ViEWER, the Virtual Environment Workbench for Education and Research, is a proprietary, freeware computer program for Microsoft Windows written by researchers at the University of Idaho for the study of visual perception and complex immersive three-dimensional environments. It was created using C++ and OpenGL, and has been used by Dr. Brian Dyre, Dr. Steffen Werner, Dr. Ernesto Bustamante, Dr. Ben Barton, and their undergraduate and graduate researchers in visual perception, signal detection, and child-safety experiments.
Ideonomy
Ideonomy is a combinatorial "science of ideas" developed by American independent scholar Patrick M. Gunkel (1947–2017). Specifically, Ideonomy is concerned with the systematic organization of ideas and the discovery of the rules behind how ideas combine, diverge, and transform. Gunkel defined ideonomy as "the science of the laws of ideas and of the application of such laws to the generation of all possible ideas in connection with any subject, idea, or thing." In his 1992 book A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren compared ideonomy to a "mining operation" that excavates meanings and thought to discover treasures hidden deep within language. Sources from the 1980s and 1990s demonstrate that ideonomy was useful to academic researchers in fields including biology, toxicology, and nursing/patient care. Beginning in the 2010s, academics in a wide range of fields including machine learning, marketing, computational modeling, and cybersecurity have relied on materials generated for ideonomy to provide methodological support for their research. == Etymology and definition == The word "ideonomy" combines the Greek roots ideo- (from idea, meaning pattern or form) and -nomy (from nomos, meaning law or custom). The suffix -nomy suggests the laws concerning or the totality of knowledge about a given subject, as in astronomy or taxonomy. In a note posted on the MIT ideonomy website, Gunkel states that the word was supposedly first coined by the French Encyclopedists to refer to a science of ideas. No evidence is provided for this statement, however. The concept bears some relationship to Antoine Destutt de Tracy's "ideology" (1796), which originally meant a systematic science of ideas before acquiring its modern political connotations. Gunkel provided several metaphorical descriptions of ideonomy: An "idea bank": a computer network enabling systematic exploration of infinite possible ideas A "kaleidoscope" that can exhibit all possible combinations and transformations of ideas A "prism" capable of diffracting any idea into its cognitive components A "gigantic microscope for magnifying the ideocosm" == History and development == In 1984, Gunkel received a five-year unsolicited grant from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation of New York to develop ideonomy. A June 1, 1987 article on the front page of The Wall Street Journal brought Gunkel and ideonomy to wider public attention. Some academics were interested in using ideonomy's techniques, including biologist Betsey Dyer, who published several contemporaneous peer-reviewed studies citing ideonomy. Academic researchers in the field of toxicology and nursing/patient care also used ideonomy. However, ideonomy's broadest contribution to date came beginning in the 2010s, as a list of personality traits generated for combinatorial matching was used by researchers in artificial intelligence to code human emotions for machine-learning tasks, develop computational models related to personality, develop a measurement framework for influencer-brand recommender systems, and aid information awareness/cybersecurity assessment. == Methodology == The foundational empirical method of ideonomy involves the systematic creation of extensive lists. Gunkel's apartment reportedly contained thousands of lists on every conceivable topic. Gunkel termed each list an "organon," which he described as expanding through "combination, permutation, transformation, generalization, specialization, intersection, interaction, reapplication, recursive use, etc. of existing organons." The ideonomic process follows a progressive structure. The ideonomist begins with a simple list of examples of a particular idea, concept, or thing. The list need not be exhaustive. By studying this list, the ideonomist isolates and identifies types. This categorical analysis then reveals missing items, allowing the primary list to be improved and refined. Gunkel emphasized that list items must not only cover genuine categories of nature but also be formulated in ways that yield the largest possible number of syntactically coherent possibilities when combined. The core technique of ideonomy is "ideocombinatorics"—the systematic intersection and combination of items from different lists to generate novel composite concepts. Gunkel developed computer programs to automate this process. For example, combining a list of 230 Universal Elementary Shapes (pits, pyramids, trenches, hemispheres, needles) with a list of 74 Types of Order (recurrence, identity, likeness of parts) yields 17,020 possible "shapes of order." These combinations, when phrased as questions ("Can there be pits of recurrence?"), could suggest new categories of phenomena worthy of investigation. The computer-generated output is typically repetitive and often meaningless. However, with sufficient frequency, the combinations yield results that are unexpectedly interesting and fruitful. In one documented case, Gunkel's programs generated 45,540 questions about toxins for microbiologist David Bermudes. One question—"Can hierarchies of cell process be used as a basis for classifying toxic action?"