AI Generator Reader

AI Generator Reader — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • SQLBuddy

    SQLBuddy

    SQL Buddy is an open-source web-based application primarily coded in PHP, that allows users to control both MySQL and SQLite database through a web browser. The project was well regarded for its easy installation process and the friendly user interface it offered. The application was further praised for its cross-platform compatibility, meaning users could manage their databases on various operating systems, including Linux, Windows, and macOS. The development of SQL Buddy has stopped, with version 1.3.3 being the final release on January 18, 2011. No further releases are expected.

    Read more →
  • Digital Image Processing with Sound

    Digital Image Processing with Sound

    DIPS (Digital Image Processing with Sound) is a set of plug-in objects that handle real-time digital image processing in Max/MSP programming environment. Combining with the built-in objects of the environment, DIPS enables to program the interaction between audio and visual events with ease, and supports the realization of interactive multimedia art as well as interactive computer music. == Summary of Features == A plug-in software for Max/MSP (Max 5 and 6) More than 300 Max external objects and abstractions More than 90 OpenGL objects included More than 110 visual effect objects (Dfx library, Core Image Filters) A utility library for the easy of programming (prefix Dlib) A comprehensive set of sample patches, and a detailed tutorial Handling images & movie files (QuickTime, OpenGL) Render and move 3D models (OpenGL) Video signal input (QuickTime, video texture) Video input analysis: motion detect, face tracking (OpenCV, OpenGL) Importing 3D models (.obj file) Importing Quartz Composer files OpenGL Shading Language (GLSL) programming interface Easy integration of visual events using DIPSWindowMixer (OpenGL) == Description == DIPS is a free plug-in software (a set of external objects) for Max/MSP. It supports the designing of the interaction between sound and visual events in Max using Apple’s Core Image, OpenGL and OpenCV technologies, and consequently, provides a powerful and user-friendly programming environment for the creation of interactive multimedia art. DIPS can be used to detect a performer’s motions and to track positions of subtle details, such as the face, mouth, and eyes. It can also be used to measure the distance between objects and a Kinect sensor system, and offers powerful tools for realtime image processing of incoming video stream and stored movie files. In addition, it can be used to create complex images in a virtual three-dimensional space. The DIPS consists of a library of more than 300 Max external objects and abstractions, a comprehensive set of sample patches, and a detailed tutorial. Some of its strong points, in comparison with other similar plug-ins and software, are its ease of programming, power, and efficiency. The sample patches and tutorial contained in the installation package allows composers and artists who are interested in the creation of interactive art to realize sophisticated realtime video effects on a live video signal at their first practice. And because of its ease of programming, it is likely that one will soon acquire skills needed to create state-of-the-art interactive performance works, multimedia installations, interactive multimedia artworks, and Max VJ applications using DIPS. == History == Initially developed by Shu Matsuda in 1997, DIPS was a plug-in software for Max/FTS running on SGI Octane and O2 computers. Since 2000, it has been developed by the DIPS Development Group supervised by Takayuki Rai. Current active group members are Shu Matsuda, Yota Morimoto, Takuto Fukuda, and Keitaro Takahashi. Previously, Chikashi Miyama, Daichi Ando and Takayuki Hamano also contributed to its development. 2013 DIPS5 for Max (Mac OS X) 2009 DIPS4 for Max/MSP (Mac OS X) 2006 DIPS3 for Max/MSP (Mac OS X) 2003 DIPS2 for jMax4 (Mac OS X) 2002 DIPS for jMax2 (Mac OS X & Linux) 2000 DIPS for jMax (Linux)

    Read more →
  • Shader lamps

    Shader lamps

    Shader lamps is a computer graphic technique used to change the appearance of physical objects. The still or moving objects are illuminated, using one or more video projectors, by static or animated texture or video stream. The method was invented at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by Ramesh Raskar, Greg Welch, Kok-lim Low and Deepak Bandyopadhyay in 1999 [1] as a follow on to Spatial Augmented Reality [2] also invented at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1998 by Ramesh Raskar, Greg Welch and Henry Fuchs. A 3D graphic rendering software is typically used to compute the deformation caused by the non perpendicular, non-planar or even complex projection surface. Complex objects (or aggregation of multiple simple objects) create self shadows that must be compensated by using several projectors. The objects are typically replaced by neutral color ones, the projection giving all its visual properties, thus the name shader lamps. The technique can be used to create a sense of invisibility, by rendering transparency. The object is illuminated not by a replacement of its own visual properties, but by the corresponding visual surface placed behind the object as seen from an arbitrary viewing point.

