too much production, too little production, the wrong production, incorrect inventory, or missing inventory. == History == PDR has become more and more important due to industrial processes that are becoming more and more complex. PDR started in the early 1960s with applications aiming at closing material balances in production processes where raw measurements were available for all variables. At the same time the problem of gross error identification and elimination has been presented. In the late 1960s and 1970s unmeasured variables were taken into account in the data reconciliation process., PDR also became more mature by considering general nonlinear equation systems coming from thermodynamic models., , Quasi steady state dynamics for filtering and simultaneous parameter estimation over time were introduced in 1977 by Stanley and Mah. Dynamic PDR was formulated as a nonlinear optimization problem by Liebman et al. in 1992. == Data reconciliation == Data reconciliation is a technique that targets at correcting measurement errors that are due to measurement noise, i.e. random errors. From a statistical point of view the main assumption is that no systematic errors exist in the set of measurements, since they may bias the reconciliation results and reduce the robustness of the reconciliation. Given n {\displaystyle n} measurements y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} , data reconciliation can mathematically be expressed as an optimization problem of the following form: min x , y ∗ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 subject to F ( x , y ∗ ) = 0 y min ≤ y ∗ ≤ y max x min ≤ x ≤ x max , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\min _{x,y^{}}&\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}\\{\text{subject to }}&F(x,y^{})=0\\&y_{\min }\leq y^{}\leq y_{\max }\\&x_{\min }\leq x\leq x_{\max },\end{aligned}}\,\!} where y i ∗ {\displaystyle y_{i}^{}\,\!} is the reconciled value of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), y i {\displaystyle y_{i}\,\!} is the measured value of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), x j {\displaystyle x_{j}\,\!} is the j {\displaystyle j} -th unmeasured variable ( j = 1 , … , m {\displaystyle j=1,\ldots ,m\,\!} ), and σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}\,\!} is the standard deviation of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), F ( x , y ∗ ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(x,y^{})=0\,\!} are the p {\displaystyle p\,\!} process equality constraints and x min , x max , y min , y max {\displaystyle x_{\min },x_{\max },y_{\min },y_{\max }\,\!} are the bounds on the measured and unmeasured variables. The term ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 {\displaystyle \left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}\,\!} is called the penalty of measurement i. The objective function is the sum of the penalties, which will be denoted in the following by f ( y ∗ ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 {\displaystyle f(y^{})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}} . In other words, one wants to minimize the overall correction (measured in the least squares term) that is needed in order to satisfy the system constraints. Additionally, each least squares term is weighted by the standard deviation of the corresponding measurement. The standard deviation is related to the accuracy of the measurement. For example, at a 95% confidence level, the standard deviation is about half the accuracy. === Redundancy === Data reconciliation relies strongly on the concept of redundancy to correct the measurements as little as possible in order to satisfy the process constraints. Here, redundancy is defined differently from redundancy in information theory. Instead, redundancy arises from combining sensor data with the model (algebraic constraints), sometimes more specifically called "spatial redundancy", "analytical redundancy", or "topological redundancy". Redundancy can be due to sensor redundancy, where sensors are duplicated in order to have more than one measurement of the same quantity. Redundancy also arises when a single variable can be estimated in several independent ways from separate sets of measurements at a given time or time averaging period, using the algebraic constraints. Redundancy is linked to the concept
Moving object detection
Moving object detection is a technique used in computer vision and image processing. Multiple consecutive frames from a video are compared by various methods to determine if any moving object is detected. Moving objects detection has been used for wide range of applications like video surveillance, activity recognition, road condition monitoring, airport safety, monitoring of protection along marine border, etc. == Definition == Moving object detection is to recognize the physical movement of an object in a given place or region. By acting segmentation among moving objects and stationary area or region, the moving objects' motion can be tracked and thus analyzed later. To achieve this, consider a video is a structure built upon single frames, moving object detection is to find the foreground moving target(s), either in each video frame or only when the moving target shows the first appearance in the video. == Traditional methods == Among all the traditional moving object detection methods, we could categorize them into four major approaches: Background subtraction, Frame differencing, Temporal Differencing, and Optical Flow. === Frame differencing === Instead of using traditional approach, to use image subtraction operator by subtracting second and images afterwards, the frame differencing method makes comparisons between two successive frames to detect moving targets. === Temporal differencing === The temporal differencing method identifies the moving object by applying pixel-wise difference method with two or three consecutive frames.