—prompted Bermudes to develop a novel approach to classifying biological toxins by the type of molecule they attack, rather than by chemical structure or physiological system affected. According to one contemporaneous account of ideonomy, "Gunkel takes for his field all fields and all ideas about anything. He uses a computer to generate lists of words and phrases and by juxtaposition reviews the resultant patterns for novel ideas. The computer is ideal for this task because the mind would rebel at the formidable processing task ideonomy involves. What we have here is computer generated originality." == Applications == Gunkel and his supporters identified several practical applications for ideonomic methods: Scientific research: Biologist Betsey Dyer of Wheaton College published research crediting ideonomy for helping to generate ideas. Medical science: When Austin pathologist Michael T. O'Brien was presented with the ideonomically-generated question "Can arteries have rashes?", he initially dismissed it as nonsense. Upon reflection, he realized that large arteries are supplied with blood by tiny vessels that might become inflamed and dilated, analogous to skin vessels in a rash—a phenomenon potentially worth researching. Analogical thinking: Harvard law professor Robert Clark used ideonomic analogies to write a research paper comparing plant structure with human hierarchies. Artificial intelligence: Douglas Lenat, a researcher at Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) in Austin, suggested that Gunkel's lists enumerating types of human mistakes could help design AI systems capable of recognizing and correcting their own errors. == Reception and criticism == Ideonomy received mixed reactions from the academic and scientific communities. Prominent supporters included: Edward Fredkin, former director of MIT's computer science laboratory, who praised Gunkel's "provocative ideas on artificial intelligence." Marvin Minsky, AI scientist and MIT professor, who described ideonomy as "perhaps the most extensive study of ways to generate ideas." Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University, who noted Gunkel's "encyclopedic scope" Robert C. Clark, Harvard law professor, who called Gunkel "the most intelligent person I ever met" However, skeptics questioned whether ideonomy constituted a genuine science. Fredkin himself noted that Gunkel "pours out about 60 ideas a minute, and 59 of them are bad," though he added that "even with one good idea out of 60, it's still an amazing accomplishment." Douglas Lenat observed that brainstorming with Gunkel was "a bit like being hit over the head by the muse with a sledgehammer" and that "he puts people off." Gunkel himself acknowledged that ideonomy was in its infancy and might seem "absurdly utopian." His planned magnum opus on ideonomy remained incomplete, and was posted on an MIT website thanks to faculty advisor Whitman Richards. Gunkel wrote: "Pioneering in a completely new field, yes in a new science, is almost unreal. It is heartbreaking, it is pitiable, it is almost inhuman. Honestly, it is a hell. There is nothing heroic about it." == Related concepts == Gunkel identified several historical precedents for ideonomic thinking: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716): The philosopher's work on a universal characteristic (characteristica universalis) and calculus of reasoning Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869): Creator of Roget's Thesaurus, which organized concepts into a systematic taxonomy Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907): Developer of the periodic table, demonstrating how combining lists of element families could reveal previously unseen connections Fritz Zwicky (1898–1974): The Caltech astrophysicist whom Gunkel called the "grandfather of ideonomy" for his development of "morphological research"—systematic exploration of all possible solutions t
Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture
SABSA (Sherwood Applied Business Security Architecture) is a model and methodology for developing a risk-driven enterprise information security architecture and service management, to support critical business processes. It was developed independently from the Zachman Framework, but has a similar structure. The primary characteristic of the SABSA model is that everything must be derived from an analysis of the business requirements for security, especially those in which security has an enabling function through which new business opportunities can be developed and exploited. The process analyzes the business requirements at the outset, and creates a chain of traceability through the strategy and concept, design, implementation, and ongoing ‘manage and measure’ phases of the lifecycle to ensure that the business mandate is preserved. Framework tools created from practical experience further support the whole methodology. The model is layered, with the top layer being the business requirements definition stage. At each lower layer a new level of abstraction and detail is developed, going through the definition of the conceptual architecture, logical services architecture, physical infrastructure architecture and finally at the lowest layer, the selection of technologies and products (component architecture). The SABSA model itself is generic and can be the starting point for any organization, but by going through the process of analysis and decision-making implied by its structure, it becomes specific to the enterprise, and is finally highly customized to a unique business model. It becomes in reality the enterprise security architecture, and it is central to the success of a strategic program of information security management within the organization. SABSA is a particular example of a methodology that can be used both for IT (information technology) and OT (operational technology) environments. == SABSA matrix == Note: The above is the original SABSA Matrix, which is still valid today, but it has been expanded by a comprehensive service management matrix and updated in some detail and terminology areas. In the words of David Lynas, SABSA author, "The SABSA Matrix and the SABSA Service Management Matrix have not been updated since the late 90s. We have redesigned them to deliver the improvements your feedback has requested over the years. We have not fundamentally changed the structure or principles of the matrices (very few elements have changed position) but have focused on terminology update and consistency." The new versions can be downloaded (along with the 2009 revision of the SABSA White Paper and other important documents like the SABSA Certification Roadmap) at the SABSA Members' Web Site.
