Flexidraw is a 1985 graphics computer program published by Inkwell Systems. == Gameplay == Flexidraw is a graphics program that allows users to produce drawings using a light pen and print them. == Reception == Roy Wagner reviewed the product for Computer Gaming World, and stated that "Of the many graphics programs available Flexidraw is certainly the best supported by it's [sic] parent company."
Fantavision
Fantavision is an animation program by Scott Anderson for the Apple II and published by Broderbund in 1985. Versions were released for the Apple IIGS (1987), Amiga (1988), and MS-DOS (1988). Fantavision allows the creation of vector graphics animations using the mouse and keyboard. The user creates frames, and the software generates the frames between them. Because this is done in real-time, it allows for creative exploration and quick changes. The program uses a graphical user interface in the style of the Macintosh with pull-down menus and black text on a white background. Advertisements claimed Fantavision a revolutionary breakthrough that brings the animation features of "tweening" and "transforming" to home computers. == Reception == Compute! in 1989 called Fantavision the best animation program for the IBM PC, although it noted the inability to draw curves. == Reviews == Games #70
Strong cryptography
Strong cryptography or cryptographically strong are general terms used to designate the cryptographic algorithms that, when used correctly, provide a very high (usually insurmountable) level of protection against any eavesdropper, including the government agencies. There is no precise definition of the boundary line between the strong cryptography and (breakable) weak cryptography, as this border constantly shifts due to improvements in hardware and cryptanalysis techniques. These improvements eventually place the capabilities once available only to the NSA within the reach of a skilled individual, so in practice there are only two levels of cryptographic security, "cryptography that will stop your kid sister from reading your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files" (Bruce Schneier). The strong cryptography algorithms have high security strength, for practical purposes usually defined as a number of bits in the key. For example, the United States government, when dealing with export control of encryption, considered as of 1999 any implementation of the symmetric encryption algorithm with the key length above 56 bits or its public key equivalent to be strong and thus potentially a subject to the export licensing. To be strong, an algorithm needs to have a sufficiently long key and be free of known mathematical weaknesses, as exploitation of these effectively reduces the key size. At the beginning of the 21st century, the typical security strength of the strong symmetrical encryption algorithms is 128 bits (slightly lower values still can be strong, but usually there is little technical gain in using smaller key sizes). Demonstrating the resistance of any cryptographic scheme to attack is a complex matter, requiring extensive testing and reviews, preferably in a public forum. Good algorithms and protocols are required (similarly, good materials are required to construct a strong building), but good system design and implementation is needed as well: "it is possible to build a cryptographically weak system using strong algorithms and protocols" (just like the use of good materials in construction does not guarantee a solid structure). Many real-life systems turn out to be weak when the strong cryptography is not used properly, for example, random nonces are reused A successful attack might not even involve algorithm at all, for example, if the key is generated from a password, guessing a weak password is easy and does not depend on the strength of the cryptographic primitives. A user can become the weakest link in the overall picture, for example, by sharing passwords and hardware tokens with the colleagues. == Background == The level of expense required for strong cryptography originally restricted its use to the government and military agencies, until the middle of the 20th century the process of encryption required a lot of human labor and errors (preventing the decryption) were very common, so only a small share of written information could have been encrypted. US government, in particular, was able to keep a monopoly on the development and use of cryptography in the US into the 1960s. In the 1970, the increased availability of powerful computers and unclassified research breakthroughs (Data Encryption Standard, the Diffie-Hellman and RSA algorithms) made strong cryptography available for civilian use. Mid-1990s saw the worldwide proliferation of knowledge and tools for strong cryptography. By the 21st century the technical limitations were gone, although the majority of the communication were still unencrypted. At the same the cost of building and running systems with strong cryptography became roughly the same as the one for the weak cryptography. The use of computers changed the process of cryptanalysis, famously with Bletchley Park's Colossus. But just as the development of digital computers and electronics helped in cryptanalysis, it also made possible much more complex ciphers. It is typically the case that use of a quality cipher is very efficient, while breaking it requires an effort many orders of magnitude larger - making cryptanalysis so inefficient and impractical as to be effectively impossible. == Cryptographically strong algorithms == This term "cryptographically strong" is often used to describe an encryption algorithm, and implies, in comparison to some other algorithm (which is thus cryptographically weak), greater resistance to attack. But it can also be used to describe hashing and unique identifier and filename creation algorithms. See for example the description of the Microsoft .NET runtime library function Path.GetRandomFileName. In this usage, the term means "difficult to guess". An encryption algorithm is intended to be unbreakable (in which case it is as strong as it can ever be), but might be breakable (in which case it is as weak as it can ever be) so there is not, in principle, a continuum of strength as the idiom would seem to imply: Algorithm A is stronger than Algorithm B which is stronger than Algorithm C, and so on. The situation is made more complex, and less subsumable into a single strength metric, by the fact that there are many types of cryptanalytic attack and that any given algorithm is likely to force the attacker to do more work to break it when using one attack than another. There is only one known unbreakable cryptographic system, the one-time pad, which is not generally possible to use because of the difficulties involved in exchanging one-time pads without them being compromised. So any encryption algorithm can be compared to the perfect algorithm, the one-time pad. The usual sense in which this term is (loosely) used, is in reference to a particular attack, brute force key search — especially in explanations for newcomers to the field. Indeed, with this attack (always assuming keys to have been randomly chosen), there is a continuum of resistance depending on the length of the key used. But even so there are two major problems: many algorithms allow use of different length keys at different times, and any algorithm can forgo use of the full key length possible. Thus, Blowfish and RC5 are block cipher algorithms whose design specifically allowed for several key lengths, and who cannot therefore be said to have any particular strength with respect to brute force key search. Furthermore, US export regulations restrict key length for exportable cryptographic products and in several cases in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., famously in the case of Lotus Notes' export approval) only partial keys were used, decreasing 'strength' against brute force attack for those (export) versions. More or less the same thing happened outside the US as well, as for example in the case of more than one of the cryptographic algorithms in the GSM cellular telephone standard. The term is commonly used to convey that some algorithm is suitable for some task in cryptography or information security, but also resists cryptanalysis and has no, or fewer, security weaknesses. Tasks are varied, and might include: generating randomness encrypting data providing a method to ensure data integrity Cryptographically strong would seem to mean that the described method has some kind of maturity, perhaps even approved for use against different kinds of systematic attacks in theory and/or practice. Indeed, that the method may resist those attacks long enough to protect the information carried (and what stands behind the information) for a useful length of time. But due to the complexity and subtlety of the field, neither is almost ever the case. Since such assurances are not actually available in real practice, sleight of hand in language which implies that they are will generally be misleading. There will always be uncertainty as advances (e.g., in cryptanalytic theory or merely affordable computer capacity) may reduce the effort needed to successfully use some attack method against an algorithm. In addition, actual use of cryptographic algorithms requires their encapsulation in a cryptosystem, and doing so often introduces vulnerabilities which are not due to faults in an algorithm. For example, essentially all algorithms require random choice of keys, and any cryptosystem which does not provide such keys will be subject to attack regardless of any attack resistant qualities of the encryption algorithm(s) used. == Legal issues == Widespread use of encryption increases the costs of surveillance, so the government policies aim to regulate the use of the strong cryptography. In the 2000s, the effect of encryption on the surveillance capabilities was limited by the ever-increasing share of communications going through the global social media platforms, that did not use the strong encryption and provided governments with the requested data. Murphy talks about a legislative balance that needs to be struck between the power of the government that are broad enough to be able to follow the qui
Brain Imaging Data Structure
The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) is a standard for organizing, annotating, and describing data collected during neuroimaging experiments. It is based on a formalized file and directory structure and metadata files (based on JSON and TSV) with controlled vocabulary. This standard has been adopted by a multitude of labs around the world as well as databases such as OpenNeuro, SchizConnect, Developing Human Connectome Project, and FCP-INDI, and is seeing uptake in an increasing number of studies. While originally specified for MRI data, BIDS has been extended to several other imaging modalities such as MEG, EEG, and intracranial EEG (see also BIDS Extension Proposals). == History == The project is a community-driven effort. BIDS, originally OBIDS (Open Brain Imaging Data Structure), was initiated during an INCF sponsored data sharing working group meeting (January 2015) at Stanford University. It was subsequently spearheaded and maintained by Chris Gorgolewski. Since October 2019, the project is headed by a Steering Group and maintained by a separate team of maintainers, the Maintainers Group, according to a governance document that was approved of by the BIDS community in a vote. BIDS has advanced under the direction and effort of contributors, the community of researchers that appreciate the value of standardizing neuroimaging data to facilitate sharing and analysis. == BIDS Extension Proposals == BIDS can be extended in a backwards compatible way and is evolving over time. This is accomplished through BIDS Extension Proposals (BEPs), which are community-driven processes following agreed-upon guidelines. A full list of finalized BEPs and BEPs in progress can be found on the BIDS website
Social media as a public utility
