Multilayered extended semantic networks (MultiNets) are both a knowledge representation paradigm and a language for meaning representation of natural language expressions that has been developed by Prof. Dr. Hermann Helbig on the basis of earlier Semantic Networks. It is used in a question-answering application for German called InSicht. It is also used to create a tutoring application developed by the university of University of Hagen to teach MultiNet to knowledge engineers. MultiNet is claimed to be one of the most comprehensive and thoroughly described knowledge representation systems. It specifies conceptual structures by means of about 140 predefined relations and functions, which are systematically characterized and underpinned by a formal axiomatic apparatus. Apart from their relational connections, the concepts are embedded in a multidimensional space of layered attributes and their values. Another characteristic of MultiNet distinguishing it from simple semantic networks is the possibility to encapsulate whole partial networks and represent the resulting conceptual capsule as a node of higher order, which itself can be an argument of relations and functions. MultiNet has been used in practical NLP applications such as natural language interfaces to the Internet or question answering systems over large semantically annotated corpora with millions of sentences. MultiNet is also a cornerstone of the commercially available search engine SEMPRIA-Search, where it is used for the description of the computational lexicon and the background knowledge, for the syntactic-semantic analysis, for logical answer finding, as well as for the generation of natural language answers. MultiNet is supported by a set of software tools and has been used to build large semantically based computational lexicons. The tools include a semantic interpreter WOCADI, which translates natural language expressions (phrases, sentences, texts) into formal MultiNet expressions, a workbench MWR+ for the knowledge engineer (comprising modules for automatic knowledge acquisition and reasoning), and a workbench LIA+ for the computer lexicographer supporting the creation of large semantically based computational lexica.
Topological deep learning
Topological deep learning (TDL) is a research field that extends deep learning to handle complex, non-Euclidean data structures. Traditional deep learning models, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs), excel in processing data on regular grids and sequences. However, scientific and real-world data often exhibit more intricate data domains encountered in scientific computations, including point clouds, meshes, time series, scalar fields graphs, or general topological spaces like simplicial complexes and CW complexes. TDL addresses this by incorporating topological concepts to process data with higher-order relationships, such as interactions among multiple entities and complex hierarchies. This approach leverages structures like simplicial complexes and hypergraphs to capture global dependencies and qualitative spatial properties, offering a more nuanced representation of data. TDL also encompasses methods from computational and algebraic topology that permit studying properties of neural networks and their training process, such as their predictive performance or generalization properties. The mathematical foundations of TDL are algebraic topology, differential topology, and geometric topology. Therefore, TDL can be generalized for data on differentiable manifolds, knots, links, tangles, curves, etc. == History and motivation == Traditional techniques from deep learning often operate under the assumption that a dataset is residing in a highly-structured space (like images, where convolutional neural networks exhibit outstanding performance over alternative methods) or a Euclidean space. The prevalence of new types of data, in particular graphs, meshes, and molecules, resulted in the development of new techniques, culminating in the field of geometric deep learning, which originally proposed a signal-processing perspective for treating such data types. While originally confined to graphs, where connectivity is defined based on nodes and edges, follow-up work extended concepts to a larger variety of data types, including simplicial complexes and CW complexes, with recent work proposing a unified perspective of message-passing on general combinatorial complexes. An independent perspective on different types of data originated from topological data analysis, which proposed a new framework for describing structural information of data, i.e., their "shape," that is inherently aware of multiple scales in data, ranging from local information to global information. While at first restricted to smaller datasets, subsequent work developed new descriptors that efficiently summarized topological information of datasets to make them available for traditional machine-learning techniques, such as support vector machines or random forests. Such descriptors ranged from new techniques for feature engineering over new ways of providing suitable coordinates for topological descriptors, or the creation of more efficient dissimilarity measures. Contemporary research in this field is largely concerned with either integrating information about the underlying data topology into existing deep-learning models or obtaining novel ways of training on topological domains. == Learning on topological spaces == One of the core concepts in topological deep learning is considering the domain upon which this data is defined and supported. In case of Euclidean data, such as images, this domain is a grid, upon