In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), tasks that are hypothesized to require artificial general intelligence to solve are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard. Calling a problem AI-complete reflects the belief that it cannot be solved by a simple specific algorithm. Prior to 2013, problems supposed to be AI-complete included computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real-world problem. AI-complete tasks were notably considered useful for distinguishing humans from automated agents, as CAPTCHAs aim to do. == History == The term was coined by Fanya Montalvo by analogy with NP-complete and NP-hard in complexity theory, which formally describes the most famous class of difficult problems. Early uses of the term are in Erik Mueller's 1987 PhD dissertation and in Eric Raymond's 1991 Jargon File. Expert systems, that were popular in the 1980s, were able to solve very simple and/or restricted versions of AI-complete problems, but never in their full generality. When AI researchers attempted to "scale up" their systems to handle more complicated, real-world situations, the programs tended to become excessively brittle without commonsense knowledge or a rudimentary understanding of the situation: they would fail as unexpected circumstances outside of its original problem context would begin to appear. When human beings are dealing with new situations in the world, they are helped by their awareness of the general context: they know what the things around them are, why they are there, what they are likely to do and so on. They can recognize unusual situations and adjust accordingly. Expert systems lacked this adaptability and were brittle when facing new situations. DeepMind published a work in May 2022 in which they trained a single model to do several things at the same time. The model, named Gato, can "play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its context whether to output text, joint torques, button presses, or other tokens." Similarly, some tasks once considered to be AI-complete, like machine translation, are among the capabilities of large language models. == AI-complete problems == AI-complete problems have been hypothesized to include: AI peer review (composite natural language understanding, automated reasoning, automated theorem proving, formalized logic expert system) Bongard problems Computer vision (and subproblems such as object recognition) Natural language understanding (and subproblems such as text mining, machine translation, and word-sense disambiguation) Autonomous driving Dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem, whether navigation, planning, or even the kind of reasoning done by expert systems. == Formalization == Computational complexity theory deals with the relative computational difficulty of computable functions. By definition, it does not cover problems whose solution is unknown or has not been characterized formally. Since many AI problems have no formalization yet, conventional complexity theory does not enable a formal definition of AI-completeness. == Research == Roman Yampolskiy suggests that a problem C {\displaystyle C} is AI-Complete if it has two properties: It is in the set of AI problems (Human Oracle-solvable). Any AI problem can be converted into C {\displaystyle C} by some polynomial time algorithm. On the other hand, a problem H {\displaystyle H} is AI-Hard if and only if there is an AI-Complete problem C {\displaystyle C} that is polynomial time Turing-reducible to H {\displaystyle H} . This also gives as a consequence the existence of AI-Easy problems, that are solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine with an oracle for some problem. Yampolskiy has also hypothesized that the Turing Test is a defining feature of AI-completeness. Groppe and Jain classify problems which require artificial general intelligence to reach human-level machine performance as AI-complete, while only restricted versions of AI-complete problems can be solved by the current AI systems. For Šekrst, getting a polynomial solution to AI-complete problems would not necessarily be equal to solving the issue of artificial general intelligence, while emphasizing the lack of computational complexity research being the limiting factor towards achieving artificial general intelligence. For Kwee-Bintoro and Velez, solving AI-complete problems would have strong repercussions on society.