Social media as a public utility is a theory postulating that social networking sites (such as Meta - ie:Facebook & Instagram or Alphabet - ie: YouTube & Google, but also independent sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Snapchat etc.) are essential public services that should be regulated by the government, in a manner similar to how electric and phone utilities are typically government regulated. It is based on the notion that social media platforms have monopoly power and broad social influence. == Background == === Definitions === Social media is defined as "a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content." Furthermore, the New Zealand Government of Internal Affairs describes it as "a set of online technologies, sites, and practices which are used to share opinions, experiences and perspectives. Fundamentally it is about the conversation. In contrast with traditional media, the nature of social media is to be highly interactive." Moreover, the term social media is described as online tools that let people interact and communicate with each other. This has become a standard word for online cultural exchange and a dominant way for individuals to engage on the internet. By using social media individuals become more closely and strongly connected than ever before. The traditional definition of the term public utility is "an infrastructural necessity for the general public where the supply conditions are such that the public may not be provided with a reasonable service at reasonable prices because of monopoly in the area." Conventional public utilities include water, natural gas, and electricity. In order to secure the interests of the public, utilities are regulated. Public utilities can also be seen as natural monopolies implying that the highest degree of efficiency is accomplished under one operator in the marketplace. Public utility regulation for social media has been largely criticized because people believe it would produce undesirable and indirect effects. However, others say that truly effective government regulation would produce valuable results. Social media as a public utility is a crucial debate because utilities get regulated, so marking social media websites as utilities would require government regulation of various social media websites and platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Applying the term public utility to social media implies that social media websites are public necessities, and, consequently, should be regulated by the government. While social media are not as essential for survival as traditional public utilities such as electricity, water, and natural gas, many people believe it has become vital for living in an interconnected world and without it, living a successful life would be difficult. Therefore, many people believe that social media has reached utility status and should be treated as a public utility. However, others believe that this is not true because social media are constantly revolutionizing and giving such platforms "utility status" would result in government regulation, which would consequently hinder innovation. Over the past decade many have debated and questioned whether or not "Internet service providers should be considered essential facilities or natural monopolies and regulated as public utilities." === Monopoly === A monopoly is defined as "a firm that is the only seller of a product or service having no close substitutes." A natural monopoly is when the entire demand within a relevant market can be satisfied at lowest cost by one firm rather than by two or more, and if such a market contains more than one firm then the firms will "quickly shake down to one through mergers or failures, or production will continue to consume more resources than necessary." In a monopoly competition is said to be short-lived, and in a natural monopoly it is said to produce inefficient results." Public utility companies can be regulated to prevent them from gaining monopolistic control. In November 2011 AT&T's proposal for merging with T-Mobile was rejected because it would have "diminished competition," and have led to the company having monopolistic power within the telephone industry. Such regulation is permitted because the telephone industry is a public utility. Similarly, Microsoft has also been prevented from taking various business actions that could result in the company gaining monopolistic power. If social media were a public utility then regulation of Google and Facebook would similarly dictate what they could and could not do. The possibility was raised in 2018 by U.S. Representative Steve King during a House Judiciary hearing on social media filtering practices. == Arguments == Advocates of this theory believe that social media websites already act like public utilities, and therefore regulation is needed. Additionally, advocates say that in the 21st century, using such websites are as necessary for communication as using traditional public utilities such as telephone, water, electricity, and natural gas are for other everyday uses. Specifically, advocates note that Google search should be treated as a public utility and needs to be regulated because it dominates the search engine market and no website can afford to ignore it. There is the position that a social media website such as Google "is a common carrier and should be regulated as such (Newman 2011)." These are reinforced by a perception that social media companies fail to properly maintain fair platforms for discourse. === Individual level === Advocates of regulating social media as a public utility believe that having an Internet presence using social media websites is imperative for individuals to adequately take part in the 21st century. Consequently, they argue that these sites are public utilities that need to be regulated to ensure that the constitutional rights of users are protected. For example, regulation may be needed to protect freedom of speech against risks such as Internet censorship and deplatforming. Social media affects people's behavior. For instance, it plays an important role in shaping its users' decisions and actions pertaining to health. This is demonstrated in a Pew Research Center research, which showed that 72 percent of American adults turned to social media for health