Ameca is a robotic humanoid created in 2021 by Engineered Arts, headquarters in Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom. The project commenced in February 2021, and the first public demonstration was at the CES 2022 show in Las Vegas. Ameca's appearance features grey rubber skin on the face and hands, and is specifically designed to appear genderless. In 2024, an Ameca unit was installed in Edinburgh in the UK to reside at the National Robotarium. Ameca generation 3 has been released and showcased at ICRA 2025 along with Ami. == History == The first generation of Ameca was developed at Engineered Arts headquarters in Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom. The project started in February 2021, with the first video revealed publicly on 1 December 2021. Ameca gained widespread attention on Twitter and TikTok ahead of its first public demonstration at the Consumer Electronics Show 2022, where it was covered by CNET and other news outlets. In 2022, Ameca presented an Alternative Christmas message by British TV Channel 4 for Christmas Day. Ameca was associated with the Museum of the Future's robotic family, where it could interact with visitors. In 2024, an Ameca unit was installed in Edinburgh in the UK to reside at the National Robotarium. In January 2026, Ameca served as an ambassador for the European Space Agency (ESA) at the 18th European Space Conference. == Features == It is designed as a platform for further developing robotics technologies involving human-robot interaction. utilizes embedded microphones, binocular eye mounted cameras, a chest camera and facial recognition software to interact with the public. Interactions can be governed by either OpenAI's GPT-3 or human telepresence. It also features articulated motorized arms, fingers, neck and facial features. Ameca's appearance features grey rubber skin on the face and hands, and is specifically designed to appear genderless. == Public appearances == Computer History Museum, California Heinz Nixdorf MuseumsForum, Paderborn, Germany Copernicus Science Center, Warsaw, Poland Museum of the Future, Dubai Consumer Electronics Show 2022 Deutsches Museum Nuremberg OMR Festival 2022 Hosted by Vodafone GITEX 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2023 International Telecommunication Union AI for Good Global Summit 2023 Sphere (Not Ameca, Custom humanoid named Aura built on Ameca technology)
Gooch shading
Gooch shading is a non-photorealistic rendering technique for shading objects. It is also known as "cool to warm" shading, and is widely used in technical illustration. == History == Gooch shading was developed by Amy Gooch et al. at the University of Utah School of Computing and first presented at the 1998 SIGGRAPH conference. It has since been implemented in shader libraries, software, and games released by Autodesk, Nvidia, and Valve. == Process == Gooch shading defines an additional two colors in conjunction with the original model color: a warm color (such as yellow) and a cool color (such as blue). The warm color indicates surfaces that are facing toward the light source while the cool color indicates surfaces facing away. This allows shading to occur only in mid-tones so that edge lines and highlights remain visually prominent. The Gooch shader is typically implemented in two passes: all objects in the scene are first drawn with the "cool to warm" shading, and in the second pass the object's edges are rendered in black.
Social media use in the fashion industry
Social media in the fashion industry refers to the use of social media platforms by fashion designers and users to promote and participate in trends. Over the past several decades, the development of social media has increased along with its usage by consumers. The COVID-19 pandemic was a sharp turn of reliance on the virtual sphere for the industry and consumers alike. Social media has created new channels of advertising for fashion houses to reach their target markets. Since its surge in 2009, luxury fashion brands have used social media to build interactions between the brand and its customers to increase awareness and engagement. The emergence of influencers on social media has created a new way of advertising and maintaining customer relationships in the fashion industry. Numerous social media platforms are used to promote fashion trends, with Instagram and TikTok being the most popular among Generation Y and Z. The overall impact of social media in the fashion industry included the creation of online communities, direct communication between industry leaders and consumers, and criticized ideals that are promoted by the industry through social media. == Background == In 2003, at the beginning of social media development, MySpace was founded as a “social networking service.” It allowed people to create a profile, connect with other people, and post videos, pictures, and songs. As MySpace grew in popularity, it attracted interest from companies wishing to promote their brands on the social platform. MySpace is most well known for exposing musicians and artists who made it big in the industry, and companies wanted to capitalize on their popularity by making brand deals. One of MySpace's deals was with Chevrolet, putting on a ‘secret show’. They had a ‘secret’ list of 10 top artists on MySpace, and many artists posted about the show on their accounts. Another brand deal was with Gucci promoting their “Gucci Synch Watch”, which was very successful as Gucci tapped into the youthful audience on MySpace and advertised a sleek, simple, trendy unisex watch. In 2005, YouTube was released and remains one of the most popular social media platforms today. YouTube allows users to upload videos and is free to anyone with access to the internet. It grew in popularity offering a range of videos: vlogs, cooking, health and diet videos, step-by-step tutorials, tutoring help, and more. Much like MySpace, users create accounts and can build a following, often referring to themselves as ‘YouTubers.’ When YouTube grew in popularity, it piqued the interest of brands wanting to partner with YouTube and individual YouTubers. Some brand deals were made by having ads at the beginning of each video, and the YouTuber would make a profit from each view they receive. Some deals are made by individual YouTubers thanking the brand in videos and promoting the brand's products. More recently, YouTube has delved into fashion. While there were always YouTube channels for Vogue and other fashion companies, popular YouTubers have been invited to different fashion shows and have filmed experiences there. Brands are able to target individual YouTubers based on their followers and the target audiences. In 2010, Instagram was launched, which enlarged the scope of fashion advertising. Instagram allows people to post pictures and short videos with the ability to tag different accounts. For brand deals, companies can simply be tagged in a picture instead of creating ads or lines for a user to say. In each picture, users can tag the brands of clothing they were wearing, making it very easy to promote brands. Additionally, Instagram could display ads on users' feed based on other posts the users liked, which used by fashion companies to target their potential customers. Users also use Instagram to promote fashion when they get invited to fashion events. For example, they can take a picture at the event and post it to their Instagram and put their location at the venue and tag the company. During the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, companies relied more on social media to keep their public virtually engaged. Fashion companies had virtual fashion shows, creating videos and content about their designs. As social media expands and new platforms come into existence, new ways of advertising are projected to be created. == Uses == === Advertising === Social media is a popular use of advertisement in the fashion industry. Information sharing has expanded due to the growth of social media platforms, which impacts social consumer involvement with fashion brands. Fashion companies use social media platforms to reach customers on emotional levels and stoke engagement with brand images and messages. Researchers in the United Kingdom have demonstrated that engaging with customers with social media messages that express social passion, social tendency, and personal warmth can boost social engagement with fashion brands. In social spheres, fashion is a method for individuals to represent their distinction through clothing. Some people who desire to socially influence others through their fashion and style now have the possibility thanks to social media in the fashion sector. Customers who want to purchase fashion brands frequently follow fashion authorities on social media and heed their recommendations for purchasing fashion products. === Influencers === Companies leveraged celebrities' fame and social standing to advertise their brands, as Tommy Hilfiger did when incorporating social media into their marketing strategy, making Gigi Hadid, who has 15.5 million Instagram followers as of 2016, a brand ambassador. Though recent developments in social media platforms have led to an increase in the awareness of influencers. Influencer marketing has emerged as a fast expanding marketing strategy in various industries as a result of the unheard-of increase in the number of social media influencers' followers. Recently, influencer marketing has received significant attention in the fashion industry. Research shows that influencer marketing may provide a rate of influence that is 11x times greater than that of other conventional advertising channels. Fashion consumers, specifically those in generations Y and Z, may be more influenced by influencers in the context of the fashion industries as they often view them as friends and personal assistants. Fashion influencer marketing on social media platforms have led fashion consumption on social sopping services. One of these social fashion services is LTK (LIKEtoKNOW.it before 2021) where everyday consumers can find and purchase clothing worn by social media fashion influencers (also known as SMFIs). Launched in 2014, LTK has gained a massive following on Instagram (over 3 million) and has 1.3 million registered users on their mobile application. Utilizing SMFIs has led to massive sales within the fashion industry, 80% of visitors of Nordstrom's mobile platform are referred by influencers. Social media fashion influencers try new fashion products, adopt fashion trends and have power in what their audience purchases. Social media fashion influencers gain a following though promoting fashion products, and posting about their lavish lifestyles attained through their higher socioeconomic status. The attractive lifestyles of the influencers influence their followers to mimic their luxurious lifestyle and are allowed to consume the same products through social shopping services. In addition to brands themselves having direct access to social media users, many content creators have great influence over consumers. "Influencers" across all social media platforms have great power when it comes to where people shop and what they purchase. Influencer marketing has become one of the most effective marketing strategies for many fashion brands. These brand deals and creator partnerships are targeted towards Millennial and Gen Z consumers, specifically on Instagram and TikTok, and 74% of consumers have made a purchase simply because an influencer they follow had recommended it. === Trends === The connection between social media and fashion has become common. Influencer marketing has emerged as a necessity and crucial component of advertising. 85% of American businesses are presently using influencer marketing as part of their marketing plan. Wearing fashion brands is a method to show oneself at social gatherings. Through their clothing, people try to demonstrate how distinct they are. Some people who really desire to socially influence others through their fashion and style now have the possibility thanks to social media in the fashion sector. Customers who want to purchase fashion brands frequently follow fashion authorities on social media and heed their recommendations for purchasing fashion products. In January 2021, the Italian fashion house Bottega Veneta deleted all its social media accounts "to lean much more on its ambassadors and fans" to spread the com
