AI App With Unlimited Photo Uploads

AI App With Unlimited Photo Uploads — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Eugene Goostman

  Eugene Goostman is a chatbot that some regard as having passed the Turing test, a test of a computer's ability to communicate indistinguishably from a human. Developed in Saint Petersburg in 2001 by a group of three programmers, the Russian-born Vladimir Veselov, Ukrainian-born Eugene Demchenko, and Russian-born Sergey Ulasen, Goostman is portrayed as a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy—characteristics that are intended to induce forgiveness in those with whom it interacts for its grammatical errors and lack of general knowledge. The Goostman bot has competed in a number of Turing test contests since its creation, and finished second in the 2005 and 2008 Loebner Prize contest. In June 2012, at an event marking what would have been the 100th birthday of the test's author, Alan Turing, Goostman won a competition promoted as the largest-ever Turing test contest, in which it successfully convinced 29% of its judges that it was human. On 7 June 2014, at a contest marking the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, 33% of the event's judges thought that Goostman was human; the event's organiser Kevin Warwick considered it to have passed Turing's test as a result, per Turing's prediction in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", that by the year 2000, machines would be capable of fooling 30% of human judges after five minutes of questioning. The validity and relevance of the announcement of Goostman's pass was questioned by critics, who noted the exaggeration of the achievement by Warwick, the bot's use of personality quirks and humour in an attempt to misdirect users from its non-human tendencies and lack of real intelligence, along with "passes" achieved by other chatbots at similar events. == Personality == Eugene Goostman is portrayed as being a 13-year-old boy from Odesa, Ukraine, who has a pet guinea pig and a father who is a gynaecologist. Veselov stated that Goostman was designed to be a "character with a believable personality". The choice of age was intentional, as, in Veselov's opinion, a thirteen-year-old is "not too old to know everything and not too young to know nothing". Goostman's young age also induces people who "converse" with him to forgive minor grammatical errors in his responses. In 2014, work was made on improving the bot's "dialog controller", allowing Goostman to output more human-like dialogue. A conversation between Scott Aaronson and Eugene Goostman ran as follows: == Competitions == Eugene Goostman has competed in a number of Turing test competitions, including the Loebner Prize contest; it finished joint second in the Loebner test in 2001, and came second to Jabberwacky in 2005 and to Elbot in 2008. On 23 June 2012, Goostman won a Turing test competition at Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes, held to mark the centenary of its namesake, Alan Turing. The competition, which featured five bots, twenty-five hidden humans, and thirty judges, was considered to be the largest-ever Turing test contest by its organizers. After a series of five-minute-long text conversations, 29% of the judges were convinced that the bot was an actual human. === 2014 "pass" === On 7 June 2014, in a Turing test competition at the Royal Society, organised by Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading to mark the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, Goostman won after 33% of the judges were convinced that the bot was human. 30 judges took part in the event, which included Lord Sharkey, a sponsor of Turing's posthumous pardon, artificial intelligence Professor Aaron Sloman, Fellow of the Royal Society Mark Pagel and Red Dwarf actor Robert Llewellyn. Each judge partook in a textual conversation with each of the five bots; at the same time, they also conversed with a human. In all, a total of 300 conversations were conducted. In Warwick's view, this made Goostman the first machine to pass a Turing test. In a press release, he added that: Some will claim that the Test has already been passed. The words Turing Test have been applied to similar competitions around the world. However this event involved more simultaneous comparison tests than ever before, was independently verified and, crucially, the conversations were unrestricted. A true Turing Test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations. In his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", Turing predicted that by the year 2000, computer programs would be sufficiently advanced that the average interrogator would, after five minutes of questioning, "not have more than 70 per cent chance" of correctly guessing whether they were speaking to a human or a machine. Although Turing phrased this as a prediction rather than a "threshold for intelligence", commentators believe that Warwick had chosen to interpret it as meaning that if 30% of interrogators were fooled, the software had "passed the Turing test". ==== Reactions ==== Warwick's claim that Eugene Goostman was the first ever chatbot to pass a Turing test was met with scepticism; critics acknowledged similar "passes" made in the past by other chatbots under the 30% criteria, including PC Therapist in 1991 (which tricked 5 of 10 judges, 50%), and at the Techniche festival in 2011, where a modified version of Cleverbot tricked 59.3% of 1334 votes (which included the 30 judges, along with an audience). Cleverbot's developer, Rollo Carpenter, argued that Turing tests can only prove that a machine can "imitate" intelligence rather than show actual intelligence. Gary Marcus was critical of Warwick's claims, arguing that Goostman's "success" was only the result of a "cleverly-coded piece of software", going on to say that "it's easy to see how an untrained judge might mistake wit for reality, but once you have an understanding of how this sort of system works, the constant misdirection and deflection becomes obvious, even irritating. The illusion, in other words, is fleeting." While acknowledging IBM's Deep Blue and Watson projects—single-purpose computer systems meant for playing chess and the quiz show Jeopardy! respectively—as examples of computer systems that show a degree of intelligence in their specialised field, he further argued that they were not an equivalent to a computer system that shows "broad" intelligence, and could—for example, watch a television programme and answer questions on its content. Marcus stated that "no existing combination of hardware and software can learn completely new things at will the way a clever child can." However, he still believed that there were potential uses for technology such as that of Goostman, specifically suggesting the creation of "believable", interactive video game characters. Imperial College London professor Murray Shanahan questioned the validity and scientific basis of the test, stating that it was "completely misplaced, and it devalues real AI research. It makes it seem like science fiction AI is nearly here, when in fact it's not and it's incredibly difficult." Mike Masnick, editor of the blog Techdirt, was also skeptical, questioning publicity blunders such as the five chatbots being referred to in press releases as "supercomputers", and saying that "creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence."

