In computer science theory – particularly formal language theory – Glushkov's construction algorithm, invented by Victor Mikhailovich Glushkov, transforms a given regular expression into an equivalent nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA). Thus, it forms a bridge between regular expressions and nondeterministic finite automata: two abstract representations of the same class of formal languages. A regular expression may be used to conveniently describe an advanced search pattern in a "find and replace"–like operation of a text processing utility. Glushkov's algorithm can be used to transform it into an NFA, which furthermore is small by nature, as the number of its states equals the number of symbols of the regular expression, plus one. Subsequently, the NFA can be made deterministic by the powerset construction and then be minimized to get an optimal automaton corresponding to the given regular expression. The latter format is best suited for execution on a computer. From another, more theoretical point of view, Glushkov's algorithm is a part of the proof that NFA and regular expressions both accept exactly the same languages; that is, the regular languages. The converse of Glushkov's algorithm is Kleene's algorithm, which transforms a finite automaton into a regular expression. The automaton obtained by Glushkov's construction is the same as the one obtained by Thompson's construction algorithm, once its ε-transitions are removed. Glushkov's construction algorithm is also called The algorithm of Berry-Sethi, named after Gérard Berry and Ravi Sethi who worked on this construction. == Construction == Given a regular expression e, the Glushkov Construction Algorithm creates a non-deterministic automaton that accepts the language L ( e ) {\displaystyle L(e)} accepted by e. The construction uses four steps: === Step 1 === Linearisation of the expression. Each letter of the alphabet appearing in the expression e is renamed, so that each letter occurs at most once in the new expression e ′ {\displaystyle e'} . Glushkov's construction essentially relies on the fact that e ′ {\displaystyle e'} represents a local language L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . Let A be the old alphabet and let B be the new one. === Step 2a === Computation of the sets P ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle P(e')} , D ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle D(e')} , and F ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle F(e')} . The first, P ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle P(e')} , is the set of letters which occurs as first letter of a word of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . The second, D ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle D(e')} , is the set of letters that can end a word of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . The last one, F ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle F(e')} , is the set of letter pairs that can occur in words of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} , i.e. it is the set of factors of length two of the words of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . Those sets are mathematically defined by P ( e ′ ) = { x ∈ B ∣ x B ∗ ∩ L ( e ′ ) ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle P(e')=\{x\in B\mid xB^{}\cap L(e')\neq \emptyset \}} , D ( e ′ ) = { y ∈ B ∣ B ∗ y ∩ L ( e ′ ) ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle D(e')=\{y\in B\mid B^{}y\cap L(e')\neq \emptyset \}} , F ( e ′ ) = { u ∈ B 2 ∣ B ∗ u B ∗ ∩ L ( e ′ ) ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle F(e')=\{u\in B^{2}\mid B^{}uB^{}\cap L(e')\neq \emptyset \}} . They are computed by induction over the structure of the expression, as explained below. === Step 2b === Computation of the set Λ ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle \Lambda (e')} which contains the empty word ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } if this word belongs to L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} , and is the empty set otherwise. Formally, this is Λ ( e ′ ) = { ε } ∩ L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle \Lambda (e')=\{\varepsilon \}\cap L(e')} . === Step 3 === Computation of automaton recognizing the local language, as defined by P ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle P(e')} , D ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle D(e')} , F ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle F(e')} , and Λ ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle \Lambda (e')} . By definition, the local language defined by the sets P, D, and F is the set of words which begin with a letter of P, end by a letter of D, and whose factors of length 2 belong to F, optionally also including the empty word; that is, it is the language: L ′ = ( P B ∗ ∩ B ∗ D ) ∖ B ∗ ( B 2 ∖ F ) B ∗ ∪ Λ ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L'=(PB^{}\cap B^{}D)\setminus B^{}(B^{2}\setminus F)B^{}\cup \Lambda (e')} . Strictly speaking, it is the computation of the automaton for the local language denoted by this linearised expression that is Glushkov's construction. === Step 4 === Remove the linearisation, replacing each indexed letter B by the original letter of A. == Example == Consider the regular expression e = ( a ( a b ) ∗ ) ∗ + ( b a ) ∗ {\displaystyle e=(a(ab)^{})^{}+(ba)^{}} . == Computation of the set of letters == The computation of the sets P, D, F, and Λ is done inductively over the regular expression e ′ {\displaystyle e'} . One must give the values for ∅, ε (the symbols for the empty language and the singleton language containing the empty word), the letters, and the results of the operations + , ⋅ , ∗ {\displaystyle +,\cdot ,^{}} . The most costly operations are the cartesian products of sets for the computation of F. == Properties == The obtained automaton is non-deterministic, and it has as many states as the number of letters of the regular expression, plus one. It has been proven that every Thompson's automaton can be transformed into Glushkov's automaton via a ε-transitions elimination method. == Applications and deterministic expressions == The computation of the automaton by the expression occurs often; it has been systematically used in search functions, in particular by the Unix grep command. Similarly, XML's specification also uses such constructions; for more efficiency, regular expressions of a certain kind, called deterministic expressions, have been studied.