List of cryptosystems
A cryptosystem is a set of cryptographic algorithms that map ciphertexts and plaintexts to each other. == Private-key cryptosystems == Private-key cryptosystems use the same key for encryption and decryption. Caesar cipher Substitution cipher Enigma machine Data Encryption Standard Twofish Serpent Camellia Salsa20 ChaCha20 Blowfish CAST5 Kuznyechik RC4 3DES Skipjack Safer IDEA Advanced Encryption Standard, also known as AES and Rijndael. == Public-key cryptosystems == Public-key cryptosystems use a public key for encryption and a private key for decryption. Diffie–Hellman key exchange RSA encryption Rabin cryptosystem Schnorr signature ElGamal encryption Elliptic-curve cryptography Lattice-based cryptography McEliece cryptosystem Multivariate cryptography Isogeny-based cryptography
Social media and psychology
Social media began in the form of generalized online communities. These online communities formed on websites like Geocities.com in 1994, Theglobe.com in 1995, and Tripod.com in 1995. Many of these early communities focused on social interaction by bringing people together through the use of chat rooms. The chat rooms encouraged users to share personal information, ideas, or even personal web pages. Later the social networking community Classmates took a different approach by simply having people link to each other by using their personal email addresses. By the late 1990s, social networking websites began to develop more advanced features to help users find and manage friends. These newer generation of social networking websites began to flourish with the emergence of SixDegrees.com in 1997, Makeoutclub in 2000, Hub Culture in 2002, and Friendster in 2002. However, the first profitable mass social networking website was the South Korean service, Cyworld. Cyworld initially launched as a blog-based website in 1999 and social networking features were added to the website in 2001. Other social networking websites emerged like Myspace in 2002, LinkedIn in 2003, and Bebo in 2005. In 2009, the social networking website Facebook (launched in 2004) became the largest social networking website in the world. Both Instagram and Kik were launched in October 2010. Active users of Facebook increased from just a million in 2004 to over 750 million by the year 2011. Making internet-based social networking both a cultural and financial phenomenon. In September 2011, Snapchat was launched and reported over 300 million users in 2021. == Psychology of social networking == A social network is a social structure made up of individuals or organizations who communicate and interact with each other. Social networking sites – such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest and LinkedIn – are defined as technology-enabled tools that assist users with creating and maintaining their relationships. A study found that middle schoolers reported using social media to see what their friends are doing, to post pictures, and to connect with friends. Human behavior related to social networking is influenced by major individual differences, meaning that people differ quite systematically in the quantity and quality of their social relationships. Two of the main personality traits that are responsible for this variability are the traits of extraversion and introversion. Extraversion refers to the tendency to be socially dominant, exert leadership, and influence on others. In contrast, introversion reflects a tendency towards shyness, social phobia, or even avoid social situations altogether, which could potentially reduce the number of social contacts a person may have. These individual differences may result in different social networking outcomes. Other psychology factors related to social media and Media psychology are depression, anxiety, attachment, self-identity, well-being, and the need to belong. === Neuroscience === The three domains that neural systems rely on to be strengthened to support social media use are social cognition, self-referential cognition, and social rewarding. When someone posts something on social media, they think of how their audience will react, while the audience thinks of the motivations behind posting the information. Both parties are analyzing the other's thoughts and feelings, which coherently rely on multiple network systems of the brain including the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, bilateral temporoparietal junction, anterior temporal lobes, inferior frontal gyri, and posterior cingulate cortex. All of these systems work to help us process social behaviors and thoughts drawn out on social media. Social media requires a great deal of self-referential thought. People use social media as a platform to express their opinions and show off their past and present selves. In other words, as Bailey Parnell said in her Ted Talk, we're showing off our "highlight reel" (4). When one receives feedback from others, the individual obtains more reflected self-appraisal which leads to comparisons of their social behaviors or "highlights" to other users. Self-referential thought involves activity in the medial prefrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex. The brain uses these systems when thinking of oneself. A 2021 umbrella review found that most associations between adolescent social media use and mental health were characterized as weak or inconsistent, though certain studies identified 'substantial' negative impacts, particularly linked to passive consumption and problematic use. Social media also provides a constant supply of rewards that keeps users coming back for more. Whenever users receive a like or a new follower, it activates the brain's social reward system which includes the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, ventral striatum, and ventral tegmental area. This system has been found to activate in response to positive feedback from peers, suggesting that