  Read more →
• 

  Media intelligence

  Media intelligence uses data mining and data science to analyze public, social and editorial media content. It refers to marketing systems that synthesize billions of online conversations into relevant information. This allow organizations to measure and manage content performance, understand trends, and drive communications and business strategy. Media intelligence can include software as a service using big data terminology. This includes questions about messaging efficiency, share of voice, audience geographical distribution, message amplification, influencer strategy, journalist outreach, creative resonance, and competitor performance in all these areas. Media intelligence differs from business intelligence in that it uses and analyzes data outside company firewalls. Examples of that data are user-generated content on social media sites, blogs, comment fields, and wikis etc. It may also include other public data sources like press releases, news, blogs, legal filings, reviews and job postings. Media intelligence may also include competitive intelligence, wherein information that is gathered from publicly available sources such as social media, press releases, and news announcements are used to better understand the strategies and tactics being deployed by competing businesses. Media intelligence is enhanced by means of emerging technologies like ambient intelligence, machine learning, semantic tagging, natural language processing, sentiment analysis and machine translation. == Technologies used == Different media intelligence platforms use different technologies for monitoring, curating content, engaging with content, data analysis and measurement of communications and marketing campaign success. These technology providers may obtain content by scraping content directly from websites or by connecting to the API provided by social media, or other content platforms that are created for 3rd party developers to develop their own applications and services that access data. Technology companies may also get data from a data reseller. Some social media monitoring and analytics companies use calls to data providers each time an end-user develops a query. Others archive and index social media posts to provide end users with on-demand access to historical data and enable methodologies and technologies leveraging network and relational data. Additional monitoring companies use crawlers and spidering technology to find keyword references, known as semantic analysis or natural language processing. Basic implementation involves curating data from social media on a large scale and analyzing the results to make sense out of it.

  Read more →
• 

  Data lake

  A data lake is a system or repository of data stored in its natural/raw format, usually object blobs or files. A data lake is usually a single store of data including raw copies of source system data, sensor data, social data etc., and transformed data used for tasks such as reporting, visualization, advanced analytics, and machine learning. A data lake can include structured data from relational databases (rows and columns), semi-structured data (CSV, logs, XML, JSON), unstructured data (emails, documents, PDFs), and binary data (images, audio, video). A data lake can be established on premises (within an organization's data centers) or in the cloud (using cloud services). == Background == James Dixon, then chief technology officer at Pentaho, coined the term by 2011 to contrast it with data mart, which is a smaller repository of interesting attributes derived from raw data. In promoting data lakes, he argued that data marts have several inherent problems, such as information siloing. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) said that data lakes could "put an end to data silos". In their study on data lakes, they noted that enterprises were "starting to extract and place data for analytics into a single, Hadoop-based repository." == Examples == Many companies use cloud storage services such as Google Cloud Storage and Amazon S3 or a distributed file system such as Apache Hadoop distributed file system (HDFS). There is a gradual academic interest in the concept of data lakes. For example, Personal DataLake at Cardiff University is a new type of data lake which aims at managing big data of individual users by providing a single point of collecting, organizing, and sharing personal data. Early data lakes, such as Hadoop 1.0, had limited capabilities because it only supported batch-oriented processing (Map Reduce). Interacting with it required expertise in Java, map reduce and higher-level tools like Apache Pig, Apache Spark and Apache Hive (which were also originally batch-oriented). == Criticism == Poorly managed data lakes have been facetiously called data swamps. In June 2015, David Needle characterized "so-called data lakes" as "one of the more controversial ways to manage big data". PwC was also careful to note in their research that not all data lake initiatives are successful. They quote Sean Martin, CTO of Cambridge Semantics: We see customers creating big data graveyards, dumping everything into Hadoop distributed file system (HDFS) and hoping to do something with it down the road. But then they just lose track of what’s there. The main challenge is not creating a data lake, but taking advantage of the opportunities it presents. They describe companies that build successful data lakes as gradually maturing their lake as they figure out which data and metadata are important to the organization. Another criticism is that the term data lake is used with many different meanings. It may be used to refer to, for example: any tools or data management practices that are not data warehouses; a particular technology for implementation; a raw data reservoir; a hub for ETL offload; or a central hub for self-service analytics. While critiques of data lakes are warranted, in many cases they apply to other data projects as well. For example, the definition of data warehouse is also changeable, and not all data warehouse efforts have been successful. In response to various critiques, McKinsey noted that the data lake should be viewed as a service model for delivering business value within the enterprise, not a technology outcome. == Data lakehouses == Data lakehouses are a hybrid approach that can ingest a variety of raw data formats like a data lake, while also providing ACID transactions and enforced data quality like a data warehouse.