which the pixel value of the image is supported. In a more general setting this domain might be a topological domain. Studying and developing deep learning models that are supported ln topological domains constitute the essence of topological deep learning. Next, we introduce the most common topological domains that are encountered in a deep learning setting. These domains include, but not limited to, graphs, simplicial complexes, cell complexes, combinatorial complexes and hypergraphs. Given a finite set S of abstract entities, a neighborhood function N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}} on S is an assignment that attach to every point x {\displaystyle x} in S a subset of S or a relation. Such a function can be induced by equipping S with an auxiliary structure. Edges provide one way of defining relations among the entities of S. More specifically, edges in a graph allow one to define the notion of neighborhood using, for instance, the one hop neighborhood notion. Edges however, limited in their modeling capacity as they can only be used to model binary relations among entities of S since every edge is connected typically to two entities. In many applications, it is desirable to permit relations that incorporate more than two entities. The idea of using relations that involve more than two entities is central to topological domains. Such higher-order relations allow for a broader range of neighborhood functions to be defined on S to capture multi-way interactions among entities of S. Next we review the main properties, advantages, and disadvantages of some commonly studied topological domains in the context of deep learning, including (abstract) simplicial complexes, regular cell complexes, hypergraphs, and combinatorial complexes. ==== Comparisons among topological domains ==== Each of the enumerated topological domains has its own characteristics, advantages, and limitations: Simplicial complexes Simplest form of higher-order domains. Extensions of graph-based models. Admit hierarchical structures, making them suitable for various applications. Hodge theory can be naturally defined on simplicial complexes. Require relations to be subsets of larger relations, imposing constraints on the structure. Cell Complexes Generalize simplicial complexes. Provide more flexibility in defining higher-order relations. Each cell in a cell complex is homeomorphic to an open ball, attached together via attaching maps. Boundary cells of each cell in a cell complex are also cells in the complex. Represented combinatorially via incidence matrices. Hypergraphs Allow arbitrary set-type relations among entities. Relations are not imposed by other relations, providing more flexibility. Do not explicitly encode the dimension of cells or relations. Useful when relations in the data do not adhere to constraints imposed by other models like simplicial and cell complexes. Combinatorial Complexes : Generalize and bridge the gaps between simplicial complexes, cell complexes, and hypergraphs. Allow for hierarchical structures and set-type relations. Combine features of other complexes while providing more flexibility in modeling relations. Can be represented combinatorially, similar to cell complexes. ==== Hierarchical structure and set-type relations ==== The properties of simplicial complexes, cell complexes, and hypergraphs give rise to two main features of relations on higher-order domains, namely hierarchies of relations and set-type relations. ===== Rank function ===== A rank function on a higher-order domain X is an order-preserving function rk: X → Z, where rk(x) attaches a non-negative integer value to each relation x in X, preserving set inclusion in X. Cell and simplicial complexes are common examples of higher-order domains equipped with rank functions and therefore with hierarchies of relations. ===== Set-type relations ===== Relations in a higher-order domain are called set-type relations if the existence of a relation is not implied by another relation in the domain. Hypergraphs constitute examples of higher-order domains equipped with set-type relations. Given the modeling limitations of simplicial complexes, cell complexes, and hypergraphs, we develop the combinatorial complex, a higher-order domain that features both hierarchies of relations and set-type relations. The learning tasks in TDL can be broadly classified into three categories: Cell classification: Predict targets for each cell in a complex. Examples include triangular mesh segmentation, where the task is to predict the class of each face or edge in a given mesh. Complex classification: Predict targets for an entire complex. For example, predict the class of each input mesh. Cell prediction: Predict properties of cell-cell interactions in a complex, and in some cases, predict whether a cell exists in the complex. An example is the prediction of linkages among entities in hyperedges of a hypergraph. In practice, to perform the aforementioned tasks, deep learning models designed for specific topological spaces must be constructed and implemented. These models, known as topological neural networks, are tailored to operate effectively within these spaces. === Topological neural networks === Central to TDL are topological neural networks (TNNs), specialized architectures designed to operate on data structured in topological domains. Unlike traditional neural networks tailored for grid-like structures, TNNs are adept at handling more intricate data representations, such as graphs
Greedy embedding
