Clesh

Clesh (clip load edit share) is a cloud-based video editing platform, created by Forbidden Technologies plc, designed for the consumers, prosumers, and online communities to integrate user-generated content. The core technology is based on FORscene which is geared towards professionals working for example in broadcasting, news media, post production. Video, audio, and graphical content is uploaded to Clesh via a standard web browser, a mobile device such as a phone / tablet, or desktop software for DV capture over FireWire. The hosted material can then be reviewed, searched, edited, and published online by anyone with a standard web browser or compatible mobile device. Clesh supports storyboard shot selection, frame-accurate editing, transitions and various other functions such as; pan, zoom, colour and light correction, and audio levels. Content can be published in formats for example; Podcast, Mpeg2, HTML video or in a proprietary Java format. Cloud-based software provides greater scope for sharing information and collaborating compared to LAN or desktop based systems. Users of cloud-based software rely on the cloud's owner for adequate security, performance and resilience. Clesh does not assert any rights over uploaded content in contrast to other platforms (such as YouTube). All rights to any content uploaded to Clesh remain with the Author. == Features == Some of the services available to Clesh users: Access via Java enabled desktops or Android smartphones or tablets Real-time video rendering including effects and transitions Multiple audio tracks Secured log-on Frame accurate timeline for fine cut editing Logging / meta-data annotation assigns text to portions of video (usable by Clesh and web search engines) Storyboard assembles rough cuts using drag-and-drop Import, host, organise and search for media (DV tape and various video, audio, and still image formats) Publish content to in formats such as podcast, MPEG-2, web (Java Applet), Flash, Ogg, HTML and JPEG Chatrooms to talk to other Clesh users Showreel (a gallery for publishing material visible to internet users) Moderation for approval of material prior to distribution downstream Re-branding and integration support for white-label deployment == Technology == Clesh is based on the same technology as FORscene. An array of servers on the internet backbone provide the cloud computing platform to host Clesh. As a white-label solution Clesh would be branded and hosted per the client requirement. == User interface == End-users access Clesh on clients such as standard Java-enabled Web Browsers and / or Android enabled mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones. == History == Clesh was launched January 2006 and subject to several upgrades during the year to extend functionality including; storyboard, podcasting, moderation, chat and a showreel. During 2007 consumers are offered Clesh via a subscription model. Upgrades include Web Start and graphics upload. Mr Paparazzi selects Clesh as the platform to host its video offering and TrueTube does the same in 2008 by choosing to use Clesh to manage its video portal. Several further upgrades are applied and include; better audio quality, image enhancement controls, transitions, fades, titles, and additional publishing options such as JPEG. In 2010 a version of Clesh is demonstrated on an Android OS tablet device (Samsung Galaxy S Tab), and several upgrades are applied including; HTML publishing, pan, zoom, and overlays.

Nagarik App

Nagarik App (translation: Citizen App) is a mobile application launched by the Government of Nepal to provide government-related services in a single online platform. The app was developed to facilitate an easier, systematic, and simplified delivery of government services to Nepali citizens digitally. The app was launched to play a pivotal role in revolutionizing the way citizens interact with the government. It offers government services through a single unified platform, minimizing the need for citizens to navigate multiple channels or physical offices for their diverse needs of government services. The services are added gradually according to the needs and services required. The government aims to reduce the physical queues and the need to be physically present to get services from the different government offices. One can get services online round-the-clock even during holidays. As of now, 25 services are included in the app, ranging from Police Clearance Report to Voters Card. The app contains and provides a vast range of government services. The app was launched on the occasion of the fourth National Information and Communication Technology Day, 2021 (2078 BS). The event marked a significant milestone in Nepal’s digital transformation journey. It aims to reduce all the bureaucratic hurdles that the citizens have been facing and make government services more efficient and convenient. In Oct 20, 2024, a E-Chalan was introduced for managing traffic violations in initially piloting in Kathmandu Valley. The Kathmandu Valley Traffic Police Office announced that physical licenses would no longer be confiscated for traffic rule violations. Instead, a "Digital Chit (E-Chalan)" system was implemented, allowing drivers to pay fines electronically. Integrated with the NagarikApp, the system enables police to access drivers' licenses, record violations, and update details directly in the app. == Features and Services == Inland Revenue Department (Nepal) PAN Registration Election Commission (Nepal) Voter Card Pre-Registration and Details Nepal Police Online Clearance Report Traffic Violations and Fine Payment Nepal Passport, Driving License, National Identity Card (NID), Citizenship, and Voter ID link details My Municipality (Includes contact info of the representatives, services such as ambulance, nearby police, and budget programs and plans) The Government Press ID card PF/PAN/SST/CIT statements can be viewed Nagarik Pahichan Dwar (Online bank accounts can be opened and KYC can be verified for selected banks using the QR) == Awards and honors == Each year, World Summit Award honors outstanding digital applications and solutions across various categories. The winners of the World Summit Award represent the pinnacle of innovation in their respective categories. Nagarik App was selected among 180 participants and won the World Summit Award of 2022 in Government and Citizen Engagement category. == Latest Statistics & Usage Trends (2082 BS / 2025 AD) == As of August 2025, over 1.5 million Nepali citizens have registered and actively use the Nagarik App, according to the National Information Technology Center (NITC). The majority of daily logins come from: Kathmandu Valley – 37% of total users Province 1 (Koshi) – 19% of total users Bagmati Province – 15% of total users On average, 45,000+ transactions (service requests, document verifications, and payments) are processed through the app each day. The most-used services include: PAN Card Registration – 28% of total requests Police Clearance Report – 22% Driving License Linking & E-Chalan Payment – 18% Vehicle Tax Payment – 14% Source: Internal report from NITC, July 2025 == Step-by-Step: How to Link Your Driving License with Nagarik App == Update the App – Install the latest version from Play Store or App Store. Login or Register – Ensure your SIM is registered in your own name. Go to “Transport Services” in the menu. Select “Driving License” – Enter your license number and date of birth. Verify via OTP – Sent to your registered mobile number. Confirmation – Your digital license will appear inside the app. This guide is continuously updated to reflect the latest rules from the Kathmandu Valley Traffic Police Office and changes in NITC’s backend system. For in-depth details, step-by-step tutorials, and the most recent Nagarik App updates, visit the full article on The Bipin Blog.

Lisp machine

Lisp machines are general-purpose computers designed to efficiently run Lisp as their main software and programming language, usually via hardware support. They are an example of a high-level language computer architecture. In a sense, they were the first commercial single-user workstations. Despite being modest in number (perhaps 7,000 units total as of 1988) Lisp machines commercially pioneered some now-commonplace technologies, including networking innovations such as Chaosnet, and effective garbage collection. Several firms built and sold Lisp machines in the 1980s: Symbolics (3600, 3640, XL1200, MacIvory, and other models), Lisp Machines Incorporated (LMI Lambda), Texas Instruments (Explorer, MicroExplorer), and Xerox (Interlisp-D workstations). The operating systems were written in Lisp Machine Lisp, Interlisp (Xerox), and later partly in Common Lisp. == History == === Historical context === Artificial intelligence (AI) computer programs of the 1960s and 1970s intrinsically required what was then considered a huge amount of computer power, as measured in processor time and memory space. The power requirements of AI research were exacerbated by the Lisp symbolic programming language, when commercial hardware was designed and optimized for assembly- and Fortran-like programming languages. At first, the cost of such computer hardware meant that it had to be shared among many users. As integrated circuit technology shrank the size and cost of computers in the 1960s and early 1970s, and the memory needs of AI programs began to exceed the address space of the most common research computer, the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-10, researchers considered a new approach: a computer designed specifically to develop and run large artificial intelligence programs, and tailored to the semantics of the Lisp language. To provide consistent performance for interactive programs, these machines would often not be shared, but would be dedicated to a single user at a time. === Initial development === In 1973, Richard Greenblatt and Thomas Knight, programmers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (AI Lab), began what would become the MIT Lisp Machine Project when they first began building a computer hardwired to run certain basic Lisp operations, rather than run them in software, in a 24-bit tagged architecture. The machine also did incremental (or Arena) garbage collection. More specifically, since Lisp variables are typed at runtime rather than compile time, a simple addition of two variables could take five times as long on conventional hardware, due to test and branch instructions. Lisp Machines ran the tests in parallel with the more conventional single instruction additions. If the simultaneous tests failed, then the result was discarded and recomputed; this meant in many cases a speed increase by several factors. This simultaneous checking approach was used as well in testing the bounds of arrays when referenced, and other memory management necessities (not merely garbage collection or arrays). Type checking was further improved and automated when the