The Federation of International Robot-soccer Association (FIRA) is an international organisation organising competitive soccer competitions between autonomous robots. The matches are usually five-a-side. == History == In 1996 and 1997, this competition was known as MiroSot and was held in Daejeon, Korea. The 1996 competition offered a challenging arena to the younger generation and researchers working with autonomous mobile robotic systems. From 1998 through 2008, it was called the FIRA Cup, and in 2009, it became the FIRA RoboWorld Cup & Congress. The 15th RoboWorld Cup was held at Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Bangalore, India in September 2010. In 2013, it took place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The championship started on August 24, 2013, and ended on August 29. At that time, it involved five categories: Micro-Robot Soccer Tournament, Amire, Naro, Simulated Robot, Android, Robo and Humanoid Robot. It attracted teams from Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan, India, China, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Canada, Russia and Malaysia. 80 teams from 11 countries participated. In 2018, the competition had 277 teams participating from 12 countries. === Past Events === == FIRA RoboWorld Cup & Congress == This competition has 4 leagues: FIRA AIR, FIRA Sports, FIRA Challenges, and FIRA Youth. Each league has its own competitions, and each competition can have several events. === FIRA AIR === The FIRA AIR league has two associated competitions, Autonomous Race and Emergency Service. === FIRA Sports === The FIRA Sports league has four associated competitions, HuroCup, RoboSot, SimuroSot, and AndroSot. This the robot soccer league. HuroCup consists of single events for bipedal humanoid robots. The events are: archery, sprint, marathon, united soccer, obstacle run, long jump, spartan race, marathon, weightlifting, and basketball. There is an all-round competition for the single robot that performs the best overall. === FIRA Challenges === The FIRA Challenges league has three associated competitions, Autonomous Cars, Autonomous Cars Simulation, Innovation and Business. === FIRA Youth === The FIRA Youth league has six associated challenges, Sport Robots, HuroCup Junior, CityRacer, DRV_Explorer, Cliff Hanger, and Mission Impossible.
Sanad (government app)
Sanad (Arabic: سند) is the official digital identity and e-government services application of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Developed and managed by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship, the app provides a unified platform for accessing a range of public services and personal records digitally. == Overview == Launched in February 2020, Sanad is part of Jordan's broader digital transformation strategy aimed at improving public service delivery and enhancing administrative efficiency. The app allows users to authenticate their identity digitally and access over 550 services from more than 50 government and private sector entities. == Features == Sanad provides a wide array of services, including: Viewing and managing official digital documents Applying for government services (e.g., jordanian passport issuance or renewal, health insurance) Accessing personal records (e.g., pension, property ownership) Digitally signing documents Paying utility bills and traffic fines Receiving and tracking official notifications The app is available on iOS, Android, and HarmonyOS platforms and supports both Arabic and English languages. == Digital Identity == A core feature of Sanad is the digital identity system, which enables secure login and authentication for all integrated services. Users must activate their digital identity at designated Sanad stations across Jordan to access the full suite of services. == Adoption and Impact == As of 2025, more than 1.6 million Jordanians have activated their digital identities through Sanad. The app has played a significant role in streamlining government interactions and reducing the need for in-person visits, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. == Recent Developments == In 2025, the Ministry launched an updated version of the app with enhanced user experience and new services, including the e-passport issuance feature.