In distributed computing and geometric graph theory, greedy embedding is a process of assigning coordinates to the nodes of a telecommunications network in order to allow greedy geographic routing to be used to route messages within the network. Although greedy embedding has been proposed for use in wireless sensor networks, in which the nodes already have positions in physical space, these existing positions may differ from the positions given to them by greedy embedding, which may in some cases be points in a virtual space of a higher dimension, or in a non-Euclidean geometry. In this sense, greedy embedding may be viewed as a form of graph drawing, in which an abstract graph (the communications network) is embedded into a geometric space. The idea of performing geographic routing using coordinates in a virtual space, instead of using physical coordinates, is due to Rao et al. Subsequent developments have shown that every network has a greedy embedding with succinct vertex coordinates in the hyperbolic plane, that certain graphs including the polyhedral graphs have greedy embeddings in the Euclidean plane, and that unit disk graphs have greedy embeddings in Euclidean spaces of moderate dimensions with low stretch factors. == Definitions == In greedy routing, a message from a source node s to a destination node t travels to its destination by a sequence of steps through intermediate nodes, each of which passes the message on to a neighboring node that is closer to t. If the message reaches an intermediate node x that does not have a neighbor closer to t, then it cannot make progress and the greedy routing process fails. A greedy embedding is an embedding of the given graph with the property that a failure of this type is impossible. Thus, it can be characterized as an embedding of the graph with the property that for every two nodes x and t, there exists a neighbor y of x such that d(x,t) > d(y,t), where d denotes the distance in the embedded space. == Graphs with no greedy embedding == Not every graph has a greedy embedding into the Euclidean plane; a simple counterexample is given by the star K1,6, a tree with one internal node and six leaves. Whenever this graph is embedded into the plane, some two of its leaves must form an angle of 60 degrees or less, from which it follows that at least one of these two leaves does not have a neighbor that is closer to the other leaf. In Euclidean spaces of higher dimensions, more graphs may have greedy embeddings; for instance, K1,6 has a greedy embedding into three-dimensional Euclidean space, in which the internal node of the star is at the origin and the leaves are a unit distance away along each coordinate axis. However, for every Euclidean space of fixed dimension, there are graphs that cannot be embedded greedily: whenever the number n is greater than the kissing number of the space, the graph K1,n has no greedy embedding. == Hyperbolic and succinct embeddings == Unlike the case for the Euclidean plane, every network has a greedy embedding into the hyperbolic plane. The original proof of this result, by Robert Kleinberg, required the node positions to be specified with high precision, but subsequently it was shown that, by using a heavy path decomposition of a spanning tree of the network, it is possible to represent each node succinctly, using only a logarithmic number of bits per point. In contrast, there exist graphs that have greedy embeddings in the Euclidean plane, but for which any such embedding requires a polynomial number of bits for the Cartesian coordinates of each point. == Special classes of graphs == === Trees === The class of trees that admit greedy embeddings into the Euclidean plane has been completely characterized, and a greedy embedding of a tree can be found in linear time when it exists. For more general graphs, some greedy embedding algorithms such as the one by Kleinberg start by finding a spanning tree of the given graph, and then construct a greedy embedding of the spanning tree. The result is necessarily also a greedy embedding of the whole graph. However, there exist graphs that have a greedy embedding in the Euclidean plane but for which no spanning tree has a greedy embedding. === Planar graphs === Papadimitriou & Ratajczak (2005) conjectured that every polyhedral graph (a 3-vertex-connected planar graph, or equivalently by Steinitz's theorem the graph of a convex polyhedron) has a greedy embedding into the Euclidean plane. By exploiting the properties of cactus graphs, Leighton & Moitra (2010) proved the conjecture; the greedy embeddings of these graphs can be defined succinctly, with logarithmically many bits per coordinate. However, the greedy embeddings constructed according to this proof are not necessarily planar embeddings, as they may include crossings between pairs of edges. For maximal planar graphs, in which every face is a triangle, a greedy planar embedding can be found by applying the Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz lemma to a weighted version of a straight-line embedding algorithm of Schnyder. The strong Papadimitriou–Ratajczak conjecture, that every polyhedral graph has a planar greedy embedding in which all faces are convex, remains unproven. === Unit disk graphs === The wireless sensor networks that are the target of greedy embedding algorithms are frequently modeled as unit disk graphs, graphs in which each node is represented as a unit disk and each edge corresponds to a pair of disks with nonempty intersection. For this special class of graphs, it is possible to find succinct greedy embeddings into a Euclidean space of polylogarithmic dimension, with the additional property that distances in the graph are accurately approximated by distances in the embedding, so that the paths followed by greedy routing are short.