users experience online acceptance in a similar manner to other material rewards or positive experiences, further acting as a potential reward. While these areas of the brain become strengthened, other parts of the brain start to weaken. Technology is encouraging multi-tasking, especially because of how easy it is to switch from one task to another by opening another tab or using two devices at once. The brain's hippocampus is mainly associated with long-term memory. In a study done by Russell Poldark, a professor at UCLA, they found that "for the task learned without distraction, the hippocampus was involved. However, for the task learned with the distraction of the beeps, the hippocampus was not involved; but the striatum was, which is the brain system that underlies our ability to learn new skills." The study concludes that multitasking can cause reliance on the striatum more than the hippocampus, which can change the way we learn. The striatum is known to be connected to mainly the brain's reward system. The brain will strengthen the neurons to the striatum while it weakens the neurons to the hippocampus to make the brain more efficient. Because our brain starts to rely on the striatum more than the hippocampus, it becomes harder for us to process new information. Nicholas Carr, author of The Shallows: How The Internet Is Changing Our Brains, agrees: "What psychologists and brain scientists tell us about interruptions is that they have a fairly profound effect on the way we think. It becomes much harder to sustain attention, to think about one thing for a long period of time, and to think deeply when new stimuli are pouring at you all day long. I argue that the price we pay for being constantly inundated with information is a loss of our ability to be contemplative and to engage in the kind of deep thinking that requires you to concentrate on one thing." === Well-Being === How does well-being relate to social media? In an article titled Social Impact of Psychological Research on Well-Being Shared in Social Media, Pulido et al. found a 15.7% social impact in their results. These new results were compared to a previous study conducted by Pulido et al., which had a high of 4.98% compared to 27.5% in the new study. These results show the ESISM, which is evidence of social impact present. In a two-year span, the difference between social impact rose 22.52% according to these studies. When taking into consideration that an increasingly large number of teens report either being active on, or having used, some form of social media, ranging from apps such as Facebook to TikTok, researching the effects of social media on the well-being of teens and young adults has become more of a topic of focus in recent years. === Depression === Especially in today's society, social media has gained a new perspective on younger generations. It is what younger generations are born into and are growing up to use, particularly what is running today's society. Social Media has its downfalls regarding depression and mental health. Many users often compare their lives regarding what they see on these platforms. In an article Does Social Media Cause Depression? by the Child Mind Institute, Miller states that "several studies, teenage and young adult users who spend the most time on Instagram, Facebook and other platforms for have shown to have substantially (from 13 to 66 percent) higher rates of reported depression than those who spent the least time", what the study shows how Facebook and Instagram, platforms showcasing daily lives and or lifestyles, or less fulfilling or less satisfied or more flaunting base or superficial. Instead of social community, there has become a perception of individuals striving for a life that is not real, whether that is editing photos or making life seem perfect when it is not. This causes a sense of depression by the weight of a comparing game. In "How Social Media Affects Y
Confusion matrix
In machine learning, a confusion matrix, also known as error matrix, is a specific table layout that allows visualization of the performance of an algorithm, typically a supervised learning one. In unsupervised learning it is usually called a matching matrix. The term is used specifically in the problem of statistical classification. Each row of the matrix represents the instances in an actual class while each column represents the instances in a predicted class, or vice versa – both variants are found in the literature. The diagonal of the matrix therefore represents all instances that are correctly predicted. The name stems from the fact that it makes it easy to identify whether the system is confusing two classes (i.e., commonly mislabeling one class as another). The confusion matrix has its origins in human perceptual studies of auditory stimuli. It was adapted for machine learning studies and used by Frank Rosenblatt, among other early researchers, to compare human and machine classifications of visual (and later auditory) stimuli. It is a special kind of contingency table, with two dimensions ("actual" and "predicted"), and identical sets of "classes" in both dimensions (each combination of dimension and class is a variable in the contingency table). == Example == Given a sample of 12 individuals, 8 that have been diagnosed with cancer and 4 that are cancer-free, where individuals with cancer belong to class 1 (positive) and non-cancer individuals belong to class 0 (negative), we can display that data as follows: Assume that we have a classifier that distinguishes between individuals with and without cancer in some way, we can take the 12 individuals and run them through the classifier. The classifier then makes 9 accurate predictions and misses 3: 2 individuals with cancer wrongly predicted as being cancer-free (sample 1 and 2), and 1 person without cancer that is wrongly predicted to have cancer (sample 9). Notice, that if we compare the actual classification set to the predicted classification set, there are 4 different outcomes that could result in any particular column: The actual classification is positive and the predicted classification is