    Read more →
  • Language-Theoretic Security

    Language-Theoretic Security

    Language-theoretic security, or LangSec, is an approach to software security that focuses on input handling, complexity, and program design as strategies to improve the verifiability of computer programs. It was introduced in 2005 by Robert J. Hansen and Meredith L. Patterson at BlackHat and in 2011 by Len Sassaman and Patterson. It aims to create a formal description of which software is likely to have security vulnerabilities of particular classes, and why. It considers programs to have an inherent parser component, whether or not explicit, composed of that part of the program which operates on external input before that input is fully parsed. A central hypothesis of language-theoretic security is that vulnerabilities in software increase according to the computational power of the notional input-accepting automaton equivalent to this parser, using the definitions of automata theory. The lower bound on this computational power is the input language complexity of the program. The extent to which reducing this complexity is possible is a function of the specification of the communication protocol or file format the program takes as input. == Parsing as a security mechanism == The behaviour of a program is defined with reference to its expected input. Unexpected input being used by a program is a factor in numerous security bugs, including the so-called Android master key vulnerability (CVE-2013-4787), because accepting unexpected input renders the program's specification ambiguous. In that instance, the unexpected ambiguity came in the form of a ZIP file with duplicate filenames. If a program fully parses its input and only acts on input that unambiguously meets the specification, it follows that the program will avoid these types of vulnerabilities. This is an intentional inversion of the Postel principle. Accepting only unambiguous and valid input is a more formal requirement than input validation or sanitization, and narrows the number of possible but unanticipated program states that can be induced in an application via user input. Conversely, failure to do this is associated with security vulnerabilities. Input sanitization in particular is held to be an inadequate approach to avoiding malicious input because it inherently ignores context-sensitive properties of the input; it can therefore result in paradoxical effects, such as sanitization code activating otherwise inert cross-site scripting payloads in browsers. === Parser differentials === If the language of accepted program input is sufficiently simple, it is possible to verify that two implementations parse the same input language consistently. This is advantageous because it shows no parser differential exists between the two implementations. The requisite level of simplicity is theoretically that for which there is a solution to the equivalence problem. If the two parsers involved in CVE-2013-4787 were equivalent - that is, if they rendered the same output state given the same input state - the vulnerability could not have existed. One strategy for doing this is to publish machine-readable specifications of a format or protocol, and then use a parser generator to generate the parser code. An example of a parser generator built for this purpose is DaeDaLus. The combination of Lex with any of GNU Bison, ANTLR, or Yacc also accomplishes this. However, many parser generators allow the mixing of general purpose code with the parsing definitions, which weakens the guarantees provided by parsing. === Analysis of injection attacks === Injection attacks are generally the result of differences between the serializer (or "unparser") and the corresponding parser at a layer boundary in a system; therefore, they are a special case of parser differentials. In a SQL injection attack, for example, an attacker is able to cause the application with which they are interacting to serialize a SQL query that has different semantics than intended. In the simplest case where the payload ends a string and adds new code, the payload has crossed the code-data boundary in SQL. In language-theoretic security, this is treated as a bug in the serializer of the SQL query, which should instead be written in a way that constrains its possible outputs to those within the scope of the intended query. === Parser combinators === If a parser generator is not used, it is still possible to avoid implementation bugs by using parser combinator such as Nom to implement the parser code. This has the drawback of relying on a programmer correctly translating the specification into the language of the parser generator library, though this task is still less error-prone than hand-coding a parser. == Input format complexity == Complexity in computer programs is associated with security vulnerabilities. Within the domain of language-theoretic security, complexity is described with reference to the computational power of the abstract machine necessary to implement the program, or more particularly, to implement the parser for its input language. This complexity describes whether it is possible to show that there is no unintended or undesired functionality in the program which might be exploitable by an attacker. To be bounded in complexity, the program's input must be well-defined both in terms of form and of semantics. === Weird machines === A weird machine is a model of computation in a program that exists in parallel with, but is distinct from, the intended abstract model of computation in that program. Some classes of weird machine arise from the multi-layered nature of computer programs, or the context in which the programs run; others result from the unanticipated functionality a program has due to its complexity or to software bugs. The more complex the computation model of a program, the more likely it is to implement a weird machine. Depending on context, the weird machine may or may not be concretely useful for an attacker. Since the space of weird machines in the context of some program is the universe of all possible states that are not within the program's intended states, many exploited states including remote code execution and injection attacks belong to the domain of weird machines. A reduction in weird machines is therefore a likely correlate with reduced program vulnerability. === SafeDocs project === SafeDocs is a DARPA project undertaken in 2018 to take existing file formats, create safer subsets of them, and develop programming tools to work for the safer formats. The initial test case for this was PDF. The purpose of creating safer subsets in this case is to lower the minimum bound on parser complexity so that it becomes possible to create tools that will generate correct, normative parsers for them. == Relation to programming languages == The analytic framework of language-theoretic security assumes programs to be virtual machines that execute their input. A document that is read by an application is in this sense a form of machine code, in a generalization of the data as code idea, following the automata theory description of parsers. === Type-safe programming languages === Parsing input and serializing output are operations that consume one data type and emit another. A programming language can therefore check that data is correctly parsed and contains the expected structure by checking data types, and correct serializing (or unparsing) can be implemented as operations on the data types that are relevant to the program's output. This approach can be used to show that the recognizer and unparser patterns have been implemented. It is also possible to implement type checking across a distributed system to enforce parsing and unparsing of the expected structures and to verify that the assumptions made in designing the compositional properties of a distributed system have been followed. === Memory-safe programming languages === In the general case, spatial memory correctness is undecidable. If any proof of spatial memory correctness is to be made, it is therefore necessary to bound the complexity of the code. Interpreted languages such as Java and Python effectively accomplish this via runtime bounds checking, and frameworks for runtime bounds checking also exist for C. The effect of these strategies for spatial memory correctness are to create a halt state in place of a spatial memory correctness violation; therefore, it can be shown that the program will not violate spatial memory correctness, but in exchange, it cannot be shown in the general case that programs will not have runtime bounds checking exceptions. Some programming languages, such as Rust, accomplish this using borrow checking. The borrow checker acts to assure spatial memory correctness by compile-time reference counting. Code for which spatial memory correctness cannot be shown to not be violated therefore does not compile, inherently limiting the complexity of the spatial memory correctness of the program to what is decidable. Thi