information in 2011. Around 70 percent of people with chronic illnesses also use the platform to find cure, diagnoses, and other health answers. This development becomes a public issue as social media are likely to provide wrong medical information. Additionally, social media sites can also facilitate deleterious health behavior such as smoking, drug use, and harmful sexual behavior. === Business level === Advocates of social media as a public utility maintain that social media services dominate the Internet and are mainly owned by three or four companies that have unparalleled power to shape user interaction, and because of this power such businesses need to be regulated as public utilities. Zeynep Tufekci, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, claims that services on the Internet such as Google, eBay, Facebook, Amazon.com, are all natural monopolies. She has stated that these services "benefit greatly from network externalities[,] which means that the more people on the service, the more useful it is for everyone," and thus it is difficult to replace the market leader. === Government level === Advocates of social media as a public utility believe that the government should impose restrictions on social media websites, such as Google, that are designed to benefit its rivals. Due to the recent substantial growth of social media websites such as Google, advocates claim that such a website "might need search neutrality regulation modeled after net neutrality regulation and that a Federal Search Commission might be needed to enforce such a regime." danah boyd expresses a future issue which the government may have to deal with in her research: Facebook is becoming an international social media website, specifically prevalent in Canada and Europe which are "two regions that love to regulate their utilities." Furthermore, recent books by New America Foundation Senior Fellow Rebecca MacKinnon and law professor Lori Andrews advise society to start considering Facebook and Google as nation-states or the "sovereigns of cyberspace." Overall, advocates of social media as a public utility believe that due to the immense popularity and necessity of social media websites, it is imperative that the Government imposes regulations in the same manner they do for electricity, water, and natural gas. == Counterarguments == Opponents of this theory say that social media websites should not be treated as public utilities because these platforms are changing every year, and because they are not essential services for s
ObjectVision
ObjectVision was a forms-based programming language and environment for Windows 3.x developed by Borland. The latest version, 2.1, was released in 1992. An ObjectVision application is composed by forms designed in a graphic way that contains objects and events to provide interactivity. Forms are connected together with logic in the form of decision trees. ObjectVision applications also can interact with databases using multiple engines, like Paradox and dBase. A finished project is saved as an OVD file, that is executed by an interpreted runtime that can be freely distributed. ObjectVision was not used broadly except in some niche segments, but the visual programming ideas were the basis for Borland Delphi.
Instant messaging
Instant messaging (IM) technology is a type of synchronous computer-mediated communication involving the immediate (real-time) transmission of messages between two or more parties over the Internet or another computer network. Originally involving simple text message exchanges, modern instant messaging applications and services (also variously known as instant messenger, messaging app, chat app, chat client, or simply a messenger) tend to also feature the exchange of multimedia, emojis, file transfer, VoIP (voice calling), and video chat capabilities. Instant messaging systems facilitate connections between specified known users (often using a contact list also known as a "buddy list" or "friend list") or in chat rooms, and can be standalone apps or integrated into a wider social media platform, or in a website where it can, for instance, be used for conversational commerce. Originally the term "instant messaging" was distinguished from "text messaging" by being run on a computer network instead of a cellular/mobile network, being able to write longer messages, real-time communication, presence ("status"), and being free (only cost of access instead of per SMS message sent). Instant messaging was pioneered in the early Internet era; the IRC protocol was the earliest to achieve wide adoption. Later in the 1990s, ICQ was among the first closed and commercialized instant messengers, and several rival services appeared afterwards as it became a popular use of the Internet. Beginning with its first introduction in 2005, BlackBerry Messenger became the first popular example of mobile-based IM, combining features of traditional IM and mobile SMS. Instant messaging remains very popular today; IM apps are the most widely used smartphone apps: in 2018 for instance there were 980 million monthly active users of WeChat and 1.3 billion monthly users of WhatsApp, the largest IM network. == Overview == Instant messaging (IM), sometimes also called "messaging" or "texting", consists of computer-based human communication between two users (private messaging) or more (chat room or "group") in real-time, allowing immediate receipt of acknowledgment or reply. This is in direct contrast to email, where conversations are not in real-time, and the perceived quasi-synchrony of the communications by the users (although many systems allow users to send offline messages that the other user receives when logging in). Earlier IM networks were limited to text-based communication, not dissimilar to mobile text messaging. As technology has moved forward, IM has expanded to include voice calling using a microphone, videotelephony using webcams, file transfer, location sharing, image and video transfer, voice notes, and other features. IM is conducted over the Internet or other types of networks (see also LAN messenger). Depending on the IM protocol, the