positive (1,1). This is called a true positive result because the positive sample was correctly identified by the classifier. The actual classification is positive and the predicted classification is negative (1,0). This is called a false negative result because the positive sample is incorrectly identified by the classifier as being negative. The actual classification is negative and the predicted classification is positive (0,1). This is called a false positive result because the negative sample is incorrectly identified by the classifier as being positive. The actual classification is negative and the predicted classification is negative (0,0). This is called a true negative result because the negative sample gets correctly identified by the classifier. We can then perform the comparison between actual and predicted classifications and add this information to the table, making correct results appear in green so they are more easily identifiable. The template for any binary confusion matrix uses the four kinds of results discussed above (true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives) along with the positive and negative classifications. The four outcomes can be formulated in a 2×2 confusion matrix, as follows: The color convention of the three data tables above were picked to match this confusion matrix, in order to easily differentiate the data. Now, we can simply total up each type of result, substitute into the template, and create a confusion matrix that will concisely summarize the results of testing the classifier: In this confusion matrix, of the 8 samples with cancer, the system judged that 2 were cancer-free, and of the 4 samples without cancer, it predicted that 1 did have cancer. All correct predictions are located in the diagonal of the table (highlighted in green), so it is easy to visually inspect the table for prediction errors, as values outside the diagonal will represent them. By summing up the 2 rows of the confusion matrix, one can also deduce the total number of positive (P) and negative (N) samples in the original dataset, i.e. P = T P + F N {\displaystyle P=TP+FN} and N = F P + T N {\displaystyle N=FP+TN} . == Table of confusion == In predictive analytics, a table of confusion (sometimes also called a confusion matrix) is a table with two rows and two columns that reports the number of true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives. This allows more detailed analysis than simply observing the proportion of correct classifications (accuracy). Accuracy will yield misleading results if the data set is unbalanced; that is, when the numbers of observations in different classes vary greatly. For example, if there were 95 cancer samples and only 5 non-cancer samples in the data, a particular classifier might classify all the observations as having cancer. The overall accuracy would be 95%, but in more detail the classifier would have a 100% recognition rate (sensitivity) for the cancer class but a 0% recognition rate for the non-cancer class. F1 score is even more unreliable in such cases, and here would yield over 97.4%, whereas informedness removes such bias and yields 0 as the probability of an informed decision for any form of guessing (here always guessing cancer). According to Davide Chicco and Giuseppe Jurman, the most informative metric to evaluate a confusion matrix is the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). Other metrics can be included in a confusion matrix, each of them having their significance and use. Some researchers have argued that the confusion matrix, and the metrics derived from it, do not truly reflect a model's knowledge. In particular, the confusion matrix cannot show whether correct predictions were reached through sound reasoning or merely by chance (a problem known in philosophy as epistemic luck). It also does not capture situations where the facts used to make a prediction later change or turn out to be wrong (defeasibility). This means that while the confusion matrix is a useful tool for measuring classification performance, it may give an incomplete picture of a model’s true reliability. == Confusion matrices with more than two categories == Confusion matrix is not limited to binary classification and can be used in multi-class classifiers as well. The confusion matrices discussed above have only two conditions: positive and negative. For example, the table below summarizes communication of a whistled language between two speakers, with zero values omitted for clarity. == Confusion matrices in multi-label and soft-label classification == Confusion matrices are not limited to single-label classification (where only one class is present) or hard-label settings (where classes are either fully present, 1, or absent, 0). They can also be extended to Multi-label classification (where multiple classes can be predicted at once) and soft-label classification (where classes can be partially present). One such extension is the Transport-based Confusion Matrix (TCM), which builds on the theory of optimal transport and the principle of maximum entropy. TCM applies to single-label, multi-label, and soft-label settings. It retains the familiar structure of the standard confusion matrix: a square matrix sized by the number of classes, with diagonal entries indicating correct predictions and off-diagonal entries indicating confusion. In the single-label case, TCM is identical to the standard confusion matrix. TCM follows the same reasoning as the standard confusion matrix: if class A is overestimated (its predicted value is greater than its label value) and class B is underestimated (its predicted value is less than its label value), A is considered confused with B, and the entry (B, A) is increased. If a class is both predicted and present, it is correctly identified, and the diagonal entry (A, A) increases. Optimal transport and maximum entropy are used to determine the extent to which these entries are updated. TCM enables clearer comparison between predictions and labels in complex classification tasks, while maintaining a consistent matrix format across settings.