Algorithm characterizations
Algorithm characterizations are attempts to formalize the word algorithm. Algorithm does not have a generally accepted formal definition. Researchers are actively working on this problem. This article will present some of the "characterizations" of the notion of "algorithm" in more detail. == The problem of definition == Over the last 200 years, the definition of the algorithm has become more complicated and detailed as researchers have tried to pin down the term. Indeed, there may be more than one type of "algorithm". But most agree that algorithm has something to do with defining generalized processes for the creation of "output" integers from other "input" integers – "input parameters" arbitrary and infinite in extent, or limited in extent but still variable—by the manipulation of distinguishable symbols (counting numbers) with finite collections of rules that a person can perform with paper and pencil. The most common number-manipulation schemes—both in formal mathematics and in routine life—are: (1) the recursive functions calculated by a person with paper and pencil, and (2) the Turing machine or its Turing equivalents—the primitive register-machine or "counter-machine" model, the random-access machine model (RAM), the random-access stored-program machine model (RASP) and its functional equivalent "the computer". When we are doing "arithmetic" we are really calculating by the use of "recursive functions" in the shorthand algorithms we learned in grade school, for example, adding and subtracting. The proofs that every "recursive function" we can calculate by hand we can compute by machine and vice versa—note the usage of the words calculate versus compute—is remarkable. But this equivalence together with the thesis (unproven assertion) that this includes every calculation/computation indicates why so much emphasis has been placed upon the use of Turing-equivalent machines in the definition of specific algorithms, and why the definition of "algorithm" itself often refers back to "the Turing machine". This is discussed in more detail under Stephen Kleene's characterization. The following are summaries of the more famous characterizations (Kleene, Markov, Knuth) together with those that introduce novel elements—elements that further expand the definition or contribute to a more precise definition. [ A mathematical problem and its result can be considered as two points in a space, and the solution consists of a sequence of steps or a path linking them. Quality of the solution is a function of the path. There might be more than one attribute defined for the path, e.g. length, complexity of shape, an ease of generalizing, difficulty, and so on. ] == Chomsky hierarchy == There is more consensus on the "characterization" of the notion of "simple algorithm". All algorithms need to be specified in a formal language, and the "simplicity notion" arises from the simplicity of the language. The Chomsky (1956) hierarchy is a containment hierarchy of classes of formal grammars that generate formal languages. It is used for classifying of programming languages and abstract machines. From the Chomsky hierarchy perspective, if the algorithm can be specified on a simpler language (than unrestricted), it can be characterized by this kind of language, else it is a typical "unrestricted algorithm". Examples: a "general purpose" macro language, like M4 is unrestricted (Turing complete), but the C preprocessor macro language is not, so any algorithm expressed in C preprocessor is a "simple algorithm". See also Relationships between complexity classes. == Features of a good algorithm == The following are desirable features of a well-defined algorithm, as discussed in Scheider and Gersting (1995): Unambiguous Operations: an algorithm must have specific, outlined steps. The steps should be exact enough to precisely specify what to do at each step. Well-Ordered: The exact order of operations performed in an algorithm should be concretely defined. Feasibility: All steps of an algorithm should be possible (also known as effectively computable). Input: an algorithm should be able to accept a well-defined set of inputs. Output: an algorithm should produce some result as an output, so that its correctness can be reasoned about. Finiteness: an algorithm should terminate after a finite number of instructions. Properties of specific algorithms that may be desirable include space and time efficiency, generality (i.e. being able to handle many inputs), or determinism. == 1881 John Venn's negative reaction to W. Stanley Jevons's Logical Machine of 1870 == In early 1870 W. Stanley Jevons presented a "Logical Machine" (Jevons 1880:200) for analyzing a syllogism or other logical form e.g. an argument reduced to a Boolean equation. By means of what Couturat (1914) called a "sort of logical piano [,] ... the equalities which represent the premises ... are "played" on a keyboard like that of a typewriter. ... When all the premises have been "played", the panel shows only those constituents whose sum is equal to 1, that is, ... its logical whole. This mechanical method has the advantage over VENN's geometrical method..." (Couturat 1914:75). For his part John Venn, a logician contemporary to Jevons, was less than thrilled, opining that "it does not seem to me that any contrivances at present known or likely to be discovered really deserve the name of logical machines" (italics added, Venn 1881:120). But of historical use to the developing notion of "algorithm" is his explanation for his negative reaction with respect to a machine that "may subserve a really valuable purpose by enabling us to avoid otherwise inevitable labor": (1) "There is, first, the statement of our data in accurate logical language", (2) "Then secondly, we have to throw these statements into a form fit for the engine to work with – in this case the reduction of each proposition to its elementary denials", (3) "Thirdly, there is the combination or further treatment of our premises after such reduction," (4) "Finally, the results have to be interpreted or read off. This last generally gives rise to much opening for skill and sagacity." He concludes that "I cannot see that any machine can hope to help us except in the third of these steps; so that it seems very doubtful whether any thing of this sort really deserves the name of a logical engine."