conventional byte word of 32 bits was lengthened to 36 bits for Symbolics 3600-model Lisp machines and eventually to 40 bits or more (usually, the excess bits not accounted for by the following were used for error-correcting codes). The first group of extra bits were used to hold type data, making the machine a tagged architecture, and the remaining bits were used to implement compressed data representation (CDR) coding (wherein the usual linked list elements are compressed to occupy roughly half the space), aiding garbage collection by reportedly an order of magnitude. A further improvement was two microcode instructions which specifically supported Lisp functions, reducing the cost of calling a function to as little as 20 clock cycles, in some Symbolics implementations. The first machine was called the CONS machine (named after the list construction operator cons in Lisp). Often it was affectionately referred to as the Knight machine, perhaps since Knight wrote his master's thesis on the subject; it was extremely well received. It was subsequently improved into a version called CADR (a pun; in Lisp, the cadr function, which returns the second item of a list, is pronounced /ˈkeɪ.dəɹ/ or /ˈkɑ.dəɹ/, as some pronounce the word "cadre") which was based on essentially the same architecture. About 25 of what were essentially prototype CADRs were sold within and without MIT for ~$50,000; it quickly became the favorite machine for hacking – many of the most favored software tools were quickly ported to it (e.g. Emacs was ported from ITS in 1975). It was so well received at an AI conference held at MIT in 1978 that Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began funding its development. === Commercializing MIT Lisp machine technology === In 1979, Russell Noftsker, being convinced that Lisp machines had a bright commercial future due to the strength of the Lisp language and the enabling factor of hardware acceleration, proposed to Greenblatt that they commercialize the technology. In a counter-intuitive move for an AI Lab hacker, Greenblatt acquiesced, hoping perhaps that he could recreate the informal and productive atmosphere of the Lab in a real business. These ideas and goals were considerably different from those of Noftsker. The two negotiated at length, but neither would compromise. As the proposed firm could succeed only with the full and undivided assistance of the AI Lab hackers as a group, Noftsker and Greenblatt decided that the fate of the enterprise was up to them, and so the choice should be left to the hackers. The ensuing discussions of the choice divided the lab into two factions. In February 1979, matters came to a head. The hackers sided with Noftsker, believing that a commercial venture-fund-backed firm had a better chance of surviving and commercializing Lisp machines than Greenblatt's proposed self-sustaining start-up. Greenblatt lost the battle. It was at this juncture that Symbolics, Noftsker's enterprise, slowly came together. While Noftsker was paying his staff a salary, he had no building or any equipment for the hackers to work on. He bargained with Patrick Winston that, in exchange for allowing Symbolics' staff to keep working out of MIT, Symbolics would let MIT use internally and freely all the software Symbolics developed. A consultant from CDC, who was trying to put together a natural language computer application with a group of West-coast programmers, came to Greenblatt, seeking a Lisp machine for his group to work with, about eight months after the disastrous conference with Noftsker. Greenblatt had decided to start his own rival Lisp machine firm, but he had done nothing. The consultant, Alexander Jacobson, decided that the only way Greenblatt was going to start the firm and build the Lisp machines that Jacobson desperately needed was if Jacobson pushed and otherwise helped Greenblatt launch the firm. Jacobson pulled together business plans, a board, a partner for Greenblatt (one F. Stephen Wyle). The newfound firm was named LISP Machine, Inc. (LMI), and was funded by CDC orders, via Jacobson. Around this time Symbolics (Noftsker's firm) began operating. It had been hindered by Noftsker's promise to give Greenblatt a year's head start, and by severe delays in procuring venture capital. Symbolics still had the major advantage that while 3 or 4 of the AI Lab hackers had gone to work for Greenblatt, 14 other hackers had signed onto Symbolics. Two AI Lab people were not hired by either: Richard Stallman and Marvin Minsky. Stallman, however, blamed Symbolics for the decline of the hacker community that had centered around the AI lab. For two years, from 1982 to the end of 1983, Stallman worked by himself to clone the output of the Symbolics programmers, with the aim of preventing them from gaining a monopoly on the lab's computers. Regardless, after a series of internal battles, Symbolics did get off the ground in 1980/1981, selling the CADR as the LM-2, while Lisp Machines, Inc. sold it as the LMI-CADR. Symbolics did not intend to produce many LM-2s, since the 3600 family of Lisp machines was supposed to ship quickly, but the 3600s were repeatedly delayed, and Symbolics ended up producing ~100 LM-2s, each of which sold for $70,000. Both firms developed second-generation products based on the CADR: the Symbolics 3600 and the LMI-LAMBDA (of which LMI managed to sell ~200). The 3600, which shipped a year late, expanded on the CADR by widening the machine word to 36-bits, expanding the address space to 28-bits, and adding hardware to accelerate certain common functions that were implemented in microcode on the CADR. The LMI-LAMBDA, which came out a year after the 3600, in 1983, was compatible with the CADR (it could run CADR microcode), but hardware differences existed. Texas Instruments (TI) joined the fray whe