Radar geo-warping
Radar geo-warping is the adjustment of geo-referenced radar images and video data to be consistent with a geographical projection. This image warping avoids any restrictions when displaying it together with video from multiple radar sources or with other geographical data including scanned maps and satellite images which may be provided in a particular projection. There are many areas where geo warping has unique benefits: Single radar video signal displayed together with maps of different geographical projections. E.g. Mercator UTM stereographic Multiple radar video signals displayed simultaneously: Having the computing power to do so on one computer. Adapting the projection of all radar signals allowing the geographically correct display and accurate superimposition of those videos. Slant range correction: a modern 3D radar system can measure the height of a target and hence it is possible to correct the radar video by the real corrected range of the target. Slant Range Correction also allows to compensate the radar tower height e.g. for maritime surveillance radars. == Introduction == Radar video presents the echoes of electromagnetic waves a radar system has emitted and received as reflections afterwards. These echoes are typically presented on a computer screen with a color-coding scheme depicting the reflection strength. Two problems have to be solved during such a visualization process. The first problem arises from the fact that typically the radar antenna turns around its position and measures the reflection echo distances from its position in one direction. This effectively means that the radar video data are present in polar coordinates. In older systems the polar oriented picture has been displayed in so called plan position indicators (PPI). The PPI-scope uses a radial sweep pivoting about the center of the presentation. This results in a map-like picture of the area covered by the radar beam. A long-persistence screen is used so that the display remains visible until the sweep passes again. Bearing to the target is indicated by the target's angular position in relation to an imaginary line extending vertically from the sweep origin to the top of the scope. The top of the scope is either true north (when the indicator is operated in the true bearing mode) or ship's heading (when the indicator is operated in the relative bearing mode). For visualization on a modern computer screen the polar coordinates have to be converted into Cartesian coordinates. This process called radar scan conversion is presented with more detail in the next section. The second problem to solve arises from the fact that a radar system is placed in the real world and measures real world echo positions. These echoes have to be displayed together with other real world data like object positions, vector maps and satellite images in a consistent way. All this information refers to the curved earth surface but is displayed on a flat computer display. Building a link from real world earth positions to display pixels is commonly called geographical referencing or in short geo-referencing. Part of the geo-referencing process is to map the 3D earth surface onto a 2D display. This process of a geographical projection can be performed in many ways, but different data sources have their own 'natural' projection. E.g. Cartesian radar video data from a radar source on the earth surface are geo-referenced by a so-called radar projection. When using this radar projection the Cartesian radar video pixels can directly displayed on a computer screen (only being linearly transformed according to the current position on the screen and e.g. the current zoom level). A problem now arises if e.g. also a satellite map shall be shown together with the radar video data. The 'natural' geographical projection of a satellite image would be a satellite projection which depends on the satellite orbit, position and further parameters. Now either the satellite image has to be reprojected to a radar projection or the radar video has to use the satellite projection. This geographical re-projection is also called geographical warping or Geo Warping where each image pixel has to be transformed from one projection into another. This article describes in further detail the Geo Warping of radar video images in real time. It will also show that radar video Geo Warping is done most efficiently when it is integrated with the radar scan conversion process. == Radar-scan conversion == This section describes the principles of the radar-scan conversion (RSC) process. The radar supplies its measured data in polar coordinates (ρ,θ) directly from the rotating antenna. ρ defines the target/echo distance and θ the target angle in polar world coordinates. These data are measured, digitized and stored in a polar coordinate polar store or polar pixmap. The main RSC task is to convert these data to Cartesian (x, y) display coordinates, creating the necessary display pixels. The RSC process is influenced by the current zoom, shift and rotation settings defining which part of the 'world' shall be visible in the display image. As detailed later the RSC process also takes the currently used geographical projection into account when the radar video images are Geo Warped. The OpenGL RSC is implemented using a reverse scan conversion approach which calculates for every image pixel the most appropriate radar amplitude value in the polar store. This approach generates an