Chaffing and winnowing
Chaffing and winnowing is a cryptographic technique to achieve confidentiality without using encryption when sending data over an insecure channel. The name is derived from agriculture: after grain has been harvested and threshed, it remains mixed together with inedible fibrous chaff. The chaff and grain are then separated by winnowing, and the chaff is discarded. The cryptographic technique was conceived by Ron Rivest and published in an on-line article on 18 March 1998. Although it bears similarities to both traditional encryption and steganography, it cannot be classified under either category. This technique allows the sender to deny responsibility for encrypting their message. When using chaffing and winnowing, the sender transmits the message unencrypted, in clear text. Although the sender and the receiver share a secret key, they use it only for authentication. However, a third party can make their communication confidential by simultaneously sending specially crafted messages through the same channel. == How it works == The sender (Alice) wants to send a message to the receiver (Bob). In the simplest setup, Alice enumerates the symbols in her message and sends out each in a separate packet. If the symbols are complex enough, such as natural-language text, an attacker may be able to distinguish the real symbols from poorly faked chaff symbols, posing a similar problem as steganography in needing to generate highly realistic fakes; to avoid this, the symbols can be reduced to just single 0/1 bits, and realistic fakes can then be simply randomly generated 50:50 and are indistinguishable from real symbols. In general, the method requires each symbol to arrive in-order and to be authenticated by the receiver. When implemented over networks that may change the order of packets, the sender places the symbol's serial number in the packet, the symbol itself (both unencrypted), and a message authentication code (MAC). Many MACs use a secret key Alice shares with Bob, but it is sufficient that the receiver has a method to authenticate the packets. Rivest notes an interesting property of chaffing-and-winnowing is that third parties (such as an ISP) can opportunistically add it to communications without needing permission or coordination with the sender/recipient. A third-party (Charles) who transmits Alice's packets to Bob, interleaves the packets with corresponding bogus packets (called "chaff") with corresponding serial numbers, arbitrary symbols, and a random number in place of the MAC. Charles does not need to know the key to do that (real MACs are large enough that it is extremely unlikely to generate a valid one by chance, unlike in the example). Bob uses the MAC to find the authentic messages and drops the "chaff" messages. This process is called "winnowing". An eavesdropper located between Alice and Charles can easily read Alice's message. But an eavesdropper between Charles and Bob would have to tell which packets are bogus and which are real (i.e. to winnow, or "separate the wheat from the chaff"). That is infeasible if the MAC used is secure and Charles does not leak any information on packet authenticity (e.g. via timing). If a fourth party joins the example (named Darth) who wants to send counterfeit messages to impersonate Alice, it would require Alice to disclose her secret key. If Darth cannot force Alice to disclose an authentication key (the knowledge of which would enable him to forge messages from Alice), then her messages will remain confidential. Charles, on the other hand, is no target of Darth's at all, since Charles does not even possess any secret keys that could be disclosed. == Variations == The simple variant of the chaffing and winnowing technique described above adds many bits of overhead per bit of original message. To make the transmission more efficient, Alice can process her message with an all-or-nothing transform and then send it out in much larger chunks. The chaff packets will have to be modified accordingly. Because the original message can be reconstructed only by knowing all of its chunks, Charles needs to send only enough chaff packets to make finding the correct combination of packets computationally infeasible. Chaffing and winnowing lends itself especially well to use in packet-switched network environments such as the Internet, where each message (whose payload is typically small) is sent in a separate network packet. In another variant of the technique, Charles carefully interleaves packets coming from multiple senders. That eliminates the need for Charles to generate and inject bogus packets in the communication. However, the text of Alice's message cannot be well protected from other parties who are communicating via Charles at the same time. This variant also helps protect against information leakage and traffic analysis. == Implications for law enforcement == Ron Rivest suggests that laws related to cryptography, including export controls, would not apply to chaffing and winnowing because it does not employ any encryption at all. The power to authenticate is in many cases the power to control, and handing all authentication power to the government is beyond all reason The author of the paper proposes that the security implications of handing everyone's authentication keys to the government for law-enforcement purposes would be far too risky, since possession of the key would enable someone to masquerade and communicate as another entity, such as an airline controller. Furthermore, Ron Rivest contemplates the possibility of rogue law enforcement officials framing up innocent parties by introducing the chaff into their communications, concluding that drafting a law restricting chaffing and winnowing would be far too difficult. == Trivia == The term winnowing was suggested by Ronald Rivest's father. Before the publication of Rivest's paper in 1998 other people brought to his attention a 1965 novel, Rex Stout's The Doorbell Rang, which describes the same concept and was thus included in the paper's references.