Computational theory of mind

In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of. == History == Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. A version of the theory was put forward by Peter Putnam and Robert W. Fuller in 1964. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, aided by his then PhD student, philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, who continued the research as a post-doc in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others. == Classical computational theory of mind == The CTM holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically implemented) by neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood. In classical computational theory of mind (CCTM), computation is modeled in terms of Turing machines which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the internal state of the machine. A Turing machine is an abstract machine with unlimited time and storage. CCTM does not pretend that the mind looks like a Turing machine, but instead uses Turing machines as a formalism. Alan Turing argued that any symbolic algorithm executed by a human brain can in theory be replicated on a Turing machine. The critical aspect of such a computational model is that it allows to abstract away from particular physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation. For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states, performed according to a rule. Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute the representation. Unlike CTM, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's view, the mind is a computational system that processes the language of thought. == Variants == Connectionist computationalism models the mind as a neural network. Steven Pinker and Alan Prince distinguish two types of connectionists: eliminative and implementationist. Eliminative connectionists generally reject classical CTMs and the idea of a structured, symbolic mind, whereas implementationists view neural networks and Turing machines as two potentially complementary levels of analysis. It is indeed possible in theory to implement a neural network in a Turing machine, or a Turing machine in a neural network. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts, the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness. == "Computer metaphor" == Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is literally a computational system. "Computational system" is not intended to mean a modern-day electronic computer. == Pancomputationalism == CTM raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of states individuated by a physical description of the system. Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of pancomputationalism. Searle wrote:the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA, philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account, syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007. == Criticism == A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind. An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind. Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door. With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not understand the Chinese conversation. This was originally written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds. Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections. They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in general, and not computational theories specifically. Objections have also been put forth that are directly tailored for computational theories of mind. Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent. Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem. Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question of whether the human mind can implement computational states is not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteri

Decision Model and Notation

In business analysis, the Decision Model and Notation (DMN) is a standard published by the Object Management Group. It is a standard approach for describing and modeling repeatable decisions within organizations to ensure that decision models are interchangeable across organizations. The DMN standard provides the industry with a modeling notation for decisions that will support decision management and business rules. The notation is designed to be readable by business and IT users alike. This enables various groups to effectively collaborate in defining a decision model: the business people who manage and monitor the decisions, the business analysts or functional analysts who document the initial decision requirements and specify the detailed decision models and decision logic, the technical developers responsible for the automation of systems that make the decisions. The primary goal of DMN is to offer a common notation that all business users can easily understand. This includes business analysts who develop decision requirements and models, technical developers who automate decisions, and businesspeople who manage and monitor those decisions. DMN serves as a standardized link between business decision design and implementation.