SprayPrinter is a device that attaches to aerosol paint cans whereby users can print images via Bluetooth from a smartphone onto a wall or almost any surface. == History == The technology behind SprayPrinter was developed by Mihkel Joala. He explained in a 2016 interview with New Atlas that his idea was inspired by the modern car engine and the Nintendo Wii console. "Engines nowadays use extremely fast valves to spray fuel to [the] combustion chamber," says Joala. "I realized I can use them to shoot paint with pinpoint accuracy." As of December 2021, the company appears to be no longer selling products. == Awards and Recognitions == In 2015, SprayPrinter received €8,000 from the Estonian prototyping contest Prototron for its initial prototype. In 2016, the SprayPrinter team won the grand prize of €30,000 from the televised pitching competition Ajujaht.
Grammar checker
A grammar checker, in computing terms, is a program, or part of a program, that attempts to verify written text for grammatical correctness. Grammar checkers are most often implemented as a feature of a larger program, such as a word processor, but are also available as a stand-alone application that can be activated from within programs that work with editable text. The implementation of a grammar checker makes use of natural language processing. == History == The earliest "grammar checkers" were programs that checked for punctuation and style inconsistencies, rather than a complete range of possible grammatical errors. The first system was called Writer's Workbench, and was a set of writing tools included with Unix systems as far back as the 1970s. The whole Writer's Workbench package included several separate tools to check for various writing problems. The "diction" tool checked for wordy, trite, clichéd or misused phrases in a text. The tool would output a list of questionable phrases and provide suggestions for improving the writing. The "style" tool analyzed the writing style of a given text. It performed a number of readability tests on the text and output the results, and gave some statistical information about the sentences of the text. Aspen Software of Albuquerque, New Mexico released the earliest version of a diction and style checker for personal computers, Grammatik, in 1981. Grammatik was first available for a Radio Shack - TRS-80, and soon had versions for CP/M and the IBM PC. Reference Software International of San Francisco, California, acquired Grammatik in 1985. Development of Grammatik continued, and it became an actual grammar checker that could detect writing errors beyond simple style checking. Other early diction and style checking programs included Punctuation & Style, Correct Grammar, RightWriter and PowerEdit. While all the earliest programs started as simple diction and style checkers, all eventually added various levels of language processing, and developed some level of true grammar checking capability. Until 1992, grammar checkers were sold as add-on programs. There were a large number of different word processing programs available at that time, with WordPerfect and Microsoft Word the top two in market share. In 1992, Microsoft decided to add grammar checking as a feature of Word, and licensed CorrecText, a grammar checker from Houghton Mifflin that had not yet been marketed as a standalone product. WordPerfect answered Microsoft's move by acquiring Reference Software, and the direct descendant of Grammatik is still included with WordPerfect. As of 2019, grammar checkers are built into systems like Google Docs, browser extensions like Grammarly and Qordoba, desktop applications like Ginger, free and open-source software like LanguageTool, and text editor plugins like those available from WebSpellChecker Software. == Technical issues == The earliest writing style programs checked for wordy, trite, clichéd, or misused phrases in a text. This process was based on simple pattern matching. The heart of the program was a list of many hundreds or thousands of phrases that are considered poor writing by many experts. The list of questionable phrases included alternative wording for each phrase. The checking program would simply break text into sentences, check for any matches in the phrase dictionary, flag suspect phrases and show an alternative. These programs could also perform some mechanical checks. For example, they would typically flag doubled words, doubled punctuation, some capitalization errors, and other simple mechanical mistakes. True grammar checking is more complex. While a programming language has a very specific syntax and grammar, this is not so for natural languages. One can write a somewhat complete formal grammar for a natural language, but there are usually so many exceptions in real usage that a formal grammar is of minimal help in writing a grammar checker. One of the most important parts of a natural language grammar checker is a dictionary of all the words in the language, along with the part of speech of each word. The fact that a natural word may be used as any one of several parts of speech (such as "free" being used as an adjective, adverb, noun, or verb) greatly increases the complexity of any grammar checker. A grammar checker will find each sentence in a text, look up each word in the dictionary, and then attempt to parse the sentence into a form that matches a grammar. Using various rules, the program can then detect various errors, such as agreement in tense, number, word order, and so on. It is also possible to detect some stylistic problems with the text. For example, some popular style guides such as The Elements of Style deprecate excessive use of the passive voice. Grammar checkers may attempt to identify passive sentences and suggest an active-voice alternative. The software elements required for grammar checking are closely related to some of the development issues that need to be addressed for speech recognition software. In voice recognition, parsing can be used to help predict which word is most likely intended, based on part of speech and position in the sentence. In grammar checking, the parsing is used to detect words that fail to follow accepted grammar usage. Recently, research has focused on developing algorithms which can recognize grammar errors based on the context of the surrounding words. == Criticism == Grammar checkers are considered a type of foreign language writing aid which non-native speakers can use to proofread their writings as such programs endeavor to identify syntactical errors. However, as with other computerized writing aids such as spell checkers, popular grammar checkers are often criticized when they fail to spot errors and incorrectly flag correct text as erroneous. The linguist Geoffrey K. Pullum argued in 2007 that they were generally so inaccurate as to do more harm than good: "for the most part, accepting the advice of a computer grammar checker on your prose will make it much worse, sometimes hilariously incoherent."
