Human-Robot Collaboration is the study of collaborative processes in human and robot agents work together to achieve shared goals. Many new applications for robots require them to work alongside people as capable members of human-robot teams. These include robots for homes, hospitals, and offices, space exploration and manufacturing. Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) is an interdisciplinary research area comprising classical robotics, human-computer interaction, artificial intelligence, process design, layout planning, ergonomics, cognitive sciences, and psychology. Industrial applications of human-robot collaboration involve Collaborative Robots, or cobots, that physically interact with humans in a shared workspace to complete tasks such as collaborative manipulation or object handovers. == Collaborative Activity == Collaboration is defined as a special type of coordinated activity, one in which two or more agents work jointly with each other, together performing a task or carrying out the activities needed to satisfy a shared goal. The process typically involves shared plans, shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions. Although collaboration and cooperation are often used interchangeably, collaboration differs from cooperation as it involves a shared goal and joint action where the success of both parties depend on each other. For effective human-robot collaboration, it is imperative that the robot is capable of understanding and interpreting several communication mechanisms similar to the mechanisms involved in human-human interaction. The robot must also communicate its own set of intents and goals to establish and maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate its actions to execute the shared plan. In addition, all team members demonstrate commitment to doing their own part, to the others doing theirs, and to the success of the overall task. == Theories Informing Human-Robot Collaboration == Human-human collaborative activities are studied in depth in order to identify the characteristics that enable humans to successfully work together. These activity models usually aim to understand how people work together in teams, how they form intentions and achieve a joint goal. Theories on collaboration inform human-robot collaboration research to develop efficient and fluent collaborative agents. === Belief Desire Intention Model === The belief-desire-intention (BDI) model is a model of human practical reasoning that was originally developed by Michael Bratman. The approach is used in intelligent agents research to describe and model intelligent agents. The BDI model is characterized by the implementation of an agent's beliefs (the knowledge of the world, state of the world), desires (the objective to accomplish, desired end state) and intentions (the course of actions currently under execution to achieve the desire of the agent) in order to deliberate their decision-making processes. BDI agents are able to deliberate about plans, select plans and execute plans. === Shared Cooperative Activity === Shared Cooperative Activity defines certain prerequisites for an activity to be considered shared and cooperative: mutual responsiveness, commitment to the joint activity and commitment to mutual support. An example case to illustrate these concepts would be a collaborative activity where agents are moving a table out the door, mutual responsiveness ensures that movements of the agents are synchronized; a commitment to the joint activity reassures each team member that the other will not at some point drop his side; and a commitment to mutual support deals with possible breakdowns due to one team member's inability to perform part of the plan. === Joint Intention Theory === Joint Intention Theory proposes that for joint action to emerge, team members must communicate to maintain a set of shared beliefs and to coordinate their actions towards the shared plan. In collaborative work, agents should be able to count on the commitment of other members, therefore each agent should inform the others when they reach the conclusion that a goal is achievable, impossible, or irrelevant. == Approaches to Human-Robot Collaboration == The approaches to human-robot collaboration include human emulation (HE) and human complementary (HC) approaches. Although these approaches have differences, there are research efforts to develop a unified approach stemming from potential convergences such as Collaborative Control. === Human Emulation === The human emulation approach aims to enable computers to act like humans or have human-like abilities in order to collaborate with humans. It focuses on developing formal models of human-human collaboration and applying these models to human-computer collaboration. In this approach, humans are viewed as rational agents who form and execute plans for achieving their goals and infer other people's plans. Agents are required to infer the goals and plans of other agents, and collaborative behavior consists of helping other agents to achieve their goals. === Human Complementary === The human complementary approach seeks to improve human-computer interaction by making the computer a more intelligent partner that complements and collaborates with humans. The premise is that the computer and humans have fundamentally asymmetric abilities. Therefore, researchers invent interaction paradigms that divide responsibility between human users and computer systems by assigning distinct roles that exploit the strengths and overcome the weaknesses of both partners. == Key Aspects == Specialization of Roles: Based on the level of autonomy and intervention, there are several human-robot relationships including master-slave, supervisor–subordinate, partner–partner, teacher–learner and fully autonomous robot. In addition to these roles, homotopy (a weighting function that allows a continuous change between leader and follower behaviors) was introduced as a flexible role distribution. Establishing shared goal(s): Through direct discussion about goals or inference from statements and actions, agents must determine the shared goals they are trying to achieve. Allocation of Responsibility and Coordination: Agents must decide how to achieve their goals, determine what actions will be done by each agent, and how to coordinate the actions of individual agents and integrate their results. Shared context: Agents must be able to track progress toward their goals. They must keep track of what has been achieved and what remains to be done. They must evaluate the effects of actions and determine whether an acceptable solution has been achieved. Communication: Any collaboration requires communication to define goals, negotiate over how to proceed and who will do what, and evaluate progress and results. Adaptation and learning: Collaboration over time require partners to adapt themselves to each other and learn from one's partner both directly or indirectly. Time and space: The time-space taxonomy divides human-robot interaction into four categories based on whether the humans and robots are using computing systems at the same time (synchronous) or different times (asynchronous) and while in the same place (collocated) or in different places (non-collocated). Ergonomics: Human factors and ergonomics are one of the key aspects for a sustainable human-robot collaboration. The robot control system can use biomechanical models and sensors to optimize various ergonomic metrics, such as muscle fatigue.
