AI Code Bot

AI Code Bot — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Closest point method

    Closest point method

    The closest point method (CPM) is an embedding method for solving partial differential equations on surfaces. The closest point method uses standard numerical approaches such as finite differences, finite element or spectral methods in order to solve the embedding partial differential equation (PDE) which is equal to the original PDE on the surface. The solution is computed in a band surrounding the surface in order to be computationally efficient. In order to extend the data off the surface, the closest point method uses a closest point representation. This representation extends function values to be constant along directions normal to the surface. == Definitions == Closest Point function: Given a surface S , c p ( x ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}},cp(\mathbf {x} )} refers to a (possibly non-unique) point belonging to S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , which is closest to x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } [SE]. Closest point extension: Let S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , be a smooth surface in R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} . The closest point extension of a function u : S → R {\displaystyle u:{\mathcal {S}}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } , to a neighborhood Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } of S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , is the function v : Ω → R {\displaystyle v:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R} } , defined by v ( x ) = u ( c p ( x ) ) {\displaystyle v(\mathbf {x} )=u(cp(\mathbf {x} ))} . == Closest point method == Initialization consists of these steps [EW]: If it is not already given, a closest point representation of the surface is constructed. A computational domain is chosen. Typically this is a band around the surface. Replace surface gradients by standard gradients in R 3 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{3}} . Solution is initialized by extending the initial surface data on to the computational domain using the closest point function. After initialization, alternate between the following two steps: Using the closest point function, extend the solution off the surface to the computational domain. Compute the solution to the embedding PDE on a Cartesian mesh in the computational domain for one time step. == Banding == The surface PDE is extended into R 3 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{3}} however it is only necessary to solve this new PDE near the surface. Hence, we solve the PDE in a band surrounding the surface for efficient computational purposes. Ω c x : ‖ x − c p ( x ) ‖ 2 ≤ λ {\displaystyle \Omega _{c}{x:\|x-cp(x)\|_{2}\leq \lambda }} where λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is the bandwidth. == Example: Heat equation on a circle == Using initial profile u S ( θ , t ) = sin ⁡ ( θ ) {\displaystyle u_{S}(\theta ,t)=\sin(\theta )} leads to the solution u S ( θ , t ) = exp ⁡ ( − t ) sin ⁡ ( θ ) {\displaystyle u_{S}(\theta ,t)=\exp(-t)\sin(\theta )} for the heat equation. Forward Euler time-stepping is used with relation Δ t = 0.1 Δ x 2 {\displaystyle \Delta t=0.1\Delta x^{2}} and degree-four interpolation polynomials for the interpolations. Second-order centered differences are used for the spatial discretization. The CPM results in the expected second order error in the solution u {\displaystyle u} . == Applications == The closest point method can be applied to various PDEs on surfaces. Reaction–diffusion problems on point clouds [RD], eigenvalue problems [EV], and level set equations [LS] are a few examples.

    Read more →
  • Vatican News App

    Vatican News App

    The Vatican News App is an official mobile application software issued by the Vatican's Dicastery for Communication. Formerly titled The Pope App, the app was launched on January 23, 2013, under the auspices of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, a now-defunct dicastery that was merged into the Secretariat (now Dicastery) for Communication in March 2016. Initially, The Pope App was available only on iOS devices, but became available for Android phones at the end of February 2013. The app is available for download on iOS and Android in five languages: English, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. It was originally promoted as an application with focus on the figure of the Pope which made it possible to follow the Pope's events while they are taking place. Alerts notified the followers by informing and offering access to "official papal-related content in a variety of formats". The app also enabled its users to see areas of the Vatican through webcams allocated throughout St. Peter's Square in Rome that broadcast images. In early 2018, The Pope App was relaunched as the Vatican News App, accompanied by a redesign that eliminated many of the previous version's features, reducing the app to a more conventional news service, with increased emphasis on news from the Vatican and the worldwide Catholic Church and less focus on the day-to-day activities of the Pope.

