Application framework

In computer programming, an application framework consists of a software framework used by software developers to implement the standard structure of application software. Application frameworks became popular with the rise of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), since these tended to promote a standard structure for applications. Programmers find it much simpler to create automatic GUI creation tools when using a standard framework, since this defines the underlying code structure of the application in advance. Developers usually use object-oriented programming (OOP) techniques to implement frameworks such that the unique parts of an application can simply inherit from classes extant in the framework. == Examples == Apple Computer developed one of the first commercial application frameworks, MacApp (first release 1985), for the Macintosh. Originally written in an extended (object-oriented) version of Pascal termed Object Pascal, it was later rewritten in C++. Another notable framework for the Mac is Metrowerks' PowerPlant, based on Carbon. Cocoa for macOS offers a different approach to an application framework, based on the OpenStep framework developed at NeXT. Since the 2010s, many apps have been created with the frameworks based on Google's Chromium project. The two prominent ones are Electron and the Chromium Embedded Framework. Free and open-source software frameworks exist as part of the Mozilla, LibreOffice, GNOME, KDE, NetBeans, and Eclipse projects. Microsoft markets a framework for developing Windows applications in C++ called the Microsoft Foundation Class Library, and a similar framework for developing applications with Visual Basic or C#, named .NET Framework. Several frameworks can build cross-platform applications for Linux, Macintosh, and Windows from common source code, such as Qt, wxWidgets, Juce, Fox toolkit, or Eclipse Rich Client Platform (RCP). Oracle Application Development Framework (Oracle ADF) aids in producing Java-oriented systems. Silicon Laboratories offers an embedded application framework for developing wireless applications on its series of wireless chips.

Loebner Prize

The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

Latent class model

In statistics, a latent class model (LCM) is a model for clustering multivariate discrete data. It assumes that the data arise from a mixture of discrete distributions, within each of which the variables are independent. It is called a latent class model because the class to which each data point belongs is unobserved (or latent). Latent class analysis (LCA) is a subset of structural equation modeling used to find groups or subtypes of cases in multivariate categorical data. These groups or subtypes of cases are called "latent classes". When faced with the following situation, a researcher might opt to use LCA to better understand the data: Symptoms a, b, c, and d have been recorded in a variety of patients diagnosed with diseases X, Y, and Z. Disease X is associated with symptoms a, b, and c; disease Y is linked to symptoms b, c, and d; and disease Z is connected to symptoms a, c, and d. In this context, the LCA would attempt to detect the presence of latent classes (i.e., the disease entities), thus creating patterns of association in the symptoms. As in factor analysis, LCA can also be used to classify cases according to their maximum likelihood class membership probability. The key criterion for resolving the LCA is identifying latent classes in which the observed symptom associations are effectively rendered null. This is because within each class, the diseases responsible for the symptoms create a structure of dependencies. As a result, the symptoms become conditionally independent, meaning that, given the class a case belongs to, the symptoms are no longer related to one another. == Model == Within each latent class, the observed variables are statistically independent—an essential aspect of latent class modeling. Usually, the observed variables are statistically dependent. By introducing the latent variable, independence is restored in the sense that within classes, variables are independent (local independence). Therefore, the association between the observed variables is explained by the classes of the latent variable (McCutcheon, 1987). In one form, the LCM is written as p i 1 , i 2 , … , i N ≈ ∑ t T p t ∏ n N p i n , t n , {\displaystyle p_{i_{1},i_{2},\ldots ,i_{N}}\approx \sum _{t}^{T}p_{t}\,\prod _{n}^{N}p_{i_{n},t}^{n},} where T {\displaystyle T} is the number of latent classes and p t {\displaystyle p_{t}} are the so-called recruitment or unconditional probabilities that should sum to one. p i n , t n {\displaystyle p_{i_{n},t}^{n}} are the marginal or conditional probabilities. For a two-way latent class model, the form is p i j ≈ ∑ t T p t p i t p j t . {\displaystyle p_{ij}\approx \sum _{t}^{T}p_{t}\,p_{it}\,p_{jt}.} This two-way model is related to probabilistic latent semantic analysis and non-negative matrix factorization. The probability model used in LCA is closely related to the Naive Bayes classifier. The main difference is that in LCA, the class membership of an individual is a latent variable, whereas in Naive Bayes classifiers, the class membership is an observed label. == Related methods == There are a number of methods with distinct names and uses that share a common relationship. Cluster analysis is, like LCA, used to discover taxon-like groups of cases in data. Multivariate mixture estimation (MME) is applicable to continuous data and assumes that such data arise from a mixture of distributions, such as a set of heights arising from a mixture of men and women. If a multivariate mixture estimation is constrained so that measures must be uncorrelated within each distribution, it is termed latent profile analysis. Modified to handle discrete data, this constrained analysis is known as LCA. Discrete latent trait models further constrain the classes to form from segments of a single dimension, allocating members to classes based on that dimension. An example would be assigning cases to social classes based on ability or merit. In a practical instance, the variables could be multiple choice items of a political questionnaire. In this case, the data consists of an N-way contingency table with answers to the items for a number of respondents. In this example, the latent variable refers to political opinion, and the latent classes to political groups. Given group membership, the conditional probabilities specify the chance that certain answers are chosen. == Application == LCA may be used in many fields, such as: collaborative filtering, Behavior Genetics and Evaluation of diagnostic tests.