Conduit (company)
Conduit Ltd. is an international software company. From its founding in 2005 to 2013, its most well-known product was the Conduit toolbar, which was widely-described as malware. In 2013, it spun off its toolbar business; today, its main product is a mobile development platform that allows users to create native and web mobile applications for smartphones. == Products == From 2005 to 2013, the company's most well-known product was the Conduit toolbar, which is flagged by most antivirus software as potentially unwanted and adware. Conduit's toolbar software is often downloaded by malware packages from other publishers. The company spun off the toolbar division that manages the Conduit toolbar in 2013. Today, the company's main product is a mobile development platform that allows users to create native and web mobile applications for smartphones. App creation for its App Gallery is free, but it charges a monthly subscription fee to place apps on the App Store or Google Play. == History == Conduit was founded in 2005 by Shilo, Dror Erez, and Gaby Bilcyzk. Between years 2005 and 2013, it ran a successful but controversial toolbar platform business. Conduit was part of the so-called Download Valley companies monetizing free software and downloads by bundling adware. The toolbars were criticized by some as being very difficult to uninstall. The toolbar software was referred to as a "potentially unwanted program" by some in the computer industry because it could be used to change browser settings. The company had more than 400 employees in 2013. In September same year, Conduit spun off its entire website toolbar business division, which combined with Perion Network. After the deal, Conduit shareholders owned 81% of Perion's existing shares and both Perion and Conduit remained independent companies. The substantial size of the Conduit user base allowed Perion to immediately surpass AOL in U.S. searches. In 2015, Conduit announced it would purchase Keeprz, a mobile customer loyalty platform, for $45 million.
MDS matrix
An MDS matrix (maximum distance separable) is a matrix representing a function with certain diffusion properties that have useful applications in cryptography. Technically, an m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} matrix A {\displaystyle A} over a finite field K {\displaystyle K} is an MDS matrix if it is the transformation matrix of a linear transformation f ( x ) = A x {\displaystyle f(x)=Ax} from K n {\displaystyle K^{n}} to K m {\displaystyle K^{m}} such that no two different ( m + n ) {\displaystyle (m+n)} -tuples of the form ( x , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle (x,f(x))} coincide in n {\displaystyle n} or more components. Equivalently, the set of all ( m + n ) {\displaystyle (m+n)} -tuples ( x , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle (x,f(x))} is an MDS code, i.e., a linear code that reaches the Singleton bound. Let A ~ = ( I n A ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {A}}={\begin{pmatrix}\mathrm {I} _{n}\\\hline \mathrm {A} \end{pmatrix}}} be the matrix obtained by joining the identity matrix I n {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} _{n}} to A {\displaystyle A} . Then a necessary and sufficient condition for a matrix A {\displaystyle A} to be MDS is that every possible n × n {\displaystyle n\times n} submatrix obtained by removing m {\displaystyle m} rows from A ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {A}}} is non-singular. This is also equivalent to the following: all the sub-determinants of the matrix A {\displaystyle A} are non-zero. Then a binary matrix A {\displaystyle A} (namely over the field with two elements) is never MDS unless it has only one row or only one column with all components 1 {\displaystyle 1} . Reed–Solomon codes have the MDS property and are frequently used to obtain the MDS matrices used in cryptographic algorithms. Serge Vaudenay suggested using MDS matrices in cryptographic primitives to produce what he called multipermutations, not-necessarily linear functions with this same property. These functions have what he called perfect diffusion: changing t {\displaystyle t} of the inputs changes at least m − t + 1 {\displaystyle m-t+1} of the outputs. He showed how to exploit imperfect diffusion to cryptanalyze functions that are not multipermutations. MDS matrices are used for diffusion in such block ciphers as AES, SHARK, Square, Twofish, Anubis, KHAZAD, Manta, Hierocrypt, Kalyna, Camellia and HADESMiMC, and in the stream cipher MUGI and the cryptographic hash function Whirlpool, Poseidon.