    Read more →
  • WS-SecurityPolicy

    WS-SecurityPolicy

    WS-Security Policy is a web services specification, created by IBM and 12 co-authors, that has become an OASIS standard as of version 1.2. It extends the fundamental security protocols specified by the WS-Security, WS-Trust and WS-Secure Conversation by offering mechanisms to represent the capabilities and requirements of web services as policies. Security policy assertions are based on the WS-Policy framework. Policy assertions can be used to require more generic security attributes like transport layer security , message level security or timestamps, and specific attributes like token types. Most policy assertion can be found in following categories: Protection assertions identify the elements of a message that are required to be signed, encrypted or existent. Token assertions specify allowed token formats (SAML, X509, Username etc.). Security binding assertions control basic security safeguards like transport and message level security, cryptographic algorithm suite and required timestamps. Supporting token assertions add functions like user sign-on using a username token. Policies can be used to drive development tools to generate code with certain capabilities, or may be used at runtime to negotiate the security aspects of web service communication. Policies may be attached to WSDL elements such as service, port, operation and message, as defined in WS Policy Attachment. == Sample Policies == Namespaces used by the following XML-snippets: ... Include a timestamp: Use either transport layer security (https) or message level security (XML Dsig/XML Enc): ... ... To define a SAML assertion as security token: ...#SAMLV2.0 Issued token assertion of providers with reference to the STS and required token format: http://sampleorg.com/sts http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/oasis-wss-saml-token-profile-1.0#SAMLAssertionID ... ... Specify that message header and body need to be signed, and attachments are left unsigned: ? ... specify that message open source license need to be signed, and hydra security are left unsigned: ? ... == Other WS policy languages == The term Web Services Security Policy Language is used for two different XML-based languages: As described above, based on the WS-Policy framework, as defined in, published as version 1.3 in Feb. 2009 WSPL, based on XACML profile for Web-services, but that was not finalized.

    Read more →
  • Secure state

    Secure state

    A secure state is an information systems security term to describe where entities in a computer system are divided into subjects and objects, and it can be formally proven that each state transition preserves security by moving from one secure state to another secure state. Thereby it can be inductively proven that the system is secure. As defined in the Bell–LaPadula model, the secure state is built on the concept of a state machine with a set of allowable states in a system. The transition from one state to another state is defined by transition functions. A system state is defined to be "secure" if the only permitted access modes of subjects to objects are in accordance with a security policy.

    Read more →
  • Loebner Prize

    Loebner Prize

    The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

    Read more →
  • Electronic sell-through

    Electronic sell-through

    Electronic sell-through (EST) is a method of media distribution whereby consumers pay a one-time fee to download a media file for storage on a hard drive. Although EST is often described as a transaction that grants content "ownership" to the consumer, the content may become unusable after a certain period and may not be viewable using competing platforms. EST is used by a wide array of digital media products, including movies, television, music, games, and mobile applications. The term is sometimes used interchangeably with download to own (DTO). == Film and television == The film and television industry's $18.8 billion home entertainment market consists of rental and sell-through segments, the latter of which includes the electronic sell-through of digital content. In 2010, EST generated $683 million of total home entertainment revenues, putting it behind the more lucrative revenue streams of cable video-on-demand (VOD) and internet video-on-demand (iVOD), which brought in a combined $1.8 billion in the same period. In 2010, Apple's iTunes Store accounted for three quarters of the U.S. EST business. The rest of the EST market was captured by Microsoft (via its Zune Video platform), Sony, Amazon VOD (now Amazon Video), and Walmart (via its VUDU service). A number of industry trends indicate the future expansion of EST's share of digital distribution revenues. David Bishop, worldwide president of Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, describes the following outlook: "With the launch of UltraViolet (the cloud-based digital copy locker system) establishing a common digital distribution platform later this year, prices potentially coming down on digital sales, more marketing devoted to digital sellthrough, and studios adding more value to the sellthrough product by making HD available and building in smarter extra features, we see the balance tilting even more toward owning and collecting digital movies."