(Venn 1881:119–121). == 1943, 1952 Stephen Kleene's characterization == This section is longer and more detailed than the others because of its importance to the topic: Kleene was the first to propose that all calculations/computations—of every sort, the totality of—can equivalently be (i) calculated by use of five "primitive recursive operators" plus one special operator called the mu-operator, or be (ii) computed by the actions of a Turing machine or an equivalent model. Furthermore, he opined that either of these would stand as a definition of algorithm. A reader first confronting the words that follow may well be confused, so a brief explanation is in order. Calculation means done by hand, computation means done by Turing machine (or equivalent). (Sometimes an author slips and interchanges the words). A "function" can be thought of as an "input-output box" into which a person puts natural numbers called "arguments" or "parameters" (but only the counting numbers including 0—the nonnegative integers) and gets out a single nonnegative integer (conventionally called "the answer"). Think of the "function-box" as a little man either calculating by hand using "general recursion" or computing by Turing machine (or an equivalent machine). "Effectively calculable/computable" is more generic and means "calculable/computable by some procedure, method, technique ... whatever...". "General recursive" was Kleene's way of writing what today is called just "recursion"; however, "primitive recursion"—calculation by use of the five recursive operators—is a lesser form of recursion that lacks access to the sixth, additional, mu-operator that is needed only in rare instances. Thus most of life goes on requiring only the "primitive recursive functions." === 1943 "Thesis I", 1952 "Church's Thesis" === In 1943 Kleene proposed what has come to be known as Church's thesis: "Thesis I. Every effectively calculable function (effectively decidable predicate) is general recursive" (First stated by Kleene in 1943 (reprinted page 274 in Davis, ed. The Undecidable; appears also verbatim in Kleene (1952) p.300) In a nutshell: to calculate any function the only operations a person needs (technically, formally) are the 6 primitive operators of "general" recursion (nowadays called the operators of the mu recursive functions). Kleene's first statement of this was under the section title "12. Algorithmic theories". He would later amplify it in his text (1952) as follows: "Thesis I and its converse provide the exact definition of the notion of a calculation (decision) procedure or algorithm, for the
Information pollution
Information pollution (also referred to as info pollution) is the contamination of an information supply with irrelevant, redundant, unsolicited, hampering, and low-value information. Examples include misinformation, disinformation, junk e-mail, and media violence. The spread of useless and undesirable information can have a detrimental effect on human activities. It is considered to be an adverse effect of the information revolution. == Overview == Information pollution generally applies to digital communication, such as e-mail, instant messaging (IM), and social media. The term acquired particular relevance in 2003 when web usability expert Jakob Nielsen published articles discussing the topic. As early as 1971 researchers were expressing doubts about the negative effects of having to recover "valuable nodules from a slurry of garbage in which it is a randomly dispersed minor component." People use information in order to make decisions and adapt to circumstances. Cognitive studies demonstrated human beings can process only limited information before the quality of their decisions begins to deteriorate. Information overload is a related concept that can also harm decision-making. It refers to an abundance of available information, without respect to its quality. Although technology is thought to have exacerbated the problem, it is not the only cause of information pollution. Anything that distracts attention from the essential facts required to perform a task or make a decision could be considered an information pollutant. Information pollution is seen as the digital equivalent of the environmental pollution generated by industrial processes. Some authors claim that information overload is a crisis of global proportions, on the same scale as threats faced by environmental destruction. Others have expressed the need for the development of an information management paradigm that parallels environmental management practices. == Manifestations == The manifestations of information pollution can be classified into two groups: those that provoke disruption, and those that damage information quality. Typical examples of disrupting information pollutants include unsolicited electronic messages (spam) and instant messages, particularly in the workplace. Mobile phones (ring tones and content) are disruptive in many contexts. Disrupting information pollution is not always technology based. A common example are newspapers, where subscribers read less than half or even none of the articles provided. Superfluous messages, such as unnecessary labels on a map, also distract. Alternatively, information may be polluted when its quality is reduced. This may be due to inaccurate or outdated information, but it also happens when information is badly presented. For example, when content is unfocused or unclear or when they appear in cluttered, wordy, or poorly organised documents it is difficult for the reader to understand. Laws and regulations undergo changes and revisions. Handbooks and other sources used for interpreting these laws can fall years behind the changes, which can cause the public to be misinformed. == Causes == === Cultural factors === Traditionally, information has been seen positively. People are accustomed to statements like "you cannot have