    Read more →
  • ShareMethods

    ShareMethods

    ShareMethods is a Web 2.0 document management and collaboration service with a focus on sales, marketing, and the extended selling network. It offers a software as a service (SaaS) subscription to companies and is available as a stand-alone application or as an integrated program with CRM tools such as Oracle CRM On Demand or salesforce.com. == History == ShareMethods was launched in 2004 to provide collaboration and communication services for sales and marketing teams, business partners, and customers. The founders have a background of building software-as-a-service applications and creating digital media applications. In September 2005, ShareMethods launched "ShareNow" as one of the first applications on the salesforce.com AppExchange. In September 2006, ShareMethods moved its operations into a SAS 70 Type II data center owned by SunGard. In March 2009, ShareMethods launched "ShareSpaces" to provide on-demand portals or workspaces. In 2013, ShareMethods announced that its platform is available in a private cloud (on-premises) version. == Products == ShareMethods: Combines document management, collaboration, analytics, and CRM integration into a single solution. Key content can be centrally managed and delivered to sales channels, while providing feedback to marketing. ShareMethods is often used as a sales portal for internal sales and a partner portal for external partners. ShareNow: Integrates ShareMethods with salesforce.com providing Single Sign On for salesforce.com users and access to files related to accounts opportunities, etc. including custom objects. Also facilitates collaboration between salesforce.com users and non-users. ShareMethods for Oracle CRM On Demand: Integrates ShareMethods with Oracle CRM On Demand providing Single Sign On for Oracle users and easy access to files related to accounts opportunities, etc. ShareOffice: An on-demand intranet/extranet solution. Features include full-text search, version history, server sync-up, email updates, audit trail/analytics, check-in/check-out, multilingual user interface. ShareSpaces: Independent workspaces or portals where users can collaborate with business partners, teammates, or individuals to work together on content and documents. == Integration and interoperability == ShareMethods is available on Salesforce.com's AppExchange platform. ShareMethods also integrates with Oracle CRM On Demand to provide document management within the CRM application. Customers also can integrate proprietary systems via single-sign-on and self-registration. In addition, developers can make use of the ShareMethods API based on WebDAV to integrate document management functionality.

    Read more →
  • Linked timestamping

    Linked timestamping

    Linked timestamping is a type of trusted timestamping where issued time-stamps are related to each other. Each time-stamp would contain data that authenticates the time-stamp before it, the authentication would be authenticating the entire message, including the previous time-stamps authentication, making a chain. This makes it impossible to add a time-stamp in to the middle of the chain, as any time-stamps afterwards would be different. == Description == Linked timestamping creates time-stamp tokens which are dependent on each other, entangled in some authenticated data structure. Later modification of the issued time-stamps would invalidate this structure. The temporal order of issued time-stamps is also protected by this data structure, making backdating of the issued time-stamps impossible, even by the issuing server itself. The top of the authenticated data structure is generally published in some hard-to-modify and widely witnessed media, like printed newspaper or public blockchain. There are no (long-term) private keys in use, avoiding PKI-related risks. Suitable candidates for the authenticated data structure include: Linear hash chain Merkle tree (binary hash tree) Skip list The simplest linear hash chain-based time-stamping scheme is illustrated in the following diagram: The linking-based time-stamping authority (TSA) usually performs the following distinct functions: Aggregation For increased scalability the TSA might group time-stamping requests together which arrive within a short time-frame. These requests are aggregated together without retaining their temporal order and then assigned the same time value. Aggregation creates a cryptographic connection between all involved requests; the authenticating aggregate value will be used as input for the linking operation. Linking Linking creates a verifiable and ordered cryptographic link between the current and already issued time-stamp tokens. Publishing The TSA periodically publishes some links, so that all previously issued time-stamp tokens depend on the published link and that it is practically impossible to forge the published values. By publishing widely witnessed links, the TSA creates unforgeable verification points for validating all previously issued time-stamps. == Security == Linked timestamping is inherently more secure than the usual, public-key signature based time-stamping. All consequential time-stamps "seal" previously issued ones - hash chain (or other authenticated dictionary in use) could be built only in one way; modifying issued time-stamps is nearly as hard as finding a preimage for the used cryptographic hash function. Continuity of operation is observable by users; periodic publications in widely witnessed media provide extra transparency. Tampering with absolute time values could be detected by users, whose time-stamps are relatively comparable by system design. Absence of secret keys increases system trustworthiness. There are no keys to leak and hash algorithms are considered more future-proof than modular arithmetic based algorithms, e.g. RSA. Linked timestamping scales well - hashing is much faster than public key cryptography. There is no need for specific cryptographic hardware with its limitations. The common technology for guaranteeing long-term attestation value of the issued time-stamps (and digitally signed data) is periodic over-time-stamping of the time-stamp token. Because of missing key-related risks and of the plausible safety margin of the reasonably chosen hash function this over-time-stamping period of hash-linked token could be an order of magnitude longer than of public-key signed token. == Research == === Foundations === Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta proposed in 1990 to link issued time-stamps together into linear hash-chain, using a collision-resistant hash function. The main rationale was to diminish TSA trust requirements. Tree-like schemes and operating in rounds were proposed by Benaloh and de Mare in 1991 and by Bayer, Haber and Stornetta in 1992. Benaloh and de Mare constructed a one-way accumulator in 1994 and proposed its use in time-stamping. When used for aggregation, one-way accumulator requires only one constant-time computation for round membership verification. Surety started the first commercial linked timestamping service in January 1995. Linking scheme is described and its security is analyzed in the following article by Haber and Sornetta. Buldas et al. continued with further optimization and formal analysis of binary tree and threaded tree based schemes. Skip-list based time-stamping system was implemented in 2005; related algorithms are quite efficient. === Provable security === Security proof for hash-function based time-stamping schemes was presented by Buldas, Saarepera in 2004. There is an explicit upper bound N {\displaystyle N} for the number of time stamps issued during the aggregation period; it is suggested that it is probably impossible to prove the security without this explicit bound - the so-called black-box reductions will fail in this task. Considering that all known practically relevant and efficient security proofs are black-box, this negative result is quite strong. Next, in 2005 it was shown that bounded time-stamping schemes with a trusted audit party (who periodically reviews the list of all time-stamps issued during an aggregation period) can be made universally composable - they remain secure in arbitrary environments (compositions with other protocols and other instances of the time-stamping protocol itself). Buldas, Laur showed in 2007 that bounded time-stamping schemes are secure in a very strong sense - they satisfy the so-called "knowledge-binding" condition. The security guarantee offered by Buldas, Saarepera in 2004 is improved by diminishing the security loss coefficient from N {\displaystyle N} to N {\displaystyle {\sqrt {N}}} . The hash functions used in the secure time-stamping schemes do not necessarily have to be collision-resistant or even one-way; secure time-stamping schemes are probably possible even in the presence of a universal collision-finding algorithm (i.e. universal and attacking program that is able to find collisions for any hash function). This suggests that it is possible to find even stronger proofs based on some other properties of the hash functions. At the illustration above hash tree based time-stamping system works in rounds ( t {\displaystyle t} , t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} , t + 2 {\displaystyle t+2} , ...), with one aggregation tree per round. Capacity of the system ( N {\displaystyle N} ) is determined by the tree size ( N = 2 l {\displaystyle N=2^{l}} , where l {\displaystyle l} denotes binary tree depth). Current security proofs work on the assumption that there is a hard limit of the aggregation tree size, possibly enforced by the subtree length restriction. == Standards == ISO 18014 part 3 covers 'Mechanisms producing linked tokens'. American National Standard for Financial Services, "Trusted Timestamp Management and Security" (ANSI ASC X9.95 Standard) from June 2005 covers linking-based and hybrid time-stamping schemes. There is no IETF RFC or standard draft about linking based time-stamping. RFC 4998 (Evidence Record Syntax) encompasses hash tree and time-stamp as an integrity guarantee for long-term archiving.