[4] The DMN standard can be effectively used standalone but it is also complementary to the BPMN and CMMN standards. BPMN defines a special kind of activity, the Business Rule Task, which "provides a mechanism for the process to provide input to a business rule engine and to get the output of calculations that the business rule engine might provide" that can be used to show where in a BPMN process a decision defined using DMN should be used. DMN has been made a standard for Business Analysis according to BABOK v3. == Elements of the standard == The standard includes three main elements Decision Requirements Diagrams that show how the elements of decision-making are linked into a dependency network. Decision tables to represent how each decision in such a network can be made. Business context for decisions such as the roles of organizations or the impact on performance metrics. A Friendly Enough Expression Language (FEEL) that can be used to evaluate expressions in a decision table and other logic formats. == Use cases == The standard identifies three main use cases for DMN Defining manual decision making Specifying the requirements for automated decision-making Representing a complete, executable model of decision-making == Benefits == Using the DMN standard will improve business analysis and business process management, since other popular requirement management techniques such as BPMN and UML do not handle decision making growth of projects using business rule management systems or BRMS, which allow faster changes it facilitates better communications between business, IT and analytic roles in a company it provides an effective requirements modeling approach for predictive analytics projects and fulfills the need for "business understanding" in methodologies for advanced analytics such as CRISP-DM it provides a standard notation for decision tables, the most common style of business rules in a business rule management system (BRMS) == Relationship to BPMN == DMN has been designed to work with BPMN. Business process models can be simplified by moving process logic into decision services. DMN is a separate domain within the OMG that provides an explicit way to connect to processes in BPMN. Decisions in DMN can be explicitly linked to processes and tasks that use the decisions. This integration of DMN and BPMN has been studied extensively. DMN expects that the logic of a decision will be deployed as a stateless, side-effect free Decision Service. Such a service can be invoked from a business process and the data in the process can be mapped to the inputs and outputs of the decision service. == DMN BPMN example == As mentioned, BPMN is a related OMG Standard for process modeling. DMN complements BPMN, providing a separation of concerns between the decision and the process. The example here describes a BPMN process and DMN DRD (Decision Requirements Diagram) for onboarding a bank customer. Several decisions are modeled and these decisions will direct the processes response. === New bank account process === In the BPMN process model shown in the figure, a customer makes a request to open a new bank account. The account application provides the account representative with all the information needed to create an account and provide the requested services. This includes the name, address and various forms of identification. In the next steps of the work flow, the know your customer (KYC) services are called. In the KYC services, the name and address are validated; followed by a check against the international criminal database (Interpol) and the database of persons that are 'politically exposed persons (PEP)'. The PEP is a person who is either entrusted with a prominent political position or a close relative thereof. Deposits from persons on the PEP list are potentially corrupt. This is shown as two services on the process model. Anti-money-laundering (AML) regulations require these checks before the customer account is certified. The results of these services plus the forms of identification are sent to the Certify New Account decision. This is shown as a 'rule' activity, verify account, on the process diagram. If the new customer passes certification, then the account is classified into onboarding for business retail, retail, wealth management and high-value business. Otherwise the customer application is declined. The Classify New Customer Decision classifies the customer. If the verify-account process returns a result of 'Manual' then the PEP or the Interpol check returned a close match. The account representative must visually inspect the name and the application to determine if the match is valid and accept or decline the application. === Certify new account decision === An account is certified for opening if the individual's' address is verified, and if valid identification is provided, and if the applicant is not on a list of criminals or politically exposed persons. These are shown as sub-decisions below the 'certify new account' decision. The account verification services provides a 100% match of the applicants address. For identification to be valid, the customer must provide a driver's license, passport or government issued ID. The checks against PEP and Interpol are 'fuzzy' matches and return matching score values. Scores above 85 are considered a 'match' and scores between 65 and 85 would require a 'manual' screening process. People who match either of these lists are rejected by the account application process. If there is a partial match with a score between 65 