  Read more →
• 

  Conditional disclosure of secrets

  Conditional disclosure of secrets (CDS) is a primitive, studied in information-theoretic cryptography, that allows distributed, non-communicating parties to coordinate the release of information to a third party. CDS was initially introduced for use in the context of private information retrieval, and has been related to communication complexity and non-local quantum computation. == Definition of conditional disclosure of secrets == The conditional disclosure of secrets setting involves three players; Alice, Bob and the referee. Alice receives an input x ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle x\in \{0,1\}^{n}} and a secret z ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle z\in \{0,1\}} , and Bob receives a string y ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle y\in \{0,1\}^{n}} . A choice of Boolean function f : { 0 , 1 } 2 n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{2n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} is fixed in advance and known to all players. Alice and Bob cannot communicate with one another, but share a string of random bits which we label r {\displaystyle r} . Alice and Bob compute messages m A = m A ( x , z , r ) {\displaystyle m_{A}=m_{A}(x,z,r)} and m B = m B ( y , r ) {\displaystyle m_{B}=m_{B}(y,r)} , which they send to the referee. The referee knows ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . A CDS protocol consists of the encoding maps applied by Alice and Bob. A protocol is said to be ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct if, for all ( x , y ) ∈ f − 1 ( 1 ) {\displaystyle (x,y)\in f^{-1}(1)} , the referee can determine z {\displaystyle z} with probability 1 − ϵ {\displaystyle 1-\epsilon } . A protocol is said to be δ {\displaystyle \delta } -secure if, for all ( x , y ) ∈ f − 1 ( 0 ) {\displaystyle (x,y)\in f^{-1}(0)} the distribution of the messages is δ {\displaystyle \delta } close to a simulator distribution (in total variation distance), where the simulator distribution is independent of z {\displaystyle z} . The communication complexity of a CDS protocol P is the total number of bits of message sent by Alice and Bob. The CDS communication cost of a function, C D S ϵ , δ ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon ,\delta }(f)} is the minimal communication cost of an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct, δ {\displaystyle \delta } secure protocol that implements f {\displaystyle f} . The randomness complexity and randomness cost of implementing a function in the CDS model are defined similarly, but consider the number of bits of shared random bits held by Alice and Bob. == Basic properties of the primitive == === Amplification === Supposing we have an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct and δ {\displaystyle \delta } -secure CDS protocol, it is known that we can find a new protocol which reduces the correctness and privacy errors at the expense of an increased communication and randomness cost. More specifically, the following theorem has been proven Theorem (Amplification). A CDS protocol for f which supports a single-bit secret with privacy and correctness error of 1/3 can be transformed into a new CDS protocol with privacy and correctness error of 2 − Ω ( k ) {\displaystyle 2^{-\Omega (k)}} and communication/randomness complexity which are larger than those of the original protocol by a multiplicative factor of O(k). In fact, somewhat more than the above theorem is true in that the size of the secret can also be made to be of length k {\displaystyle k} , while simultaneously reducing the correctness and privacy errors as above. The proof involves first encoding the secret z {\displaystyle z} into a secret sharing scheme, and then running the original CDS protocol on each share of the resulting scheme. === Closure === If a CDS protocol for a function f {\displaystyle f} is known, then certain simple modifications of f {\displaystyle f} have CDS protocols with similar efficiency. The simplest case is to consider a CDS protocol for function f {\displaystyle f} and ask for a similarly efficient protocol for the negation of f {\displaystyle f} , labelled ¬ f {\displaystyle \neg f} . This is addressed by the following theorem Theorem (CDS is closed under complement). Suppose that f has a CDS protocol with randomness cost of ρ {\displaystyle \rho } bits, communication complexity of t {\displaystyle t} bits, and privacy and correctness errors δ = ϵ = 2 − k {\displaystyle \delta =\epsilon =2^{-k}} . Then ¬ f {\displaystyle \neg f} has a CDS scheme with similar privacy and correctness errors, and randomness and communication complexity of O ( k 3 ρ 2 t + k 3 ρ 3 ) {\displaystyle O(k^{3}\rho ^{2}t+k^{3}\rho ^{3})} . The cost of a CDS protocol is also closed under formula's, in the following sense. Consider two functions f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} . Then, the communication and randomness costs of f 1 ∧ f 2 {\displaystyle f_{1}\wedge f_{2}} as well as f 1 ∨ f 2 {\displaystyle f_{1}\vee f_{2}} are not much larger than the sum of the costs for f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} . See Applebaum et al. for a precise statement. == Upper and lower bounds on communication cost == Given a function f {\displaystyle f} we would like to understand the communication and randomness costs to implement f {\displaystyle f} in the CDS setting. Towards understanding this, protocols for implementing CDS have been developed (which give an upper bound on the cost) and lower bound strategies have been developed. For most functions, there is a large gap between the known upper and lower bound, so understanding the cost of CDS remains largely an open problem. This section presents some of what is known so far about the cost of CDS. === Secret sharing based upper bound === A subject with a close relationship to CDS is secret sharing. Secret sharing constructions provide an upper bound on the cost of CDS protocols. A secret sharing scheme encodes a secret, s {\displaystyle s} into a set of shares S 1 , . . . , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},...,S_{n}} . Associated to any secret sharing scheme is an access structure, which consists of a set of authorized sets A = A 1 , . . . , A k {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}={A_{1},...,A_{k}}} with A i ⊆ { S 1 , . . . , S n } {\displaystyle A_{i}\subseteq \{S_{1},...,S_{n}\}} . The authorized sets are those subsets of the A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} from which it is possible to recover the secret recorded into the scheme. A succinct way to describe an access structure is in terms of a function f A : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}:\{0,1\}^{n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} . Each subset of the shares K [ x ] ⊂ { S 1 , . . . , S n } {\displaystyle K[x]\subset \{S_{1},...,S_{n}\}} is labelled by a string x ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle x\in \{0,1\}^{n}} such that x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} if and only if S i ∈ K {\displaystyle S_{i}\in K} . Then we define f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} to be such that f A ( x ) = 1 {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}(x)=1} if and only if K [ x ] ∈ A {\displaystyle K[x]\in {\mathcal {A}}} . In words, the function f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} is 1 when given an authorized subset as input, and 0 otherwise. A basic result in the theory of secret sharing is that an access structure A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can be realized in a secret sharing scheme if and only if f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} is monotone. The size of a secret sharing scheme is defined as the total number of bits in the shares S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . For monotone functions, there is an upper bound on the communication cost in CDS for any monotone function f {\displaystyle f} in terms of the size of any secret sharing scheme with access structure given by f {\displaystyle f} , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ S h a r i n g S i z e ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq SharingSize(f)} For some concrete classes of secret sharing schemes, this relationship can be extended to general (non-monotone) Boolean functions. This leads to an upper bound on CDS cost in terms of the size of any span program that computes f {\displaystyle f} , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ S P k ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq SP_{k}(f)} The class of problems with efficient (polynomial size) span program is the complexity class M o d k L {\displaystyle Mod_{k}L} , so problems in this class have efficient CDS protocols. === Sub-exponential upper bounds for all functions === Using a matching vector family based construction, it has been proven that ∀ f , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ 2 O ( n log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle \forall f,\,\,\,\,\,\,CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq 2^{O({\sqrt {n\log n}})}} . The technique for this proof is similar to one used to prove upper bounds on private information retrieval. This upper bound on CDS also leads to sub-exponential upper bounds on the size of a large class of secret sharing schemes. === Lower bounds from communication complexity === In a CDS protocol, the referee is given the inputs ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . This means it is not clear if the messages sent by Alice a