SimSimi
SimSimi is an artificial intelligence conversation program created in 2002 by ISMaker. It grows its artificial intelligence day by day assisted by a feature that allows users to teach it to respond correctly. SimSimi, pronounced as "shim-shimi", is from a Korean word simsim (심심) which means "bored". It has an application designed for Android, Windows Phone and iOS. The application was banned in Thailand in 2012 after users taught it to make responses containing profanity, and to criticise leading politicians. In April 2018, SimSimi was suspended in Brazil due to accusations of sending inappropriate messages, such as sexual language, bullying and even death threats, being labeled as "dangerous" mainly due to its popularity among children, and according to its developer, the suspension of the app in the country "was inevitable because the SimSimi app, at least in the last few days, had a significant negative social impact in Brazil.”
Graph cuts in computer vision and artificial intelligence
As applied in the field of computer vision, graph cut optimization can be employed to efficiently solve a wide variety of low-level computer vision problems (early vision), such as image smoothing, the stereo correspondence problem, image segmentation, object co-segmentation, numerous military applications (eg Automatic target recognition) and many other problems that can be formulated in terms of energy minimization (eg Climate Science and Environmental modelling). Graph cut techniques are now increasingly being used in combination with more general spatial Artificial intelligence techniques (eg to enforce structure in Large language model output to sharpen tumour boundaries and similarly for various Augmented reality, Self-driving car, Robotics, Google Maps applications etc). Many of these energy minimization problems can be approximated by solving a maximum flow problem in a graph (and thus, by the max-flow min-cut theorem, define a minimal cut of the graph). Under most formulations of such problems in computer vision, the minimum energy solution corresponds to the maximum a posteriori estimate of a solution. Although many computer vision algorithms involve cutting a graph (e.g. normalized cuts), the term "graph cuts" is applied specifically to those models which employ a max-flow/min-cut optimization (other graph cutting algorithms may be considered as graph partitioning algorithms). "Binary" problems (such as denoising a binary image) can be solved exactly using this approach; problems where pixels can be labeled with more than two different labels (such as stereo correspondence, or denoising of a grayscale image) cannot be solved exactly, but solutions produced are usually near the global optimum. == History == The foundational theory of graph cuts in computer vision was first developed by Margaret Greig, Bruce Porteous and Allan Seheult (GPS) of Durham University in a now legendary discussion contribution to Julian Besag's 1986 paper and a more detailed follow on paper in 1989. In the Bayesian statistical context of smoothing noisy images, using a Markov random field as the image prior distribution, they showed with a mathematically beautiful proof how the maximum a posteriori estimate of a binary image can be obtained exactly by maximizing the flow through an associated image network, or graph, involving the introduction of a source and sink and Log-likelihood ratios. The problem was shown to be efficiently solvable exactly, an unexpected result as the problem was believed to be computationally intractable (NP hard). GPS also addressed the computational cost of the max-flow algorithm on large graphs, a significant concern at the time. They proposed a partitioning algorithm (see Section 4 of GPS) involving the recursive amalgamation of non-overlapping blocks, or tiles, which gave a 12X increase in speed. This approach recursively solved and amalgamated independent sub-graphs until the whole graph was solved. While contemporaries like Geman and Geman had advocated Parallel computing in the context of Simulated annealing, the GPS blocking strategy offered a deterministic structure amenable to parallelisation and anticipated modern artificial intelligence design across multiple GPUs. However, until recently, this aspect of the paper was largely ignored and subsequent research focused on Serial computer global search trees, such as the Boykov-Kolmogorov algorithm. Although the general k {\displaystyle k} -colour problem is NP hard for k > 2 , {\displaystyle k>2,} the GPS approach has turned out to have very wide applicability in general computer vision problems. This was first demonstrated by Boykov, Veksler and Zabih who, in a seminal paper published more than 10 years after the original GPS paper, and in other important works, lit the blue touch paper for the general adoption of graph cut techniques in computer vision. They showed that, for general problems, the GPS approach can be applied iteratively to sequences of binary problems, using their now ubiquitous alpha-expansion algorithm, yielding near optimal solutions. Prior to these results, approximate local optimisation techniques such as simulated annealing (as proposed by the Geman brothers) or iterated conditional modes (a type of greedy algorithm suggested by Julian Besag) were used to solve such image smoothing problems. Building on these advancements, GPS graph cut optimization was subsequently adapted for interactive