Speculative decoding
Speculative decoding is an inference-time optimization for autoregressive large language models (LLMs) that generates multiple tokens per decoding step instead of one. A smaller draft model proposes a sequence of candidate tokens, and the larger target model verifies them in a single forward pass through a modified rejection sampling scheme. The verification preserves the target model's original output distribution, so the technique produces the same results as standard decoding while cutting latency by roughly two to three times. The name is an analogy to speculative execution in CPU design, where a processor runs instructions along a predicted branch before the outcome is known. == Background == Standard autoregressive decoding in large language models generates one token at a time. The model computes a probability distribution over its vocabulary, samples the next token, and feeds that token back as input. For large models, this process is bottlenecked by memory bandwidth rather than arithmetic throughput: loading the model's parameters from high-bandwidth memory (HBM) to the processor takes up most of the wall-clock time at each step. Because of this, a forward pass over one token and a forward pass over several tokens in a batch take roughly the same time. Speculative decoding relies on this property. == Mechanism == The technique alternates between two phases: drafting and verification. During drafting, a fast approximation model generates a short run of K candidate tokens, typically between 3 and 12. The draft model is usually a much smaller version of the target model or a lightweight auxiliary network. During verification, the target model scores the entire draft sequence in one batched forward pass. A modified rejection sampling algorithm compares the draft and target probabilities at each position. If the target model would have been at least as likely to produce a given token, that token is accepted; the first token that fails is resampled from a corrected distribution, and everything after it is thrown out. The result is that the output distribution is the same as if each token had been generated one at a time. How many tokens get accepted per cycle depends on how well the draft model matches the target. For common words and predictable continuations the match tends to be good, so the target model can confirm several tokens at once. == History == An early precursor was blockwise parallel decoding, proposed in 2018 by Stern, Shazeer, and Uszkoreit. Their method predicted multiple future tokens through auxiliary prediction heads and validated them against the autoregressive model, but it only worked with greedy decoding and did not preserve the full sampling distribution. The modern form of the technique came from Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias at Google Research, who posted "Fast Inference from Transformers via Speculative Decoding" on arXiv in November 2022. Separately and at about the same time, Charlie Chen and colleagues at DeepMind arrived at a closely related method they called speculative sampling, published in February 2023. Both papers introduced the use of rejection sampling to guarantee that the output distribution is unchanged. Leviathan et al. showed roughly 2–3x speedup on T5-XXL (11 billion parameters); Chen et al. reported 2–2.5x on the Chinchilla model (70 billion parameters). The Leviathan et al. paper was presented as an oral at the International Conference on Machine Learning in July 2023. == Variants == SpecInfer (Miao et al., 2024) uses multiple small language models to jointly build a tree of candidate continuations rather than a single chain. The target model verifies the whole tree in parallel and keeps the longest valid path, with reported speedups of 1.5–3.5x. Medusa (Cai et al., 2024) takes a different approach by not using a separate draft model at all. Extra lightweight decoding heads are attached to the target model itself, and each one predicts a token at a different future position. The candidates are evaluated through a tree-structured attention mechanism. The authors measured 2.2–3.6x speedup. EAGLE (Li et al., 2024) performs autoregression on the target model's internal feature representations (specifically the second-to-top layer) rather than on tokens directly. On LLaMA 2 Chat 70B, this gave a 2.7–3.5x latency reduction. Later versions added dynamic draft trees (EAGLE-2) and further optimizations (EAGLE-3), reaching 3–6.5x speedup. == Adoption == By 2024, speculative decoding had become a standard part of production LLM serving. Google uses it in the AI Overviews feature of Google Search. Open-source inference frameworks such as vLLM, NVIDIA's TensorRT-LLM, and SGLang all include built-in support for speculative decoding and its variants. Apple, AWS, and Meta have also published research extending the method or deploying it at scale.
