Dropbox Carousel was a photo and video management app offered by Dropbox. The third-party native app, available on Android and iOS, allowed users to store, manage, and organize photos. Photos were organized by date, time and event and backed up on Dropbox. It competed in this space against other online photo storage services such as Google's Google Photos, Apple's iCloud, and Yahoo's Flickr. Chris Lee, Dropbox's head of product development for Carousel described the app as an add-on to Dropbox, a “dedicated experience for photos and videos” and a space for “reliving personal memories”. == History == Mailbox founder, Gentry Underwood unveiled Carousel at a gathering in San Francisco on April 9, 2014. Much of the features in Carousel come from Snapjoy, a photo start-up, that Dropbox acquired on December 19, 2012. When Carousel was launched, it marked amongst many others, a series of acquisitions made by Dropbox to prep up before opening its stock for public offering. The acquisitions would help demonstrate its expansive product offerings pitching potential profitability to investors. In December 2015, Dropbox announced that Carousel would be shut down and some Carousel features would be integrated into the primary Dropbox application. On March 31, 2016, Carousel was deactivated. == Features == Carousel prompted users to free local storage once it had synced and backed-up local photos to the cloud. Flashback was a feature (enabled by default) that showed past photos or videos taken the same day, a year, or some years back. Flashback used an algorithm designed to identify human faces - resulting in greater likelihood of the user's picture or people in the user's close circle appearing. A scrollable timeline, which was earlier a scroll wheel, at the bottom let the user scroll to photo(s) at a specific date with a finger swipe.
Natural Language Toolkit
The Natural Language Toolkit, or more commonly NLTK, is a suite of libraries and programs for symbolic and statistical natural language processing (NLP) for English written in the Python programming language. It supports classification, tokenization, stemming, tagging, parsing, and semantic reasoning functionalities. It was developed by Steven Bird and Edward Loper in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania. NLTK includes graphical demonstrations and sample data. It is accompanied by a book that explains the underlying concepts behind the language processing tasks supported by the toolkit, plus a cookbook. NLTK is intended to support research and teaching in NLP or closely related areas, including empirical linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, information retrieval, and machine learning. NLTK has been used successfully as a teaching tool, as an individual study tool, and as a platform for prototyping and building research systems. == Library highlights == Discourse representation Lexical analysis: Word and text tokenizer n-gram and collocations Part-of-speech tagger Tree model and Text chunker for capturing Named-entity recognition
Digital exhibition
Digital Exhibition includes both the projection technologies, such as High Definition, and delivery technologies of a film to a movie theater. Delivery technologies include disk drives, satellite relay, and fiber optics. This can save money in distribution but is usually more expensive overall due to maintenance and standardization of technology. However, there are benefits to digital exhibition, for example it requires less assembly by the exhibitor and can contain the trailers that the distributor wishes.