    Read more →
  • Plane Finder

    Plane Finder

    Plane Finder is a United Kingdom-based real-time flight tracking service launched in 2009, that is able to show flight data globally. The data available includes flight numbers, how fast an aircraft is moving, its elevation and destination of travel. Several variants of the service are available as mobile apps including free, premium 3D and augmented reality versions. The flight tracking map and database can be accessed by web browsers. Plane Finder allows registered users to share their ADS-B and MLAT data via the Plane Finder ADS-B Client, available for macOS, Windows and Linux. Plane Finder supports VFR charts from NATS, and was the first major flight tracking app to introduce a replay feature, allowing users to replay flights dating back to 2011. == Flight tracking == Plane Finder collects data from its own global network of receivers, using the following sources. === Automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) === A network of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) receivers gathers aircraft data such as callsign, position and speed. Plane Finder serves to supplement this data with additional information, including aircraft registration/tail number, departure airport, destination, artwork, and photographs. Plane Finder users can apply for an ADS-B receiver in exchange for their flight data. === Multilateration (MLAT) === To deliver aircraft position data where ADS-B is unavailable, Plane Finder uses multilateration (MLAT). Using three or more receivers running Plane Finder client software, monitoring the aircraft simultaneously, the aircraft’s position is calculated using receiver location and accurate timestamps. While European airspace is widely covered, only some parts of North American airspace are covered. === Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) feed === ADS-B is prevalent across Europe and Australia, but not in North America. Where MLAT or ADS-B data is unavailable, a feed from the Federal Aviation Administration provides flight information. The FAA feed covers United States and Canadian airspace, including bordering areas of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. === FLARM feed === Plane Finder collects data from a centralised FLARM feed, for monitoring small aircraft and gliders. == Flight data source == The Plane Finder website and database is widely used as an information source to support articles in the media. The Independent used Plane Finder flight tracking to demonstrate to readers the flight path of flight MT2706, which turned back as a result of last minute Egyptian government flight restrictions on 6 November 2015. The Independent also used Plane Finder information to demonstrate a timeline of the speed/altitude of flight 7K 9268, a Russian plane which crashed on 31 October 2015. The BBC cited Plane Finder in regard to the point at which at British Airways flight turned back to Heathrow Airport to make an emergency landing after smoke was seen coming from its engines. Plane Finder data has also been used to create original imagery for the media, such as the Washington Post, which used Plane Finder as a source to show flight patterns immediately after the Brussels bombings in March 2016.

    Read more →
  • Image-based modeling and rendering

    Image-based modeling and rendering

    In computer graphics and computer vision, image-based modeling and rendering (IBMR) methods rely on a set of two-dimensional images of a scene to generate a three-dimensional model and then render some novel views of this scene. The traditional approach of computer graphics has been used to create a geometric model in 3D and try to reproject it onto a two-dimensional image. Computer vision, conversely, is mostly focused on detecting, grouping, and extracting features (edges, faces, etc.) present in a given picture and then trying to interpret them as three-dimensional clues. Image-based modeling and rendering allows the use of multiple two-dimensional images in order to generate directly novel two-dimensional images, skipping the manual modeling stage. == Light modeling == Instead of considering only the physical model of a solid, IBMR methods usually focus more on light modeling. The fundamental concept behind IBMR is the plenoptic illumination function which is a parametrisation of the light field. The plenoptic function describes the light rays contained in a given volume. It can be represented with seven dimensions: a ray is defined by its position ( x , y , z ) {\displaystyle (x,y,z)} , its orientation ( θ , ϕ ) {\displaystyle (\theta ,\phi )} , its wavelength ( λ ) {\displaystyle (\lambda )} and its time ( t ) {\displaystyle (t)} : P ( x , y , z , θ , ϕ , λ , t ) {\displaystyle P(x,y,z,\theta ,\phi ,\lambda ,t)} . IBMR methods try to approximate the plenoptic function to render a novel set of two-dimensional images from another. Given the high dimensionality of this function, practical methods place constraints on the parameters in order to reduce this number (typically to 2 to 4). == IBMR methods and algorithms == View morphing generates a transition between images Panoramic imaging renders panoramas using image mosaics of individual still images Lumigraph relies on a dense sampling of a scene Space carving generates a 3D model based on a photo-consistency check