optimal image without any artifacts known from forward spoke fill algorithms. By applying bi-linear filtering between adjacent pixels in the polar store during the conversion process the OpenGL RSC finally achieves a very high visual quality radar display image for every zoom level, creating smooth images of the radar echoes. == Radar projection == This section illustrates how radar video data are geo referenced and displayed on a computer screen. The radar sensor is positioned on the earth surface with a height h above the ground. It measures the direct distance d to the target (and not e.g. the distance the target is away from the radar if one would move on the earth surface). This distance is then used in the display plane after adjustment to the current display zoom level by the radar scan converter (RSC). Now it has to be clarified how the radar video data is geo referenced. This basically means, that if we want to display a geographical real world object (like e.g. a light house) which is at the same real world position as the radar target, that it also shall appear at the same position in the display plane. This is realized by calculating the distance from the radar sensor to the respective real world object and use that distance in the display plane. The position of the real world object is typically given in geographical coordinates (latitude, longitude and height above the earth surface). In other words, using a radar projection with geographical data is done by simulating a radar measurement process with the real world objects and use the resulting range and azimuth in the display plane. The second picture to the right shows an example radar projection with the center of projection (COP) at latitude 50.0° and longitude 0.0° which is also the radar position. The dashed lines are the equal-latitude and equal-longitude lines on top of the background map. The solid lines show equal-range and equal-azimuth with the respect to the radar position. It is a feature of the radar projection that equal-range lines are circles and equal-azimuth lines are straight lines. This is necessary to display radar video consistently with other map data when using a radar projection where the projection center has to be the radar position. == Geo Warping process == This section explains the actual geo warping or re-projection process when applied to radar video in real time. Assume we want to display radar video on top of a satellite image. As an example we use the CIB projection which is used to display satellite data in CIB (Controlled Image Base) format. The Figure Geo Warping Radar to CIB Projection shows dashed the maximal range circle for a range of 111 km or 60 miles using the radar projection. Such a range is typical for long range coastal surveillance radars. As stated in the last section this is a perfect circle also on the computer screen. The solid line ellipse shows the same range circle for the CIB projection. Typically the errors occurring without Geo Warping are smallest near the radar position if at least the projection center (COP) coincides with the radar position, as realized in our example. Otherwise the error distribution depends both on the used projection and also on the projection parameters. Thus, in our case the errors are most significant near the maximum radar range. The CIB projection error corrected in east–west direction at half the radar range is 2.6 km and is 5.3 km at the full radar range of 111 km. An error of 5.3 km is
Fuse Services Framework
Fuse Services Framework is an open source SOAP and REST web services platform based on Apache CXF for use in enterprise IT organizations. It is productized and supported by the Fuse group at FuseSource Corp. Fuse Services Framework service-enables new and existing systems for use in enterprise SOA infrastructure. Fuse Services Framework is a pluggable, small-footprint engine that creates high performance, secure and robust services in minutes using front-end programming APIs like JAX-WS and JAX-RS. It supports multiple transports and bindings and is extensible so developers can add bindings for additional message formats so all systems can work together without having to communicate through a centralized server. Fuse Services Framework is now a part of Red Hat JBoss Fuse. Fabric8 is a free Apache 2.0 Licensed upstream community for the JBoss Fuse product from Red Hat.
TSheets
TSheets was a web-based and mobile time tracking and employee scheduling app. The service was accessed via a web browser or a mobile app. TSheets was an alternative to a paper timesheet or punch cards. == History == Based in Eagle, Idaho, TSheets was co-founded in 2006 by CEO Matt Rissell and CTO Brandon Zehm. In 2008, TSheets released a native employee time tracking app for the iPhone. In 2012, TSheets released an integration with accounting and payroll software QuickBooks. In 2015, TSheets accepted $15 million in growth equity funding from Summit Partners, bought a building in Eagle, Idaho, and opened a second location in Sydney, Australia. On 5 December 2017, Intuit announced an agreement to acquire TSheets. The transaction was valued at approximately $340 million of cash and other consideration and closed on 11 January 2018. After the transaction closed, Time Capture became a new business unit within Intuit's Small Business and Self-Employed Group with Matt Rissell assuming the leader role reporting to Alex Chriss. TSheets's Eagle, Idaho site became an Intuit location.