image segmentation, most notably through the "GrabCut" algorithm introduced by Carsten Rother, Vladimir Kolmogorov, and Andrew Blake of Microsoft Research, Cambridge. GrabCut extended earlier interactive graph cut methods by replacing monochrome image histograms with Gaussian mixture models to estimate colour distributions, and by employing an iterative GPS energy minimisation scheme. This approach significantly simplified user interaction, requiring only a rough bounding box around the target object rather than detailed user-drawn strokes, and it quickly became a standard tool in both academic research and commercial image editing software. The GPS paper connected and bridged profound ideas from Mathematical statistics (Bayes' theorem, Markov random field), Physics (Ising model), Optimisation (Energy function) and Computer science (Network flow problem) and led the move away from approximate local and slow optimisation approaches (eg simulated annealing) to more powerful exact, or near exact, faster global optimisation techniques. It is now recognised as seminal as it was well ahead of its time and, in particular, was published years before the computing power revolution of Moore's law and GPUs. Significantly, GPS was published in a mathematical statistics (rather than a computer vision) journal, and this led to it being overlooked by the computer vision community for many years. It is unofficially known as "The Velvet Underground" paper of computer vision (ie although very few computer vision people read the paper [bought the record], those that did, most importantly Boykov, Veksler and Zabih, started new and important research [formed a band]). This is confirmed by GPS' very large amplification ratio (2nd order citations/first order citations), estimated at well in excess of 100. Despite the foundational nature of the GPS work, formal recognition from the computer vision community has predominantly gone to the researchers who followed to extend and popularise the graph cut method. For example, Boykov, Veksler and Zabih deservedly received a Helmholtz Prize from the ICCV in 2011. This prize recognises ICCV papers from 10 or more years earlier that have had a significant impact on computer vision research. In 2011, Couprie et al. proposed a general image segmentation framework, called the "Power Watershed", that minimized a real-valued indicator function from [0,1] over a graph, constrained by user seeds (or unary terms) set to 0 or 1, in which the minimization of the indicator function over the graph is optimized with respect to an exponent p {\displaystyle p} . When p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} , the Power Watershed is optimized by graph cuts, when p = 0 {\displaystyle p=0} the Power Watershed is optimized by shortest paths, p = 2 {\displaystyle p=2} is optimized by the random walker algorithm and p = ∞ {\displaystyle p=\infty } is optimized by the watershed algorithm. In this way, the Power Watershed may be viewed as a generalization of graph cuts that provides a straightforward connection with other energy optimization segmentation/clustering algorithms. == Binary segmentation of images == === Notation === Image: x ∈ { R , G , B } N {\displaystyle x\in \{R,G,B\}^{N}} Output: Segmentation (also called opacity) S ∈ R N {\displaystyle S\in R^{N}} (soft segmentation). For hard segmentation S ∈ { 0 for background , 1 for foreground/object to be detected } N {\displaystyle S\in \{0{\text{ for background}},1{\text{ for foreground/object to be detected}}\}^{N}} Energy function: E ( x , S , C , λ ) {\displaystyle E(x,S,C,\lambda )} where C is the color parameter and λ is the coherence parameter. E ( x , S , C , λ ) = E c o l o r + E c o h e r e n c e {\displaystyle E(x,S,C,\lambda )=E_{\rm {color}}+E_{\rm {coherence}}} Optimization: The segmentation can be estimated as a global minimum over S: arg min S E ( x , S , C , λ ) {\displaystyle {\arg \min }_{S}E(x,S,C,\lambda )} === Existing methods === Standard Graph cuts: optimize energy function over the segmentation (unknown S value). Iterated Graph cuts: First step optimizes over the color parameters using K-means. Second step performs the usual graph cuts algorithm. These 2 steps are repeated recursively until convergence Dynamic graph cuts:Allows to re-run the algorithm much faster after modifying the problem (e.g. after new seeds have been added by a user). === Energy function === Pr ( x ∣ S ) = K − E {\displaystyle \Pr(x\mid S)=K^{-E}} where the energy E {\displaystyle E} is composed of two different mod
Eigenface
An eigenface ( EYE-gən-) is the name given to a set of eigenvectors when used in the computer vision problem of human face recognition. The approach of using eigenfaces for recognition was developed by Sirovich and Kirby and used by Matthew Turk and Alex Pentland in face classification. The eigenvectors are derived from the covariance matrix of the probability distribution over the high-dimensional vector space of face images. The eigenfaces themselves form a basis set of all images used to construct the covariance matrix. This produces dimension reduction by allowing the smaller set of basis images to represent the original training images. Classification can be achieved by comparing how faces are represented by the basis set. == History == The eigenface approach began with a search for a low-dimensional representation of face images. Sirovich and Kirby showed that principal component analysis