    Read more →
  • Second-order co-occurrence pointwise mutual information

    Second-order co-occurrence pointwise mutual information

    In computational linguistics, second-order co-occurrence pointwise mutual information (SOC-PMI) is a method used to measure semantic similarity, or how close in meaning two words are. The method does not require the two words to appear together in a text. Instead, it works by analyzing the "neighbor" words that typically appear alongside each of the two target words in a large body of text (corpus). If the two target words frequently share the same neighbors, they are considered semantically similar. For example, the words "cemetery" and "graveyard" may not appear in the same sentence often, but they both frequently appear near words like "buried," "dead," and "funeral." SOC-PMI uses this shared context to determine that they have a similar meaning. The method is called "second-order" because it doesn't look at the direct co-occurrence of the target words (which would be first-order), but at the co-occurrence of their neighbors (a second level of association). The strength of these associations is quantified using pointwise mutual information (PMI). == History == The method builds on earlier work like the PMI-IR algorithm, which used the AltaVista search engine to calculate word association probabilities. The key advantage of a second-order approach like SOC-PMI is its ability to measure similarity between words that do not co-occur often, or at all. The British National Corpus (BNC) has been used as a source for word frequencies and contexts for this method. == Methodology == The SOC-PMI algorithm measures the similarity between two words, w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} and w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} , in several steps. === Step 1: Score neighboring words with PMI === First, for each target word ( w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} and w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} ), the algorithm identifies its "neighbor" words within a certain text window (e.g., within 5 words to the left or right) across a large corpus. The strength of the association between a target word t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and its neighbor w {\displaystyle w} is calculated using pointwise mutual information (PMI). A higher PMI value means the two words appear together more often than would be expected by chance. The PMI between a target word t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and a neighbor word w {\displaystyle w} is calculated as: f pmi ( t i , w ) = log 2 ⁡ f b ( t i , w ) × m f t ( t i ) f t ( w ) {\displaystyle f^{\text{pmi}}(t_{i},w)=\log _{2}{\frac {f^{b}(t_{i},w)\times m}{f^{t}(t_{i})f^{t}(w)}}} where: f b ( t i , w ) {\displaystyle f^{b}(t_{i},w)} is the number of times t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and w {\displaystyle w} appear together in the context window. f t ( t i ) {\displaystyle f^{t}(t_{i})} is the total number of times t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} appears in the corpus. f t ( w ) {\displaystyle f^{t}(w)} is the total number of times w {\displaystyle w} appears in the corpus. m {\displaystyle m} is the total number of tokens (words) in the corpus. === Step 2: Create a semantic 'signature' for each word === For each target word ( w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} and w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} ), the algorithm creates a list of its most significant neighbors. This is done by taking the top β {\displaystyle \beta } neighbor words, sorted in descending order by their PMI score with the target word. This list of top neighbors, X w {\displaystyle X^{w}} , acts as a semantic "signature" for the word w {\displaystyle w} . X w = { X i w } {\displaystyle X^{w}=\{X_{i}^{w}\}} , for i = 1 , 2 , … , β {\displaystyle i=1,2,\ldots ,\beta } The size of this list, β {\displaystyle \beta } , is a parameter of the method. === Step 3: Compare the signatures === The algorithm then compares the signatures of w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} and w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} . It looks for words that are present in both signatures. The similarity of w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} to w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} is calculated by summing the PMI scores of w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} with every word in w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} 's signature list. The β {\displaystyle \beta } -PMI summation function defines this score. The score for w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} with respect to w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} is: f ( w 1 , w 2 , β ) = ∑ i = 1 β ( f pmi ( X i w 1 , w 2 ) ) γ {\displaystyle f(w_{1},w_{2},\beta )=\sum _{i=1}^{\beta }(f^{\text{pmi}}(X_{i}^{w_{1}},w_{2}))^{\gamma }} This sum only includes terms where the PMI value is positive. The exponent γ {\displaystyle \gamma } (with a value > 1) is used to give more weight to neighbors that are more strongly associated with w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} . This calculation is done in both directions: The similarity of w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} with respect to w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} : f ( w 1 , w 2 , β 1 ) = ∑ i = 1 β 1 ( f pmi ( X i w 1 , w 2 ) ) γ {\displaystyle f(w_{1},w_{2},\beta _{1})=\sum _{i=1}^{\beta _{1}}(f^{\text{pmi}}(X_{i}^{w_{1}},w_{2}))^{\gamma }} The similarity of w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} with respect to w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} : f ( w 2 , w 1 , β 2 ) = ∑ i = 1 β 2 ( f pmi ( X i w 2 , w 1 ) ) γ {\displaystyle f(w_{2},w_{1},\beta _{2})=\sum _{i=1}^{\beta _{2}}(f^{\text{pmi}}(X_{i}^{w_{2}},w_{1}))^{\gamma }} === Step 4: Calculate final similarity score === Finally, the total semantic similarity is the average of the two scores from the previous step. S i m ( w 1 , w 2 ) = f ( w 1 , w 2 , β 1 ) β 1 + f ( w 2 , w 1 , β 2 ) β 2 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Sim} (w_{1},w_{2})={\frac {f(w_{1},w_{2},\beta _{1})}{\beta _{1}}}+{\frac {f(w_{2},w_{1},\beta _{2})}{\beta _{2}}}} This score can be normalized to fall between 0 and 1. For example, using this method, the words cemetery and graveyard achieve a high similarity score of 0.986 (with specific parameter settings).