Democratization of technology
Democratization of technology is the process by which access to technology rapidly extends to an ever-broader audience, especially from a select group of people to the average public. New technologies and improved user experiences have empowered those outside of the technical industry to access and use technological products and services. At an increasing scale, consumers have greater access to use and purchase technologically sophisticated products, as well as to participate meaningfully in the development of these products. Industry innovation and user demand have been associated with more affordable, user-friendly products. This is an ongoing process, beginning with the development of mass production and increasing dramatically as digitization became commonplace. Thomas Friedman argued that the era of globalization has been characterized by the democratization of technology, democratization of finance, and democratization of information. Technology has been critical in the latter two processes, facilitating the rapid expansion of access to specialized knowledge and tools, as well as changing the way that people view and demand such access. A counter argument is that this is just a process of 'massification' - more people can use banks, technology, have access to information, but it does not mean there is any more democratic influence over its production, or that this massification promotes Democracy. == History == Scholars and social critics often cite the invention of the printing press as a major invention that changed the course of history. The force of the printing press rested not in its impact on the printing industry or inventors, but on its ability to transmit information to a broader public by way of mass production. This event is so widely recognized because of its social impact – as a democratizing force. The printing press is often seen as the historical counterpart to the Internet. After the development of the Internet in 1969, its use remained limited to communications between scientists and within government, although use of email and boards gained popularity among those with access. It did not become a popular means of communication until the 1990s. In 1993 the US federal government opened the Internet to commerce and the creation of HTML formed the basis for universal accessibility. === Major innovations === The Internet has played a critical role in modern life as a typical feature of most Western households, and has been key in the democratization of knowledge. It not only constitutes arguably the most critical innovation in this trend thus far; it has also allowed users to gain knowledge of and access to other technologies. Users can learn of new developments more quickly, and purchase high-tech products otherwise only actively marketed to recognized experts. Social media has also empowered and emboldened users to become contributors and critics of technological developments. Some have argued that cloud computing is having a major effect by allowing users greater access through mobility and pay-as-you-use capacity. The open-source model allows users to participate directly in development of software, rather than indirect participation, through contributing opinions. By being shaped by the user, development is directly responsive to user demand and can be obtained for free or at a low cost. In a comparable trend, arduino and littleBits have made electronics more accessible to users of all backgrounds and ages. The development of 3D printers has the potential to increasingly democratize production. Generative artificial intelligence tools have the potential to democratize the process of innovation by improving the ability of individuals to specify and visualize ideas. The democratization of artificial intelligence refers to the transition from AI as a high-cost, specialized field to one accessible to non-experts and smaller organizations. This process is driven by the release of open-weights models, the availability of cloud computing for model training, and the emergence of no-code development platforms. While early AI development was concentrated within Big Tech firms and elite research universities, the 2020s saw a proliferation of public tools like ChatGPT and repositories such as Hugging Face, which lowered the technical barriers to entry. However, the trend has faced criticism as the "illusion of democratization," as the underlying GPU hardware remains concentrated among a few global providers. == Cultural impact == This trend is linked to the spread of knowledge of and ability to perform high-tech tasks, challenging previous conceptions of expertise. Widespread access to technology, including lower costs, was critical to the transition to the new economy. Similarly, democratization of technology was also fuelled by this economic transition, which produced demands for technological innovation and optimism in technology-driven progress. Since the 1980s, a spreading constructivist conception of technology has emphasized that the social and technical domains are critically intertwined. Scholars have argued that technology is non-neutral, defined contextually and locally by a certain relationship with society. Andrew Feenberg, a central thinker in the philosophy of technology, argued that democratizing technology means expanding technological design to include alternative interests and values. When successful in doing so, this can be a tool for increasing inclusiveness. This also suggests an important participatory role for consumers if technology is to be truly democratic. Feenberg asserts that this must be achieved by consumer intervention in a liberated design process. Improved access to specialized knowledge and tools has been associated with an increase in the "do it yourself" (DIY) trend. This has also been associated with consumerization, whereby personal or privately owned devices and software are also used for business purposes. Some have argued that this is linked to reduced dependence on traditional information technology departments. Astra Taylor, the author of the book The People's Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age, argues, "The promotion of Internet-enabled amateurism is a lazy substitute for real equality of opportunity." === Industry impact === In some ways, democratization of technology has strengthened this industry. Markets have broadened and diversified. Consumer feedback and input is available at a very low or no cost. However, related industries are experiencing decreased demand for qualified professionals as consumers are able to fill more of their demands themselves. Users of a range of types and status have access to increasingly similar technology. Because of the decreased costs and expertise necessary to use products and software, professionals (e.g. in the audio industry) may experience loss of work. In some cases, technology is accessible but sufficiently complex that most users without specialized training are able to operate it without necessarily understanding how it works. Additionally, the process of consumerization has led to an influx in the number of devices in businesses and accessing private networks that IT departments cannot control or access. While this can lead to lowered operating costs and increased innovation, it is also associated with security concerns that most businesses are unable to address at the pace of the spread of technology. === Political impact === Some scholars have argued that technological change will bring about a third wave of democracy. The Internet has been recognized for its role in promoting increased citizen advocacy and government transparency. Jesse Chen, a leading thinker in democratic engagement technologies, distinguishes the democratizing effects of technology from democracy itself. Chen has argued that, while the Internet may have democratizing effects, the Internet alone cannot deliver democracy at all levels of society unless technologies are purposely designed for the nuances of democracy, specifically the engagement of large groups of people in between elections in and beyond government. The spread of the Internet and other forms of technology has led to increased global connectivity. Many scholars believe that it has been associated in the developing world not only with increased Western influence, but also with the spread of democracy through increased communication, efficiency, and access to information. Scholars have drawn associations between the level of technological connectedness and democracy in many nations. Technology can enhance democracy in the developed world as well. In addition to increased communication and transparency, some electorates have implemented online voting to accommodate an increased number of citizens.