Multidimensional scaling

Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a means of visualizing the level of similarity of individual cases of a data set. MDS is used to translate distances between each pair of n {\textstyle n} objects in a set into a configuration of n {\textstyle n} points mapped into an abstract Cartesian space. More technically, MDS refers to a set of related ordination techniques used in information visualization, in particular to display the information contained in a distance matrix. It is a form of non-linear dimensionality reduction. Given a distance matrix with the distances between each pair of objects in a set, and a chosen number of dimensions, N, an MDS algorithm places each object into N-dimensional space (a lower-dimensional representation) such that the between-object distances are preserved as well as possible. For N = 1, 2, and 3, the resulting points can be visualized on a scatter plot. Core theoretical contributions to MDS were made by James O. Ramsay of McGill University, who is also regarded as the founder of functional data analysis. == Types == MDS algorithms fall into a taxonomy, depending on the meaning of the input matrix: === Classical multidimensional scaling === It is also known as Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA), Torgerson Scaling or Torgerson–Gower scaling. It takes an input matrix giving dissimilarities between pairs of items and outputs a coordinate matrix whose configuration minimizes a loss function called strain, which is given by Strain D ( x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ) = ( ∑ i , j ( b i j − x i T x j ) 2 ∑ i , j b i j 2 ) 1 / 2 , {\displaystyle {\text{Strain}}_{D}(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})={\Biggl (}{\frac {\sum _{i,j}{\bigl (}b_{ij}-x_{i}^{T}x_{j}{\bigr )}^{2}}{\sum _{i,j}b_{ij}^{2}}}{\Biggr )}^{1/2},} where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} denote vectors in N-dimensional space, x i T x j {\displaystyle x_{i}^{T}x_{j}} denotes the scalar product between x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} , and b i j {\displaystyle b_{ij}} are the elements of the matrix B {\displaystyle B} defined on step 2 of the following algorithm, which are computed from the distances. Steps of a Classical MDS algorithm: Classical MDS uses the fact that the coordinate matrix X {\displaystyle X} can be derived by eigenvalue decomposition from B = X X ′ {\textstyle B=XX'} . And the matrix B {\textstyle B} can be computed from proximity matrix D {\textstyle D} by using double centering. Set up the squared proximity matrix D ( 2 ) = [ d i j 2 ] {\textstyle D^{(2)}=[d_{ij}^{2}]} Apply double centering: B = − 1 2 C D ( 2 ) C {\textstyle B=-{\frac {1}{2}}CD^{(2)}C} using the centering matrix C = I − 1 n J n {\textstyle C=I-{\frac {1}{n}}J_{n}} , where n {\textstyle n} is the number of objects, I {\textstyle I} is the n × n {\textstyle n\times n} identity matrix, and J n {\textstyle J_{n}} is an n × n {\textstyle n\times n} matrix of all ones. Determine the m {\textstyle m} largest eigenvalues λ 1 , λ 2 , . . . , λ m {\textstyle \lambda _{1},\lambda _{2},...,\lambda _{m}} and corresponding eigenvectors e 1 , e 2 , . . . , e m {\textstyle e_{1},e_{2},...,e_{m}} of B {\textstyle B} (where m {\textstyle m} is the number of dimensions desired for the output). Now, X = E m Λ m 1 / 2 {\textstyle X=E_{m}\Lambda _{m}^{1/2}} , where E m {\textstyle E_{m}} is the matrix of m {\textstyle m} eigenvectors and Λ m {\textstyle \Lambda _{m}} is the diagonal matrix of m {\textstyle m} eigenvalues of B {\textstyle B} . Classical MDS assumes metric distances. So this is not applicable for direct dissimilarity ratings. === Metric multidimensional scaling (mMDS) === It is a superset of classical MDS that generalizes the optimization procedure to a variety of loss functions and input matrices of known distances with weights and so on. A useful loss function in this context is called stress, which is often minimized using a procedure called stress majorization. Metric MDS minimizes the cost function called “stress” which is a residual sum of squares: Stress D ( x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ) = ∑ i ≠ j = 1 , . . . , n ( d i j − ‖ x i − x j ‖ ) 2 . {\displaystyle {\text{Stress}}_{D}(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})={\sqrt {\sum _{i\neq j=1,...,n}{\bigl (}d_{ij}-\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|{\bigr )}^{2}}}.} Metric scaling uses a power transformation with a user-controlled exponent p {\textstyle p} : d i j p {\textstyle d_{ij}^{p}} and − d i j 2 p {\textstyle -d_{ij}^{2p}} for distance. In classical scaling p = 1. {\textstyle p=1.} Non-metric scaling is defined by the use of isotonic regression to nonparametrically estimate a transformation of the dissimilarities. === Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) === In contrast to metric MDS, non-metric MDS finds both a non-parametric monotonic relationship between the dissimilarities in the item-item matrix and the Euclidean distances between items, and the location of each item in the low-dimensional space. Let d i j {\displaystyle d_{ij}} be the dissimilarity between points i , j {\displaystyle i,j} . Let d ^ i j = ‖ x i − x j ‖ {\displaystyle {\hat {d}}_{ij}=\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|} be the Euclidean distance between embedded points x i , x j {\displaystyle x_{i},x_{j}} . Now, for each choice of the embedded points x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and is a monotonically increasing function f {\displaystyle f} , define the "stress" function: S ( x 1 , . . . , x n ; f ) = ∑ i < j ( f ( d i j ) − d ^ i j ) 2 ∑ i < j d ^ i j 2 . {\displaystyle S(x_{1},...,x_{n};f)={\sqrt {\frac {\sum _{i