    Read more →
  • Commitment ordering

    Commitment ordering

    Commitment ordering (CO) is a class of interoperable serializability techniques in concurrency control of databases, transaction processing, and related applications. It allows optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. With the proliferation of multi-core processors, CO has also been increasingly utilized in concurrent programming, transactional memory, and software transactional memory (STM) to achieve serializability optimistically. CO is also the name of the resulting transaction schedule (history) property, defined in 1988 with the name dynamic atomicity. In a CO compliant schedule, the chronological order of commitment events of transactions is compatible with the precedence order of the respective transactions. CO is a broad special case of conflict serializability and effective means (reliable, high-performance, distributed, and scalable) to achieve global serializability (modular serializability) across any collection of database systems that possibly use different concurrency control mechanisms (CO also makes each system serializability compliant, if not already). Each not-CO-compliant database system is augmented with a CO component (the commitment order coordinator—COCO) which orders the commitment events for CO compliance, with neither data-access nor any other transaction operation interference. As such, CO provides a low overhead, general solution for global serializability (and distributed serializability), instrumental for global concurrency control (and distributed concurrency control) of multi-database systems and other transactional objects, possibly highly distributed (e.g., within cloud computing, grid computing, and networks of smartphones). An atomic commitment protocol (ACP; of any type) is a fundamental part of the solution, utilized to break global cycles in the conflict (precedence, serializability) graph. CO is the most general property (a necessary condition) that guarantees global serializability, if the database systems involved do not share concurrency control information beyond atomic commitment protocol (unmodified) messages and have no knowledge of whether transactions are global or local (the database systems are autonomous). Thus CO (with its variants) is the only general technique that does not require the typically costly distribution of local concurrency control information (e.g., local precedence relations, locks, timestamps, or tickets). It generalizes the popular strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) property, which in conjunction with the two-phase commit protocol (2PC), is the de facto standard to achieve global serializability across (SS2PL based) database systems. As a result, CO compliant database systems (with any different concurrency control types) can transparently join such SS2PL based solutions for global serializability. In addition, locking based global deadlocks are resolved automatically in a CO based multi-database environment, a vital side-benefit (including the special case of a completely SS2PL based environment; a previously unnoticed fact for SS2PL). Furthermore, strict commitment ordering (SCO; Raz 1991c), the intersection of Strictness and CO, provides better performance (shorter average transaction completion time and resulting in better transaction throughput) than SS2PL whenever read-write conflicts are present (identical blocking behavior for write-read and write-write conflicts; comparable locking overhead). The advantage of SCO is especially during lock contention. Strictness allows both SS2PL and SCO to use the same effective database recovery mechanisms. Two major generalizing variants of CO exist, extended CO (ECO; Raz 1993a) and multi-version CO (MVCO; Raz 1993b). They also provide global serializability without local concurrency control information distribution, can be combined with any relevant concurrency control, and allow optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. Both use additional information for relaxing CO constraints and achieving better concurrency and performance. Vote ordering (VO or Generalized CO (GCO); Raz 2009) is a container schedule set (property) and technique for CO and all its variants. Local VO is necessary for guaranteeing global serializability if the atomic commitment protocol (ACP) participants do not share concurrency control information (have the generalized autonomy property). CO and its variants inter-operate transparently, guaranteeing global serializability and automatic global deadlock resolution together in a mixed, heterogeneous environment with different variants. == Overview == The Commitment ordering (CO; Raz 1990, 1992, 1994, 2009) schedule property has been referred to also as Dynamic atomicity (since 1988), commit ordering, commit order serializability, and strong recoverability (since 1991). The latter is a misleading name since CO is incomparable with recoverability, and the term "strong" implies a special case. This means that a substantial recoverability property does not necessarily have the CO property and vice versa. In 2009 CO has been characterized as a major concurrency control method, together with the previously known (since the 1980s) three major methods: Locking, Time-stamp ordering, and Serialization graph testing, and as an enabler for the interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple and possibly Distributed databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is still serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. The problem of achieving global serializability effectively had been characterized as open until the public disclosure of CO in 1991 by its inventor Yoav Raz (Raz 1991a; see also Global serializability). Enforcing CO is an effective way to enforce conflict serializability globally in a distributed system since enforcing CO locally in each database (or other transactional objects) also enforces it globally. Each database may use any, possibly different, type of concurrency control mechanism. With a local mechanism that already provides conflict serializability, enforcing CO locally does not cause any other aborts, since enforcing CO locally does not affect the data access scheduling strategy of the mechanism (this scheduling determines the serializability related aborts; such a mechanism typically does not consider the commitment events or their order). The CO solution requires no communication overhead since it uses (unmodified) atomic commitment protocol messages only, already needed by each distributed transaction to reach atomicity. An atomic commitment protocol plays a central role in the distributed CO algorithm, which enforces CO globally by breaking global cycles (cycles that span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph. CO, its special cases, and its generalizations are interoperable and achieve global serializability while transparently being utilized together in a single heterogeneous distributed environment comprising objects with possibly different concurrency control mechanisms. As such, Commitment ordering, including its special cases, and together with its generalizations (see CO variants below), provides a general, high performance, fully distributed solution (no central processing component or central data structure are needed) for guaranteeing global serializability in heterogeneous environments of multidatabase systems and other multiple transactional objects (objects with states accessed and modified only by transactions; e.g., in the framework of transactional processes, and within Cloud computing and Grid computing). The CO solution scales up with network size and the number of databases without any negative impact on performance (assuming the statistics of a single distributed transaction, e.g., the average number of databases involved with a single transaction, are unchanged). With the proliferation of Multi-core processors, Optimistic CO (OCO) has also been increasingly utilized to achieve serializability in software transactional memory, and numerous STM articles and patents utilizing "commit order" have already been published (e.g., Zhang et al. 2006). == The commitment ordering solution for global serializability == === General characterization of CO === Commitment ordering (CO) is a special case of conflict serializability. CO can be enforced with non-blocking mechanisms (each transaction can complete its task without having its data-access blocked, which allows optimistic concurrency control; however, commitment could be blo