ISO/IEC 11801
International standard ISO/IEC 11801 Information technology — Generic cabling for customer premises specifies general-purpose telecommunication cabling systems (structured cabling) that are suitable for a wide range of applications (analog and ISDN telephony, various data communication standards, building control systems, factory automation). It is published by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 25/WG 3 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). It covers both balanced copper cabling and optical fibre cabling. The standard was designed for use within commercial premises that may consist of either a single building or of multiple buildings on a campus. It was optimized for premises that span up to 3 km, up to 1 km2 office space, with between 50 and 50,000 persons, but can also be applied for installations outside this range. A major revision was released in November 2017, unifying requirements for commercial, home and industrial networks. == Classes and categories == The standard defines several link/channel classes and cabling categories of twisted-pair copper interconnects, which differ in the maximum frequency for which a certain channel performance is required: Class A: Up to 100 kHz using Category 1 cable and connectors Class B: Up to 1 MHz using Category 2 cable and connectors Class C: Up to 16 MHz using Category 3 cable and connectors Class D: Up to 100 MHz using Category 5e cable and connectors Class E: Up to 250 MHz using Category 6 cable and connectors Class EA: Up to 500 MHz using category 6A cable and connectors (Amendments 1 and 2 to ISO/IEC 11801, 2nd Ed.) Class F: Up to 600 MHz using Category 7 cable and connectors Class FA: Up to 1 GHz (1000 MHz) using Category 7A cable and connectors (Amendments 1 and 2 to ISO/IEC 11801, 2nd Ed.) Class BCT-B: Up to 1 GHz (1000 MHz) using with coaxial cabling for BCT applications. (ISO/IEC 11801-1, Edition 1.0 2017-11) Class I: Up to 2 GHz (2000 MHz) using Category 8.1 cable and connectors (ISO/IEC 11801-1, Edition 1.0 2017-11) Class II: Up to 2 GHz (2000 MHz) using Category 8.2 cable and connectors (ISO/IEC 11801-1, Edition 1.0 2017-11) The standard link impedance is 100 Ω. (The older 1995 version of the standard also permitted 120 Ω and 150 Ω in Classes A−C, but this was removed from the 2002 edition.) The standard defines several classes of optical fiber interconnect: OM1: Multimode, 62.5 μm core; minimum modal bandwidth of 200 MHz·km at 850 nm OM2: Multimode, 50 μm core; minimum modal bandwidth of 500 MHz·km at 850 nm OM3: Multimode, 50 μm core; minimum modal bandwidth of 2000 MHz·km at 850 nm OM4: Multimode, 50 μm core; minimum modal bandwidth of 4700 MHz·km at 850 nm OM5: Multimode, 50 μm core; minimum modal bandwidth of 4700 MHz·km at 850 nm and 2470 MHz·km at 953 nm OS1: Single-mode, maximum attenuation 1 dB/km at 1310 and 1550 nm OS1a: Single-mode, maximum attenuation 1 dB/km at 1310, 1383, and 1550 nm OS2: Single-mode, maximum attenuation 0.4 dB/km at 1310, 1383, and 1550 nm Grandfathered === OM5 === OM5 fiber is designed for wideband applications using SWDM multiplexing of 4–16 carriers (40G=4λ×10G, 100G=4λ×25G, 400G=4×4λ×25G) in the 850–953 nm range. === Category 7 === Class F channel and Category 7 cable are backward compatible with Class D/Category 5e and Class E/Category 6. Class F features even stricter specifications for crosstalk and system noise than Class E. To achieve this, shielding was added for individual wire pairs and the cable as a whole. Unshielded cables rely on the quality of the twists to protect from EMI. This involves a tight twist and carefully controlled design. Cables with individual shielding per pair such as Category 7 rely mostly on the shield and therefore have pairs with longer twists. The Category 7 cable standard was ratified in 2002, and primarily introduced to support 10 gigabit Ethernet over 100 m of copper cabling. Like the earlier standards, it contains four twisted copper wire