and 85, against the Interpol or PEP list then the certification is set to manual and an account representative performs a manual verification of the applicant's data. These rules are reflected in the figure below, which presents the decision table for whether to pass the provided name for the lists checks. === Client category === The client's on-boarding process is driven by what category they fall in. The category is decided by the: Type of client, business or private The size of the funds on deposit And the estimated net worth This decision is shown below: There are 6 business rules that determine the client's category and these are shown in the decision table here: === Summary example === In this example, the outcome of the 'Verify Account' decision directed the responses of the new account process. The same is true for the 'Classify Customer' decision. By adding or changing the business rules in the tables, one can easily change the criteria for these decisions and control the process differently. Modeling is a critical aspect of improving an existing process or business challenge. Modeling is generally done by a team of business analysts, IT personnel, and modeling experts. The expressive modeling capabilities of BPMN allows business analyst to understand the functions of the activities of the process. Now with the addition of DMN, business analysts can construct an understandable model of complex decisions. Combining BPMN and DMN yields a very powerful combination of models that work synergistically to simplify processes. == Relationship to decision mining and process mining == Automated discovery techniques that infer decision models from process execution data have been proposed as well. Here, a DMN decision model is derived from a data-enriched event log, along with the process that uses the decisions. In doing so, decision mining complements process mining with traditional data mining approaches. == cDMN extension == Constraint Decision Model and Notation (cDMN) is a formal notation for expressing knowledge in a tabular, intuitive format. It extends DMN with constraint reasoning and related concepts while aiming to retain the us

Automated storage and retrieval system

An automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS or AS/RS) consists of a variety of computer-controlled systems for automatically placing and retrieving loads from defined storage locations. Automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS) are typically used in applications where: There is a very high volume of loads being moved into and out of storage Storage density is important because of space constraints No value is added in this process (no processing, only storage and transport) Accuracy is critical because of potential expensive damages to the load An AS/RS can be used with standard loads as well as nonstandard loads, meaning that each standard load can fit in a uniformly-sized volume; for example, the film canisters in the image of the Defense Visual Information Center are each stored as part of the contents of the uniformly sized metal boxes, which are shown in the image. Standard loads simplify the handling of a request of an item. In addition, audits of the accuracy of the inventory of contents can be restricted to the contents of an individual metal box, rather than undergoing a top-to-bottom search of the entire facility, for a single item. They can also be used in self storage places. == Overview == AS/RS systems are designed for automated storage and retrieval of parts and items in manufacturing, distribution, retail, wholesale and institutions. They first originated in the 1960s, initially focusing on heavy pallet loads but with the evolution of the technology the handled loads have become smaller. The systems operate under computerized control, maintaining an inventory of stored items. Retrieval of items is accomplished by specifying the item type and quantity to be retrieved. The computer determines where in the storage area the item can be retrieved from and schedules the retrieval. It directs the proper automated storage and retrieval machine (SRM) to the location where the item is stored and directs the machine to deposit the item at a location where it is to be picked up. A system of conveyors and or automated guided vehicles is sometimes part of the AS/RS system. These take loads into and out of the storage area and move them to the manufacturing floor or loading docks. To store items, the pallet or tray is placed at an input station for the system, the information for inventory is entered into a computer terminal and the AS/RS system moves the load to the storage area, determines a suitable location for the item, and stores the load. As items are stored into or retrieved from the racks, the computer updates its inventory accordingly. The benefits of an AS/RS system include reduced labor for transporting items into and out of inventory, reduced inventory levels, more accurate tracking of inventory, and space savings. Items are often stored more densely than in systems where items are stored and retrieved manually. Within the storage, items can be placed on trays or hang from bars, which are attached to chains/drives in order to move up and down. The equipment required for an AS/RS include a storage & retrieval machine (SRM) that is used for rapid storage and retrieval of material. SRMs are used to move loads vertically or horizontally, and can also move laterally to place objects in the correct storage