Verifiable secret sharing
In cryptography, a secret sharing scheme is verifiable if auxiliary information is included that allows players to verify their shares as consistent. More formally, verifiable secret sharing ensures that even if the dealer is malicious there is a well-defined secret that the players can later reconstruct. (In standard secret sharing, the dealer is assumed to be honest.) The concept of verifiable secret sharing (VSS) was first introduced in 1985 by Benny Chor, Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali and Baruch Awerbuch. In a VSS protocol a distinguished player who wants to share the secret is referred to as the dealer. The protocol consists of two phases: a sharing phase and a reconstruction phase. Sharing: Initially the dealer holds secret as input and each player holds an independent random input. The sharing phase may consist of several rounds. At each round each player can privately send messages to other players and can also broadcast a message. Each message sent or broadcast by a player is determined by its input, its random input and messages received from other players in previous rounds. Reconstruction: In this phase each player provides its entire view from the sharing phase and a reconstruction function is applied and is taken as the protocol's output. An alternative definition given by Oded Goldreich defines VSS as a secure multi-party protocol for computing the randomized functionality corresponding to some (non-verifiable) secret sharing scheme. This definition is stronger than that of the other definitions and is very convenient to use in the context of general secure multi-party computation. Verifiable secret sharing is important for secure multiparty computation. Multiparty computation is typically accomplished by making secret shares of the inputs, and manipulating the shares to compute some function. To handle "active" adversaries (that is, adversaries that corrupt nodes and then make them deviate from the protocol), the secret sharing scheme needs to be verifiable to prevent the deviating nodes from throwing off the protocol. == Feldman's scheme == A commonly used example of a simple VSS scheme is the protocol by Paul Feldman, which is based on Shamir's secret sharing scheme combined with any encryption scheme which satisfies a specific homomorphic property (that is not necessarily satisfied by all homomorphic encryption schemes). The following description gives the general idea, but is not secure as written. (Note, in particular, that the published value gs leaks information about the dealer's secret s.) First, a cyclic group G of prime order q, along with a generator g of G, is chosen publicly as a system parameter. The group G must be chosen such that computing discrete logarithms is hard in this group. (Typically, one takes an order-q subgroup of (Z/pZ)×, where q is a prime dividing p − 1.) The dealer then computes (and keeps secret) a random polynomial P of degree t with coefficients in Zq, such that P(0) = s, where s is the secret. Each of the n share holders will receive a value P(1), ..., P(n) modulo q. Any t + 1 share holders can recover the secret s by using polynomial interpolation modulo q, but any set of at most t share holders cannot. (In fact, at this point any set of at most t share holders has no information about s.) So far, this is exactly Shamir's scheme. To make these shares verifiable, the dealer distributes commitments to the coefficients of P modulo q. If P(x) = s + a1x + ... + atxt, then the commitments that must be given are: c0 = gs, c1 = ga1, ... ct = gat. Once these are given, any party can verify their share. For instance, to verify that v = P(i) modulo q, party i can check that g v = c 0 c 1 i c 2 i 2 ⋯ c t i t = ∏ j = 0 t c j i j = ∏ j = 0 t g a j i j = g ∑ j = 0 t a j i j = g P ( i ) {\displaystyle g^{v}=c_{0}c_{1}^{i}c_{2}^{i^{2}}\cdots c_{t}^{i^{t}}=\prod _{j=0}^{t}c_{j}^{i^{j}}=\prod _{j=0}^{t}g^{a_{j}i^{j}}=g^{\sum _{j=0}^{t}a_{j}i^{j}}=g^{P(i)}} . This scheme is, at best, secure against computationally bounded adversaries, namely the intractability of computing discrete logarithms. Pedersen proposed later a scheme where no information about the secret is revealed even with a dealer with unlimited computing power. == Baghery's hash-based scheme == A recent line of research has proposed a unified framework, for building practical VSS schemes that do not necessarily require homomorphic commitments —a key requirement in traditional constructions such as Feldman's and Pedersen's schemes. The framework