    Read more →
  • Snap (computer graphics)

    Snap (computer graphics)

    In computer graphics, snapping allows an object to be easily positioned in alignment with grid lines, guide lines or another object, by causing it to automatically jump to an exact position when the user drags it to the proximity of the desired location. Some CAD software provides a "Snap" pull-down menu with diverse options as preferences for the practice of the operation. In Windows, with the "snap windows" option enabled, snapping a window against the top (or side) edge of the screen causes it to change into full screen (or half-screen for multitasking). Software snapping is analogous to hardware detents which serve to indicate discrete values or steps of an input device.

    Read more →
  • BevQ

    BevQ

    BevQ is a queue management mobile application developed by Faircode Technologies of Kochi, Kerala. It is provided by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation under Government of Kerala. == History == This app was released together by the Government of Kerala and the Kerala State Beverages Corporation in order to implement social distancing in the liquor stores Kerala in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic in Kerala and to reduce the congestion of people. The BevQ App was released by Faircode Technologies on 27 May 2020 on the Google Play Store. In January 2021, the app was withdrawn as bars had opened. In June 2021, there was a commitment from the Kerala CM that the App will be relaunched again. It has been reported that over 132,000 new users downloaded the app in the 48 hours after the announcement. == Achievements == The BEVQ app, which works only in the state of Kerala, beat all other Indian food and drink apps in 2020 to see the highest growth in year-on-year sessions, according to the State of Mobile 2021 report by App Annie. The app even beat the likes of Domino’s, which is used all across India. Around 300 government Liquor shops and 900 private liquor shops were enlisted in the platform. More than 200 million unique users registered in the platform. About 250,000 tokens were given out a day.