could be used on a collection of face images to form a set of basis features. These basis images, known as eigenpictures, could be linearly combined to reconstruct images in the original training set. If the training set consists of M images, principal component analysis could form a basis set of N images, where N < M. The reconstruction error is reduced by increasing the number of eigenpictures; however, the number needed is always chosen less than M. For example, if you need to generate a number of N eigenfaces for a training set of M face images, you can say that each face image can be made up of "proportions" of all the K "features" or eigenfaces: Face image1 = (23% of E1) + (2% of E2) + (51% of E3) + ... + (1% En). In 1991 M. Turk and A. Pentland expanded these results and presented the eigenface method of face recognition. In addition to designing a system for automated face recognition using eigenfaces, they showed a way of calculating the eigenvectors of a covariance matrix such that computers of the time could perform eigen-decomposition on a large number of face images. Face images usually occupy a high-dimensional space and conventional principal component analysis was intractable on such data sets. Turk and Pentland's paper demonstrated ways to extract the eigenvectors based on matrices sized by the number of images rather than the number of pixels. Once established, the eigenface method was expanded to include methods of preprocessing to improve accuracy. Multiple manifold approaches were also used to build sets of eigenfaces for different subjects and different features, such as the eyes. == Generation == A set of eigenfaces can be generated by performing a mathematical process called principal component analysis (PCA) on a large set of images depicting different human faces. Informally, eigenfaces can be considered a set of "standardized face ingredients", derived from statistical analysis of many pictures of faces. Any human face can be considered to be a combination of these standard faces. For example, one's face might be composed of the average face plus 10% from eigenface 1, 55% from eigenface 2, and even −3% from eigenface 3. Remarkably, it does not take many eigenfaces combined together to achieve a fair approximation of most faces. Also, because a person's face is not recorded by a digital photograph, but instead as just a list of values (one value for each eigenface in the database used), much less space is taken for each person's face. The eigenfaces that are created will appear as light and dark areas that are arranged in a specific pattern. This pattern is how different features of a face are singled out to be evaluated and scored. There will be a pattern to evaluate symmetry, whether there is any style of facial hair, where the hairline is, or an evaluation of the size of the nose or mouth. Other eigenfaces have patterns that are less simple to identify, and the image of the eigenface may look very little like a face. The technique used in creating eigenfaces and using them for recognition is also used outside of face recognition: handwriting recognition, lip reading, voice recognition, sign language/hand gestures interpretation and medical imaging analysis. Therefore, some do not use the term eigenface, but prefer to use 'eigenimage'. === Practical implementation === To create a set of eigenfaces, one must: Prepare a training set of face images. The pictures constituting the training set should have been taken under the same lighting conditions, and must be normalized to have the eyes and mouths aligned across all images. They must also be all resampled to a common pixel resolution (r × c). Each image is treated as one vector, simply by concatenating the rows of pixels in the original image, resulting in a single column with r × c elements. For this implementation, it is assumed that all images of the training set are stored in a single matrix T, where each column of the matrix is an image. Subtract the mean. The average image a has to be calculated and then subtracted from each original image in T. Calculate the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the covariance matrix S. Each eigenvector has the same dimensionality (number of components) as the original images, and thus can itself be seen as an image. The eigenvectors of this covariance matrix are therefore called eigenfaces. They are the directions in which the images differ from the mean image. Usually this will be a computationally expensive step (if at all possible), but the practical applicability of eigenfaces stems from the possibility to compute the eigenvectors of S efficiently, without ever computing S explicitly, as detailed below. Choose the principal components. Sort the eigenvalues in descending order and arrange eigenvectors accordingly. The number of principal components k is determined arbitrarily by setting a threshold ε on the total variance. Total variance v = ( λ 1 + λ 2 + . . . + λ n ) {\displaystyle v=(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}+...+\lambda _{n})} , n = number of components, and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } represents component eigenvalue. k is the smallest number that satisfies ( λ 1 + λ 2 + . . . + λ k ) v > ϵ {\displaystyle {\frac {(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}+...