Spanish Network of Excellence on Cybersecurity Research
The Spanish Network of Excellence on Cybersecurity Research (RENIC), is a research initiative to promote cybersecurity interests in Spain. == Members == === Board of Directors (2018) === President: Universidad de Málaga Vice president: CSIC Treasurer: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Secretary: Universidad de Granada Vocals: Tecnalia, Universidad de La Laguna and Universidad de Modragón === Board of Directors (2016) === President: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Vice president: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Treasurer: Universidad de Granada Secretary: Universidad de León Vocals: Gradiant, Tecnalia, Universidad de Málaga === Founding Members === Centro Andaluz de Innovación y Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones (CITIC). Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC). Centro Tecnolóxico de Telecomunicaciones de Galicia (Gradiant). Instituto Imdea Software. Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad (INCIBE). Mondragón Unibertsitatea. Tecnalia. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Universidad Castilla la Mancha. Universidad de Granada. Universidad de la Laguna. Universidad de León. Universidad de Málaga. Universidad de Murcia. Universidad de Vigo. Universidad Internacional de la Rioja. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. === Members === Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC). Centro Tecnolóxico de Telecomunicaciones de Galicia (Gradiant). Instituto Imdea Software. Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad (INCIBE). Mondragón Unibertsitatea. Tecnalia. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Universidad de Granada. Universidad de la Laguna. Universidad de León. Universidad de Málaga. Universidad de Murcia. Universidad de Vigo. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. IKERLAN. === Honorary Members === Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology (CDTI). (2017) Instituto Nacional de Ciberseguridad (INCIBE). (2016) == Initiatives and Participations == RENIC is ECSO member, and is also a member of its board of directors. A collaboration agreement between RENIC and the Innovative Business Cluster on Cybersecurity (AEI Cybersecurity) has been signed. RENIC is pleased to sponsor the Cybersecurity Research National Conferences (JNIC) JNIC2017 edition, organized by Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. RENIC is pleased to announce the publication of the online version of the Catalog and knowledge map of cybersecurity research
MSpy
mSpy is a brand of mobile and computer parental control monitoring software for iOS, Android, Windows, and macOS. The app monitors and logs user activity on the client device and sends the data to a personalized dashboard. Data the users can monitor includes text messages, calls, GPS locations, social media chats, and more. It is owned by Virtuoso Holding. == History == mSpy was launched as a product for mobile monitoring by Altercon Group in 2010. In 2012, the application allowed parents to monitor not only smartphones but also computers running Windows and macOS. In 2013, mSpy became TopTenReviews cell phone monitoring software award winner. By 2014, the business grew nearly 400%, and the app's user numbers exceeded 1 million. In 2015, mSpy received the Parents Tested Parents Approved (PTPA) Winner’s Seal of Approval in the United States. In 2015 and 2018, mSpy was the victim of data breaches which released user data. In 2016, mLite, a light version of mSpy, became available from Google Play. The same year, it was awarded the kidSAFE Certified Seal in the United States. In 2017, mSpy collaborated with YouTuber and journalist Coby Persin to conduct a social experiment on the dangers of social media and online predators. A social experiment, conducted with parental consent, involved Coby Persin to befriend three children—aged 12, 13, and 14—via Snapchat and then invite them to meet personally. Each of the participants agreed to the meeting and arrived at the designated location. The video of the experiment received widespread attention and helped to raise awareness about the importance of online security and parental controls. In early 2021, mSpy released a new feature - Screenrecorder. The feature allows parents to take screenshots of the kid's screen when they are browsing certain apps. In 2024, mSpy's Zendesk was compromised by an unknown threat actor, revealing their customer list. As of 2025, mSpy is compatible with Android, iPhone, and iPad devices. It provides access to various types of data stored on the device, including contact information, calendar entries, emails, SMS messages, browser history, photos, videos, and installed applications. Functions also include GPS tracking, geofencing, keyword alerts etc. == Reception == It was noted that since MSpy runs inconspicuously, there is risk of the software being used illegally. mSpy was called "terrifying" by The Next Web and was featured in NPR coverage of spyware used against victims of stalking and other domestic violence. In response mSpy released security updates aimed at reducing the risk of misuse and stated that it "uses encryption protocols to protect user data and that access is restricted to the account holder". In May 2015, Brian Krebs reported that mSpy was hacked, leaking personal data for hundreds of thousands of users of devices with mSpy installed. mSpy claimed that there was no data leak, but that instead, it was the victim of blackmailers. In September 2018, Krebs claimed and demonstrated that anyone could easily gain access to the mSpy database containing data for millions of users. The company responded by stating that the exposed data consisted primarily of error logs and incorrect login attempts. Following the incident, mSpy implemented new security measures, changed encryption keys, and reset passwords for affected accounts. A 2024 Sky News story characterised mSpy as "stalkerware". Leaked customer support messages from mSpy reveal misuse of its app for illegally monitoring partners and children.