pairs rated for transmission frequencies of up to 600 MHz. However, in 2006, Category 6A was ratified for Ethernet to allow 10 Gbit/s while still using the conventional 8P8C connector. Care is required to avoid signal degradation by mixing cable and connectors not designed for that use, however similar. Most manufacturers of active equipment and network cards have chosen to support the 8P8C for their 10 gigabit Ethernet products on copper and not GG45, ARJ45, or TERA connectors as Class F would have originally called for. Therefore, the Category 6 specification was revised to Category 6A to permit this use; products therefore require a Class EA channel (ie, Cat 6A). As of 2019, some equipment has been introduced which has connectors supporting the Class F (Category 7) channel. Note, however, that Category 7 is not recognized by the TIA/EIA. === Category 7A === Class FA (Class F Augmented) channels and Category 7A cables, introduced by ISO 11801 Edition 2 Amendment 2 (2010), are defined at frequencies up to 1000 MHz. The intent of the Class FA was to possibly support the future 40 gigabit Ethernet: 40GBASE-T. Simulation results have shown that 40 gigabit Ethernet may be possible at 50 meters and 100 gigabit Ethernet at 15 meters. In 2007, researchers at Pennsylvania State University predicted that either 32 nm or 22 nm circuits would allow for 100 gigabit Ethernet at 100 meters. However, in 2016, the IEEE 802.3bq working group ratified the amendment 3 which defines 25GBASE-T and 40GBASE-T on Category 8 cabling specified to 2000 MHz. The Class FA therefore does not support 40G Ethernet. As of 2025, there is no equipment that has connectors supporting the Class FA (Category 7A) channel. Category 7A is not recognized in TIA/EIA. === Category 8 === Category 8 was ratified by the TR43 working group under ANSI/TIA 568-C.2-1. It is defined up to 2000 MHz and only for distances up to 30 m or 36 m, depending on the patch cords used. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 25/WG 3 developed the equivalent standard ISO/IEC 11801-1:2017/COR 1:2018, with two options: Class I channel (Category 8.1 cable): minimum cable design U/FTP or F/UTP, fully backward compatible and interoperable with Class EA (Category 6A) using 8P8C connectors; Class II channel (Category 8.2 cable): F/FTP or S/FTP minimum, interoperable with Class FA (Category 7A) using TERA or GG45. == Abbreviations for twisted pairs == Annex E, Acronyms for balanced cables, provides a system to specify the exact construction for both unshielded and shielded balanced twisted pair cables. It uses three letters—U for unshielded, S for braided shielding, and F for foil shielding—to form a two-part abbreviation in the form of xx/xTP, where the first part specifies the type of overall cable shielding, and the second part specifies shielding for individual cable elements. Common cable types include U/UTP (unshielded cable); U/FTP (individual pair shielding without the overall screen); F/UTP, S/UTP, or SF/UTP (overall screen without individual shielding); and F/FTP, S/FTP, or SF/FTP (overall screen with individual foil shielding). == 2017 edition == In November 2017, a new edition was released by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 25 "Interconnection of information technology equipment" subcommittee. It is a major revision of the standard which has unified several prior standards for commercial, home, and industrial networks, as well as data centers, and defines requirements for generic cabling and distributed building networks. The new series of standards replaces the former 11801 standard and includes six parts: == Versions == ISO/IEC 11801:1995 (Ed. 1) ISO/IEC 11801:2000 (Ed. 1.1) – Edition 1, Amendment 1 ISO/IEC 11801:2002 (Ed. 2) ISO/IEC 11801:2008 (Ed. 2.1) – Edition 2, Amendment 1 ISO/IEC 11801:2010 (Ed. 2.2) – Edition 2, Amendment 2 ISO/IEC 11801-1:2017, -1:2017/Cor 1:2018, -2:2017, -3:2017, -3:2017/Amd 1:2021, -3:2017/Cor 1:2018, -4:2017, -4:2017/Cor 1:2018, -5:2017, -5:2017/Cor 1:2018, -6:2017, -6:2017/Cor 1:2018 (As of September 2023, this set is current.)