+\lambda _{k})}{v}}>\epsilon } These eigenfaces can now be used to represent both existing and new faces: we can project a new (mean-subtracted) image on the eigenfaces and thereby record how that new face differs from the mean face. The eigenvalues associated with each eigenface represent how much the images in the training set vary from the mean image in that direction. Information is lost by projecting the image on a subset of the eigenvectors, but losses are minimized by keeping those eigenfaces with the largest eigenvalues. For instance, working with a 100 × 100 image will produce 10,000 eigenvectors. In practical applications, most faces can typically be identified using a projection on between 100 and 150 eigenfaces, so that most of the 10,000 eigenvectors can be discarded. === Matlab example code === Here is an example of calculating eigenfaces with Extended Yale Face Database B. To evade computational and storage bottleneck, the face images are sampled down by a factor 4×4=16. Note that although the covariance matrix S generates many eigenfaces, only a fraction of those are needed to represent the majority of the faces. For example, to represent 95% of the total variation of all face images, only the first 43 eigenfaces are needed. To calculate this result, implement the following code: === Computing the eigenvectors === Performing PCA directly on the covariance matrix of the images is often computationally infeasible. If small images are used, say 100 × 100 pixels, each image is a point in a 10,000-dimensional space and the covariance matrix S is a matrix of 10,000 × 10,000 = 108 elements. However the rank of the covariance matrix is limited by the number of training examples: if there are N training examples, there will be at most N − 1 eigenvectors with non-zero eigenvalues. If the number of training examples is smaller than the dimensionality of the images, the principal components can be computed more easily as follows. Let T be the matrix of preprocessed training examples, where each column contains one mean-subtracted image. The covariance matrix can then be computed as S = TTT and the eigenvector decomposition of S is given by S v i = T T T v i = λ i v i {\displaystyle \mathbf {Sv} _{i}=\mathbf {T} \mathbf {T} ^{T}\mathbf {v} _{i}=\lambda _{i}\mathbf {v} _{i}} However TTT is a large matrix, and if instead we take the eigenvalue decomposition of T T T u i = λ i u i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} ^{T}\mathbf {T} \mathbf {u} _{i}=\lambda _{i}\mathbf {u} _{i}} then we notice that by pre-multiplying both sides of the equation with T, we obtain T T T T u i = λ i T u i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} \mathbf {T} ^{T}\mathbf {T} \mathbf {u} _{i}=\lambda _{i}\mathbf {T} \mathbf {u} _{i}} Meaning that, if ui is an eigenvector of TTT, then vi = Tui is an eigenvector of S. If we have
Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer
Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is a managed or hosted file transfer service that provides cloud storage that can be accessed via SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). These services allow secure, reliable file transfers while offering the scalability, redundancy, and high availability of cloud infrastructure. == Technical overview == The evolution of file transfer protocols began with File Transfer Protocol (FTP) and SSH File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). SFTP offered enhanced security through the use of SSH (Secure Shell) encryption, which addressed many of the security concerns associated with traditional FTP. Over time, as businesses increasingly adopted cloud infrastructure, the demand for services that integrate secure file transfer with cloud storage led to the rise of Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer services. These services combine the benefits of secure, encrypted file transfer with the scalability and flexibility of cloud-based storage systems. Traditional on-premises SFTP typically involves setting up and managing physical or virtual servers to handle file transfers. In contrast, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer utilizes managed cloud infrastructure, such as AWS EC2, Azure VMs, or Google Cloud, to automate scaling, ensure redundancy, and provide high availability. These cloud environments can be configured to automatically scale with demand, enabling businesses to handle large volumes of data transfers without the need for extensive physical hardware. == Features == Scalability and availability: Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer services are inherently scalable, with features like load balancing, multi-region deployments, and auto-scaling groups that adjust resources in response to traffic spikes. This ensures that the system can handle varying workloads and provides continuous availability, even during high-demand periods. Cost-effectiveness: By eliminating the need for physical infrastructure and reducing ongoing server maintenance costs, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer services offer significant cost savings compared to traditional on-premises services. Cloud providers typically offer pay-as-you-go pricing models, where users only pay for the resources they use, further optimizing costs. Security and compliance: Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer products offer strong security measures, including end-to-end encryption, key management, detailed logging, and auditing. These services are often compliant with industry regulations such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), and SOC 2 (System and Organization Controls), ensuring that data transfers meet necessary security and privacy standards. == Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer providers == == Uses == Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is used across various industries to securely transfer sensitive data and integrate into business workflows. In healthcare, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is essential for securely transferring electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI), ensuring compliance with regulations like HIPAA. In financial institutions, it is used to protect sensitive financial data during transfer, maintaining privacy and security. Data analytics also benefits from Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer, offering a secure and efficient method for transferring large datasets between systems or partners. Technically, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is often integrated into enterprise workflows through automated file transfers, using scripting or APIs. It also plays a key role in cloud backup and disaster recovery, ensuring that files are securely transferred and stored in cloud environments, which supports business continuity. However, businesses must address certain implementation challenges. Despite its secure design, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is not immune to risks such as misconfigured SSH keys, improper access control, or inadequate encryption. Regular security audits and careful configuration management are necessary to minimize the risk of data breaches. Additionally, integrating Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer with legacy systems can present challenges, such as incompatible APIs or outdated authentication methods. == Comparisons with related technologies == Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer differs from traditional SFTP primarily in its deployment and management model. Traditional SFTP services are typically hosted on-premises or on virtual servers, requiring manual configuration, ongoing infrastructure maintenance, and security management by in-house IT teams. In contrast, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is offered as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) service, reducing infrastructure overhead by eliminating the need for dedicated hardware or virtual machines. This model simplifies management through centralized web-based interfaces, automated updates, and built-in scalability. While Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer is focused on providing secure file transfers over the SFTP protocol, Managed File Transfer (MFT) platforms generally support a broader range of protocols, including FTP, FTPS, HTTP/S, and AS2. MFT services often include advanced features such as end-to-end encryption, extensive automation, compliance reporting, and integration with enterprise systems. Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer services may offer some of these features but are typically more lightweight and streamlined, targeting organizations seeking a secure and scalable alternative to traditional SFTP without the full suite of MFT capabilities. As such, Cloud-Based Secure File Transfer can be seen as a specialized subset within the broader managed file transfer ecosystem.
Semantic neural network
Semantic neural network (SNN) is based on John von Neumann's neural network [von Neumann, 1966] and Nikolai Amosov M-Network. There are limitations to a link topology for the von Neumann’s network but SNN accept a case without these limitations. Only logical values can be processed, but SNN accept that fuzzy values can be processed too. All neurons into the von Neumann network are synchronized by tacts. For further use of self-synchronizing circuit technique SNN accepts neurons can be self-running or synchronized. In contrast to the von Neumann network there are no limitations for topology of neurons for semantic networks. It leads to the impossibility of relative addressing of neurons as it was done by von Neumann. In this case an absolute readdressing should be used. Every neuron should have a unique identifier that would provide a direct access to another neuron. Of course, neurons interacting by axons-dendrites should have each other's identifiers. An absolute readdressing can be modulated by using neuron specificity as it was realized for biological neural networks. There’s no description for self-reflectiveness and self-modification abilities into the initial description of semantic networks [Dudar Z.V., Shuklin D.E., 2000]. But in [Shuklin D.E. 2004] a conclusion had been drawn about the necessity of introspection and self-modification abilities in the system. For maintenance of these abilities a concept of pointer to neuron is provided. Pointers represent virtual connections between neurons. In this model, bodies and signals transferring through the neurons connections represent a physical body, and virtual connections between neurons are representing an astral body. It is proposed to create models of artificial neuron networks on the basis of virtual machine supporting the opportunity for paranormal effects. SNN is generally used for natural language processing. == Related models == Computational creativity Semantic hashing Semantic Pointer Architecture Sparse distributed memory