Horus Music
Horus Music Limited is a global digital distribution and label services company. Established in 2006, Horus Music allows artists, labels and right-holders to send their music to over 200 download, streaming, and interactive platforms including iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, VEVO, 7digital, Spotify, Beatport, Deezer, Tidal, as well as offering digital marketing and playlisting opportunities. == History == The company were named Best Business Partner of 2014 by Huawei Technology of China, and were also a finalist in the International Trade category as part of the Leicester Mercury Business Awards during that same year. Their client base consists of unsigned and independent musicians and record labels, as well as well known recording artists. In November 2015, Horus Music sponsored the UK’s first Independent Label Week, in order to highlight the music that is released by the UK’s indie labels. In 2016, Horus Music celebrated their 10th anniversary Horus Music's sister companies Help for Bands and Help For Writers, provide advice and opportunities for musicians and E-book distribution for writers, respectively. Anara Publishing opened in 2017 which allows the company to work closely with a handpicked roster of musicians to provide royalty administration and sync licensing services. On 21 April 2017, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s 91st birthday, Horus Music was awarded with the Queen’s Award for Enterprise in International Trade. In 2021, Horus Music, UnitedMasters, and Symphonic Distribution partnered with pioneering music fintech company, beatBread, to offer clients access to more capital. beatBread's chordCashAI technology provides an automated advance experience for independent musicians while enable clients to choose their own terms and retain ownership of their music. == Clients == Horus Music has partnered with a number of charities including Save the Children, for the recording "Look into Your Heart", featuring Beverley Knight with Rolling Stones' Mick Jagger and Ronnie Wood, 100% of proceeds from the single were donated to the charity. The Pixel Project, who produced songs about violence against women and the blood cancer charity Bloodwise. The company have spoken openly about the state of the music industry and artists' rights and were one of the first distributors to remove their catalogue from Rdio after the streaming service was acquired by Pandora. Their relationships with artists and labels, as well as leading industry contacts, means they have the ability to work with musicians in a myriad of ways, including offering performance opportunities and even local auditions for TV shows such as The Voice UK. == Horus Music India == Horus Music India opened in 2016 and is based in Mumbai. By opening Horus Music India, the company are able to expand on their local connections as well as to provide a much more personalised service to musicians based in this area. The appointment of two Business Development Managers in India cemented their move.
Timeline of operating systems
This article presents a timeline of events in the history of computer operating systems from 1951 to the current day. For a narrative explaining the overall developments, see the History of operating systems. == 20th Century == == 1940s == 1949 EDSAC was considered the first operating system developed by Maurice Wilkes and manufactured by the University of Cambridge == 1950s == 1951 LEO I 'Lyons Electronic Office' was the commercial development of EDSAC computing platform, supported by British firm J. Lyons and Co. 1953 DYSEAC - an early machine capable of distributing computing 1955 General Motors Operating System made for IBM 701 MIT's Tape Director operating system made for UNIVAC 1103 1956 GM-NAA I/O for IBM 704, based on General Motors Operating System 1957 Atlas Supervisor (Manchester University) (Atlas computer project start) BESYS (Bell Labs), for IBM 704, later IBM 7090 and IBM 7094 1958 University of Michigan Executive System (UMES), for IBM 704, 709, and 7090 1959 SHARE Operating System (SOS), based on GM-NAA I/O == 1960s == 1960 IBSYS (IBM for its 7090 and 7094) 1961 CTSS demonstration (MIT's Compatible Time-Sharing System for the IBM 7094) MCP (Burroughs Master