allows instantiations with different commitment schemes, including post-quantum secure options such as hash-based commitments. This offers a flexible and efficient approach to build VSS schemes, in which the verifiability of shares is decoupled from the need for homomorphic commitments, which are often tied to assumptions like the Discrete Logarithm (DL) problem, known to be insecure against quantum adversaries. One instantiation of the new framework uses hash-based commitments and a random oracle to construct a hash-based VSS scheme based on Shamir's secret sharing. === Protocol Overview === Sharing Phase: Given a secure hash-based commitment scheme C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} and a hash function H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} (modeled as a random oracle), to share a secret value s {\displaystyle s} among n {\displaystyle n} parties with threshold t {\displaystyle t} , the dealer acts as follows: Following Shamir sharing, the dealer samples a random degree- t {\displaystyle t} polynomial P ( X ) {\displaystyle P(X)} over a filed or ring, with P ( 0 ) = s {\displaystyle P(0)=s} . Each of the n {\displaystyle n} parties will receive a value v i = P ( i ) {\displaystyle v_{i}=P(i)} modulo q {\displaystyle q} as a share. To prove the validity of the shares, the dealer acts as follows: Samples another random degree- t {\displaystyle t} polynomial R ( X ) {\displaystyle R(X)} and n {\displaystyle n} random values γ 1 , … , γ n {\displaystyle \gamma _{1},\dots ,\gamma _{n}} from the same filed or ring. Computes a set of commitments c i = C ( P ( i ) , R ( i ) , γ i ) {\displaystyle c_{i}={\mathcal {C}}(P(i),R(i),\gamma _{i})} for i = 1 , 2 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,2,\dots ,n} . Note that, the additional randomness γ i {\displaystyle \gamma _{i}} is used when the secret s {\displaystyle s} does not have sufficient entropy, but it can be omitted when sharing a uniformly random secret. Each of the n {\displaystyle n} parties will also receive a value γ i {\displaystyle \gamma _{i}} modulo q {\displaystyle q} as a share. Calculates a challenge value d {\displaystyle d} via a hash function d = H ( c 1 , … , c n ) {\displaystyle d={\mathcal {H}}(c_{1},\dots ,c_{n})} and then computes a polynomial Z ( X ) = R ( X ) + d ⋅ P ( X ) {\displaystyle Z(X)=R(X)+d\cdot P(X)} . Broadcasts the commitments c 1 , … , c n {\displaystyle c_{1},\dots ,c_{n}} along with Z ( X ) {\displaystyle Z(X)} as the proof and privately sends ( v i , γ i ) {\displaystyle (v_{i},\gamma _{i})} as the individual share to party i {\displaystyle i} . Verification Phase: Given an individual share ( v i , γ i ) {\displaystyle (v_{i},\gamma _{i})} and a proof ( c 1 , … , c n , Z ( X ) ) {\displaystyle (c_{1},\dots ,c_{n},Z(X))} , party i {\displaystyle i} verifies the correctness of it as below: Checks that Z ( X ) {\displaystyle Z(X)} is a valid (up to) degree- t {\displaystyle t} polynomial. Recomputes the challenge value d = H ( c 1 , … , c n ) {\displaystyle d={\mathcal {H}}(c_{1},\dots ,c_{n})} , and verifies the commitment equation c i = C ( v i , Z ( i ) − d v i , γ i ) {\displaystyle c_{i}={\mathcal {C}}(v_{i},Z(i)-dv_{i},\gamma _{i})} . If the verification fails, similar to Feldman’s and Pedersen’s schemes, the party raises a complaint. If too many complaints (more than t {\displaystyle t} ) are raised, the dealer is disqualified. In case of a complaint, the dealer can publicly reveal the disputed share to allow global verification. Honest parties can then collectively agree to either continue or disqualify the dealer. This scheme supports the sharing of both low-entropy and high-entropy secrets. Moreover, since it relies solely on secure hash functions for commitments and on a (quantum) random oracle, it plausibly achieves security even against quantum adversaries. Additionally, by using only lightweight cryptographic primitives, the scheme is considerably more efficient in practice compared to traditional VSS constructions based on number-theoretic assumptions. == Benaloh's scheme == Once n shares are distributed to their holders, each holder should be able to verify that all shares are collectively t-consistent (i.e., any subset t of n shares will yield the same, correct, polynomial without exposing the secret). In Shamir's secret sharing scheme the shares s 1 , s 2 , . . . , s n {\displaystyle s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{n}} are t-consistent if and only if the interpolation of the points ( 1 , s 1 ) , ( 2 , s 2 ) , . . . , (