  Read more →
• 

  Visual Expert

  Visual Expert is a static code analysis tool, extracting design and technical information from software source code by reverse-engineering, used by programmers for software maintenance, modernization or optimization. It is designed to parse several programming languages at the same time (PL/SQL, Transact-SQL, PowerBuilder...) and analyze cross-language dependencies, in addition to each language's source code. Visual Expert checks source code against hundreds of code inspection rules for vulnerability assessment, bug fix, and maintenance issues. == Features == Cross-references exploration: Impact Analysis, E/R diagrams, call graphs, CRUD matrix, dependency graphs. Software documentation: a documentation generator produces technical documentation and low-level design descriptions. Inspect the code to detect bugs, security vulnerabilities and maintainability issues. Native integration with Jenkins. Reports on duplicate code, unused objects and methods and naming conventions. Calculates software metrics and source lines of code. Code comparison: finds differences between several versions of the same code. Performance analysis: identifies code parts that slow down the application because of their syntax - it extracts statistics about code execution from the database and combines it with the static analysis of the code. == Usage == Visual Expert is used in several contexts: Change impact analysis: evaluating the consequences of a change in the code or in a database. Avoiding negative side effects when evolving a system. Static Application Security Testing (SAST): detecting and removing security issues. Continuous Integration / Continuous Inspection : adding a static code analysis job in a CI/CD workflow to automatically verify the quality and security of a new build when it is released. Program comprehension: helping programmers understand and maintain existing code, or modernize legacy systems. Transferring knowledge of the code, from one programmer to another. Software sizing: calculating the size of an application, or a piece of code, in order to estimate development efforts. Code review: improving the code by finding and removing code smells, dead code, code causing poor performances or violations of coding conventions. == Limitations == As a static code analyzer, Visual Expert is limited to the programming languages supported by its code parsers - Oracle PL/SQL, SQL Server Transact-SQL, PowerBuilder. A preliminary reverse engineering is required. Visual Expert does it automatically, but its duration depends on the size of the code parsed. Users must wait for the parsing completion prior to using the features, or schedule it in advance. They must also allocate sufficient hardware resources to support their volume of code. Visual Expert is based on a client/server architecture: the code analysis is running on a Windows PC - preferably a server. The information extracted from the code is stored in a RDBMS, communicating with a client application installed on the programmer's computer - no web client is available. This requires that the code, the parsers, the RDBMS and the programmers’ computers are connected to the same LAN or VPN. == History == 1995- 1998 - Prog and Doc - Initial version distributed on the French market 2001 - Visual Expert 4.5 2003 - Visual Expert 5 2007 - Visual Expert 5.7 2010 - Visual Expert 6.0 2015 - Visual Expert 2015 - Server component added to schedule code analyses 2016 - Visual Expert 2016 - Oracle PL/SQL code parser, code inventory (lines of code, number of objects…) 2017 - Visual Expert 2017 - SQL Server T-SQL code parser, Code comparison, CRUD matrix 2018 - Visual Expert 2018 - DB Code Performance Analysis, integration with TFS 2019 - Visual Expert 2019 - Generation of E/R diagrams from the code 2020 - Visual Expert 2020 - Object dependency matrix, naming consistency verification, integration with GIT and SVN 2021 - Visual Expert 2021 - Continuous Code Inspection, integration with Jenkins 2022 - Visual Expert 2022 - Support for cloud-based repositories and large volumes of code 2023 - Visual Expert 2023 - Performance tuning for PowerBuilder 2024 - Visual Expert 2024 - New web UI to simplify deployment and use among large teams. 2025 - Visual Expert 2025 - AI-based features to explain code, generate comments, and optimize queries

  Read more →
• 

  Conjugate coding

  Conjugate coding is a cryptographic tool, introduced by Stephen Wiesner in the late 1960s. It is part of the two applications Wiesner described for quantum coding, along with a method for creating fraud-proof banking notes. The application that the concept was based on was a method of transmitting multiple messages in such a way that reading one destroys the others. This is called quantum multiplexing and it uses photons polarized in conjugate bases as "qubits" to pass information. Conjugate coding also is a simple extension of a random number generator. At the behest of Charles Bennett, Wiesner published the manuscript explaining the basic idea of conjugate coding with a number of examples but it was not embraced because it was significantly ahead of its time. Because its publication has been rejected, it was developed to the world of public-key cryptography in the 1980s as oblivious transfer, first by Michael Rabin and then by Shimon Even. It is used in the field of quantum computing. The initial concept of quantum cryptography developed by Bennett and Gilles Brassard was also based on this concept.