Winner-take-all in action selection
Winner-take-all is a computer science concept that has been widely applied in behavior-based robotics as a method of action selection for intelligent agents. Winner-take-all systems work by connecting modules (task-designated areas) in such a way that when one action is performed it stops all other actions from being performed, so only one action is occurring at a time. The name comes from the idea that the "winner" action takes all of the motor system's power. == History == In the 1980s and 1990s, many roboticists and cognitive scientists were attempting to find speedier and more efficient alternatives to the traditional world modeling method of action selection. In 1982, Jerome A. Feldman and D.H. Ballard published the "Connectionist Models and Their Properties", referencing and explaining winner-take-all as a method of action selection. Feldman's architecture functioned on the simple rule that in a network of interconnected action modules, each module will set its own output to zero if it reads a higher input than its own in any other module. In 1986, Rodney Brooks introduced behavior-based artificial intelligence. Winner-take-all architectures for action selection soon became a common feature of behavior-based robots, because selection occurred at the level of the action modules (bottom-up) rather than at a separate cognitive level (top-down), producing a tight coupling of stimulus and reaction. == Types of winner-take-all architectures == === Hierarchy === In the hierarchical architecture, actions or behaviors are programmed in a high-to-low priority list, with inhibitory connections between all the action modules. The agent performs low-priority behaviors until a higher-priority behavior is stimulated, at which point the higher behavior inhibits all other behaviors and takes over the motor system completely. Prioritized behaviors are usually key to the immediate survival of the agent, while behaviors of lower priority are less time-sensitive. For example, "run away from predator" would be ranked above "sleep." While this architecture allows for clear programming of goals, many roboticists have moved away from the hierarchy because of its inflexibility. === Heterarchy and fully distributed === In the heterarchy and fully distributed architecture, each behavior has a set of pre-conditions to be met before it can be performed, and a set of post-conditions that will be true after the action has been performed. These pre- and post-conditions determine the order in which behaviors must be performed and are used to causally connect action modules. This enables each module to receive input from other modules as well as from the sensors, so modules can recruit each other. For example, if the agent's goal were to reduce thirst, the behavior "drink" would require the pre-condition of having water available, so the module would activate the module in charge of "find water". The activations organize the behaviors into a sequence, even though only one action is performed at a time. The distribution of larger behaviors across modules makes this system flexible and robust to noise. Some critics of this model hold that any existing set of division rules for the predecessor and conflictor connections between modules produce sub-par action selection. In addition, the feedback loop used in the model can in some circumstances lead to improper action selection. === Arbiter and centrally coordinated === In the arbiter and centrally coordinated architecture, the action modules are not connected to each other but to a central arbiter. When behaviors are triggered, they begin "voting" by sending signals to the arbiter, and the behavior with the highest number of votes is selected. In these systems, bias is created through the "voting weight", or how often a module is allowed to vote. Some arbiter systems take a different spin on this type of winner-take-all by using a "compromise" feature in the arbiter. Each module is able to vote for or against each smaller action in a set of actions, and the arbiter selects the action with the most votes, meaning that it benefits the most behavior modules. This can be seen as violating the general rule against creating representations of the world in behavior-based AI, established by Brooks. By performing command fusion, the system is creating a larger composite pool of knowledge than is obtained from the sensors alone, forming a composite inner representation of the environment. Defenders of these systems argue that forbidding world-modeling puts unnecessary constraints on behavior-based robotics, and that agents benefits from forming representations and can still remain reactive.