Digital Michelangelo Project
The Digital Michelangelo Project was a pioneering initiative undertaken during the 1998–1999 academic year to digitize the sculptures and architecture of Michelangelo using advanced laser scanning technology. The project was led by a team of 30 faculty, staff, and students from Stanford University and the University of Washington, with the aim of creating high-resolution 3D models of Michelangelo's works for scholarly, educational, and preservation purposes. == Objectives == The primary goals of the Digital Michelangelo Project were: To apply recent advancements in laser rangefinder technology for digitizing large cultural artifacts. To create detailed digital archives of Michelangelo's sculptures and architectural spaces for future study and analysis. To explore potential educational and curatorial applications for 3D scanned data. === Artworks digitized === The project involved scanning several iconic works by Michelangelo, including: David The Unfinished Slaves (Atlas, Awakening, Bearded, and Youthful) St. Matthew The allegorical statues from the Medici tombs (Night, Day, Dawn, and Dusk) The architectural interiors of the Tribuna del David at the Galleria dell'Accademia and the New Sacristy in the Medici Chapels. == Technology and methodology == === 3D scanning === The project's primary scanner was a laser triangulation rangefinder mounted on a motorized gantry, custom-built by Cyberware Inc. The scanner used a laser sheet to project onto an object, capturing its shape through triangulation. Multiple scans were taken from various angles and combined into a single, detailed 3D mesh. The resolution achieved was fine enough to capture even Michelangelo's chisel marks, with triangles approximately 0.25 mm on each side. In addition to shape data, color data was captured using a spotlight and a secondary camera, enabling the creation of textured 3D models. === Data processing === The project developed a software suite for processing the scanned data. This included: Aligning and merging multiple scans into a seamless 3D model. Filling holes in the geometry caused by inaccessible areas. Correcting color data for lighting inconsistencies and shadowing. Non-photorealistic rendering techniques were also applied, highlighting surface features such as Michelangelo’s chisel marks for enhanced visualization. == Logistical challenges == The scale and complexity of the project presented several challenges: Data size: The dataset for David alone comprised 2 billion polygons and 7,000 color images, occupying 60 GB of storage. Artifact safety: Ensuring the safety of the statues during scanning required extensive crew training, foam-encased equipment, and collision-prevention mechanisms. == Applications and impact == The digitized models have numerous potential applications: Art history: Allowing precise measurements and geometric analysis, such as determining chisel types or evaluating structural balance. Education: Providing new ways to study art, including interactive viewing from unconventional angles and with custom lighting. Museum curation: Enhancing visitor experiences through interactive kiosks and virtual models. The project demonstrated the potential for 3D technology to preserve and disseminate cultural heritage. == Data distribution == The project's models are available through Stanford University for scholarly purposes, under strict licensing due to Italian intellectual property laws. === ScanView === To provide public access to the 3D models while respecting usage restrictions, the project developed ScanView, a client/server rendering system. ScanView allows users to view and interact with high-resolution 3D models without downloading the data. The client component consists of a freely available viewer program and simplified 3D models. Users can navigate these models locally, adjusting