location. The trend towards Just In Time production often requires sub-pallet level availability of production inputs, and AS/RS is a much faster way of organizing the storage of smaller items next to production lines. The Material Handling Institute of America (MHIA), the non-profit trade association for the material handling world, and its members have categorised AS/RS into two primary segments: Fixed Aisle and Carousels/Vertical Lift Modules (VLMs). Both sets of technologies provide automated storage and retrieval for parts and items, but use different technologies. Each technology has its unique set of benefits and disadvantages. Fixed Aisle systems are characteristically larger systems whereas carousels and Vertical Lift Modules are used individually or grouped, but in small to medium-sized applications. A fixed-aisle AS/R machine (stacker crane) is one of two main designs: single-masted or double masted. Most are supported on a track and ceiling guided at the top by guide rails or channels to ensure accurate vertical alignment, although some are suspended from the ceiling. The 'shuttles' that make up the system travel between fixed storage shelves to deposit or retrieve a requested load (ranging from a single book in a library system to a several ton pallet of goods in a warehouse system). The entire unit moves horizontally within an aisle, while the shuttles are able to elevate up to the necessary height to reach the load, and can extend and retract to store or retrieve loads that are several positions deep in the shelving. A semi-automated system can be achieved by utilizing only specialized shuttles within an existing rack system. Another AS/RS technology is known as shuttle technology. In this technology the horizontal movement is made by independent shuttles each operating on one level of the rack while a lift at a fixed position within the rack is responsible for the vertical movement. By using two separate machines for these two axes the shuttle technology is able to provide higher throughput rates than stacker cranes. Storage and Retrieval Machines pick up or drop off loads to the rest of the supporting transportation system at specific stations, where inbound and outbound loads are precisely positioned for proper handling. In addition, there are several types of Automated Storage & Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) devices called Unit-load AS/RS, Mini-load AS/RS, Mid-Load AS/RS, Vertical Lift Modules (VLMs), Horizontal Carousels and Vertical Carousels. These systems are used either as stand-alone units or in integrated workstations called pods or systems. These units are usually integrated with various types of pick to light systems and use either a microprocessor controller for basic usage or inventory management software. These systems are ideal for increasing space utilization up to 90%, productivity levels by 90%, accuracy to 99.9%+ levels and throughput up to 750 lines per hour/per operator or more depending on the configuration of the system. == Horizontal carousels == Robotic Inserter/Extractor devices can be used for horizontal carousels. The robotic device is positioned in the front or rear of up to three horizontal carousels tiered high. The robot grabs the tote required in the order and often replenishes at the same time to speed up throughput. The tote(s) are then delivered to a conveyor, which routes it to a work station for picking or replenishing. Up to eight transactions per minute per unit can be done. Totes or containers up to 36" x 36" x 36" can be used in a system. On a simplistic level, horizontal carousels are also often used as "rotating shelving". With simple "fetch" command, items are brought to the operator and otherwise wasted space is eliminated. AS/RS Applications: Most applications of AS/RS technology have been associated with warehousing and distribution operations. An AS/RS can also be used to store raw materials and work in process in manufacturing. Three application areas can be distinguished for AS/RS: (1) Unit load storage and handling, (2) Order picking, and (3) Work in process storage. Unit load storage and retrieval applications are represented by unit load AS/RS and deep-lane storage systems. These kinds of applications are commonly found in warehousing for finishing goods in a distribution center, rarely in manufacturing. Deep-lane systems are used in the food industry. As described above, order picking involves retrieving materials in less than full unit load quantities. Minilpass, man-on board, and items retrieval systems are used for this second application area. Work in process storage is a more recent application of automated storage technology. While it is desirable to minimize the amount of work in process, WIP is unavoidable and must be effectively managed. Automated storage systems, either automated storage/retrieval systems or carousel systems, represent an efficient way to store materials between processing steps, particularly in batch and job shop production. In high production, work in process is often carried between operations by conveyor system, which this serve both storage and transport functions. === Inventory Category-specific AS/RS === Each inventory category—raw materials, work-in-process, and finished goods—requires its own specialized Automated Storage and Retrieval System (AS/RS). Particularly for work-in-process (WIP) inventories, due to variations in manufacturing processes, the AS/RS systems are significantly different in design and function, tailored specifically to match unique handling, storage, and retrieval requirements === Installed applications === Installed applications of this technology can be wide-ranging. In some librarie