    Read more →
  • Digital video effect

    Digital video effect

    Digital video effects (DVEs) are visual effects that provide comprehensive live video image manipulation, in the same form as optical printer effects in film. DVEs differ from standard video switcher effects (often referred to as analog effects) such as wipes or dissolves, in that they deal primarily with resizing, distortion or movement of the image. Modern video switchers often contain internal DVE functionality. Modern DVE devices are incorporated in high-end broadcast video switchers. Early examples of DVE devices found in the broadcast post-production industry include the Ampex Digital Optics (ADO), Quantel DPE-5000, Vital Squeezoom, NEC E-Flex and the Abekas A5x series of DVEs. By 1988, Grass Valley Group caught up with the competition with their Kaleidoscope, which integrated ADO-type effects with their widely used line of broadcast switching gear. DVEs are used by the broadcast television industry in live television production environments like television studios and outside broadcasts. They are commonly used in video post-production.

    Read more →
  • Computer security compromised by hardware failure

    Computer security compromised by hardware failure

    Computer security compromised by hardware failure is a branch of computer security applied to hardware. The objective of computer security includes protection of information and property from theft, corruption, or natural disaster, while allowing the information and property to remain accessible and productive to its intended users. Such secret information could be retrieved by different ways. This article focus on the retrieval of data thanks to misused hardware or hardware failure. Hardware could be misused or exploited to get secret data. This article collects main types of attack that can lead to data theft. Computer security can be compromised by devices, such as keyboards, monitors or printers (thanks to electromagnetic or acoustic emanation for example) or by components of the computer, such as the memory, the network card or the processor (thanks to time or temperature analysis for example). == Devices == === Monitor === The monitor is the main device used to access data on a computer. It has been shown that monitors radiate or reflect data on their environment, potentially giving attackers access to information displayed on the monitor. ==== Electromagnetic emanations ==== Video display units radiate: narrowband harmonics of the digital clock signals; broadband harmonics of the various 'random' digital signals such as the video signal. Known as compromising emanations or TEMPEST radiation, a code word for a U.S. government programme aimed at attacking the problem, the electromagnetic broadcast of data has been a significant concern in sensitive computer applications. Eavesdroppers can reconstruct video screen content from radio frequency emanations. Each (radiated) harmonic of the video signal shows a remarkable resemblance to a broadcast TV signal. It is therefore possible to reconstruct the picture displayed on the video display unit from the radiated emission by means of a normal television receiver. If no preventive measures are taken, eavesdropping on a video display unit is possible at distances up to several hundreds of meters, using only a normal black-and-white TV receiver, a directional antenna and an antenna amplifier. It is even possible to pick up information from some types of video display units at a distance of over 1 kilometer. If more sophisticated receiving and decoding equipment is used, the maximum distance can be much greater. ==== Compromising reflections ==== What is displayed by the monitor is reflected on the environment. The time-varying diffuse reflections of the light emitted by a CRT monitor can be exploited to recover the original monitor image. This is an eavesdropping technique for spying at a distance on data that is displayed on an arbitrary computer screen, including the currently prevalent LCD monitors. The technique exploits reflections of the screen's optical emanations in various objects that one commonly finds close to the screen and uses those reflections to recover the original screen content. Such objects include eyeglasses, tea pots, spoons, plastic bottles, and even the eye of the user. This attack can be successfully mounted to spy on even small fonts using inexpensive, off-the-shelf equipment (less than 1500 dollars) from a distance of up to 10 meters. Relying on more expensive equipment allowed to conduct this attack from over 30 meters away, demonstrating that similar attacks are feasible from the other side of the street or from a close by building. Many objects that may be found at a usual workplace can be exploited to retrieve information on a computer's display by an outsider. Particularly good results were obtained from reflections in a user's eyeglasses or a tea pot located on the desk next to the screen. Reflections that stem from the eye of the user also provide good results. However, eyes are harder to spy on at a distance because they are fast-moving objects and require high exposure times. Using more expensive equipment with lower exposure times helps to remedy this problem. The reflections gathered from curved surfaces on close by objects indeed pose a substantial threat to the confidentiality of data displayed on the screen. Fully invalidating this threat without at the same time hiding the screen from the legitimate user seems difficult, without using curtains on the windows or similar forms of strong optical shielding. Most users, however, will not be aware of this risk and may not be willing to close the curtains on a nice day. The reflection of an object, a computer display, in a curved mirror creates a virtual image that is located behind the reflecting surface. For a flat mirror this virtual image has the same size and is located behind the mirror at the same distance as the original object. For curved mirrors, however, the situation is more complex. === Keyboard === ==== Electromagnetic emanations ==== Computer keyboards are often used to transmit confidential data such as passwords. Since they contain electronic components, keyboards emit electromagnetic waves. These emanations could reveal sensitive information such as keystrokes. Electromagnetic emanations have turned out to constitute a security threat to computer equipment. The figure below presents how a keystroke is retrieved and what material is necessary. The approach is to acquire the raw signal directly from the antenna and to process the entire captured electromagnetic spectrum. Thanks to this method, four different kinds of compromising electromagnetic emanations have been detected, generated by wired and wireless keyboards. These emissions lead to a full or a partial recovery of the keystrokes. The best practical attack fully recovered 95% of the keystrokes of a PS/2 keyboard at a distance up to 20 meters, even through walls. Because each keyboard has a specific fingerprint based on the clock frequency inconsistencies, it can determine the source keyboard of a compromising emanation, even if multiple keyboards from the same model are used at the same time. The four different kinds way of compromising electromagnetic emanations are described below. ===== The Falling Edge Transition Technique ===== When a key is pressed, released or held down, the keyboard sends a packet of information known as a scan code to the computer. The protocol used to transmit these scan codes is a bidirectional serial communication, based on four wires: Vcc (5 volts), ground, data and clock. Clock and data signals are identically generated. Hence, the compromising emanation detected is the combination of both signals. However, the edges of the data and the clock lines are not superposed. Thus, they can be easily separated to obtain independent signals. ===== The Generalized Transition Technique ===== The Falling Edge Transition attack is limited to a partial recovery of the keystrokes. This is a significant limitation. The GTT is a falling edge transition attack improved, which recover almost all keystrokes. Indeed, between two traces, there is exactly one data rising edge. If attackers are able to detect this transition, they can fully recover the keystrokes. ===== The Modulation Technique ===== Harmonics compromising electromagnetic emissions come from unintentional emanations such as radiations emitted by the clock, non-linear elements, crosstalk, ground pollution, etc. Determining theoretically the reasons of these compromising radiations is a very complex task. These harmonics correspond to a carrier of approximately 4 MHz which is very likely the internal clock of the micro-controller inside the keyboard. These harmonics are correlated with both clock and data signals, which describe modulated signals (in amplitude and frequency) and the full state of both clock and data signals. This means that the scan code can be completely recovered from these harmonics. ===== The Matrix Scan Technique ===== Keyboard manufacturers arrange the keys in a matrix. The keyboard controller, often an 8-bit processor, parses columns one-by-one and recovers the state of 8 keys at once. This matrix scan process can be described as 192 keys (some keys may not be used, for instance modern keyboards use 104/105 keys) arranged in 24 columns and 8 rows. These columns are continuously pulsed one-by-one for at least 3μs. Thus, these leads may act as an antenna and generate electromagnetic emanations. If an attacker is able to capture these emanations, he can easily recover the column of the pressed key. Even if this signal does not fully describe the pressed key, it still gives partial information on the transmitted scan code, i.e. the column number. Note that the matrix scan routine loops continuously. When no key is pressed, we still have a signal composed of multiple equidistant peaks. These emanations may be used to remotely detect the presence of powered computers. Concerning wireless keyboards, the wireless data burst transmission can be used as an electromagnetic trigger to detect exactly when a key is pressed, while the matrix s