Clone tool
The clone tool, as it is known in Adobe Photoshop, Inkscape, GIMP, and Corel PhotoPaint, is used in digital image editing to replace information for one part of a picture with information from another part. In other image editing software, its equivalent is sometimes called a rubber stamp tool or a clone brush. == Applications == The clone tool can remove objects by copying a nearby background. The user selects a matching location as the source, then paints over the element to be hidden. A typical use for the tool is in object removal – more colloquially, "airbrushing" or "photoshopping" out an unwanted part of the image. If a part of an image is removed simply by cutting it out, then a hole is left in the background. The Clone tool can fill in this hole convincingly with a copy of the existing background from elsewhere in the image. A common use for this tool is to retouch skin, particularly in portraits, to remove blemishes and make skin tones more even. Cloning can also be used to remove other unwanted elements, such as telephone wires, an unwanted bird in the sky, and the like. A more automated method of object removal uses texture synthesis to fill in gaps. Of these, patch-based texture synthesis or "image quilting" is essentially an automated application of the clone tool, choosing the optimal source area so as to patch over with a minimal seam. In some cases, the undesired object is mixed with the remainder of the image, and a simple circular brush, even with feathering, would not work. For these cases, some programs allow an object to be selected by color/outline so other areas are not affected. Other programs allow edge/color sensitive brushes to deal with such objects. == Healing tool == A similar tool is the healing tool, which occurs in variants such as the healing brush or spot healing tool. These incorporate the existing texture, rather than painting it over.
Distributed Common Ground System
The Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) is a system which produces military intelligence for multiple branches of the American military. == DCGS Programs == DCGS-N - DCGS for the United States Navy DCGS-A - DCGS for the United States Army AF DCGS - DCGS for the United States Air Force DCGS-MC - DCGS for the United States Marine Corps DCGS-SOF - DCGS for the United States Special Operations Forces IS&A Support Center - DCGS-A Help Desk for the United States Army - https://dcgsahelp.max.gov/ - Max.gov sunset 15 December 2023 == Description == While in U.S. Air Force use, the system produces intelligence collected by the U-2 Dragonlady, RQ-4 Global Hawk, MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1 Predator. The previous system of similar use was the Deployable Ground Station (DGS), which was first deployed in July 1994. Subsequent version of DGS were developed from 1995 through 2009. Although officially designated a "weapons system", it consists of computer hardware and software connected together in a computer network, devoted to processing and dissemination of information such as images. The 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing of the Air Combat Command operates and maintains the USAF system. A plan envisioned in 1998 was to develop interoperable systems for the Army and Navy, in addition to the Air Force. By 2006, version 10.6 was deployed by the Air Force, and a version known as DCGS-A was developed for the Army. After a 2010 report by General Michael T. Flynn, the program was intended to use cloud computing and be as easy to use as an iPad, which soldiers over a few years were commonly using. By April 2011, project manager Colonel Charles Wells announced version 3 of the Army system (code named "Griffin") was being deployed in the US war in Afghanistan. In January 2012, the United States Army Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center hosted a meeting based on the DCGS-A early experience. It brought together technology providers in the hope of developing more integrated systems using cloud computing with open architectures, compared to previously specialized custom-built systems. A major contractor was Lockheed Martin, with computers supplied by Silicon Graphics International out of its Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin office. Software known as the Analyst's Notebook, originally developed by i2 Limited, was included in DCGS-A. IBM acquired i2 in 2011. Some US Army personnel reported using a Palantir Technologies product to improve their ability to predict locations of improvised explosive devices. An April 2012 report recommending further study after initial success. Palantir software was rated easy to use, but did not have the flexibility and wide number of data sources of DCGS-A. In July 2012, Congressman Duncan D. Hunter (from California, the state where Palantir is based) complained of US DoD obstacles to its wider use. Although a limited test in August 2011 by the Test and Evaluation Command had recommended deployment, operation problems of DCGS-A included the baseline system was "not operationally effective" with reboots on average about every 8 hours. A set of improvements was identified in November 2012. The press reported some of the shortcomings uncovered by General Genaro Dellarocco in the tests. The ambitious goal of integrating 473 data sources for 75 million reports proved to be challenging, after spending an estimated $2.3 billion on the Army system alone. In May 2013 Politico reported that Palantir lobbyists and some anonymous returning veterans continued to advocate the use of its software, despite its interoperability limits. In particular, members