too much information", "the more information the better", and "knowledge is power". The publishing and marketing industries have become used to printing many copies of books, magazines, and brochures regardless of customer demand, just in case they are needed. Democratised information sharing is an example of a new technology that has made it easier for information to reach everyone. Such technologies are perceived as a sign of progress and individual empowerment, as well as a positive step to bridge the digital divide. However, they also increase the volume of distracting information, making it more difficult to distinguish valuable information from noise. The continuous use of advertising in websites, technologies, newspapers, and everyday life is known as "cultural pollution". === Information technology === Technological advances of the 20th century and, in particular, the internet play a key role in the increase of information pollution. Blogs, social networks, personal websites, and mobile technology all contribute to increased "noise". The level of pollution may depend on the context. For example, e-mail is likely to cause more information pollution in a corporate setting, whereas mobile phones are likely to be particularly disruptive in a confined space shared by multiple people, such as a train carriage. == Effects == The effects of information pollution can be seen at multiple levels. === Individual === At a personal level, information pollution affects individuals' capacity to evaluate options and find adequate solutions. This can lead to information overload, anxiety, decision paralysis, and stress. It can disrupt the learning process. === Society === Some authors argue that information pollution and information overload can cause loss of perspective and moral values. This argument may explain the indifferent attitude that society shows toward topics such as scientific discoveries, health warnings, or politics. Pollution makes people less sensitive to headlines and more cynical toward new messages. === Business === Information pollution contributes to information overload and stress, which can disrupt the kinds information processing and decision-making needed to complete tasks at work. This leads to delayed or flawed decisions, which can translate into loss of productivity and revenue as well as an increased risk of critical errors. == Solutions == Proposed solutions include management techniques and refined technology. Technology-based alternatives include decision support systems and dashboards that enable prioritisation of information. Technologies that create frequent interruptions can be replaced with less-"polluting" options. Further, technology can improve the presentation quality, aiding understanding. E-mail usage policies and information integrity assurance strategies can help. Time management and stress management can be applied; these solutions would involve setting priorities and minimising interruptions. Improved writing and presentation practices can minimise information pollution effects on others. == Related terms == The term infollution or informatization pollution was coined by Dr. Paek-Jae Cho, former president & CEO of KTC (Korean Telecommunication Corp.), in a 2002 speech at the International Telecommunications Society (ITS) 14th biennial conference to describe any undesirable side effect brought about by information technology and its applications.
Pointer algorithm
In computer science, a pointer algorithm (sometimes called a pointer machine, or a reference machine; see the article Pointer machine for a close but non-identical concept) is a type of algorithm that manages a linked data structure. This concept is used as a model for lower-bound proofs and specific restrictions on the linked data structure and on the algorithm's access to the structure vary. This model has been used extensively with problems related to the disjoint-set data structure. Thus, Tarjan and La Poutré used this model to prove lower bounds on the amortized complexity of a disjoint-set data structure (La Poutré also addressed the interval split-find problem). Blum used this model to prove a lower bound on the single operation worst-case time of disjoint set data structure. Blum and Rochow proved a worst-case lower bound for the interval union-find problem. == Example == In Tarjan's lower bound for the disjoint set union problem, the assumptions on the algorithm are: The algorithm maintains a linked structure of nodes. Each element of the problem is associated with a node. Each set is represented by a node. The nodes of each set constitute a distinct connected component in the structure (this property is called separability). The find operation is performed by following links from the element node to the set node. Under these assumptions, the lower bound of Ω ( m α ( m , n ) ) {\displaystyle \Omega (m\alpha (m,n))} on the cost of a sequence of m operations is proven.
Nobody (username)
In many Unix variants, "nobody" is the conventional name of a user identifier which owns no files, is in no privileged groups, and has no abilities except those which every other user has. It is normally not enabled as a user account, i.e. has no home directory or login credentials assigned. Some systems also define an equivalent group "nogroup". == Uses == The pseudo-user "nobody" and group "nogroup" are used, for example, in the NFSv4 implementation of Linux by idmapd, if a user or group name in an incoming packet does not match any known username on the system. It was once common to run daemons as nobody, especially on servers, in order to limit the damage that could be done by a malicious user who gained control of them. However, the usefulness of this technique is reduced if more than one daemon is run like this, because then gaining control of one daemon would provide control of them all. The reason is that processes owned by the same user have the ability to send signals to each other and use debugging facilities to read or even modify each other's memory. Modern practice, as recommended by the Linux Standard Base, is to create a separate user account for each daemon.