    Read more →
  • Zardoz (computer security)

    Zardoz (computer security)

    In computer security, the Security-Digest list, better known as the Zardoz list, was a semi-private full disclosure mailing list run by Neil Gorsuch from 1989 through 1991. It identified weaknesses in systems and gave directions on where to find them. It was a perennial target for computer hackers, who sought archives of the list for information on undisclosed software vulnerabilities. == Membership restrictions == Access to Zardoz was approved on a case-by-case basis by Gorsuch, principally by reference to the user account used to send subscription requests; requests were approved for root users, valid UUCP owners, or system administrators listed at the NIC. The openness of the list to users other than Unix system administrators was a regular topic of conversation, with participants expressing concern that vulnerabilities and exploitation details disclosed on the list were liable to spread to hackers. The circulation of Zardoz postings was an open secret among computer hackers, and mocked in a Phrack parody of an IRC channel populated by security experts. == Notable participants == Keith Bostic discussed BSD Sendmail vulnerabilities Chip Salzenberg discussed Peter Honeyman's posting of a UUCP worm, and shell script security Gene Spafford discussed VMS and Ultrix bugs, and relayed law enforcement enquiries about the Morris Worm Tom Christiansen discussed SUID shell scripts Chris Torek discussed devising exploits from general descriptions of vulnerabilities Henry Spencer discussed Unix security Brendan Kehoe discussed systems security Alec Muffett announced Crack, the Unix password cracker The majority of Zardoz participants were Unix systems administrators and C software developers. Neil Gorsuch and Gene Spafford were the most prolific contributors to the list.