of special forces and US Marines were not required to use the official Army system. Similar stories appeared in other publications, with Army representatives (such as Major General Mary A. Legere) citing the limitations of various systems. Congressman Hunter was a member of the House Armed Services Committee which required a review of the program, after two other members of congress sent an open letter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee included testimony from Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno. The 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) has found the system to be "unstable, slow, not friendly and a major hindrance to operations". The equivalent system for the United States Navy was planned for initial deployment by 2015, and within a shipboard network called Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) by 2016. Some early testing was announced in 2009 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman. A portion of the software, a distributed data framework for the DCGS integration backbone (DIB) version 4, was submitted to an open-source software repository of the Codice Foundation on GitHub. The framework was new for DIB version 4, replacing the legacy DIB portal with an Ozone Widget Framework interface. It was written in the Java programming language. == DCGS-A == Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) is the United States Army's primary system to post data, process information, and disseminate Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) information about the threat, weather, and terrain to echelons. DCGS-A provides commanders the ability to task battle-space sensors and receive intelligence information from multiple sources. === Promotion === An August 17, 2011, UPI article quoted i2 Chief Executive Officer Robert Griffin who commented on DCGS-A's best-of-breed approach to development. The article detailed the Army contracting with i2 for Analyst's Notebook software. "With its open architecture, Analyst's Notebook supports the Army's strategy to employ and integrate best-of-breed solutions from across the industry to meet the dynamic needs users face in the field on a daily basis." A February 1, 2012, article in the Army web page quoted Mark Kitz, DCGS-A technical director. DCGS-A "uses the latest in cloud technology to rapidly gather, collaborate and share intelligence data from multiple sources to deliver a common operating picture. DCGS-A is able to rapidly adapt to changing operational environments by leveraging an iterative development model and open architecture allowing for collaboration with multiple government, industry and academic partners." A July 2012 article in SIGNAL Magazine, monthly publication of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, promoted DCGS-A as taking advantage of technological environments with which young soldiers are familiar. The article quoted the DCGS-A program manager, Col. Charles Wells on the systems benefits. The article also included Lockheed Martin's DCGS-A program manager. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published an article May 4, 2012, about Wisconsin-located companies helping DCGS-A with cloud computing technology. The article promoted the speed when cloud computing processes intelligence and cost savings by analyzing data in the field. === The U.S. Army's 2011 Posture Statement === The U.S. Army released its 2011 Army Posture Statement March 2. It included a statement on DCGS-A: “The Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) is the Army's premier intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) enterprise for the tasking of sensors, analysis and processing of data, exploitation of data, and dissemination of intelligence (TPED) across all echelons. It is the Army component of the larger Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise (DI2E) and interoperable with other Service DCGS programs. Under the DI2E framework, USD (I) hopes to provide COCOM Joint Intelligence Operations Centers (JIOCs) capabilities interoperable with DCGS-A through a Cloud/widget approach. DCGS-A connects tactical, operational, and theater-level commanders to hundreds of intelligence and intelligence-related data sources at all classification levels and allows them to focus efforts of the entire ISR community on their information requirements. === Comparisons === Some Ground Commanders who describe DCGS-A as "unwieldy and unreliable, hard to learn and difficult to use," supporting alternative software from Palantir Technologies. Palantir software supports small unit situational awareness, but is not sufficiently funded to support the broader role that DCGS-A fulfills. == Operators == 480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing 9th Intelligence Squadron 13th Intelligence Squadron 548th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group 548 Operational Support Squadron 48th Intelligence Squadron 101st Intelligence Squadron 113th Air Support Operations Squadron 127th Command and Control Squadron 161st Intelligence Squadron
Conservative morphological anti-aliasing
Conservative morphological anti-aliasing (CMAA) is an antialiasing technique originally developed by Filip Strugar at Intel. CMAA is an image-based, post processing technique similar to that of morphological antialiasing. CMAA uses 4 main steps which are image analysis for color discontinuities, locally dominant edge detection, simple shape handling, and lastly symmetrical long edge shape handling. A couple of years after CMAA was introduced, Intel unveiled an updated version which they named CMAA2.