Control Program) for B5000 1962 Atlas Supervisor (Manchester University) (Atlas computer commissioned) BBN Time-Sharing System GCOS (GE's General Comprehensive Operating System, originally GECOS, General Electric Comprehensive Operating Supervisor) 1963 ADMIRAL AN/FSQ-32, another early time-sharing system begun CTSS becomes operational (MIT's Compatible Time-Sharing System for the IBM 7094) JOSS, an interactive time-shared system that did not distinguish between operating system and language Titan Supervisor, early time-sharing system begun 1964 Berkeley Timesharing System (for Scientific Data Systems' SDS 940) Chippewa Operating System (for CDC 6600 supercomputer) Dartmouth Time-Sharing System (Dartmouth College's DTSS for GE computers) EXEC 8 (UNIVAC) KDF9 Timesharing Director (English Electric) – an early, fully hardware secured, fully pre-emptive process switching, multi-programming operating system for KDF9 (originally announced in 1960) OS/360 (IBM's primary OS for its S/360 series) (announced) PDP-6 Monitor (DEC) descendant renamed TOPS-10 in 1970 SCOPE (CDC 3000 series) 1965 BOS/360 (IBM's Basic Operating System) DECsys TOS/360 (IBM's Tape Operating System) Livermore Time Sharing System (LTSS) Multics (MIT, GE, Bell Labs for the GE-645) (announced) Pick operating system SIPROS 66 (Simultaneous Processing Operating System) THE multiprogramming system (Technische Hogeschool Eindhoven) development TSOS (later VMOS) (RCA) 1966 DOS/360 (IBM's Disk Operating System) GEORGE 1 & 2 for ICT 1900 series Mod 1 Mod 2 Mod 8 MS/8 (Richard F. Lary's DEC PDP-8 system) MSOS (Mass Storage Operating System) OS/360 (IBM's primary OS for its S/360 series) PCP and MFT (shipped) RAX Remote Users of Shared Hardware (RUSH), a time-sharing system developed by Allen-Babcock for the IBM 360/50 SODA for Elwro's Odra 1204 Universal Time-Sharing System (XDS Sigma series) 1967 CP-40, predecessor to CP-67 on modified IBM System/360 Model 40 CP-67 (IBM, also known as CP/CMS) Conversational Programming System (CPS), an IBM time-sharing system under OS/360 Michigan Terminal System (MTS) (time-sharing system for the IBM S/360-67 and successors) ITS (MIT's Incompatible Timesharing System for the DEC PDP-6 and PDP-10) OS/360 MVT ORVYL (Stanford University's time-sharing system for the IBM S/360-67) TSS/360 (IBM's Time-sharing System for the S/360-67, never officially released, canceled in 1969 and again in 1971) WAITS (SAIL, Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, time-sharing system for DEC PDP-6 and PDP-10, later TOPS-10) 1968 Airline Control Program (ACP) (IBM) B1 (NCR Century series) CALL/360, an IBM time-sharing system for System/360 HP Real-Time Executive (HP RTE) – Hewlett-Packard HP Time-Shared BASIC (HP TSB) – Hewlett-Packard (time-sharing system for the HP 2000) THE multiprogramming system (Eindhoven University of Technology) publication TSS/8 (DEC for the PDP-8) VP/CSS 1969 B2 (NCR Century series) B3 (NCR Century series) GEORGE 3 For ICL 1900 series MINIMOP Multics (MIT, GE, Bell Labs for the GE-645 and later the Honeywell 6180) (opened for paying customers in October) RC 4000 Multiprogramming System (RC) TENEX (Bolt, Beranek and Newman for DEC systems, later TOPS-20) Unics (later Unix) (AT&T, initially on DEC computers) Xerox Operating System == 1970s == 1970 DOS-11 (PDP-11) 1971 EMAS Kronos RSTS-11 2A-19 (First released version; PDP-11) RSX-15 OS/8 1972 B4 (NCR Century series) COS-300 Data General RDOS Edos MUSIC/SP OS/4 OS 1100 OS/2000 (Honeywell 2000-series) Operating System/Virtual Storage 1 (OS/VS1) Operating System/Virtual Storage 2 R1 (OS/VS2 SVS) PRIMOS (written in FORTRAN IV, that didn't have pointers, while later versions, around version 18, written in a version of PL/I, called PL/P) Virtual Machine/Basic System Extensions Program Product (BSEPP or VM/SE) Virtual Machine/System Extensions Program Product (SEPP or VM/BSE) Virtual Machine Facility/370 (VM/370), sometimes known as VM/CMS 1973 Эльбрус-1 (Elbrus-1) – Soviet computer – created using high-level language uЭль-76 (AL-76/ALGOL 68) Alto OS CP-V (Control Program V) RSX-11D RT-11 VME – implementation language S3 (ALGOL 68) 1974 ACOS-2 (NEC) ACOS-4 ACOS-6 CP/M DOS-11 V09-20C (Last stable release, June 1974) Hydra – capability-based, multiprocessing OS