GeWorkbench

geWorkbench (genomics Workbench) is an open-source software platform for integrated genomic data analysis. It is a desktop application written in the programming language Java. geWorkbench uses a component architecture. As of 2016, there are more than 70 plug-ins available, providing for the visualization and analysis of gene expression, sequence, and structure data. geWorkbench is the Bioinformatics platform of MAGNet, the National Center for the Multi-scale Analysis of Genomic and Cellular Networks, one of the 8 National Centers for Biomedical Computing funded through the NIH Roadmap (NIH Common Fund). Many systems and structure biology tools developed by MAGNet investigators are available as geWorkbench plugins. == Features == Computational analysis tools such as t-test, hierarchical clustering, self-organizing maps, regulatory network reconstruction, BLAST searches, pattern-motif discovery, protein structure prediction, structure-based protein annotation, etc. Visualization of gene expression (heatmaps, volcano plot), molecular interaction networks (through Cytoscape), protein sequence and protein structure data (e.g., MarkUs). Integration of gene and pathway annotation information from curated sources as well as through Gene Ontology enrichment analysis. Component integration through platform management of inputs and outputs. Among data that can be shared between components are expression datasets, interaction networks, sample and marker (gene) sets and sequences. Dataset history tracking - complete record of data sets used and input settings. Integration with 3rd party tools such as GenePattern, Cytoscape, and Genomespace. Demonstrations of each feature described can be found at GeWorkbench-web Tutorials. == Versions == geWorkbench is open-source software that can be downloaded and installed locally. A zip file of the released version Java source is also available. Prepackaged installer versions also exist for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux.