Chaos Communication Congress
The Chaos Communication Congress is an annual hacker conference organized by the Chaos Computer Club. The congress features a variety of lectures and workshops on technical and political issues related to security, cryptography, privacy and online freedom of speech. It has taken place regularly at the end of the year since 1984, with the current date and duration (27–30 December) established in 2005. It is considered one of the largest events of its kind, alongside DEF CON in Las Vegas. == History == The congress is held in Germany. It started in 1984 in Hamburg, moved to Berlin in 1998, and back to Hamburg in 2012, having exceeded the capacity of the Berlin venue with more than 4500 attendees. Since then, it attracts an increasing number of people: around 6600 attendees in 2012, over 13000 in 2015, and more than 15000 in 2017. From 2017 to 2019, it took place at the Trade Fair Grounds in Leipzig, since the Hamburg venue (CCH) was closed for renovation in 2017 and the existing space was not enough for the growing congress. The congress moved back to Hamburg in 2023, after the renovation of CCH was finished. A large range of speakers are featured. The event is organized by volunteers called Chaos Angels. The non-members entry fee for four days was €100 in 2016, and was raised to €120 in 2018 to include a public transport ticket for the Leipzig area. An important part of the congress are the assemblies, semi-open spaces with clusters of tables and internet connections for groups and individuals to collaborate and socialize in projects, workshops and hands-on talks. These assembly spaces, introduced at the 2012 meeting, combine the hack center project space and distributed group spaces of former years. From 1997 to 2004 the congress also hosted the annual German Lockpicking Championships. 2005 was the first year the Congress lasted four days instead of three and lacked the German Lockpicking Championships. 2020 was the first year where the Congress did not take place at a physical location due to the COVID-19 pandemic, giving way to the first Remote Chaos Experience (rC3). The Chaos Computer Club announced to return to the now newly renovated Congress Center Hamburg for the 37th edition of the Chaos Communication Congress. The announcement confirms the usual date of 27-30 December, notably omitting the year it will be held. On 18 October 2022, they confirmed that the congress will indeed not be held in 2022. On 6 October 2023, the CCC announced that 37C3 will take place again on the usual dates in 2023. === Timeline ===
Experimental SAGE Subsector
The Experimental Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) Sector (ESS, Experimental SAGE Subsector until planned Sectors/Subsectors were renamed NORAD Regions, Divisions, and Sectors) was a prototype Cold War Air Defense Sector for developing the Semi Automatic Ground Environment. The Lincoln Laboratory control center in a new building was at Lexington, Massachusetts. == ESS Computer System == The network's Direction Center was completed in a new 1954 building (Building F, 42°27′37″N 071°16′04″W) with prototype peripherals and a single IBM XD-1 computer, a successor to Lincoln Lab's Whirlwind I computer (WWI). In 1955, Air Force personnel began IBM training at the Kingston, New York, prototype facility, and the "4620th Air Defense Wing (experimental SAGE) was established at Lincoln Laboratory"—its "primary mission was computer programming". ESS had a capacity of 48 tracks and used a pre-SAGE ground environment in a "prototype intercept monitor room [at] MIT's Barta building" with "track situation displays, which geographically showed Air Defense Identification Zone lines and antiaircraft circles [and] each console also had a 5-inch CRT for digital information display. Audible alert signals were used, with a different signal for each symbol on a situation display." == Radar stations == Initial service test models of the Burroughs AN/FST-2 Coordinate Data Transmitting Set were placed with radars at South Truro and West Bath, Maine; followed by Texas Tower#2 (TT2) in the Atlantic Ocean, which provided a "triangular pattern with overlap" radar coverage (TT2 later had a connection from the XD-1 via the GE G/A Data Link Output Subsystem through North Truro Air Force Station.) By August 1955, 13 radar stations were networked by the subsector, e.g.: Chatham Clinton, Massachusetts with gap-filler radar Great Boars Head Halibut Point Killingly, Connecticut (41.865734°N 71.820958°W / 41.865734; -71.820958).with gap-filler radar Rockport Air Force Station Scituate, Massachusetts South Truro West Bath, Maine (43°54′7″N 69°50′43″W) with AN/FPS-31 on Jug Handle Hill: ("Lincoln Laboratories experimental radar station") Required by 21 November 1955 were 44 consoles: 38 for the operations floor, 3 on the computer floor for display maintenance, and 3 near the maintenance console (program checkout). WWI was connected to the Experimental SAGE Subsector to verify crosstelling (collateral communication) with the ESS DC, and WWI was also used for a Ground-to-Air (G/A) experiment using a transmitter of the GE G/A Data Link Output Subsystem on Prospect Hill, Waltham, MA sending data to simulated airborne equipment at Lexington. Transmissions from the WWI SAGE Evaluation (WISE) computer system to XD-1 and back were without error by December 1955 when operational software specifications were frozen. Operating procedures for the ESS external sites were complete in March 1956, and == System