    Read more →
  • Hidden layer

    Hidden layer

    In artificial neural networks, a hidden layer is a layer of artificial neurons that is neither an input layer nor an output layer. The simplest examples appear in multilayer perceptrons (MLP), as illustrated in the diagram. An MLP without any hidden layer is essentially just a linear model. With hidden layers and activation functions, however, nonlinearity is introduced into the model. In typical machine learning practice, the weights and biases are initialized, then iteratively updated during training via backpropagation.

    Read more →
  • Sprite (computer graphics)

    Sprite (computer graphics)

    In computer graphics, a sprite is a two-dimensional bitmap that is integrated into a larger scene, most often in a 2D video game. Originally, the term sprite referred to fixed-sized objects composited together, by hardware, with a background. Use of the term has since become more general. Systems with hardware sprites include arcade video games of the 1970s and 1980s; game consoles including as the Atari VCS (1977), ColecoVision (1982), Famicom (1983), Genesis/Mega Drive (1988); and home computers such as the TI-99/4 (1979), Atari 8-bit computers (1979), Commodore 64 (1982), MSX (1983), Amiga (1985), and X68000 (1987). Hardware varies in the number of sprites supported, the size and colors of each sprite, and special effects such as scaling or reporting pixel-precise overlap. Hardware composition of sprites occurs as each scan line is prepared for the video output device, such as a cathode-ray tube, without involvement of the main CPU and without the need for a full-screen frame buffer. Sprites can be positioned or altered by setting attributes used during the hardware composition process. The number of sprites which can be displayed per scan line is often lower than the total number of sprites a system supports. For example, the Texas Instruments TMS9918 chip supports 32 sprites, but only four can appear on the same scan line. The CPUs in modern computers, video game consoles, and mobile devices are fast enough that bitmaps can be drawn into a frame buffer without special hardware assistance. Beyond that, GPUs can render vast numbers of scaled, rotated, anti-aliased, partially translucent, very high resolution images in parallel with the CPU. == Etymology == According to Karl Guttag, one of two engineers for the 1979 Texas Instruments TMS9918 video display processor, this use of the word sprite came from David Ackley, a manager at TI. It was also used by Danny Hillis at Texas Instruments in the late 1970s. The term was derived from the fact that sprites "float" on top of the background image without overwriting it, much like a ghost or mythological sprite. Some hardware manufacturers used different terms, especially before sprite became common: Player/Missile Graphics was a term used by Atari, Inc. for hardware sprites in the Atari 8-bit computers (1979) and Atari 5200 console (1982). The term reflects the use for both characters ("players") and smaller associated objects ("missiles") that share the same color. The earlier Atari Video Computer System and some Atari arcade games used player, missile, and ball. Stamp was used in some arcade hardware in the early 1980s, including Ms. Pac-Man. Movable Object Block, or MOB, was used in MOS Technology's graphics chip literature. Commodore, the main user of MOS chips and the owner of MOS for most of the chip maker's lifetime, instead used the term sprite for the Commodore 64. OBJs (short for objects) is used in the developer manuals for the NES, Super NES, and Game Boy. The region of video RAM used to store sprite attributes and coordinates is called OAM (Object Attribute Memory). This also applies to the Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS. == History == === Arcade video games === The use of sprites originated with arcade video games. Nolan Bushnell came up with the original concept when he developed the first arcade video game, Computer Space (1971). Technical limitations made it difficult to adapt the early mainframe game Spacewar! (1962), which performed an entire screen refresh for every little movement, so he came up with a solution to the problem: controlling each individual game element with a dedicated transistor. The rockets were essentially hardwired bitmaps that moved around the screen independently of the background, an important innovation for producing screen images more efficiently and providing the basis for sprite graphics. The earliest video games to represent player characters as human player sprites were arcade sports video games, beginning with Taito's TV Basketball, released in April 1974 and licensed to Midway Manufacturing for release in North America. Designed by Tomohiro Nishikado, he wanted to move beyond simple Pong-style rectangles to character graphics, by rearranging the rectangle shapes into objects that look like basketball players and basketball hoops. Ramtek released another sports video game in October 1974, Baseball, which similarly displayed human-like characters. The Namco Galaxian arcade system board, for the 1979 arcade game Galaxian, displays animated, multi-colored sprites over a scrolling background. It became the basis for Nintendo's Radar Scope and Donkey Kong arcade hardware and home consoles such as the Nintendo Entertainment System. According to Steve Golson from General Computer Corporation, the term "stamp" was used instead of "sprite" at the time. === Home systems === Signetics devised the first chips capable of generating sprite graphics (referred to as objects by Signetics) for home systems. The Signetics 2636 video processors were first used in the 1978 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System and later in the 1979 Elektor TV Games Computer. The Atari VCS, released in 1977, has a hardware sprite implementation where five graphical objects can be moved independently of the game playfield. The term sprite was not in use at the time. The VCS's sprites are called movable objects in the programming manual, further identified as two players, two missiles, and one ball. These each consist of a single row of pixels that are displayed on a scan line. To produce a two-dimensional shape, the sprite's single-row bitmap is altered by software from one scan line to the next. The 1979 Atari 400 and 800 home computers have similar, but more elaborate, circuitry capable of moving eight single-color objects per scan line: four 8-bit wide players and four 2-bit wide missiles. Each is the full height of the display—a long, thin strip. DMA from a table in memory automatically sets the graphics pattern registers for each scan line. Hardware registers control the horizontal position of each player and missile. Vertical motion is achieved by moving the bitmap data within a player or missile's strip. The feature was called player/missile graphics by Atari. Texas Instruments developed the TMS9918 chip with sprite support for its 1979 TI-99/4 home computer. An updated version is used in the 1981 TI-99/4A. === In 2.5D and 3D games === Sprites remained popular with the rise of 2.5D games (those which recreate a 3D game space from a 2D map) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A technique called billboarding allows 2.5D games to keep onscreen sprites rotated toward the player view at all times. Some 2.5D games, such as 1993's Doom, allow the same entity to be represented by different sprites depending on its rotation relative to the viewer, furthering the illusion of 3D. Fully 3D games usually present world objects as 3D models, but sprites are supported in some 3D game engines, such as GoldSrc and Unreal, and may be billboarded or locked to fixed orientations. Sprites remain useful for small details, particle effects, and other applications where the lack of a third dimension is not a major detriment. == Systems with hardware sprites == These are base hardware specs and do not include additional programming techniques, such as using raster interrupts to repurpose sprites mid-frame.