Data profiling
Data profiling is the process of examining the data available from an existing information source (e.g. a database or a file) and collecting statistics or informative summaries about that data. The purpose of these statistics may be to: Find out whether existing data can be easily used for other purposes Improve the ability to search data by tagging it with keywords, descriptions, or assigning it to a category Assess data quality, including whether the data conforms to particular standards or patterns Assess the risk involved in integrating data in new applications, including the challenges of joins Discover metadata of the source database, including value patterns and distributions, key candidates, foreign-key candidates, and functional dependencies Assess whether known metadata accurately describes the actual values in the source database Understanding data challenges early in any data intensive project, so that late project surprises are avoided. Finding data problems late in the project can lead to delays and cost overruns. Have an enterprise view of all data, for uses such as master data management, where key data is needed, or data governance for improving data quality. == Introduction == Data profiling refers to the analysis of information for use in a data warehouse in order to clarify the structure, content, relationships, and derivation rules of the data. Profiling helps to not only understand anomalies and assess data quality, but also to discover, register, and assess enterprise metadata. The result of the analysis is used to determine the suitability of the candidate source systems, usually giving the basis for an early go/no-go decision, and also to identify problems for later solution design. == How data profiling is conducted == Data profiling utilizes methods of descriptive statistics such as minimum, maximum, mean, mode, percentile, standard deviation, frequency, variation, aggregates such as count and sum, and additional metadata information obtained during data profiling such as data type, length, discrete values, uniqueness, occurrence of null values, typical string patterns, and abstract type recognition. The metadata can then be used to discover problems such as illegal values, misspellings, missing values, varying value representation, and duplicates. Different analyses are performed for different structural levels. E.g. single columns could be profiled individually to get an understanding of frequency distribution of different values, type, and use of each column. Embedded value dependencies can be exposed in a cross-columns analysis. Finally, overlapping value sets possibly representing foreign key relationships between entities can be explored in an inter-table analysis. Normally, purpose-built tools are used for data profiling to ease the process. The computational complexity increases when going from single column, to single table, to cross-table structural profiling. Therefore, performance is an evaluation criterion for profiling tools. == When is data profiling conducted? == According to Kimball, data profiling is performed several times and with varying intensity throughout the data warehouse developing process. A light profiling assessment should be undertaken immediately after candidate source systems have been identified and DW/BI business requirements have been satisfied. The purpose of this initial analysis is to clarify at an early stage if the correct data is available at the appropriate detail level and that anomalies can be handled subsequently. If this is not the case the project may be terminated. Additionally, more in-depth profiling is done prior to the dimensional modeling process in order assess what is required to convert data into a dimensional model. Detailed profiling extends into the ETL system design process in order to determine the appropriate data to extract and which filters to apply to the data set. Additionally, data profiling may be conducted in the data warehouse development process after data has been loaded into staging, the data marts, etc. Conducting data at these stages helps ensure that data cleaning and transformations have been done correctly and in compliance of requirements. == Benefits and examples == Data profiling can improve data quality, shorten the implementation cycle of major projects, and improve users' understanding of data. Discovering business knowledge embedded in data itself is one of the significant benefits derived from data profiling. It can improve data accuracy in corporate databases.