    Read more →
  • Central Equipment Identity Register

    Central Equipment Identity Register

    A Central Equipment Identity Register (CEIR) is a database of mobile equipment identifiers (IMEI – for networks of GSM standard, MEID – for networks of CDMA standard). Such an identifier is assigned to each SIM slot of the mobile device. Different kinds of IMEIs could be, White, for devices that are allowed to register in the cellular network; Black, for devices that are prohibited to register in the cellular network; and Grey, for devices in intermediate status (when it is not yet defined in which of the lists - black or white - the device should be placed). Depending on the rules of mobile equipment registration in a country the CEIR database may contain other lists or fields beside IMEI. For example, the subscriber number (MSISDN), which is bound to the IMEI, the ID of the individual (passport data, National ID, etc.) who registered IMEI in the database, details of the importer who brought the device into the country, etc. == History == Originally abbreviation CEIR stood for IMEI Database, created and provided by GSM Association. It was proposed to blacklist the IMEIs of stolen or lost phones. It was assumed that any MNO would be able to receive this list to block the registration of such devices on their network. Thus, it turns out that a stolen phone, once blacklisted by the GSMA CEIR, cannot be used on a large number of cellular networks, which means that the theft of mobile devices will become meaningless. However, it soon became clear that the MNOs on their initiative were not going to do this because if many phones stopped working in their networks, but works in another, it puts them at a disadvantage and can lead to an outflow of subscribers. It became clear that the blocking of stolen devices should be introduced simultaneously in all mobile networks of the country by legislative measures at the initiative of the communications regulator. In this case, as a rule, a national IMEI database is created, which contains general lists of blocked IMEIs. Since the registration in the cellular operator's network is directly blocked by a network node called EIR (Equipment Identity Register), the system that contains the national IMEI base became known as Central EIR (CEIR). To avoid confusion the database of GSM Association was renamed to IMEI Database - IMEI DB (it was in 2003-2008, see “Document History” at IMEI Database File Format Specification). Also sometimes a common IMEI database for several EIRs is called SEIR (Shared EIR). In each country, the CEIR can interact with IMEI DB differently. National CEIR may not communicate with IMEI DB at all. Firstly, it is separately decided whether CEIR will send information about its blacklist to IMEI DB (which IMEIs are placed in it or removed from there). Secondly, upon receipt of the blacklist from IMEI DB, the regulator decides from which countries it will receive it (IMEI DB stores the information exactly who blacklisted the IMEI). For example, you can get a list from neighboring countries, from countries in your region, from around the world. In addition to the blacklist, the GSMA is developing a list of IMEIs allocated to manufacturers for use in their devices. The manufacturer for each new device model gets at least one TAC (Type Allocation Code) allocated by GSMA, consisting of 8 digits, to which he can add a 6-digit serial number to obtain the IMEI. Thus, with one TAC, a manufacturer can release up to 1 million devices with a unique IMEI. Usually, CEIR receives a list of allocated TACs from the GSMA, since if the first 8 digits of the IMEI of a device are not in this list, this is a sign that it is counterfeit. If the central database of identifiers does not work with GSM networks, but with CDMA, then for the same purposes it is necessary to interact with another worldwide database that contains MEIDs – MEID Database. A system that directly blocks the registration of a mobile device on a cellular network – EIR. Each MNO must have at least one EIR, to which IMEI check requests (CheckIMEI) are sent when registering a device on the network. A typical EIR and CERI interaction scheme: The CEIR accumulates black, white, and grey lists using various data sources and verification methods. These lists are periodically transmitted to all EIRs. EIR uses them when processing every CheckIMEI request to determine whether to allow the device on the network or not. EIR can transmit some data to the CEIR database too. Usually, changes in a grey list – new IMEIs on the network that are not in any list – are transmitted from EIR to CEIR. In addition to synchronizing lists across multiple networks, the main function of CEIR is to implement the scenarios of changes at these lists. This usually requires interaction with various IT systems (databases) of other organizations and/or with subscribers. Еxamples of such scenarios: Whitelisting the IMEI of devices imported by the legal entity Whitelisting the IMEI of devices manufactured domestically Whitelisting the IMEI of devices imported by individual Blacklisting the IMEI of stolen/lost devices Binding IMEI to the subscriber's number and, vice versa, unbinding IMEI from the subscriber == System implementation results == The goals and results of CEIR implementation in a country are usually: Reducing mobile phone theft Reducing the import of devices stolen in other countries Reducing the presence of counterfeit devices on the market (null IMEI, incorrect IMEI, changed IMEI) Reducing illegal imports of mobile devices (increase in the collection of customs duties) Additionally, CEIR most often contributes to the solution of such problems: Combating various mobile fraud schemes Obtaining more accurate statistics on the state of the mobile communications market for the regulator Fight against terrorism (the ability to block the device at once in all mobile networks of the country). Known results achieved in some countries: Great Britain – reducing mobile phone theft. Turkey – reducing mobile phone theft, decreasing the current account deficit of Turkey and maximizing tax revenues. Uzbekistan – preventing black import of mobile devices by 98%, increase in revenues from the import of mobile devices by 700%. Kenya – disposing the market of counterfeit mobile equipment. Azerbaijan – disposing the market of counterfeit mobile equipment. Ukraine – increasing of legally imported mobile devices by 95%, increase in revenues from the import of mobile devices. == CEIR and EIR manufacturers == Some countries have used local developers to implement CEIR for their country (Great Britain, Turkey, India, and Azerbaijan). EIR is a system that is standardized in a 2G-5G networks. Such system may be established at mobile network even it doesn’t use black list and there are no CEIR in a country. Some developers of MNO’s signal core include EIR in a complex solution. However, its standard capabilities are usually lacking for specific requirements when implementing CEIR.

    Read more →
  • WIPO GREEN

    WIPO GREEN

    WIPO GREEN is a World Intellectual Property Organization program established in 2013 that supports global efforts to address climate change and food security through sharing of sustainable technology innovations. == WIPO GREEN database == The WIPO GREEN database is the foundation of the platform. The database is a free, solutions-oriented, global innovation catalog that connects needs for solving environmental or climate change problems with sustainable solutions from prototypes to marketable products available for sale, license, collaborations, knowledge transfer, joint ventures, or collaborations. Green technology innovators can promote their products, businesses, organizations, and governments looking for green technologies can explain their needs and seek collaboration with providers. As of July 2022, WIPO GREEN has over 120,000 technologies, needs and experts, more than 2000 users in 110 countries, and has recorded over 1000 connections made between technology providers and seekers. The database utilizes AI-assisted auto-matching, user uploads tracing and alerts, full-text search for solutions based on long need descriptions, and the Patent2Solution search function for finding commercial applications of a patent, which are some of the unique features of the database. Free registration is required for detailed record view and uploading. All technologies uploaded to the WIPO GREEN database remain the property of the rights holder. It is up to the rights holder and the collaborating parties to structure agreements in the manner they feel is most appropriate and effective. WIPO GREEN does not require that technologies or innovations uploaded to the database be patented or in the process of being patented. Therefore, technology providers can upload their technology while related patent applications are pending. Technology providers are encouraged to upload technology solutions on the WIPO GREEN database and connect with other users to explore partnerships, technology transfers, including funding and licensing opportunities. == Acceleration projects == Acceleration projects work with WIPO GREEN partners and local organizations to explore local challenges and green opportunities for particular environmental needs. These projects are organized annually in different countries or regions around and connect providers and seekers of green technologies. For example, the Latin America Acceleration Project explores innovative new technologies in the region and facilitates green technology exchange between providers and seekers in green opportunities in intensified crop rotation, soil re-carbonization, and forest management in Argentina; zero-till or conservation agriculture in Brazil; and wine production in Chile. In October 2021, a project in Indonesia on palm oil mill effluent (POME), a by-product of palm oil production that emits greenhouse gases and reportedly harms flora and fauna in local rivers, identified viable green solutions to turn the high organic content of POME wastewater into biogas and other environmentally friendly uses. Former projects took place in Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Philippines around wastewater treatment, agriculture, and water technologies. == The Green Technology Book == In November 2022 at UNFCCC COP27, WIPO introduced its new Flagship publication the Green Technology Book. This digital-first publication aims to put innovation, technology and intellectual property at the forefront in the fight against climate change. The inaugural edition of this annual publication focused on available solutions for climate-change adaptation to reduce vulnerability as well as to increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. The book was created in cooperation with the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN) and the Egyptian Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASTR). It features 200 adaptation technologies, which are also available in the WIPO GREEN database of innovative technologies and needs. == Partners Network == WIPO GREEN partners are public or private institutions that wish to collaborate to advance WIPO GREEN’s mission. The network is aimed at helping the implementation and diffusion of green technology innovations around the world. Partners include government institutions, intergovernmental organizations, academia, and businesses – from small and medium-sized enterprises to Fortune 500 companies. As of 2022, WIPO GREEN has a network of over 146 partner organizations involved in green technology.