    Read more →
  • Vulnerability assessment (computing)

    Vulnerability assessment (computing)

    Vulnerability assessment is a process of defining, identifying and classifying the security holes in information technology systems. An attacker can exploit a vulnerability to violate the security of a system. Some known vulnerabilities are Authentication Vulnerability, Authorization Vulnerability and Input Validation Vulnerability. == Purpose == Before deploying a system, it first must go through from a series of vulnerability assessments that will ensure that the build system is secure from all the known security risks. When a new vulnerability is discovered, the system administrator can again perform an assessment, discover which modules are vulnerable, and start the patch process. After the fixes are in place, another assessment can be run to verify that the vulnerabilities were actually resolved. This cycle of assess, patch, and re-assess has become the standard method for many organizations to manage their security issues. The primary purpose of the assessment is to find the vulnerabilities in the system, but the assessment report conveys to stakeholders that the system is secured from these vulnerabilities. If an intruder gained access to a network consisting of vulnerable Web servers, it is safe to assume that he gained access to those systems as well. Because of assessment report, the security administrator will be able to determine how intrusion occurred, identify compromised assets and take appropriate security measures to prevent critical damage to the system. == Assessment types == Depending on the system a vulnerability assessment can have many types and level. === Host assessment === A host assessment looks for system-level vulnerabilities such as insecure file permissions, application level bugs, backdoor and Trojan horse installations. It requires specialized tools for the operating system and software packages being used, in addition to administrative access to each system that should be tested. Host assessment is often very costly in term of time, and thus is only used in the assessment of critical systems. Tools like COPS and Tiger are popular in host assessment. === Network assessment === In a network assessment one assess the network for known vulnerabilities. It locates all systems on a network, determines what network services are in use, and then analyzes those services for potential vulnerabilities. This process does not require any configuration changes on the systems being assessed. Unlike host assessment, network assessment requires little computational cost and effort. == Vulnerability assessment vs penetration testing == Vulnerability assessment and penetration testing are two different testing methods. They are differentiated on the basis of certain specific parameters. == Regulatory requirements == Vulnerability assessments are mandated or strongly recommended by several regulatory frameworks. In the United States healthcare sector, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to conduct periodic evaluations of their security posture, and a December 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would explicitly require vulnerability scanning at least every six months for systems containing electronic protected health information. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) requires quarterly vulnerability scans for organizations that process credit card transactions, and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework includes vulnerability assessment as a core component of its Identify function.

    Read more →