  Read more →
• 

  Social news website

  A social news website is a website that features user-posted stories. Such stories are ranked based on popularity, as voted on by other users of the site or by website administrators. Users typically comment online on the news posts and these comments may also be ranked in popularity. Since their emergence with the birth of Web 2.0, social news sites have been used to link many types of information, including news, humor, support, and discussion. All such websites allow the users to submit content and each site differs in how the content is moderated. On the Slashdot and Fark websites, administrators decide which articles are selected for the front page. On Reddit and Digg, the articles that get the most votes from the community of users will make it to the front page. Many social news websites also feature an online comment system, where users discuss the issues raised in an article. Some of these sites have also applied their voting system to the comments, so that the most popular comments are displayed first. Some social news websites also have a social networking service, in that users can set up a user profile and follow other users' online activity on the website. Like many other Web 2.0 tools, social news websites use the collective intelligence of all of the users to operate. Social news websites also "impl[y] the technical, economic, legal, and human enhancement of a universally distributed intelligence that will unleash a positive dynamic of recognition and skills mobilization". Social news websites help participants to share a collective vision and awareness of how their actions are integrated with those of other individuals. Social news websites provide a new and innovative way to participate in a community that is constantly being flooded with new information. These social news websites "include opportunities for peer-to-peer learning, a changed attitude toward intellectual property, the diversification of cultural expression, the development of skills valued in the modern workplace, and a more empowered conception of citizenship". These websites can help to shape and reshape democratic opinions and perspectives. Social news sites may mitigate the gatekeeping of mainstream news sources and allow the public to decide what counts as "news", which may facilitate a more participatory culture. Social news sites may also support democratic participation by allowing users from across geographic and national boundaries to access the same information, respond to fellow users' views and beliefs, and create a virtual sphere for users to contribute within. == Websites == === Active === ==== Fark ==== Fark, which started in 1997, features news on any topic. On Fark, users can submit articles to the administrators of the site. Each day, these administrators pick out 50 articles to display on the front page. ==== Slashdot ==== Slashdot, started in 1997, was one of the first social news websites. It focuses mainly on science and technology-related news. Users can submit stories and the editors pick out the best stories each day for the front page. Users can then post comments on the stories. The influx of web traffic that resulted from Slashdot linking to external websites led to the effect being called the Slashdot effect ==== Digg ==== Digg, started in December 2004, introduced the voting system. This system allows users to "digg" or "bury" articles. "Digging" is the equivalent of voting positively, so that popular articles are displayed first. "Burying" does not lower an article's score. However, if an article is buried enough times, it will be automatically deleted from the site. Digg offers a social networking service, as members can follow other members and build personal profiles with information about their interests. ==== Reddit ==== Reddit, started in June 2005, is a social news website where users can submit articles and comments and vote on these submissions. The submissions are organized into categories called "subreddits". Unlike Digg, with Reddit, users can directly affect an article's score. An "upvote" will increase the score and a "downvote" will decrease it. Articles with the highest scores are displayed on the front page. There is also a page for "controversial" articles, that have an almost equal number of upvotes and downvotes. Free speech debates have arisen due to the shutting down of obscene or potentially illegal "subreddits" (including /r/jailbait, a collection of sexually suggestive underage pictures.) Reddit introduced a system of user-created communities called "subreddits", which are essentially categories for a specific type of news. Comments on the featured posts are shown in a hierarchical fashion also based on votes. Users have the ability to earn "karma" for their participation and time on the website. ==== Hacker News ==== Hacker News, started in February 2007, is a social news site focusing on computer science and entrepreneurship, created by Paul Graham and run by his startup incubator, Y Combinator. === Defunct === ==== Newsvine ==== Newsvine, started in March 2006, was a social news website mostly focused on politics, both international and domestic. The Newsvine home page allowed users to customize "seeds" and story feeds. Users received articles via "The Wire" from sources including The Associated Press or The Huffington Post, and from "The Vine" a stream of content from other Newsvine users. The "Top of the Vine" displayed the most voted and commented on articles of the day, week, month, or year. Additionally, Newsvine allowed members to create their own "Customizable Column", which could highlight a user's content posted, recent comments, and information about the specific Newsvine member. ==== feedalizr ==== feedalizr was a cross-platform, desktop social media aggregator built using Adobe Integrated Runtime that consolidates the updates from social media and social networking websites. Users can then use this application to update those sites from their desktop and view a consolidated stream of information. ==== Voat ==== Voat, launched in April 2014 and discontinued in December of 2020, was also a social news website and is very similar to Reddit visually and functionally. The site's userbase included a large number of alt right users, many of whom migrated to Voat after being banned on Reddit. ==== Prismatic ==== Prismatic combined machine learning, user experience design, and interaction design to create a new way to discover, consume, and share media. Prismatic software used social network aggregation and machine learning algorithms to filter the content that aligns with the interests of a specific user. Prismatic integrated with Facebook, Twitter, and Pocket to gather information about user's interests and suggest the most relevant stories to read. ==== Artifact ==== Artifact was an iOS and Android app that used machine learning to personalize news recommendations to readers, and also had social features such as liking articles, commenting, and reputation scores for users.

  Read more →
• 

  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

  Read more →
• 

  Camfecting

  In computer security, camfecting is the process of attempting to hack into a person's webcam and activate it without the webcam owner's permission. The remotely activated webcam can be used to watch anything within the webcam's field of vision, sometimes including the webcam owner themselves. Camfecting is most often carried out by infecting the victim's computer with a virus that can provide the hacker access to their webcam. This attack is specifically targeted at the victim's webcam, and hence the name camfecting, a portmanteau of the words camera and infecting. Typically, a webcam hacker or a camfecter sends his victim an innocent-looking application which has a hidden Trojan software through which the camfecter can control the victim's webcam. The camfecter virus installs itself silently when the victim runs the original application. Once installed, the camfecter can turn on the webcam and capture pictures/videos. The camfecter software works just like the original webcam software present in the victim computer, the only difference being that the camfecter controls the software instead of the webcam's owner. == Notable cases == Marcus Thomas, former assistant director of the FBI's Operational Technology Division in Quantico, said in a 2013 story in The Washington Post that the FBI had been able to covertly activate a computer's camera—without triggering the light that lets users know it is recording—for several years. In November 2013, American teenager Jared James Abrahams pleaded guilty to hacking over 100-150 women and installing the highly invasive malware Blackshades on their computers in order to obtain nude images and videos of them. One of his victims was Miss Teen USA 2013 Cassidy Wolf. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University have shown how to covertly capture images from the iSight camera on MacBook and iMac models released before 2008, by reprogramming the microcontroller's firmware. == Prevention == A computer that does not have an up-to-date webcam software or any anti-virus (or firewall) software installed and operational may be at increased risk for camfecting from different types of malware. Softcams may nominally increase this risk, if not maintained or configured properly. Although a person cannot protect themselves from zero-day exploits that could potentially activate a camera unknowingly, such as Pegasus is able to do on smartphones. The only way to truly avoid being watched through your own camera is by blocking it physically, since software blocks can be overriden by advanced persistent threats. A simple piece of tape is more commonly used to offuscate the feed of the camera. With even Mark Zuckerberg doing so on his personal laptop that appeared during a presentation. And it being the way Snowden, an ex-contractor for the NSA, is portrayed to do so to prevent camfecting in the biopic Snowden. There is now a market for the manufacture and sale of sliding lens covers that allow users to physically block their computer's camera and, in some cases, microphone. A number of phone and laptop manufacturers tried to implement pop-up cameras that can only be opened manually by the user. But the trend did not become mainstream because of the engineering it took to keep the mechanisms up to date, aswell as the fragility and durability of the cameras.