Systematic review
A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic (in the scientific literature), then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine. Systematic reviews, sometimes along with meta-analyses, are generally considered the highest level of evidence in medical research. While a systematic review may be applied in the biomedical or health care context, it may also be used where an assessment of a precisely defined subject can advance understanding in a field of research. A systematic review may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations. Systematic reviews are closely related to meta-analyses, and often the same instance will combine both (being published with a subtitle of "a systematic review and meta-analysis"). The distinction between the two is that a meta-analysis uses statistical methods to induce a single number from the pooled data set (such as an effect size), whereas the strict definition of a systematic review excludes that step. However, in practice, when one is mentioned, the other may often be involved, as it takes a systematic review to assemble the information that a meta-analysis analyzes, and people sometimes refer to an instance as a systematic review, even if it includes the meta-analytical component. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is common for professionals in health care, public health, and public policy. Systematic reviews contrast with a type of review often called a narrative review. Systematic reviews and narrative reviews both review the literature (the scientific literature), but the term literature review without further specification refers to a narrative review. == Characteristics == A systematic review can be designed to provide a thorough summary of current literature relevant to a research question. A systematic review uses a rigorous and transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of assessing and, where possible, minimizing bias in the findings. While many systematic reviews are based on an explicit quantitative meta-analysis of available data, there are also qualitative reviews and other types of mixed-methods reviews that adhere to standards for gathering, analyzing, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews of quantitative data or mixed-method reviews sometimes use statistical techniques (meta-analysis) to combine results of eligible studies. Scoring levels are sometimes used to rate the quality of the evidence depending on the methodology used, although this is discouraged by the Cochrane Library. As evidence rating can be subjective, multiple people may be consulted to resolve any scoring differences between how evidence is rated. The EPPI-Centre, Cochrane, and the Joanna Briggs Institute have been influential in developing methods for combining both qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. Several reporting guidelines exist to standardise reporting about how systematic reviews are conducted. Such reporting guidelines are not quality assessment or appraisal tools. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement suggests a standardized way to ensure a transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews, and is now required for this kind of research by more than 170 medical journals worldwide. The latest version of this commonly used statement corresponds to PRISMA 2020 (the respective article was published in 2021). Several specialized PRISMA guideline extensions have been developed to support particular types of studies or aspects of the review process, including PRISMA-P for review protocols and PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews. A list of PRISMA guideline extensions is hosted by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. However, the PRISMA guidelines have been found to be limited to intervention research and the guidelines have to be changed in order to fit non-intervention research. As a result, Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open (NIRO) Systematic Reviews was created to counter this limitation. For qualitative reviews, reporting guidelines include ENTREQ (Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research) for qualitative evidence syntheses; RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) for meta-narrative and realist reviews; and eMERGe (Improving reporting of Meta-Ethnography) for meta-ethnograph. Developments in systematic reviews during the 21st century included realist reviews and the meta-narrative approach, both of which addressed problems of variation in methods and heterogeneity existing on some subjects. == Types == There are over 30 types of systematic review and Table 1 below non-exhaustingly summarises some of these. There is not always consensus on the boundaries and distinctions between the approaches described below. === Scoping reviews === Scoping reviews are distinct from systematic reviews in several ways. A scoping review is an attempt to search for concepts by mapping the language and data which surrounds those concepts and adjusting the search method iteratively to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of an area of inquiry. This can mean that the concept search and method (including data extraction, organisation and analysis) are refined throughout the process, sometimes requiring deviations from any protocol or original research plan. A scoping review may often be a preliminary stage before a systematic review, which 'scopes' out an area of inquiry and maps the language and key concepts to determine if a systematic review is possible or appropriate, or to lay the groundwork for a full systematic review. The goal can be to assess how much data or evidence is available regarding a certain area of interest. This process is further complicated if it is mapping concepts across multiple languages or cultures. As a scoping review should be systematically conducted and reported (with a transparent and repeatable method), some academic publishers categorize them as a kind of 'systematic review', which may cause confusion. Scoping reviews are helpful when it is not possible to carry out a systematic synthesis of research findings, for example, when there are no published clinical trials in the area of inquiry. Scoping reviews are helpful when determining if it is possible or appropriate to carry out a systematic review, and are a useful method when an area of inquiry is very broad, for example, exploring how the public are involved in all stages systematic reviews. There is still a lack of clarity when defining the exact method of a scoping review as it is both an iterative process and is still relatively new. There have been several attempts to improve the standardisation of the method, for example via a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) does not permit the submission of protocols of scoping reviews, although some journals will publish protocols for scoping reviews. == Stages == While there are multiple kinds of systematic review methods, the main stages of a review can be summarised as follows: === Defining the research question === Some reported that the 'best practices' involve 'defining an answerable question' and publishing the protocol of the review before initiating it to reduce the risk of unplanned research duplication and to enable transparency and consistency between methodology and protocol. Clinical reviews of quantitative data are often structured using the mnemonic PICO, which stands for 'Population or Problem', 'Intervention or Exposure', 'Comparison', and 'Outcome', with other variations existing for other kinds of research. For qualitative reviews, PICo is 'Population or Problem', 'Interest', and 'Context'. === Searching for sources === Relevant criteria can include selecting research that is of good quality and answers the defined question. The search strategy should be designed to retrieve literature that matches the protocol's specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodology section of a systematic review should list all of the databases and citation indices that were searched. The titles and abstracts of identified articles can be checked against predetermined criteria for eligibility and r