Chaos Communication Congress
The Chaos Communication Congress is an annual hacker conference organized by the Chaos Computer Club. The congress features a variety of lectures and workshops on technical and political issues related to security, cryptography, privacy and online freedom of speech. It has taken place regularly at the end of the year since 1984, with the current date and duration (27–30 December) established in 2005. It is considered one of the largest events of its kind, alongside DEF CON in Las Vegas. == History == The congress is held in Germany. It started in 1984 in Hamburg, moved to Berlin in 1998, and back to Hamburg in 2012, having exceeded the capacity of the Berlin venue with more than 4500 attendees. Since then, it attracts an increasing number of people: around 6600 attendees in 2012, over 13000 in 2015, and more than 15000 in 2017. From 2017 to 2019, it took place at the Trade Fair Grounds in Leipzig, since the Hamburg venue (CCH) was closed for renovation in 2017 and the existing space was not enough for the growing congress. The congress moved back to Hamburg in 2023, after the renovation of CCH was finished. A large range of speakers are featured. The event is organized by volunteers called Chaos Angels. The non-members entry fee for four days was €100 in 2016, and was raised to €120 in 2018 to include a public transport ticket for the Leipzig area. An important part of the congress are the assemblies, semi-open spaces with clusters of tables and internet connections for groups and individuals to collaborate and socialize in projects, workshops and hands-on talks. These assembly spaces, introduced at the 2012 meeting, combine the hack center project space and distributed group spaces of former years. From 1997 to 2004 the congress also hosted the annual German Lockpicking Championships. 2005 was the first year the Congress lasted four days instead of three and lacked the German Lockpicking Championships. 2020 was the first year where the Congress did not take place at a physical location due to the COVID-19 pandemic, giving way to the first Remote Chaos Experience (rC3). The Chaos Computer Club announced to return to the now newly renovated Congress Center Hamburg for the 37th edition of the Chaos Communication Congress. The announcement confirms the usual date of 27-30 December, notably omitting the year it will be held. On 18 October 2022, they confirmed that the congress will indeed not be held in 2022. On 6 October 2023, the CCC announced that 37C3 will take place again on the usual dates in 2023. === Timeline ===
ShowScoop
ShowScoop is a website and mobile app platform on which users can rate and review artists, concerts, and music festivals that they have seen/attended. The reviews and ratings are designed to be informative of how well such performances are live. This helps concert-goers decide which live music events they want to attend. == History == ShowScoop was founded in August 2012 by Micah Smurthwaite and is based out of San Diego, CA. In February 2013, ShowScoop launched its mobile app at the SF Music Tech Summit. The application is currently available on the iPhone, with plans to expand into the Android market in the future. == Services == ShowScoop uses crowdsourcing to provide accurate ratings of live concert experiences. In addition to viewing ratings, users are encouraged to rate and review concerts they have attended. The ShowScoop database includes nearly one million artists and over 2.5 million live music events. ShowScoop users can rate artists on four aspects of the performance: stage presence, crowd interaction, sound quality, and visual effects. The rating system uses an ascending scale from one to five in each of the aspects, with five being the highest score. In addition to the quantitative ratings, ShowScoop users are also free to write qualitative reviews in a provided comment section. This allows users to explain their ratings and add further insight or opinion. ShowScoop incorporates several facets of social media into its services. Users can create a user profile to share limited personal information and store their ratings and reviews. Users are also given the option of sharing their evaluations with their social networks on Facebook and Twitter. Users can "like" reviews, follow artists, and follow other ShowScoop users. The mobile app allows users to take photos, apply filters, and share the final image in conjunction with reviews and through Instagram. == Road Crew == ShowScoop's "Road Crew" is a group made up of top contributors within the ShowScoop community. The Road Crew assists in curating artist pages, assuring information quality and accuracy. In return, members of the Road Crew are given incentives, including free tickets to concerts and personal invitations to exclusive shows. Applicants to the Road Crew are judged on the number and quality of their reviews, the photos and videos they have posted, and their general engagement with the ShowScoop community in following and liking users and reviews.
