Futuresport is a 1998 American made-for-television sports film directed by Ernest Dickerson, starring Dean Cain, Vanessa Williams, and Wesley Snipes. It originally aired on ABC in October 1998, was released on VHS and DVD in March 1999 and then distributed outside of the U.S. by Minerva Pictures. == Plot == The film is set in 2025, and centers on a sport called "Futuresport" (a combination of basketball, baseball and hockey that uses hoverboards and rollerblades) created as a non-lethal way to reduce gang warfare. Tre Ramzey (Dean Cain) along with his ex-girlfriend Alex Torres (Vanessa Williams) and his old coach Obike Fixx (Wesley Snipes) must prevent an all out war between the North American Alliance and the Pan-Pacific Commonwealth (The Com). At stake is who rules over the Hawaiian Islands—which are being terrorized by Eric Sythe (JR Bourne) and his gang the Hawaiian Liberation Organization (Hilo). It takes a revolutionary sport to stop a revolution. == Cast ==
Fling (social network)
Fling was a social media app available for IOS and Android. It was founded in 2014 by Marco Nardone and was taken offline in August 2016. == Overview == In 2012, Marco Nardone founded the startup Unii and launched Unii.com, a social network intended for students in the UK. While working on this service, Nardone had the idea for a messaging service where pictures could be sent to strangers in January 2014. The app Fling was then developed and released between March and July 2014. After a month, it already had 375,000 downloads and 180,000 active users on iOS. Users were able to take pictures inside the app and send them to 50 random people all over the world. The recipient could then choose to answer via chat or reply by sending a picture themselves. The app was used by many users as a medium to exchange sexually explicit pictures and for sexting with strangers. This led to the app being removed from the App Store in June 2015. In the 19 days that followed, flings developers rewrote the App almost completely from scratch, working around the clock. The feature to message random strangers was removed, and the app was readmitted into the App Store as a messenger App resembling Snapchat. But the redesigned Application did not have the success of its predecessor. The funding ran out and the parent company Unii went bankrupt. The company was not able to pay their content moderation team anymore, leading to a new surge of pornographic content on the App. Shortly after that, the Social Network was taken offline in August 2016. It has been inactive since. During the 2 years Fling was online, $21 million was raised from investors while generating no revenue at all. Of this $21 million (£16.5m), £5 million came from Nardone's father. == Allegations against CEO == Former employees made multiple allegations against Marco Nardone, the Founder and CEO of Unii and Fling. According to these claims, he behaved erratic and abusive, throwing "things across the office". He hired his girlfriend as the head of human resources to handle issues between him and his staff. Employees who left the company often had "some part of their pay held back". According to the reports, he also spent the money raised from investors irresponsibly, having no clear concept of a budget. Some of that money was used on expensive restaurants in London, a luxurious office for CEO Nardone and advertisements for Fling on Twitter and Facebook. Nardone also spent time partying in Ibiza with two employees, while the developer team in London frantically tried to get Fling back online after it being removed from the App Store. In December 2017 he pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend at a domestic violence court.
Source criticism
Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks. == Meaning == Problems in translation: The Danish word kildekritik, like the Norwegian word kildekritikk and the Swedish word källkritik, derived from the German Quellenkritik and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). Historian Wolfgang Hardtwig wrote: His [Ranke's] first work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494–1514 (History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514) (1824) was a great success. It already showed some of the basic characteristics of his conception of Europe, and was of historiographical importance particularly because Ranke made an exemplary critical analysis of his sources in a separate volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (On the Critical Methods of Recent Historians). In this work he raised the method of textual criticism used in the late eighteenth century, particularly in classical philology to the standard method of scientific historical writing. (Hardtwig, 2001, p. 12739) Historical theorist Chris Lorenz wrote: The larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be dominated by the research-oriented conception of historical method of the so-called Historical School in Germany, led by historians as Leopold Ranke and Berthold Niebuhr. Their conception of history, long been regarded as the beginning of modern, 'scientific' history, harked back to the 'narrow' conception of historical method, limiting the methodical character of history to source criticism. (Lorenz, 2001) In the early 21st century, source criticism is a growing field in, among other fields, library and information science. In this context source criticism is studied from a broader perspective than just, for example, history, classical philology, or biblical studies (but there, too, it has more recently received new attention). == Principles == The following principles are from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, written by the historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives. A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased. Two other principles are: Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute for subject knowledge: "Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304). The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it. "The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007). The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988): How was the source located? What type of source is it? Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? When was the information published? In which country was it published? What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? For literary sources complementing criteria are: Does the source contain a bibliography? Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? == Levels of generality == Some principles of source criticism are universal, other principles are specific for certain kinds of information sources. There is today no consensus about the similarities and differences between source criticism in the natural science and humanities. Logical positivism claimed that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism claimed that positivism is the basis of the sciences, whereas hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, in accordance with, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands both science and humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstanding and paradigms. Hermeneutics is thus a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and preunderstanding, whereas the sources of the natural sciences are not. Humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic". Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific papers) which are products of preunderstanding (and can lead to, for example, academic fraud). == Contributing fields == === Epistemology === Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and are thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful, observations must be explained by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefulness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources. The evaluation of knowledge or information sources cannot be more certain than is the construction of knowledge. If one accepts the principle of fallibilism then one also has to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criterion for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the ad hominem fallacy (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the straw man fallacy (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) === Research methodology === Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge are also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998). === Science studies === Studies of quality evaluation processes such as peer review, book reviews and of the normative criteria used in evaluation of scientific and scholarly research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct. Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, starting with the author (Watson) himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and a prominent learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an ex
Emotion-sensitive software
Emotion-sensitive software (ESS) is software specifically designed to target and monitor emotional response in a human being. Some software measures anger by comparing the pitch of a voice to a regular, or calm, pitch. Another approach is the measurement of physical appearance. If a camera or similar recording device picks up a certain amount of red pigmentation in the skin the system can be alerted that this person is angered. The competitive landscape in the Electronic Surveillance Software (ESS) industry is marked by a high level of secrecy regarding the operational details of these software systems. Many producers deliberately withhold information about the inner workings of their ESS products, a strategy that serves dual purposes: firstly, it intensifies competition among companies in the sector, as each strives to maintain a unique edge without revealing trade secrets that could be leveraged by competitors; secondly, this secrecy acts as a deterrent against individuals or entities who might try to circumvent the surveillance mechanisms. One application of ESS was developed by University of Notre Dame Assistant Professor of Psychology Sidney D'Mello, Art Graesser from the University of Memphis and a colleague from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They used the technology to create an electronic tutor that could assess a student's level of boredom and frustration based on facial expression and body language, and react accordingly.
Knuth–Eve algorithm
In computer science, the Knuth–Eve algorithm is an algorithm for polynomial evaluation. It preprocesses the coefficients of the polynomial to reduce the number of multiplications required at runtime. Ideas used in the algorithm were originally proposed by Donald Knuth in 1962. His procedure opportunistically exploits structure in the polynomial being evaluated. In 1964, James Eve determined for which polynomials this structure exists, and gave a simple method of "preconditioning" polynomials (explained below) to endow them with that structure. == Algorithm == === Preliminaries === Consider an arbitrary polynomial p ∈ R [ x ] {\displaystyle p\in \mathbb {R} [x]} of degree n {\displaystyle n} . Assume that n ≥ 3 {\displaystyle n\geq 3} . Define m {\displaystyle m} such that: if n {\displaystyle n} is odd then n = 2 m + 1 {\displaystyle n=2m+1} , and if n {\displaystyle n} is even then n = 2 m + 2 {\displaystyle n=2m+2} . Unless otherwise stated, all variables in this article represent either real numbers or univariate polynomials with real coefficients. All operations in this article are done over R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . Again, the goal is to create an algorithm that returns p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} given any x {\displaystyle x} . The algorithm is allowed to depend on the polynomial p {\displaystyle p} itself, since its coefficients are known in advance. === Overview === ==== Key idea ==== Using polynomial long division, we can write p ( x ) = q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α ) + ( β x + γ ) , {\displaystyle p(x)=q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha )+(\beta x+\gamma ),} where x 2 − α {\displaystyle x^{2}-\alpha } is the divisor. Picking a value for α {\displaystyle \alpha } fixes both the quotient q {\displaystyle q} and the coefficients in the remainder β {\displaystyle \beta } and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } . The key idea is to cleverly choose α {\displaystyle \alpha } such that β = 0 {\displaystyle \beta =0} , so that p ( x ) = q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α ) + γ . {\displaystyle p(x)=q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha )+\gamma .} This way, no operations are needed to compute the remainder polynomial, since it's just a constant. We apply this procedure recursively to q {\displaystyle q} , expressing p ( x ) = ( ( q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α m ) + γ m ) ⋯ ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α 1 ) + γ 1 . {\displaystyle p(x)=\left(\left(q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha _{m})+\gamma _{m}\right)\cdots \right)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha _{1})+\gamma _{1}.} After m {\displaystyle m} recursive calls, the quotient q {\displaystyle q} is either a linear or a quadratic polynomial. In this base case, the polynomial can be evaluated with (say) Horner's method. ==== "Preconditioning" ==== For arbitrary p {\displaystyle p} , it may not be possible to force β = 0 {\displaystyle \beta =0} at every step of the recursion. Consider the polynomials p e {\displaystyle p^{e}} and p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} with coefficients taken from the even and odd terms of p {\displaystyle p} respectively, so that p ( x ) = p e ( x 2 ) + x ⋅ p o ( x 2 ) . {\displaystyle p(x)=p^{e}(x^{2})+x\cdot p^{o}(x^{2}).