  Read more →
• 

  Social collaboration

  Social collaboration refers to processes that help multiple people or groups interact and share information to achieve common goals. Such processes find their 'natural' environment on the Internet, where collaboration and social dissemination of information are made easier by current innovations and the proliferation of the web. Sharing concepts on a digital collaboration environment often facilitates a "brainstorming" process, where new ideas may emerge due to the varied contributions of individuals. These individuals may hail from different walks of life, different cultures and different age groups, their diverse thought processes help in adding new dimensions to ideas, dimensions that previously may have been missed. A crucial concept behind social collaboration is that 'ideas are everywhere.' Individuals are able to share their ideas in an unrestricted environment as anyone can get involved and the discussion is not limited to only those who have domain knowledge. Social collaboration is also known as enterprise social networking, and the products to support it are often branded enterprise social networks (ESNs). It is important that we understand the rhythm of social collaboration. There needs to be a balance, with ease to move from focused solitary work to brainstorming for problem solving in group work. This critical balance can be achieved by creating structures or a work environment where it is not too rigid to prevent brainstorming in group work nor too loose to result in total chaos. Social collaboration should happen at the edge of chaos. Work practices should support social collaboration. The most effective environment is one that supports opportunistic planning. Opportunistic planning provides a general plan but then gives enough room for flexibility to change activities and tasks until the last moment. This way, people are able to cope up with unforeseen developments and not throwing away everything with one grand plan. == Comparison to social networking == Social collaboration is related to social networking, with the distinction that while social networking is individual-centric, social collaboration is entirely group-centric. Generally speaking, social networking means socializing for personal, professional or entertainment purposes, for example, LinkedIn and Facebook. Social collaboration, on the other hand, means working socially to achieve a common goal, for example, GitHub and Quora. Social networking services generally focus on individuals sharing messages in a more-or-less undirected way and receiving messages from many sources into a single personalized activity feed. Social collaboration services, on the other hand, focus on the identification of groups and collaboration spaces in which messages are explicitly directed at the group and the group activity feed is seen the same way by everyone. Social collaboration may refer to time-bound collaborations with an explicit goal to be completed or perpetual collaborations in which the goal is knowledge sharing (e.g. community of practice, online community). == Comparison to crowdsourcing == Social collaboration is similar to crowdsourcing as it involves individuals working together towards a common goal. Crowdsourcing is a method for harnessing specific information from a large, diverse group of people. Unlike social collaboration, which involves much communication and cooperation among a large group of people, crowdsourcing is more like individuals working towards the common goal relatively independently. Therefore, the process of working involves less communication. Andrea Grover, curator of a crowdsourcing art show, explained that collaboration among individuals is an appealing experience, because participation is "a low investment, with the possibility of a high return." == Social collaboration software == Notable social collaboration software includes Glip messaging, Google Apps, Knowledge Plaza Electronic Document System and Social Intranet, Microsoft Lync social collaboration tool for businesses, Slack, Weekdone for managers, and Wrike. == Future == Social collaboration is going to be used as a tool in companies to enhance productivity. Social workers could be able to use social collaboration tools to manage personal tasks, professional projects and social networks with other colleagues within the same organization. Social collaboration will serve as a platform to get people involved and connected. This kind of platform provides a spiritual training practice for social workers. Social collaboration software could help enhance the communication between customers and employees and build trust in the organization. When we need real-time chat, it would be excellent to include every participant in a shared and archived forum which keeps a record of important information and logs. So collaborators need not worry about losing important records while working towards the common goal. The interactive communication and synchronous environment promote understanding among colleagues. Collaboration helps in building strong relationships between workers, which in turn leads to faster problem solving. The close connection between workers and customers creates a scalable organization which naturally increases the trust and faith that customers have in the company. Therefore, the interactive customer relationship levels up customer satisfaction in ways that traditional collaboration methods cannot. Apart from its effect on the way work will be conducted in the future, social collaboration will also affect society. In the coming years social collaboration will be the driving force in societal change as more and more people work together to get their vision across to governments and governing agencies. An example of this is Change.org, an online petition tool where users can help bring their government's attention to pressing social issues that need to be addressed.

  Read more →
• 

  Cryptographic Module Testing Laboratory

  Cryptographic Module Testing Laboratory (CMTL) is an information technology (IT) computer security testing laboratory that is accredited to conduct cryptographic module evaluations for conformance to the FIPS 140-2 U.S. Government standard. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredits CMTLs to meet Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) standards and procedures. This has been replaced by FIPS 140-2 and the Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP). == CMTL requirements == These laboratories must meet the following requirements: NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements NIST Handbook 150-17 Information Technology Security Testing - Cryptographic Module Testing NVLAP Specific Operations Checklist for Cryptographic Module Testing == FIPS 140-2 in relation to the Common Criteria == A CMTL can also be a Common Criteria (CC) Testing Laboratory (CCTL). The CC and FIPS 140-2 are different in the abstractness and focus of evaluation. FIPS 140-2 testing is against a defined cryptographic module and provides a suite of conformance tests to four FIPS 140 security levels. FIPS 140-2 describes the requirements for cryptographic modules and includes such areas as physical security, key management, self tests, roles and services, etc. The standard was initially developed in 1994 - prior to the development of the CC. The CC is an evaluation against a Protection Profile (PP), or security target (ST). Typically, a PP covers a broad range of products. A CC evaluation does not supersede or replace a validation to either FIPS 140-1, FIPS140-2 or FIPS 140-3. The four security levels in FIPS 140-1 and FIPS 140-2 do not map directly to specific CC EALs or to CC functional requirements. A CC certificate cannot be a substitute for a FIPS 140-1 or FIPS 140-2 certificate. If the operational environment is a modifiable operational environment, the operating system requirements of the Common Criteria are applicable at FIPS Security Levels 2 and above. FIPS 140-1 required evaluated operating systems that referenced the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) classes C2, B1 and B2. However, TCSEC is no longer in use and has been replaced by the Common Criteria. Consequently, FIPS 140-2 now references the Common Criteria. FIPS 140-2 or FIPS 140-3 validation efforts can be in some parts reused in Common Criteria evaluations, specifically in areas related to entropy source and cryptographic algorithms.