Pamphlet war
A pamphlet war is a protracted argument or discussion through printed media, especially between the time the printing press became common, and when state intervention like copyright laws made such public discourse more difficult. The purpose was to defend or attack a certain perspective or idea. Pamphlet wars have occurred multiple times throughout history, as both social and political platforms. Pamphlet wars became viable platforms for this protracted discussion with the advent and spread of the printing press. Cheap printing presses, and increased literacy made the late 17th century a key stepping stone for the development of pamphlet wars, a period of prolific use of this type of debate. Over 2200 pamphlets were published between 1600–1715 alone. Pamphlet wars are generally credited for powering many key social changes of the era, including the Reformation and the Revolution Controversy, the English philosophical debate set off by the French Revolution. == History of the pamphlet in England == Throughout Europe in the 16th century, printed tracts were used to argue religious doctrine and foment support for religious causes. In England, Henry VIII used print literature to justify his break from the Catholic Church. During the subsequent reigns of Edward and Mary, print polemics escalated into propaganda warfare, as print media gained enormous potential to sway common opinion. By the 1560s, print was widely used to convey news. In 1562, the first pamphlets appeared, which discussed the English forces sent to aid the Protestant French Huguenots. In 1569, pamphlets reported the revolt of the Northern Earls and the subsequent Rebellion of the same year. In the 1580s, pamphlets began to replace broadsheet ballads as the means to convey information to the general public. Over the next century, the pamphlet became the principal means of garnering support for a cause or an idea, and was particularly influential during the English Civil Wars (1642-1651) and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Through the ensuing decades, the pamphlet lost some popularity due to the emergence of newspapers and journals, but continued to be an important medium of public debate, as illustrated by the Revolution Controversy a full century later in the 1790s. == Pamphlet printing == Coming from a Latin word, "pamphlet" literally means "small book." In the early days of printing, the format of the book or pamphlet depended on the size of the paper used and the number of times it was folded. If a page was only folded once, it was called a folio. If it was folded twice, it was known as a quarto. An octave was a paper folded three times. A pamphlet was usually 1-12 sheets of paper folded in quarto, or 8-96 pages. It was sold for one or two pennies apiece. The printing of a pamphlet involved many people: the author, the printer, suppliers, print-makers, compositor, correctors, pressmen, binders, and distributors. Once the pamphleteer had written the pamphlet, it was sent to the printing house to be corrected, set into type, and printed. The papers were then given to the printer's warehouse-keeper, who bundled the copies and sent them to the bookseller, who was probably the one financing the printing. He was responsible to bind the pamphlets, usually by sewing them, and then sold them wholesale to individual bookselling vendors. The booksellers then sold them from a stall in the marketplace. == Pamphlet subjects == Pamphlets began as the means of conveyance for religious debates, and therefore religious topics were one of the main subjects they dealt with. The definition of a pamphlet came to mean a short work dealing with social, political, or religious issues. Typical topics included the Civil war, Church of England doctrines, Acts of Parliament, the Popish Plot (see below), the Stuart Era, and Cromwell propaganda. In addition, pamphlets were also used for romantic fiction, autobiography, scurrilous personal abuse, and social criticism. They contained much of the propaganda of the 17th century in the midst of the religious and political turmoil. They were also used for debates between the Puritans and the Anglican. During the Glorious Revolution, pamphlets were political weapons. == Authors == There were many authors of pamphlets. However some of the more popular authors include Daniel Defoe, Thomas Hobbes, Jonathan Swift, John Milton, and Samuel Pepys. Also included in the midst are Thomas Nashe, Joseph Addison, Richard Steele, and Matthew Prior. In 