technical architecture can be peer-to-peer (direct point-to-point transmission) or client–server (when all clients have to first connect to the central server). Primary IM services are controlled by their corresponding companies and usually follow the client-server model. At one point, the term "Instant Messenger" was a service mark of AOL Time Warner and could not be used in software not affiliated with AOL in the United States. For this reason, in April 2007, the instant messaging client formerly named Gaim (or gaim) announced that they would be renamed "Pidgin". === Clients === Modern IM services generally provide their own client, either a separately installed application or a browser-based client. They are normally centralised networks run by the servers of the platform's operators, unlike peer-to-peer protocols like XMPP. These usually only work within the same IM network, although some allow limited function with other services (see #Interoperability). Third-party client software applications exist that will connect with most of the major IM services. There is the class of instant messengers that uses the serverless model, which doesn't require servers, and the IM network consists only of clients. There are several serverless messengers: RetroShare, Tox, Bitmessage, Ricochet. See also: LAN messenger. Some examples of popular IM services today include Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp Messenger, WeChat, QQ Messenger, Viber, Line, and Snapchat. The popularity of certain apps greatly differ between different countries. Certain apps have an emphasis on certain uses - for example, Skype focuses on video calling, Slack focuses on messaging and file sharing for work teams, and Snapchat focuses on image messages. Some social networking services offer messaging services as a component of their overall platform, such as Facebook's Facebook Messenger, who also own WhatsApp. Others have a direct IM function as an additional adjunct component of their social networking platforms, like Instagram, Reddit, Tumblr, TikTok, Clubhouse and Twitter; this also includes for example dating websites, such as OkCupid or Plenty of Fish, and online gaming chat platforms. === Features === ==== Private and group messaging ==== Private chat allows users to converse privately with another person or a group. Privacy can also be enhanced in several ways, such as end-to-end encryption by default. Public and group chat features allow users to communicate with multiple people simultaneously. ==== Calling ==== Many major IM services and applications offer a call feature for user-to-user voice calls, conference calls, and voice messages. The call functionality is useful for professionals who utilize the application for work purposes and as a hands-free method. Videotelephony using a webcam is also possible by some. ==== Games and entertainment ==== Some IM applications include in-app games for entertainment. Yahoo! Messenger, for example, introduced these where users could play a game and viewed by friends in real-time. MSN Messenger featured a number of playable games within the interface. Facebook's Messenger has had a built-in option to play games with people in a chat, including games like Tetris and Blackjack. Discord features multiple games built inside the "activities" tab in voice channels. ==== Payments ==== A relatively new feature to instant messaging, peer-to-peer payments are available for financial tasks on top of communication. The lack of a service fee also makes these advantageous to financial applications. IM services such as Facebook Messenger and the WeChat 'super-app' for example offer a payment feature. == History == === Early systems === Though the term dates from the 1990s, instant messaging predates the Internet, first appearing on multi-user operating systems like Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS) and Multiplexed Information and Computing Service (Multics) in the mid-1960s. Initially, some of these systems were used as notification systems for services like printing, but quickly were used to facilitate communication with other users logged into the same machine. CTSS facilitated communication via text message for up to 30 people. Parallel to instant messaging were early online chat facilities, the earliest of which was Talkomatic (1973) on the PLATO system, which allowed 5 people to chat simultaneously on a 512 x 512 plasma display (5 lines of text + 1 status line per person). During the bulletin board system (BBS) phenomenon that peaked during the 1980s, some systems incorporated chat features which were similar to instant messaging; Freelancin' Roundtable was one prime example. The first such general-availability commercial online chat service (as opposed to PLATO, which was educational) was the CompuServe CB Simulator in 1980, created by CompuServe executive Alexander "Sandy" Trevor in Columbus, Ohio. As networks developed, the protocols spread with the networks. Some of these used a peer-to-peer protocol (e.g. talk, ntalk and ytalk), while others required peers to connect to a server (see talker and IRC). The Zephyr Notification Service (still in use at some institutions) was invented at MIT's Project Athena in the 1980s to allow service providers to locate and send messages to users. Early instant messaging programs were primarily real-time text, where characters appeared as they were typed. This includes the Unix "talk" command line program, which was popular in the 1980s and early 1990s. Some BBS chat programs (i.e. Celerity BBS) also used a similar interface. Modern implementations of real-time text also exist in instant messengers, such as AOL's Real-Time IM as an optional feature. In the latter half of the 1980s and into the early 1990s, the Quantum Link online service for Commodore 64 computers offered user-to-user messages between concurrently connected customers, which they called "On-Line Messages" (or OLM for short), and later "FlashMail." Quantum Link later became America Online and made AOL Instant Messenger (AIM, discussed later). While the Quantum Link client software ran on a Commodore 64, using only