  Read more →
• 

  Cryptographic multilinear map

  A cryptographic n {\displaystyle n} -multilinear map is a kind of multilinear map, that is, a function e : G 1 × ⋯ × G n → G T {\displaystyle e:G_{1}\times \cdots \times G_{n}\rightarrow G_{T}} such that for any integers a 1 , … , a n {\displaystyle a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}} and elements g i ∈ G i {\displaystyle g_{i}\in G_{i}} , e ( g 1 a 1 , … , g n a n ) = e ( g 1 , … , g n ) ∏ i = 1 n a i {\displaystyle e(g_{1}^{a_{1}},\ldots ,g_{n}^{a_{n}})=e(g_{1},\ldots ,g_{n})^{\prod _{i=1}^{n}a_{i}}} , and which in addition is efficiently computable and satisfies some security properties. It has several applications on cryptography, as key exchange protocols, identity-based encryption, and broadcast encryption. There exist constructions of cryptographic 2-multilinear maps, known as bilinear maps, however, the problem of constructing such multilinear maps for n > 2 {\displaystyle n>2} seems much more difficult and the security of the proposed candidates is still unclear. == Definition == === For n = 2 === In this case, multilinear maps are mostly known as bilinear maps or pairings, and they are usually defined as follows: Let G 1 , G 2 {\displaystyle G_{1},G_{2}} be two additive cyclic groups of prime order q {\displaystyle q} , and G T {\displaystyle G_{T}} another cyclic group of order q {\displaystyle q} written multiplicatively. A pairing is a map: e : G 1 × G 2 → G T {\displaystyle e:G_{1}\times G_{2}\rightarrow G_{T}} , which satisfies the following properties: Bilinearity ∀ a , b ∈ F q ∗ , ∀ P ∈ G 1 , Q ∈ G 2 : e ( a P , b Q ) = e ( P , Q ) a b {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in F_{q}^{},\ \forall P\in G_{1},Q\in G_{2}:\ e(aP,bQ)=e(P,Q)^{ab}} Non-degeneracy If g 1 {\displaystyle g_{1}} and g 2 {\displaystyle g_{2}} are generators of G 1 {\displaystyle G_{1}} and G 2 {\displaystyle G_{2}} , respectively, then e ( g 1 , g 2 ) {\displaystyle e(g_{1},g_{2})} is a generator of G T {\displaystyle G_{T}} . Computability There exists an efficient algorithm to compute e {\displaystyle e} . In addition, for security purposes, the discrete logarithm problem is required to be hard in both G 1 {\displaystyle G_{1}} and G 2 {\displaystyle G_{2}} . === General case (for any n) === We say that a map e : G 1 × ⋯ × G n → G T {\displaystyle e:G_{1}\times \cdots \times G_{n}\rightarrow G_{T}} is an n {\displaystyle n} -multilinear map if it satisfies the following properties: All G i {\displaystyle G_{i}} (for 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} ) and G T {\displaystyle G_{T}} are groups of same order; if a 1 , … , a n ∈ Z {\displaystyle a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}\in \mathbb {Z} } and ( g 1 , … , g n ) ∈ G 1 × ⋯ × G n {\displaystyle (g_{1},\ldots ,g_{n})\in G_{1}\times \cdots \times G_{n}} , then e ( g 1 a 1 , … , g n a n ) = e ( g 1 , … , g n ) ∏ i = 1 n a i {\displaystyle e(g_{1}^{a_{1}},\ldots ,g_{n}^{a_{n}})=e(g_{1},\ldots ,g_{n})^{\prod _{i=1}^{n}a_{i}}} ; the map is non-degenerate in the sense that if g 1 , … , g n {\displaystyle g_{1},\ldots ,g_{n}} are generators of G 1 , … , G n {\displaystyle G_{1},\ldots ,G_{n}} , respectively, then e ( g 1 , … , g n ) {\displaystyle e(g_{1},\ldots ,g_{n})} is a generator of G T {\displaystyle G_{T}} There exists an efficient algorithm to compute e {\displaystyle e} . In addition, for security purposes, the discrete logarithm problem is required to be hard in G 1 , … , G n {\displaystyle G_{1},\ldots ,G_{n}} . === Candidates === All the candidates multilinear maps are actually slightly generalizations of multilinear maps known as graded-encoding systems, since they allow the map e {\displaystyle e} to be applied partially: instead of being applied in all the n {\displaystyle n} values at once, which would produce a value in the target set G T {\displaystyle G_{T}} , it is possible to apply e {\displaystyle e} to some values, which generates values in intermediate target sets. For example, for n = 3 {\displaystyle n=3} , it is possible to do y = e ( g 2 , g 3 ) ∈ G T 2 {\displaystyle y=e(g_{2},g_{3})\in G_{T_{2}}} then e ( g 1 , y ) ∈ G T {\displaystyle e(g_{1},y)\in G_{T}} . The three main candidates are GGH13, which is based on ideals of polynomial rings; CLT13, which is based approximate GCD problem and works over integers, hence, it is supposed to be easier to understand than GGH13 multilinear map; and GGH15, which is based on graphs.