} If every root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} is real, then it is possible to write p {\displaystyle p} in the form given above. Each α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} is a different root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} , counting multiple roots as distinct. Furthermore, if at least n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} roots of p {\displaystyle p} lie in one half of the complex plane, then every root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} is real. Ultimately, it may be necessary to "precondition" p {\displaystyle p} by shifting it — by setting p ( x ) ← p ( x + t ) {\displaystyle p(x)\gets p(x+t)} for some t {\displaystyle t} — to endow it with the structure that most of its roots lie in one half of the complex plane. At runtime, this shift has to be "undone" by first setting x ← x − t {\displaystyle x\gets x-t} . === Preprocessing step === The following algorithm is run once for a given polynomial p {\displaystyle p} . At this point, the values of x {\displaystyle x} that p {\displaystyle p} will be evaluated on are not known. ==== Better choice of t ==== While any t ≥ Re ( r 2 ) {\displaystyle t\geq {\text{Re}}(r_{2})} can work, it is possible to remove one addition during evaluation if t {\displaystyle t} is also chosen such that two roots of p ( x + t ) {\displaystyle p(x+t)} are symmetric about the origin. In that case, α 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}} can be chosen such that the shifted polynomial has a factor of x 2 − α 1 {\displaystyle x^{2}-\alpha _{1}} , so γ 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}=0} . It is always possible to find such a t {\displaystyle t} . One possible algorithm for choosing t {\displaystyle t} is: === Evaluation step === The following algorithm evaluates p {\displaystyle p} at some, now known, point x {\displaystyle x} . Assuming t {\displaystyle t} is chosen optimally, γ 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}=0} . So, the final iteration of the loop can instead run y ← y ⋅ ( s − α i ) , {\displaystyle y\gets y\cdot (s-\alpha _{i}),} saving an addition. == Analysis == In total, evaluation using the Knuth–Eve algorithm for a polynomial of degree n {\displaystyle n} requires n {\displaystyle n} additions and ⌊ n / 2 ⌋ + 2 {\displaystyle \lfloor n/2\rfloor +2} multiplications, assuming t {\displaystyle t} is chosen optimally. No algorithm to evaluate a given polynomial of degree n {\displaystyle n} can use fewer than n {\displaystyle n} additions or fewer than ⌈ n / 2 ⌉ {\displaystyle \lceil n/2\rceil } multiplications during evaluation. This result assumes only addition and multiplication are allowed during both preprocessing and evaluation. The Knuth–Eve algorithm is not well-conditioned.
Socially assistive robot
A socially assistive robot (SAR) aids users through social engagement and support rather than through physical tasks and interactions. == Background == The field of socially assistive robotics emerged in the early 2000s, following the emergence of the field of social robots. In contrast to social robots, SARs aid users with specific goals related to behavior change rather than serving as purely social entities. The term "Socially assistive robot" was initially defined by Maja Matarić and David Feil-Seifer in 2005. Since its inception, the field has gained substantial recognition, featuring numerous research projects, a wealth of global research publications, startup companies, and a growing array of products on the consumer market. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the immense potential of socially assistive robots, particularly in addressing the needs of large user populations, including children engaged in remote learning, elderly individuals grappling with loneliness, and those affected by social isolation and its associated negative consequences. == Characteristics of interaction == SARs rely on artificial intelligence (AI) to generate real-time, responsive, natural, and meaningful robot behaviors during interactions with humans. The robots employ various forms of communication, such as facial expressions, gestures, body movements, and speech. In contrast to robots intended for physical tasks, SARs are designed to support and motivate users to perform their own tasks. The tasks a user engages in can be physical (e.g., rehabilitation exercises for post-stroke users), cognitive (e.g., dementia screening for elderly users), or social (e.g., turn-taking for users with autism spectrum disorders). This complex interaction involves detecting and interpreting the user's movement, behavior, intent, goals, speech, and preferences. Machine learning and robot learning techniques are frequently employed to enhance the robot's understanding of the user, predict user preferences, and provide effective assistance. The effectiveness of socially assistive robots is assessed based on objective measurements of user performance and improvement resulting from the robot’s assistance and support. Unlike other branches of robotics, where effectiveness depends on the robot's physical task completion, SAR measures the success of the robot based on the user's progress and achievements. This evaluation is carried out using quantitative objective metrics, such as time spent on tasks, accuracy, retention, and verbalization, as well as quantitative subjective metrics, such as user survey tools. SAR is based on the large body of evidence showing that users tend to respond more positively to interactions with physical robots compared to interactions with screens. Interaction with physical robots also encourages users to learn and retain more information than screen-based interactions. This fundamental insight underlines why physical robots in SAR applications are more effective, as opposed to interactions solely involving screens, tablets, or computers. == Uses and applications == SARs have been developed and validated in a wide array of applications, including healthcare, elder care, education, and training. For example, SARs have been developed to support children on the autism spectrum in acquiring and practicing social and cognitive skills, to motivate and coach stroke patients throughout their rehabilitation exercises, monitoring individuals health (ex. fall detection), and to encourage elderly users to be more physically and socially active. There is a concern that technophobia and lack of trust in robots will pose a barrier to the effectiveness of SARs in older adults.