    Read more →
  • Wavelet noise

    Wavelet noise

    Wavelet noise is an alternative to Perlin noise which reduces the problems of aliasing and detail loss that are encountered when Perlin noise is summed into a fractal. == Algorithm detail == The basic algorithm for 2-dimensional wavelet noise is as follows: Create an image, R {\displaystyle R} , filled with uniform white noise. Downsample R {\displaystyle R} to half-size to create R ↓ {\displaystyle R^{\downarrow }} , then upsample it back up to full size to create R ↓↑ {\displaystyle R^{\downarrow \uparrow }} . Subtract R ↓↑ {\displaystyle R^{\downarrow \uparrow }} from R {\displaystyle R} to create the end result, N {\displaystyle N} . This results in an image that contains all the information that cannot be represented at half-scale. From here, N {\displaystyle N} can be used similarly to Perlin noise to create fractal patterns.

    Read more →
  • SemEval

    SemEval

    SemEval (Semantic Evaluation) is an ongoing series of evaluations of computational semantic analysis systems; it evolved from the Senseval word sense evaluation series. The evaluations are intended to explore the nature of meaning in language. While meaning is intuitive to humans, transferring those intuitions to computational analysis has proved elusive. This series of evaluations provides a mechanism to characterize in more precise terms exactly what is necessary to compute in meaning. As such, the evaluations provide an emergent mechanism to identify the problems and solutions for computations with meaning. These exercises have evolved to articulate more of the dimensions that are involved in our use of language. They began with apparently simple attempts to identify word senses computationally. They have evolved to investigate the interrelationships among the elements in a sentence (e.g., semantic role labeling), relations between sentences (e.g., coreference), and the nature of what we are saying (semantic relations and sentiment analysis). The purpose of the SemEval and Senseval exercises is to evaluate semantic analysis systems. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in principle support effective implementation. The first three evaluations, Senseval-1 through Senseval-3, were focused on word sense disambiguation (WSD), each time growing in the number of languages offered in the tasks and in the number of participating teams. Beginning with the fourth workshop, SemEval-2007 (SemEval-1), the nature of the tasks evolved to include semantic analysis tasks outside of word sense disambiguation. Triggered by the conception of the SEM conference, the SemEval community had decided to hold the evaluation workshops yearly in association with the SEM conference. It was also the decision that not every evaluation task will be run every year, e.g. none of the WSD tasks were included in the SemEval-2012 workshop. == History == === Early evaluation of algorithms for word sense disambiguation === From the earliest days, assessing the quality of word sense disambiguation algorithms had been primarily a matter of intrinsic evaluation, and “almost no attempts had been made to evaluate embedded WSD components”. Only very recently (2006) had extrinsic evaluations begun to provide some evidence for the value of WSD in end-user applications. Until 1990 or so, discussions of the sense disambiguation task focused mainly on illustrative examples rather than comprehensive evaluation. The early 1990s saw the beginnings of more systematic and rigorous intrinsic evaluations, including more formal experimentation on small sets of ambiguous words. === Senseval to SemEval === In April 1997, Martha Palmer and Marc Light organized a workshop entitled Tagging with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? in conjunction with the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. At the time, there was a clear recognition that manually annotated corpora had revolutionized other areas of NLP, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, and that corpus-driven approaches had the potential to revolutionize automatic semantic analysis as well. Kilgarriff recalled that there was "a high degree of consensus that the field needed evaluation", and several practical proposals by Resnik and Yarowsky kicked off a discussion that led to the creation of the Senseval evaluation exercises. === SemEval's 3, 2 or 1 year(s) cycle === After SemEval-2010, many participants feel that the 3-year cycle is a long wait. Many other shared tasks such as Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and Recognizing Textual Entailments (RTE) run annually. For this reason, the SemEval coordinators gave the opportunity for task organizers to choose between a 2-year or a 3-year cycle. The SemEval community favored the 3-year cycle. Although the votes within the SemEval community favored a 3-year cycle, organizers and coordinators had settled to split the SemEval task into 2 evaluation workshops. This was triggered by the introduction of the new SEM conference. The SemEval organizers thought it would be appropriate to associate our event with the SEM conference and collocate the SemEval workshop with the SEM conference. The organizers got very positive responses (from the task coordinators/organizers and participants) about the association with the yearly SEM, and 8 tasks were willing to switch to 2012. Thus was born SemEval-2012 and SemEval-2013. The current plan is to switch to a yearly SemEval schedule to associate it with the SEM conference but not every task needs to run every year. ==== List of Senseval and SemEval Workshops ==== Senseval-1 took place in the summer of 1998 for English, French, and Italian, culminating in a workshop held at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, England on September 2–4. Senseval-2 took place in the summer of 2001, and was followed by a workshop held in July 2001 in Toulouse, in conjunction with ACL 2001. Senseval-2 included tasks for Basque, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Senseval-3 took place in March–April 2004, followed by a workshop held in July 2004 in Barcelona, in conjunction with ACL 2004. Senseval-3 included 14 different tasks for core word sense disambiguation, as well as identification of semantic roles, multilingual annotations, logic forms, subcategorization acquisition. SemEval-2007 (Senseval-4) took place in 2007, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Prague. SemEval-2007 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of systems for the semantic analysis of text. A special issue of Language Resources and Evaluation is devoted to the result. SemEval-2010 took place in 2010, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Uppsala. SemEval-2010 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of semantic analysis systems. SemEval-2012 took place in 2012; it was associated with the new SEM, First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, and co-located with NAACL, Montreal, Canada. SemEval-2012 included 8 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. However, there was no WSD task involved in SemEval-2012, the WSD related tasks were scheduled in the upcoming SemEval-2013. SemEval-2013 was associated with NAACL 2013, North American Association of Computational Linguistics, Georgia, USA and took place in 2013. It included 13 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. SemEval-2014 took place in 2014. It was co-located with COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and SEM 2014, Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Dublin, Ireland. There were 10 different tasks in SemEval-2014 evaluating various computational semantic systems. SemEval-2015 took place in 2015. It was co-located with NAACL-HLT 2015, 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies and SEM 2015, Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Denver, USA. There were 17 different tasks in SemEval-2015 evaluating various computational semantic systems. == SemEval Workshop framework == The framework of the SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops emulates the Message Understanding Conferences (MUCs) and other evaluation workshops ran by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). Stages of SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops Firstly, all likely participants were invited to express their interest and participate in the exercise design. A timetable towards a final workshop was worked out. A plan for selecting evaluation materials was agreed. 'Gold standards' for the individual tasks were acquired, often human annotators were considered as a gold standard to measure precision and recall scores of computer systems. These 'gold standards' are what the computational systems strive towards. In WSD tasks, human annotators were set on the task of generating a set of correct WSD answers (i.e. the correct sense for a given word in a given context) The gold standard materials, without answers, were released to participants, who then had a short time to run their programs over them and return their sets of answers to the organizers. The organizers then scored the answers and the scores were announced and discussed at a workshop. == Semantic evaluation tasks == Senseval-1 & Senseval-2 focused on evaluation WSD systems on major languages that were available corpus and computerized dictionary. Senseval-3 looked beyond the lexemes and started to evaluate systems that looked into wider areas of semantics, such as Semantic Roles (technically known as Theta roles in formal semantics), Logic Form Transformation (commonly semantics of phrases, clauses or sentences were represented