Operation Testing == From November 15, 1955, to November 7, 1956, three System Operation Tests were conducted which used voice "Ground-to-Air" communication from the Barta control room to aircraft outfitted with SAGE receivers (F-86 interceptors modified to F-86L models in "Project FOLLOW-ON".) Test teams included employees of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Western Electric-ADES, IBM, the RAND Corporation, and Lincoln Labs' Division 6, Division 3, & Division 2 (Division 6 had been created for ESS support.) The North Truro P-10 AN/FST-2 was moved to Almaden Air Force Station (M-96)c. 1957-8 and on August 7, 1958, control of an airborne BOMARC missile that had malfunctioned transferred from the "Experimental SAGE Sector" to a Westinghouse AN/GPA-35 Ground Environment system and the missile crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. By December 31, 1958, ADC Manual 55-28 described the Model 3 SAGE System. == 1959 Experimental Testing == "To prove out the revised SAGE computer program" for Automatic Targeting and Battery Evaluation and ADDC-AADCP crosstelling, a "SAGE/Missile Master" test was conducted beginning in September 1959 with communications between the ESS XD-1 and Martin AN/FSG-1 Antiaircraft Defense System equipment at Fort Banks planned for the CONAD Joint Control Center at Fort Heath—a "SAGE ATABE Simulation Study" (SASS) was also completed 1959–60 by MITRE Corporation.
SQLBuddy
SQL Buddy is an open-source web-based application primarily coded in PHP, that allows users to control both MySQL and SQLite database through a web browser. The project was well regarded for its easy installation process and the friendly user interface it offered. The application was further praised for its cross-platform compatibility, meaning users could manage their databases on various operating systems, including Linux, Windows, and macOS. The development of SQL Buddy has stopped, with version 1.3.3 being the final release on January 18, 2011. No further releases are expected.
Data monetization
Data monetization, a form of monetization, may refer to the act of generating measurable economic benefits from available data sources (analytics). Less commonly, it may also refer to the act of monetizing data services. In the case of analytics, typically, these benefits accrue as revenue or expense savings, but may also include market share or corporate market value gains. Data monetization leverages data generated through business operations, available exogenous data or content, as well as data associated with individual actors such as that collected via electronic devices and sensors participating in the internet of things. For example, the ubiquity of the internet of things is generating location data and other data from sensors and mobile devices at an ever-increasing rate. When this data is collated against traditional databases, the value and utility of both sources of data increases, leading to tremendous potential to mine data for social good, research and discovery, and achievement of business objectives. Closely associated with data monetization are the emerging data as a service models for transactions involving data by the data item. There are three ethical and regulatory vectors involved in data monetization due to the sometimes conflicting interests of actors involved in the digital supply chain. The individual data creator who generates files and records through his own efforts or owns a device such as a sensor or a mobile phone that generates data has a claim to ownership of data. The business entity that generates data in the course of its operations, such as its transactions with financial institutions or risk factors discovered through feedback from customers also has a claim on data captured through their systems and platforms. However, the person that contributed the data may also have a legitimate claim on the data. Internet platforms and service providers, such as Google or Facebook that require a user to forgo some ownership interest in their data in exchange for use of the platform also have a legitimate claim on the data. Thus the practice of data monetization, although common since 2000, is now getting increasing attention from regulators. The European Union and the United States Congress have begun to address these issues. For instance, in the financial services industry, regulations involving data are included in the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and Dodd-Frank. Some individual creators of data are shifting to using personal data vaults and implementing vendor relationship management concepts as a reflection of an increasing resistance to their data being federated or aggregated and resold without compensation. Groups such as the Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium, Patient privacy rights, and others are also challenging corporate cooptation of data without compensation. Financial services companies are a relatively good example of an industry focused on generating revenue by leveraging data. Credit card issuers and retail banks use customer transaction data to improve targeting of cross-sell offers. Partners are increasingly promoting merchant based reward programs which leverage a bank’s data and provide discounts to customers at the same time. == Types of data monetization == Internal data monetization - An organization's data is used internally, resulting in economic benefit. This is commonly the case in organizations using analytics to uncover insights, resulting