Semantic query
Semantic queries allow for queries and analytics of associative and contextual nature. Semantic queries enable the retrieval of both explicitly and implicitly derived information based on syntactic, semantic and structural information contained in data. They are designed to deliver precise results (possibly the distinctive selection of one single piece of information) or to answer more fuzzy and wide open questions through pattern matching and digital reasoning. Semantic queries work on named graphs, linked data or triples. This enables the query to process the actual relationships between information and infer the answers from the network of data. This is in contrast to semantic search, which uses semantics (meaning of language constructs) in unstructured text to produce a better search result. (See natural language processing.) From a technical point of view, semantic queries are precise relational-type operations much like a database query. They work on structured data and therefore have the possibility to utilize comprehensive features like operators (e.g. >, < and =), namespaces, pattern matching, subclassing, transitive relations, semantic rules and contextual full text search. The semantic web technology stack of the W3C is offering SPARQL to formulate semantic queries in a syntax similar to SQL. Semantic queries are used in triplestores, graph databases, semantic wikis, natural language and artificial intelligence systems. == Background == Relational databases represent all relationships between data in an implicit manner only. For example, the relationships between customers and products (stored in two content-tables and connected with an additional link-table) only come into existence in a query statement (SQL in the case of relational databases) written by a developer. Writing the query demands exact knowledge of the database schema. Linked-Data represent all relationships between data in an explicit manner. In the above example, no query code needs to be written. The correct product for each customer can be fetched automatically. Whereas this simple example is trivial, the real power of linked-data comes into play when a network of information is created (customers with their geo-spatial information like city, state and country; products with their categories within sub- and super-categories). Now the system can automatically answer more complex queries and analytics that look for the connection of a particular location with a product category. The development effort for this query is omitted. Executing a semantic query is conducted by walking the network of information and finding matches (also called Data Graph Traversal). Another important aspect of semantic queries is that the type of the relationship can be used to incorporate intelligence into the system. The relationship between a customer and a product has a fundamentally different nature than the relationship between a neighbourhood and its city. The latter enables the semantic query engine to infer that a customer living in Manhattan is also living in New York City whereas other relationships might have more complicated patterns and "contextual analytics". This process is called inference or reasoning and is the ability of the software to derive new information based on given facts. == Articles == Velez, Golda (2008). "Semantics Help Wall Street Cope With Data Overload". Wall Street & Technology. wallstreetandtech.com. Zhifeng, Xiao (2009). "Spatial information semantic query based on SPARQL". In Liu, Yaolin; Tang, Xinming (eds.). International Symposium on Spatial Analysis, Spatial-Temporal Data Modeling, and Data Mining. Vol. 7492. SPIE. pp. 74921P. Bibcode:2009SPIE.7492E..60X. doi:10.1117/12.838556. S2CID 62191842. Aquin, Mathieu (2010). "Watson, more than a Semantic Web search engine" (PDF). Semantic Web Journal. Dworetzky, Tom (2011). "How Siri Works: iPhone's 'Brain' Comes from Natural Language Processing". International Business Times. Horwitt, Elisabeth (2011). "The semantic Web gets down to business". computerworld.com. Rodriguez, Marko (2011). "Graph Pattern Matching with Gremlin". Marko A. Rodriguez. markorodriguez.com on Graph Computing. Sequeda, Juan (2011). "SPARQL Nuts & Bolts". Cambridge Semantics. Freitas, Andre (2012). "Querying Heterogeneous Datasets on the Linked Data Web" (PDF). IEEE Internet Computing. Kauppinen, Tomi (2012). "Using the SPARQL Package in R to handle Spatial Linked Data". linkedscience.org. Lorentz, Alissa (2013). "With Big Data, Context is a Big Issue". Wired.