Experimental SAGE Subsector
The Experimental Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) Sector (ESS, Experimental SAGE Subsector until planned Sectors/Subsectors were renamed NORAD Regions, Divisions, and Sectors) was a prototype Cold War Air Defense Sector for developing the Semi Automatic Ground Environment. The Lincoln Laboratory control center in a new building was at Lexington, Massachusetts. == ESS Computer System == The network's Direction Center was completed in a new 1954 building (Building F, 42°27′37″N 071°16′04″W) with prototype peripherals and a single IBM XD-1 computer, a successor to Lincoln Lab's Whirlwind I computer (WWI). In 1955, Air Force personnel began IBM training at the Kingston, New York, prototype facility, and the "4620th Air Defense Wing (experimental SAGE) was established at Lincoln Laboratory"—its "primary mission was computer programming". ESS had a capacity of 48 tracks and used a pre-SAGE ground environment in a "prototype intercept monitor room [at] MIT's Barta building" with "track situation displays, which geographically showed Air Defense Identification Zone lines and antiaircraft circles [and] each console also had a 5-inch CRT for digital information display. Audible alert signals were used, with a different signal for each symbol on a situation display." == Radar stations == Initial service test models of the Burroughs AN/FST-2 Coordinate Data Transmitting Set were placed with radars at South Truro and West Bath, Maine; followed by Texas Tower#2 (TT2) in the Atlantic Ocean, which provided a "triangular pattern with overlap" radar coverage (TT2 later had a connection from the XD-1 via the GE G/A Data Link Output Subsystem through North Truro Air Force Station.) By August 1955, 13 radar stations were networked by the subsector, e.g.: Chatham Clinton, Massachusetts with gap-filler radar Great Boars Head Halibut Point Killingly, Connecticut (41.865734°N 71.820958°W / 41.865734; -71.820958).with gap-filler radar Rockport Air Force Station Scituate, Massachusetts South Truro West Bath, Maine (43°54′7″N 69°50′43″W) with AN/FPS-31 on Jug Handle Hill: ("Lincoln Laboratories experimental radar station") Required by 21 November 1955 were 44 consoles: 38 for the operations floor, 3 on the computer floor for display maintenance, and 3 near the maintenance console (program checkout). WWI was connected to the Experimental SAGE Subsector to verify crosstelling (collateral communication) with the ESS DC, and WWI was also used for a Ground-to-Air (G/A) experiment using a transmitter of the GE G/A Data Link Output Subsystem on Prospect Hill, Waltham, MA sending data to simulated airborne equipment at Lexington. Transmissions from the WWI SAGE Evaluation (WISE) computer system to XD-1 and back were without error by December 1955 when operational software specifications were frozen. Operating procedures for the ESS external sites were complete in March 1956, and == System Operation Testing == From November 15, 1955, to November 7, 1956, three System Operation Tests were conducted which used voice "Ground-to-Air" communication from the Barta control room to aircraft outfitted with SAGE receivers (F-86 interceptors modified to F-86L models in "Project FOLLOW-ON".) Test teams included employees of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Western Electric-ADES, IBM, the RAND Corporation, and Lincoln Labs' Division 6, Division 3, & Division 2 (Division 6 had been created for ESS support.) The North Truro P-10 AN/FST-2 was moved to Almaden Air Force Station (M-96)c. 1957-8 and on August 7, 1958, control of an airborne BOMARC missile that had malfunctioned transferred from the "Experimental SAGE Sector" to a Westinghouse AN/GPA-35 Ground Environment system and the missile crashed into the Atlantic Ocean. By December 31, 1958, ADC Manual 55-28 described the Model 3 SAGE System. == 1959 Experimental Testing == "To prove out the revised SAGE computer program" for Automatic Targeting and Battery Evaluation and ADDC-AADCP crosstelling, a "SAGE/Missile Master" test was conducted beginning in September 1959 with communications between the ESS XD-1 and Martin AN/FSG-1 Antiaircraft Defense System equipment at Fort Banks planned for the CONAD Joint Control Center at Fort Heath—a "SAGE ATABE Simulation Study" (SASS) was also completed 1959–60 by MITRE Corporation.