kernel MONECS Multi-Programming Executive (MPE) – Hewlett-Packard Operating System/Virtual Storage 2 R2 (MVS) OS/7 OS/16 OS/32 Sintran III 1975 BS2000 V2.0 (First released version) COS-350 ISIS NOS (Control Data Corporation) OS/3 (Univac) VS/9 (formerly RCA's TSOS, later named VMOS) Version 6 Unix XVM/DOS XVM/RSX 1976 Cambridge CAP computer – all operating system procedures written in ALGOL 68C, with some closely associated protected procedures in BCPL Cray Operating System DX10 FLEX TOPS-20 TX990/TXDS Tandem Nonstop OS v1 Thoth 1977 1BSD AMOS KERNAL OASIS operating system OS68 OS4000 RMX-80 System 88 (Exec) System Support Program (IBM System/34 and System/36) TRSDOS Virtual Memory System (VMS) V1.0 (Initial commercial release, October 25) VRX (Virtual Resource eXecutive) VS Virtual Memory Operating System 1978 2BSD Apple DOS Control Program Facility (IBM System/38) Cray Time Sharing System (CTSS) DPCX (IBM) DPPX (IBM) HDOS KSOS – secure OS design from Ford Aerospace KVM/370 – security retro-fit of IBM VM/370 Lisp machine (CADR) MVS/System Extensions (MVS/SE) OS4 (Naked Mini 4) PTDOS TRIPOS UCSD p-System (First released version) Z80-RIO 1979 Atari DOS 3BSD CP-6 Idris MP/M MVS/System Extensions R2 (MVS/SE2) NLTSS POS Sinclair BASIC Transaction Processing Facility (TPF) (IBM) UCLA Secure UNIX – an early secure UNIX OS based on security kernel UNIX/32V DOS/VSE Version 7 Unix == 1980s == 1980 86-DOS AOS/VS (Data General) Business Operating System CTOS DOSPLUS (TRS-80) MVS/System Product (MVS/SP) V1 NewDos/80 OS-9 RMX-86 RS-DOS SOS Virtual Machine/System Product (VM/SP) Xenix 1981 Acorn MOS Aegis SR1 (First Apollo/DOMAIN systems shipped on March 27) CP/M-86 DRX (Distributed Resource Executive) iMAX – OS for Intel's iAPX 432 capability machine MCS (Multi-user Control System) MS-DOS PC DOS Pilot (Xerox Star operating system) UNOS UTS V VERSAdos VRTX VSOS (Virtual Storage Operating System) Xinu first release 1982 Commodore DOS LDOS (By Logical Systems, Inc. – for the Radio Shack TRS-80 Models I, II & III) PCOS (Olivetti M20) pSOS QNX Stratus VOS Sun UNIX (later SunOS) 0.7 Ultrix Unix System III VAXELN 1983 Coherent DNIX EOS GNU (project start) Lisa Office System 7/7 LOCUS – UNIX compatible, high reliability, distributed OS MVS/System Product V2 (MVS/Extended Architecture, MVS/XA) Novell NetWare (S-Net) PERPOS ProDOS RTU (Real-Time Unix) STOP – TCSEC A1-class, secure OS for SCOMP hardware SunOS 1.0 VSE/System Package (VSE/SP) Version 1 1984 AMSDOS CTIX (Unix variant) DYNIX Mac OS (System 1.0) MSX-DOS NOS/VE PANOS PC/IX ROS Sinclair QDOS SINIX UNICOS Venix 2.0 Virtual Machine/Extended Architecture Migration Assistance (VM/XA MA) 1985 AmigaOS Atari TOS DG/UX DOS Plus Graphics Environment Manager Harmony MacOS 2 MIPS RISC/os Oberon – written in Oberon SunOS 2.0 Version 8 Unix Virtual Machine/Extended Architecture System Facility (VM/XA SF) Windows 1.0 Windows 1.01 Xenix 2.0 1986 AIX 1.0 Cronus distributed OS FlexOS GEMSOS – TCSEC A1-class, secure kernel for BLACKER VPN & GTNP GEOS Genera 7.0 HP-UX MacOS 3 SunOS 3.0 TR-DOS TRIX Version 9 Unix 1987 Arthur (much improved version came in 1989 under the name RISC OS) BS2000 V9.0 IRIX (3.0 is first SGI version) MacOS 4 MacOS 5 MDOS MINIX 1.0 OS/2 (1.0) PC-MOS/386 Topaz – semi-distributed OS for DEC Firefly workstation written in Modula-2+ and garbage collected VxWorks Windows 2.0 1988 A/UX (Apple Computer) AOS/VS II (Data General) CP/M rebranded as DR-DOS Flex machine – tagged, capability machine with OS and other software written
Lucy–Hook coaddition method
The Lucy–Hook coaddition method is an image processing technique for combining sub-stepped astronomical image data onto a finer grid. The method allows the option of resolution and contrast enhancement or the choice of a conservative, re-convolved, output. Tests with very deep Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) imaging data of excellent quality show that these methods can be very effective and allow fine-scale features to be studied better than on the unprocessed images. The Lucy–Hook coaddition method is an extension of the standard Richardson–Lucy deconvolution iterative restoration method. For many purposes it may be more convenient to combine dithered datasets using the Drizzle method.