1591–1592, Robert Greene released a series of pamphlets which later inspired many other authors including Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker. == Critics == Pamphlets, along with their vast popularity, received criticism. There were many in the time period who believed that pamphlets were full of foolishness. They thought the pamphlets were not good enough literature and that they would turn people from "good" writing. They believed that pamphlets would be the end of the great volumes of literature and that great writing would be forgotten. == News reporting == Pamphlets made a great difference in the way news was reported to the general public. With the publication of pamphlets, it was no longer difficult for people to hear of events taking place far away. The closer the occurrence was to London, the easier and faster people heard of it. For example, the Battle of Edgehill took place on 23 October 1642. The first pamphlet reporting the incident was printed on 25 October 24 hours after some of the orders reported had been given. While not entirely accurate, and hurriedly made, the pamphlet nonetheless was able to tell the general public what had happened in the battle. A more accurate, specific, and readable account was available in a pamphlet printed on 26 October, and the "authorized" version was available only five days after the battle took place. == Marprelate pamphlets == In 1588, a series of pamphlets marked a turning point for the Puritans, dividing them from other Protestants in the country. The authors wrote under the pseudonym of Martin Marprelate and his two sons of the same name. The true identities of the authors were never discovered. The pamphlets aimed to provoke authorities to take action against censorship. The series was among the first to ask questions directly of its readers. == Early pamphlet wars == === Elizabethan pamphlet wars === As a means of forming or swaying public opinion, pamphlets like these had a part in influencing society, even as the content was itself influenced by society. During the 16th century and continuing for a short while in the early 17th century in England there was rise in the use of pamphlet wars to discuss a myriad of issues spanning from the civil war, to religious freedoms and the roles of women in society. The Queen herself participated in these discussions, making sure that she was widely read and understood by her people in order to gain favour and establish herself as the monarch despite being a woman. Examples of her use of this medium appear in To the Troops at Tilbury written in 1588, On Mary's Execution written in 1586, and many more. Another famous writer of this period to take advantage of the pamphlet was Emilia Lanier, famous for her arguments about the role of women. A common idea promoted by many literary works and the general attitude towards women, Lanier's work "Eve's Apology in Defence of Women" refuted the belief that Eve is responsible for the fall of man. A very uncommon and unpopular stance to take, Lanier accomplishes her defence through structuring it as an apology, one of the earliest subversive feminist texts. Similarly, Francis Bacon wrote his Essays to promote his idea of morality and other complicated social issues. For example, his work, "Of Love" examines the various understandings of the concept of love, particularly as it was perceived during the Elizabethan era. === Eikon Series === From 1649 until 1651, some five pamphlets were published in a debate about the execution of King Charles I of England (1600-1649). Prior to his execution, King Charles wrote the first pamphlet in the discussion, Eikon Basilike’’ (from the Greek “eikon” for image and “basileus” for king). The subtitle of this work - Portraiture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitudes and Sufferings - indicates that Charles sought to portray himself as a martyr to the cause of regal prerogative. In the following months, several response pamphlets were published (collectively known as the "Eikon" series), including: Eikon Alethine, Eikon e Pistes, Eikonoklastes, and Eikon Aklastos,” alternately attacking or defending the king, his regicide, and his self-portrait in “Eikon Basilike.” == Popish Plot and Elizabeth Cellier == In the 1680s, after being acquitted of the "Meal-Tub Plot" for which she was accused, Elizabeth Cellier wrote Malice Defeated, which, along with The Matchless Picaro, sparked a pamphlet war surrounding debate of the ascension of a Catholic king to the thro