  Read more →
• 

  Reverse correlation technique

  The reverse correlation technique is a data driven study method used primarily in psychological and neurophysiological research. This method earned its name from its origins in neurophysiology, where cross-correlations between white noise stimuli and sparsely occurring neuronal spikes could be computed quicker when only computing it for segments preceding the spikes. The term has since been adopted in psychological experiments that usually do not analyze the temporal dimension, but also present noise to human participants. In contrast to the original meaning, the term is here thought to reflect that the standard psychological practice of presenting stimuli of defined categories to the participants is "reversed": Instead, the participant's mental representations of categories are estimated from interactions of the presented noise and the behavioral responses. It is used to create composite pictures of individual and/or group mental representations of various items (e.g. faces, bodies, and the self) that depict characteristics of said items (e.g. trustworthiness and self-body image). This technique is helpful when evaluating the mental representations of those with and without mental illnesses. == Terms == This technique utilizes spike-triggered average to explain what areas of signal and noise in an image are valuable for the given research question. Signal is information used to produce objects of value that help explain and connect the world around us. Noise is commonly referred to as unwanted signal that obscures the information that the signal is trying to present. Most importantly for reverse correlation studies, noise is randomly varying information. To determine the areas of importance using reverse correlation, noise is applied to a base image and then evaluated by observers. A base image is any image void of noise that relates to the research question. A base image that has noise superimposed on top is the stimuli that is presented to and evaluated by participants. Each time a new set of stimuli is presented to a participant, this is known as a trial. After a participant has responded to hundreds to thousands of trials, a researcher is ready to create a classification image. A classification image (abbreviated as "CI" in some studies) is a single image that represents the average noise patterns in the images selected by participants. A classification image can also be computed for groups by averaging the individuals’ classification images. These classification images are what researchers use to interpret the data and draw conclusions. As a whole, the reverse correlation method is a process that results in a composite image (from an individual or group) that can be used to estimate and interpret mental representations. == Basic study layout == The reverse correlation method is typically executed as an in-lab computer experiment. This method follows four broad steps. Each of the following steps are described in greater detail below. After creating a research question and determining that the reverse correlation method is the most suitable technique to answer the question, a researcher must (1) design randomly varying stimuli. After the stimuli have been prepared, a researcher should (2) collect data from participants who will see and respond to approximately 300 -1,000 trials. Each trial will either consist of one or two images (side by side) derived from the same base image with noise superimposed on top. Participant responses will depend on the chosen study design; if a researcher presents only one image at a time, participants rate the image on a 4pt scale, but when two images are shown, the participant is asked to choose which best aligns with the given category (e.g. choose the image that looks the most aggressive). Once all of the data is collected, the researcher will (3) compute classification images for each participant and using those images compute group classification images. Finally, with the classification images available, the researcher will (4) evaluate the images and draw conclusions about their results. === Step 1: making stimuli === When designing the stimuli for a reverse correlation study, the two primary factors that one should consider are (1) the base image and (2) the noise that will be used. While not all bases are images per se, the majority are and for this reason the base is typically referred to as a base image. The base image should represent whatever the research question is addressing. For example, if you are interested in peoples’ mental representations of Chinese people, it would not make sense to use a base image of a Spanish or Caucasian person. Again, if you are interested in the mental representations of male vocal patterns, it would make the most sense to use a base vocal pattern that has been produced by a male. Having a base is important because it provides a kind of anchor for participants to work from. When there is no base image, the number of trials that are required increases dramatically, thus making it harder to collect data. While there are studies that have excluded a base image, (e.g. the S study), for more elaborate and nuanced research questions, it is important to have a base image that is a fair representation of what participants are being asked to categorize. Photographs of faces are generally the most popular base image. Although the reverse correlation method is capable of investigating a wide variety of research questions, the most common application of the method is for evaluating faces on a single trait. Reverse correlation studies that address evaluations of the face are sometimes referred to as being a face space reverse correlation model (FSRCM). Thankfully, there are existing databases for face images of varying demographics and emotion that work well as base images. The reverse correlation method can also be used to help researchers identify what areas of an image (e.g. the areas on the face) have diagnostic value. In order to identify these areas of value, researchers start by minimizing the space a participant can pull information from. By imposing a “mask” on an image (e.g. blur an image while leaving random areas un-blurred), this reduces the information individuals might see, and forces them to focus on certain areas. Then, if/when participants are able to correctly identify an image with a trait repeatedly, we can draw conclusions about what areas have diagnostic value. While faces and visual stimuli are the most popular, this is not the only stimuli that can be used in a reverse correlation study. This method was originally designed for auditory stimuli which allows researchers to investigate how perceivers interpret auditory information and create trait based attributions to different sound patterns. For example, by segmenting a vocal recording of a single word (total sound time 426 ms) into six segments (71 ms each), and varying each segment's pitch using Gaussian distributions, researchers were able to uncover what vocal patterns people associated with certain traits. Specifically, this study investigated how listeners rated sound clips of the word “really” as sounding more interrogative (i.e. like the more common reverse correlation studies this study had participants listen to two sound clips per trial, choose which fit the category the best, and then created an average of the pitch contours). Beyond face and auditory perception, research utilizing the reverse correlation method has expanded to investigate how individuals see three-dimensional objects in images with noise (but no signal). After selecting your base image, regardless of what the image is, it is helpful to apply a Gaussian blur to smooth noise in the image. While noise will be applied later, it is helpful to reduce existing noise in the photo before applying your chosen noise. There are three primary choices when it comes to noise: white noise, sine-wave noise, and Gabor noise. The latter two of these constrain the configurations that the noise can have, and because of this white noise is usually the most commonly used. Regardless of the type of noise that is chosen, it is crucial that the noise randomly varies. === Step 2: data collection === Once the stimuli for the study has been developed, the researcher must make a few decisions before actually collecting the data. The researcher must come to a conclusion on how many stimuli will be presented at a time and how many trials the participants will see. In terms of stimuli presentation, a researcher can choose from either a 2-Image Forced Choice (2IFC) or a 4-Alternative Forced Choice (4AFC). The 2IFC presents two images at once (side by side) and requires participants to choose between the two on a specified category (e.g. which image looks the most like a male). Typically the noise from the left image is the mathematical inverse of the noise from the right image. This method was developed to better answer questions that could n

  Read more →
• 

  Data Reference Model

  The Data Reference Model (DRM) is one of the five reference models of the Federal Enterprise Architecture. == Overview == The DRM is a framework whose primary purpose is to enable information sharing and reuse across the United States federal government via the standard description and discovery of common data and the promotion of uniform data management practices. The DRM describes artifacts which can be generated from the data architectures of federal government agencies. The DRM provides a flexible and standards-based approach to accomplish its purpose. The scope of the DRM is broad, as it may be applied within a single agency, within a community of interest, or cross-community of interest. == Data Reference Model topics == === DRM structure === The DRM provides a standard means by which data may be described, categorized, and shared. These are reflected within each of the DRM's three standardization areas: Data Description: Provides a means to uniformly describe data, thereby supporting its discovery and sharing. Data Context: Facilitates discovery of data through an approach to the categorization of data according to taxonomies. Additionally, enables the definition of authoritative data assets within a community of interest. Data Sharing: Supports the access and exchange of data where access consists of ad hoc requests (such as a query of a data asset), and exchange consists of fixed, re-occurring transactions between parties. Enabled by capabilities provided by both the Data Context and Data Description standardization areas. === DRM Version 2 === The Data Reference Model version 2 released in November 2005 is a 114-page document with detailed architectural diagrams and an extensive glossary of terms. The DRM also make many references to ISO standards specifically the ISO/IEC 11179 metadata registry standard. === DRM usage === The DRM is not technically a published technical interoperability standard such as web services, it is an excellent starting point for data architects within federal and state agencies. Any federal or state agencies that are involved with exchanging information with other agencies or that are involved in data warehousing efforts should use this document as a guide.

  Read more →
• 

  Signatures with efficient protocols

  Signatures with efficient protocols are a form of digital signature invented by Jan Camenisch and Anna Lysyanskaya in 2001. In addition to being secure digital signatures, they need to allow for the efficient implementation of two protocols: A protocol for computing a digital signature in a secure two-party computation protocol. A protocol for proving knowledge of a digital signature in a zero-knowledge protocol. In applications, the first protocol allows a signer to possess the signing key to issue a signature to a user (the signature owner) without learning all the messages being signed or the complete signature. The second protocol allows the signature owner to prove that he has a signature on many messages without revealing the signature and only a (possibly) empty subset of the messages. The combination of these two protocols allows for the implementation of digital credential and ecash protocols.

  Read more →