Style sheet (web development)
A web style sheet is a form of separation of content and presentation for web design in which the markup (i.e., HTML or XHTML) of a webpage contains the page's semantic content and structure, but does not define its visual layout (style). Instead, the style is defined in an external style sheet file using a style sheet language such as CSS or XSLT. This design approach is identified as a "separation" because it largely supersedes the antecedent methodology in which a page's markup defined both style and structure. The philosophy underlying this methodology is a specific case of separation of concerns. == Benefits == Separation of style and content has advantages, but has only become practical after improvements in popular web browsers' CSS implementations. === Speed === Overall, users experience of a site utilising style sheets will generally be quicker than sites that do not use the technology. ‘Overall’ as the first page will probably load more slowly – because the style sheet AND the content will need to be transferred. Subsequent pages will load faster because no style information will need to be downloaded – the CSS file will already be in the browser’s cache. === Maintainability === Holding all the presentation styles in one file can reduce the maintenance time and reduces the chance of error, thereby improving presentation consistency. For example, the font color associated with a type of text element may be specified — and therefore easily modified — throughout an entire website simply by changing one short string of characters in a single file. The alternative approach, using styles embedded in each individual page, would require a cumbersome, time consuming, and error-prone edit of every file. === Accessibility === Sites that use CSS with either XHTML or HTML are easier to tweak so that they appear similar in different browsers (Chrome, Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.). Sites using CSS "degrade gracefully" in browsers unable to display graphical content, such as Lynx, or those so very old that they cannot use CSS. Browsers ignore CSS that they do not understand, such as CSS 3 statements. This enables a wide variety of user agents to be able to access the content of a site even if they cannot render the style sheet or are not designed with graphical capability in mind. For example, a browser using a refreshable braille display for output could disregard layout information entirely, and the user would still have access to all page content. === Customization === If a page's layout information is stored externally, a user can decide to disable the layout information entirely, leaving the site's bare content still in a readable form. Site authors may also offer multiple style sheets, which can be used to completely change the appearance of the site without altering any of its content. Most modern web browsers also allow the user to define their own style sheet, which can include rules that override the author's layout rules. This allows users, for example, to bold every hyperlink on every page they visit. Browser extensions like Stylish and Stylus have been created to facilitate management of such user style sheets. === Consistency === Because the semantic file contains only the meanings an author intends to convey, the styling of the various elements of the document's content is very consistent. For example, headings, emphasized text, lists and mathematical expressions all receive consistently applied style properties from the external style sheet. Authors need not concern themselves with the style properties at the time of composition. These presentational details can be deferred until the moment of presentation. === Portability === The deferment of presentational details until the time of presentation means that a document can be easily re-purposed for an entirely different presentation medium with merely the application of a new style sheet already prepared for the new medium and consistent with elemental or structural vocabulary of the semantic document. A carefully authored document for a web page can easily be printed to a hard-bound volume complete with headers and footers, page numbers and a generated table of contents simply by applying a new style sheet.