in improved profit, cost savings or the avoidance of risk. Internal data monetization is currently the most common form of monetization, requiring far fewer security, intellectual property, and legal precautions when compared to other types. The potential economic gains from this type of data monetization are limited by the organization's internal structure and situation. External data monetization - A person or organization makes data they possess available on a for-fee basis to external parties, or as a broker for same. This type of monetization is less common and requires various methods to distribute the data to potential buyers and consumers. However, the economic gain that results from collecting data, packaging and distributing it, can be quite large. == Steps == Identification of available data sources – this includes data currently available for monetization as well as other external data sources that may enhance the value of what’s currently available. Connect, aggregate, attribute, validate, authenticate, and exchange data - this allows data to be converted directly into actionable or revenue generating insight or services. Set terms and prices and facilitate data trading - methods for data vetting, storage, and access. For example, many global corporations have locked and siloed data storage infrastructures, which hinders efficient access to data and cooperative and real-time exchange. Perform Research and analytics – draw predictive insights from existing data as a basis for using data for to reduce risk, enhance product development or performance, or improve customer experience or business outcomes. Action and leveraging – the last phase of monetizing data includes determining alternative or improved data centric products, ideas, or services. Examples may include real-time actionable triggered notifications or enhanced channels such as web or mobile response mechanisms. == Pricing variables and factors == A fee for use of a platform to connect buyers and sellers use of a platform to configure, organize, and otherwise process data included in a data trade connecting or including a device or sensor into a data supply chain connecting and credentialing a creator of a data source and a data buyer – often through a federated identity connecting a data source to other data sources to be included in a data supply chain use of an internet service or other transmission services for uploading and downloading data – sometimes, for an individual, through a personal cloud use of encrypted keys to achieve secure data transfer use of a search algorithm specifically designed to tag data sources that contain data points of value to the data buyer linking a data creator or generator to a data collection protocol or form server actions – such as a notification – triggered by an update to a data item or data source included in a data supply chain A price or exchange or other trade value assigned by a data creator or generator to a data item or a data source offered by a data buyer to a data creator assigned by a data buyer for a data item or a data source formatted according to criteria set by a data buyer An incremental fee assigned by a data buyer for a data item or a data set scaled to the reputation of the data creator == Benefits == Improved decision-making that leads to real time crowd sourced research, improved profits, decreased costs, reduced risk and improved compliance More impactful decisions (e.g., make real-time decisions) More timely (lower latency) decisions (e.g., a vendor making purchase recommendations while the customer is still on the phone or in the store, a customer connecting with multiple vendors to discover the best price, triggered notifications when thresholds are reached for data values) More granular decisions (e.g., localized pricing decisions at an individual or device or sensor level versus larger aggregates). Targeted Marketing (e.g., Vendors with access to big data can make targeted advertisements to specific customers within a set data pool decreasing costs for the advertiser and reaching most interested customers) == Frameworks == There are a wide variety of industries, firms and business models related to data monetization. The following frameworks have been offered to help understand the types of business models that are used: Roger Ehrenberg of IA Ventures, a venture capital firm that invests in this sector, has defined three basic types of data product firms: Contributory databases. The magic of these businesses is that a customer provides their own data in exchange for receiving a more robust set of aggregated data back that provides insight into the broader marketplace, or provides a vehicle for expressing a view. Give a little, get a lot back in return – a pretty compelling value proposition, and one that frequently results in a payment from the data contributor in exchange for receiving enriched, aggregated data. Once these contributory databases are developed and customers become reliant on their insights, they become extremely valuable and persistent data assets. Data processing platforms. These businesses create barriers through a combination of complex data architectures, proprietary algorithms, and rich analytics to help customers consume data in whatever form they please. Often these businesses have special relationships with key data providers, that when combined with other data and processed as a whole create valuable differentiation and competitive barriers. Bloomberg is an example of a powerful