    Read more →
  • Centurion Guard

    Centurion Guard

    Centurion Guard is a PC hardware and software-based security product, developed by Centurion Technologies. It was first released in 1996. There were several different releases and versions of this product, and many were distributed in computers donated to libraries by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. == Operating system compatibility == Microsoft Windows 7 Microsoft Windows Vista Microsoft Windows XP

    Read more →
  • Frame grabber

    Frame grabber

    A frame grabber is an electronic device that captures (i.e., "grabs") individual, digital still frames from an analog video signal or a digital video stream. It is usually employed as a component of a computer vision system, in which video frames are captured in digital form and then displayed, stored, transmitted, analyzed, or combinations of these. Historically, frame grabber expansion cards were the predominant way to interface cameras to PCs. Other interface methods have emerged since then, with frame grabbers (and in some cases, cameras with built-in frame grabbers) connecting to computers via interfaces such as USB, Ethernet and IEEE 1394 ("FireWire"). Early frame grabbers typically had only enough memory to store a single digitized video frame, whereas many modern frame grabbers can store multiple frames. Modern frame grabbers often are able to perform functions beyond capturing a single video input. For example, some devices capture audio in addition to video, and some devices provide, and concurrently capture frames from multiple video inputs. Other operations may be performed as well, such as deinterlacing, text or graphics overlay, image transformations (e.g., resizing, rotation, mirroring), and conversion to JPEG or other compressed image formats. To satisfy the technological demands of applications such as radar acquisition, manufacturing and remote guidance, some frame grabbers can capture images at high frame rates, high resolutions, or both. == Circuitry == Analog frame grabbers, which accept and process analog video signals, include these circuits: Input signal conditioner that buffers the analog video input signal to protect downstream circuitry Video decoder that converts SD analog video (e.g., NTSC, SECAM, PAL) or HD analog video (e.g., AHD, HD-TVI, HD-CVI) to a digital format Digital frame grabbers, which accept and process digital video streams, include these circuits: Digital video decoder that interfaces to and converts a specific type of digital video source, such as Camera Link, CoaXPress, DVI, GigE Vision, LVDS, or SDI Circuitry common to both analog and digital frame grabbers: Memory for storing the acquired image (i.e., a frame buffer) A bus interface through which a processor can control the acquisition and access the data General purpose I/O for triggering image acquisition or controlling external equipment == Applications == === Healthcare === Frame grabbers are used in medicine for many applications, including telenursing and remote guidance. In situations where an expert at another location needs to be consulted, frame grabbers capture the image or video from the appropriate medical equipment, so it can be sent digitally to the distant expert. === Manufacturing === "Pick and place" machines are often used to mount electronic components on circuit boards during the circuit board assembly process. Such machines use one or more cameras to monitor the robotics that places the components. Each camera is paired with a frame grabber that digitizes the analog video, thus converting the video to a form that can be processed by the machine software. === Network security === Frame grabbers may be used in security applications. For example, when a potential breach of security is detected, a frame grabber captures an image or a sequence of images, and then the images are transmitted across a digital network where they are recorded and viewed by security personnel. === Personal use === In recent years with the rise of personal video recorders like camcorders, mobile phones, etc. video and photo applications have gained ascending prominence. Frame grabbing is becoming very popular on these devices. === Astronomy & astrophotography === Amateur astronomers and astrophotographers use frame grabbers when using analog "low light" cameras for live image display and internet video broadcasting of celestial objects. Frame grabbers are essential to connect the analog cameras used in this application to the computers that store or process the images.

    Read more →