2018 Google data breach
The 2018 Google data breach was a major data privacy scandal in which the Google+ API exposed the private data of over five hundred thousand users. Google+ managers first noticed harvesting of personal data in March 2018, during a review following the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The bug, despite having been fixed immediately, exposed the private data of approximately 500,000 Google+ users to the public. Google did not reveal the leak to the network's users. In November 2018, another data breach occurred following an update to the Google+ API. Although Google found no evidence of failure, approximately 52.5 million personal profiles were potentially exposed. In August 2019, Google declared a shutdown of Google+ due to low use and technological challenges. == Overview of Google+ == Google+ was launched in June 2011 as an invite-only social network, but was opened for public access later in the year. It was managed by Vic Gundotra. Similar to Facebook, Google+ also included key features Circles, Hangouts and Sparks. Circles let users personalize their social groups by sorting friends into different categories. Once allowed into a Circle, users could regulate information in their individual spaces. Hangouts included video chatting and instant messaging between users. Sparks allowed Google to track users' past searches to find news and content related to their interests. Google+ was linked to other Google services, such as YouTube, Google Drive and Gmail, giving it access to roughly 2 billion user accounts. However, less than 400 million consumers actively used Google+, with 90% of those users using it for less than five seconds. == The breaches == In March 2018, Google developers found a data breach within the Google+ People API in which external apps acquired access to Profile fields that were not marked as public. According to The Wall Street Journal, Google didn’t disclose the breach when it was first discovered in March to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. 500,000 Google+ accounts were included in the breach, which allowed 438 external apps unauthorized access to private users' names, emails, addresses, occupations, genders and ages. This information was available between 2015 and 2018. Google found no evidence of any user's personal information being misused, nor that any third-party app developers were aware of the leak. In November 2018, a software update created another data breach within the Google+ API. The bug impacted 52.5 million users, where, similarly to the March breach, unauthorized apps were able to access Google+ profiles, including users' names, email addresses, occupations and ages. Apps could not access financial information, national identification, numbers, or passwords. Blog posts, messages and phone numbers also remained inaccessible if marked as private. Unlike the previous breach, access was only available for six days before Google+ learned of the breach. Once more, Google+ found no evidence of data being misused by third-party developers. == Responses == In October 2018, the Wall Street Journal published an article outlining the initial breach and Google's decision to not disclose it to users. At the time, there was no federal law that required Google to inform their consumers of data breaches. Google+ originally did not disclose the breach out of fears of being compared to Facebook's recent data leak and subsequent loss of consumer confidence. In response to the Wall Street Journal article, Google announced the shutdown of Google+ in August 2019. After the second data leak, the date was moved to April 2019. In response to the data breach, enterprise consumers were notified of the bug's impact and given instructions on how to save, download and delete their data prior to the Google+ shut down. Google's Privacy and Data Protection Office found no misuse of user data. Prior to the Google+ shutdown, Google set a 10-month period in which users could download and migrate their data. After the 10-month period, user content was deleted. On 4 February 2019, consumers were no longer able to create new Google+ profiles. Google shut down Google+ APIs on 7 March 2019 to ensure that developers did not continue to rely on the APIs prior to the Google+ shutdown. Google is the principal entity of its parent company, Alphabet Inc. After the data breach, Alphabet Inc. share prices fell by 1% to $1,157.06 on 9 October 2018 after an earlier drop of $1,135.40 that morning, the lowest price since 5 July 2018. After the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, share prices dropped as low as 2.1% in two days on 10 October 2018. Share prices steadily increased from this point and met the 8 October 2018 share price on 5 February 2019. Google planned to rebuild Google+ as a corporate enterprise network. Google Play will now assess which apps can ask for permission to access the user's SMS data. Only the default app for telephone distribution is able to make requests. Prior to the data breaches, apps were able to request access to all of a consumer's data simultaneously. Now, each app must request permission for each aspect of a consumer's profile.