position, orientation, lighting, and surface appearance. When a user finalizes a view, the client queries a remote server for a high-resolution rendering of the model, which is sent back to overwrite the simplified version on the user’s screen. A typical query-response cycle takes 1–2 seconds, depending on network conditions. To protect the models from unauthorized reconstruction, the system employs several security measures, including: Encrypting queries Perturbing viewpoint and lighting parameters Adding noise and warping rendered images Compressing images before transmission ScanView operates on Windows-based PCs and provides access to selected models, including David and St. Matthew, as well as other artifacts such as fragments of the Forma Urbis Romae and items from the Stanford 3D Scanning Repository. == Sponsors == The Digital Michelangelo Project was supported by Stanford University, Interval Research Corporation, and the Paul G. Allen Foundation for the Arts.
Paperless society
A paperless society is a society in which paper communication (written documents, email, letters, etc.) is replaced by electronic communication and storage. The concept was first introduced by Frederick Wilfrid Lancaster in 1978. Furthermore, libraries would no longer be needed to handle printed documents. "Librarians will, in time, become information specialists in a deinstitutionalized setting". Lancaster also stated that both computers and libraries will not always give us the information that other people and living life will. == Literature == Brodman, E. (1979). Review of Toward Paperless Information Systems. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 67(4), 437–439. Buckland, M. K. (1980). Review of Toward Paperless Information Systems. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 5(6), 349. Grosch, A. (1979). Review of Toward Paperless Information Systems. College & Research Libraries, 40(1), 88–89. Kohl, D. F. (2004). From the editor . . . The paperless society . . . Not quite yet. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(3), 177–178. Lancaster, F. W. (1978a). Toward paperless information systems. New York: Academic Press. Lancaster, F. W. (1980b). The future of the librarian lies outside of the library. Catholic Library World, 51, 388–391. Lancaster, F. W. (1982a). Libraries and librarians in an age of electronics. Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press. Lancaster, F. W. (1982b). The evolving paperless society and its implications for libraries. International Forum on Information and Documentation, 7(4), 3–10. Lancaster, F. W. (1983). Future librarianship: Preparing for an unconventional career. Wilson Library Bulletin, 57, 747–753. Lancaster, F. W. (1985). The paperless society revisited. American Libraries, 16, 553–555. Lancaster, F. W. (1993). Libraries and the future: Essays on the library in the twenty-first century. New York: Haworth Press. Lancaster, F. W. (1999). Second thoughts on the paperless society. Library Journal, 124(15), 48– 50. Lancaster, F. W., & Smith, L. C. (1980c). On-Line systems in the communication process: Projections. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 31(3), 193–200. Miall, D. S. (2001). The library versus the Internet: Literary studies under siege? Proceedings of the Modern Language Association, 116(5), 1405–1414. Salton, G. (1979). Review of Toward Paperless Information Systems. Journal of Documentation, 35(3), 250–252. Sellen, A. J., & Harper, R. H. R. (2003). The myth of the paperless office. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Stevens, N. D. (2006). The fully electronic academic library. College & Research Libraries, 67(1),5–14. Young, Arthur P. (2008).Aftermath of a Prediction: F. W. Lancaster and the Paperless Society LIBRARY TRENDS, 56(4),(“The Evaluation and Transformation of Information Systems: Essays Honoring the Legacy of F. W. Lancaster,” edited by Lorraine J. Haricombe and Keith Russell), pp. 843–858.