Cloud printing

There are, in essence, three kinds of Cloud printing. == Benefits == 76% of IT teams have moved, or plan to move, their print workflows to the cloud due to its simplicity. Consumers can print easily to any printer from their PC, tablet or smartphone, while the Cloud print service monitors the supplies level. Many printer vendors such as Lexmark propose an automatic supplies shipment based on the real-time analysis of the printer supplies and user behavior to ensure printing will always be possible. For IT department, Cloud Printing eliminates the need for print servers and represents the only way to print from Cloud virtual desktops and servers. For consumers, cloud ready printers eliminate the need for PC connections and print drivers, enabling them to print from mobile devices. As for publishers and content owners, cloud printing allows them to "avoid the cost and complexity of buying and managing the underlying hardware, software and processes" required for the production of professional print products. Leveraging cloud print for print on demand also allows businesses to cut down on the costs associated with mass production. Moreover, cloud printing can be considered more eco-friendly, as it significantly reduces the amount of paper used (13% reduction in print jobs yearly) and lowers carbon emissions from transportation. As many companies move their IT to the Cloud, some adopting the Windows 365 and Azure Virtual Desktop services from Microsoft, the connection from the Cloud environment to the on-premise printers become an issue as opening ports for incoming print flow traffic is not an option. In 2020, at the exact same time Google discontinued its Google Print offer, Microsoft has announced its Universal Print service offer, aimed at making printing compatible with Cloud Desktop environments, making printing driver-free and simple with no client to install on PC. With Universal Print Microsoft has built a disrupting architecture with a value proposition commodifying printers, removing print servers and drivers, allowing to move printers to VLAN for security purpose and printing from anywhere. Clients are free to use any printer from any model as they all work the same, clients are not tied anymore to any printer brand and that gave a significant boost to the Cloud print market. That Microsoft Universal Print architecture provides APIs to third-party developers who can develop add-ons such as Celiveo 365 to extend Microsoft Cloud Print with added features such as access control on printers and copiers, follow-me pull print, data encryption, advanced usage reporting or charge back. == Providers of Consumer Cloud Printing Solutions == Before 2020 only a handful of providers used to work towards a professional cloud print solution, operating in their own niche or focus on mobile devices. In 2020 Microsoft has boosted that market by announcing its Universal Print Cloud printing service and since then many publishers have started to propose solutions for that growing market. The Covid pandemic also created the need for employees to be able to print at home when using the corporate IT software. Closed VPN often prevent accessing home network printers from corporate laptops and Full Public Cloud solutions are meant to be a solution to that problem. After the decision by Google to terminate Google Cloud Print service on 31 December 2020, most printer vendors released their own mobile cloud solution to fill the gap, while Hewlett-Packard implemented its own cloud print with their ePrint solution. Those solutions are often proprietary, only working on printers proposed by the vendor. Google has decided to let third-party developers develop Cloud Print solutions and to limit its scope to certifying the best Print Management offers compatible with its Chrome Enterprise Cloud ecosystem. == Providers of Corporate Cloud Printing solutions == While many print solutions claim to be "Cloud Printing", there are actually three categories: full Private Cloud, full Public Cloud, and Hybrid Cloud. Their differences are real and have an impact on the overall TCO as the more software there is on-site, the more hidden cost there are. In the Full Public Cloud category, independent SaaS vendors like Celiveo, ezeep , Printix , and Y Soft support a wide range of printer brands and models, allowing clients to buy the best printer without being locked on any brand. They are leveraging cloud computing technology to offer cloud-based print infrastructure and cloud-based printing software as a Service (SaaS). These solutions have integrations to cloud enabled printers or provide embedded printer agents. They feature allow users to print to any printer in any network, isolated network or not, even if that printer is otherwise not reachable from the user's computer. This also allows IT departments to move printers to VLAN for maximum security, like what they are doing with IP phones. Google Chrome Enterprise Cloud ecosystem has its own technical particularities and Google certifies Print Management solutions, ensuring they comply with Google technical requirement, yet letting each solution differentiate from others with specific features or security. Many of solutions for Chrome Enterprise are Hybrid, a few are Full Public Cloud. Industry experts believe that as these services become more popular, users will no longer consider printers as necessary assets but rather as devices that they can access on demand when the need to generate a printed page presents itself. == Caveats of Cloud Printing == == Security == Print jobs flow through Public Internet. It is therefore important to verify no Man-in-the-Middle attack can be performed. The only technical solution is to ensure each printer and PC uses a non-self-generated cryptographic token or certificate allowing TLS mutual authentication and specific data encryption. Self-generated printer certificates are unknown from the Cloud and prevent trusted authentication. Microsoft has implemented its Zero Trust Access security in its Universal Print service, it generates a unique certificate on printers compatible with its service. Other Cloud Printing SaaS providers have followed Microsoft on that High Security path. Print jobs data stored on the Cloud is sensitive as it contains user information as well as all information appearing on pages. Good practices require such data is encrypted at rest and in motion, using asymmetric PKI keys instead of fixed encryption keys. Some solutions require to open incoming traffic ports on the firewall to let Cloud services communicate with printers attached behind that firewall (most of the time for IPP/IPPS flows), some other solutions use a pull model where the communication is always initiated by the printer and no firewall port needs to be open. In terms of security the later is to be preferred.

Jubatus

Jubatus is an open-source online machine learning and distributed computing framework developed at Nippon Telegraph and Telephone and Preferred Infrastructure. Its features include classification, recommendation, regression, anomaly detection and graph mining. It supports many client languages, including C++, Java, Ruby and Python. It uses Iterative Parameter Mixture for distributed machine learning. == Notable Features == Jubatus supports: Multi-classification algorithms: Perceptron Passive Aggressive Confidence Weighted Adaptive Regularization of Weight Vectors Normal Herd Recommendation algorithms using: Inverted index Minhash Locality-sensitive hashing Regression algorithms: Passive Aggressive feature extraction method for natural language: n-gram Text segmentation