Komodo (chess)

Komodo and Dragon by Komodo Chess (also known as Dragon or Komodo Dragon) are UCI chess engines developed by Komodo Chess, which is a part of Chess.com. The engines were originally authored by Don Dailey and GM Larry Kaufman. Dragon is a commercial chess engine, but Komodo is free for non-commercial use. Dragon is consistently ranked near the top of most major chess engine rating lists, along with Stockfish and Leela Chess Zero. == History == === Komodo === Komodo was derived from Don Dailey's former engine Doch in January 2010. The first multiprocessor version of Komodo was released in June 2013 as Komodo 5.1 MP. This version was a major rewrite and a port of Komodo to C++11. A single-processor version of Komodo (which won the CCT15 tournament in February earlier that year) was released as a stand-alone product shortly before the 5.1 MP release. This version, named Komodo CCT, was still based on the older C code, and was approximately 30 Elo stronger than the 5.1 MP version, as the latter was still undergoing massive code-cleanup work. With the release of Komodo 6 on October 4, 2013, Don Dailey announced that he was suffering from an acute form of leukaemia, and would no longer contribute to the future development of Komodo. On October 8, Don made an announcement on the Talkchess forum that Mark Lefler would be joining the Komodo team and would continue its development. Komodo TCEC was released on December 4, 2013. This was the same version that had won TCEC Season 5, and was the last with input from Don Dailey, to whom it was dedicated. Komodo 7 was released on May 21, 2014, adding Syzygy tablebase support. On May 24, 2018, Chess.com announced that it has acquired Komodo and that the Komodo team have joined Chess.com. The Komodo team is now called Komodo Chess. On December 17, 2018, Komodo Chess released Komodo 12.3 MCTS, a version of the Komodo 12.3 engine that uses Monte Carlo tree search instead of alpha–beta pruning/minimax. The last version, Komodo 14.3, was released on October 4, 2023. === Dragon === On November 9, 2020, Komodo Chess released Dragon by Komodo Chess 1.0, which features the use of efficiently updatable neural networks in its evaluation function. Dragon is derived from Komodo in the same way that Komodo was derived from Doch. Dragon is also called Komodo Dragon in certain tournaments such as the Top Chess Engine Championship and the World Computer Chess Championship (WCCC) but not in the Chess.com Computer Chess Championship (CCC). A Chess.com staff member named Dmitry Pervov joined the Dragon development team to write the NNUE code for Dragon, and Dietrich Kappe joined the Dragon development team to help Larry Kaufman and Mark Lefter train Dragon's neural networks. On March 17, 2023, Larry Kaufman announced that he and Mark Lefter have stepped down from Dragon development and from ownership of Komodo Chess, and that Chess.com have taken full control of Komodo Chess. As of March 17, 2023, Dietrich Kappe is the only person responsible for the development of Dragon, but Chess.com are looking for more programmers to help with Dragon development. The final version, Dragon 3.3, was released on October 4, 2023. == Competition results == === Komodo === Komodo has played in the ICT 2010 in Leiden, and further in the CCT12 and CCT14. Komodo had its first tournament success in 1999, when it won the CCT15 with a score of 6½/7. Komodo won both the World Computer Chess Championship and World Computer Software Championship in 2016. Komodo once again won the World Computer Chess Championship and World Blitz in 2017. In TCEC competition, Komodo was historically one of the strongest engines. In Season 4, it lost only eight out of its 53 games and managed to reach Stage 4 (Quarterfinals), against very strong competition which were running on eight cores (Komodo was running on a single processor). The next season, Komodo won the superfinal against Stockfish. The two engines jockeyed for the championship over the next few seasons: Stockfish won in Season 6, while Komodo won Seasons 7 and 8. Komodo failed to make the superfinal in Season 9, losing out to Houdini; but after Houdini was later disqualified for containing code plagiarized from Stockfish, Komodo was promoted to the runner-up. Komodo retrospectively won Season 10 in the same way. Starting from Season 11 however, Stockfish improved at a rate that left its rivals behind, crushing Komodo in Season 12 and 13. The advent of the neural network engine Leela Chess Zero meant Komodo has largely failed to qualify for the superfinal since, with a single exception in Season 22, when it lost to Stockfish. Although Komodo has not qualified for the superfinal, it has cemented itself as the third-strongest engine in the competition, finishing in that position for five of the last six seasons. ==== Chess.com Computer Chess Championship ==== === Dragon === ==== Chess.com Computer Chess Championship ==== ==== Top Chess Engine Championship ==== == Notable games == Komodo vs Hannibal, nTCEC - Stage 2b - Season 1, Round 4.1, ECO: A10, 1–0 Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine Komodo sacrifices an exchange for positional gain. Gull vs Komodo, nTCEC - Stage 3 - Season 2, Round 2.2, ECO: E10, 0–1 Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine