In computer science, an anytime algorithm is an algorithm that can return a valid solution to a problem even if it is interrupted before it ends. The algorithm is expected to find better and better solutions the longer it keeps running. Most algorithms run to completion: they provide a single answer after performing some fixed amount of computation. In some cases, however, the user may wish to terminate the algorithm prior to completion. The amount of computation required may be substantial, for example, and computational resources might need to be reallocated. Most algorithms either run to completion or they provide no useful solution information. Anytime algorithms, however, are able to return a partial answer, whose quality depends on the amount of computation they were able to perform. The answer generated by anytime algorithms is an approximation of the correct answer. == Names == An anytime algorithm may be also called an "interruptible algorithm". They are different from contract algorithms, which must declare a time in advance; in an anytime algorithm, a process can just announce that it is terminating. == Goals == The goal of anytime algorithms are to give intelligent systems the ability to make results of better quality in return for turn-around time. They are also supposed to be flexible in time and resources. They are important because artificial intelligence or AI algorithms can take a long time to complete results. This algorithm is designed to complete in a shorter amount of time. Also, these are intended to have a better understanding that the system is dependent and restricted to its agents and how they work cooperatively. An example is the Newton–Raphson iteration applied to finding the square root of a number. Another example that uses anytime algorithms is trajectory problems when you're aiming for a target; the object is moving through space while waiting for the algorithm to finish and even an approximate answer can significantly improve its accuracy if given early. What makes anytime algorithms unique is their ability to return many possible outcomes for any given input. An anytime algorithm uses many well defined quality measures to monitor progress in problem solving and distributed computing resources. It keeps searching for the best possible answer with the amount of time that it is given. It may not run until completion and may improve the answer if it is allowed to run longer. This is often used for large decision set problems. This would generally not provide useful information unless it is allowed to finish. While this may sound similar to dynamic programming, the difference is that it is fine-tuned through random adjustments, rather than sequential. Anytime algorithms are designed so that it can be told to stop at any time and would return the best result it has found so far. This is why it is called an interruptible algorithm. Certain anytime algorithms also maintain the last result, so that if they are given more time, they can continue from where they left off to obtain an even better result. == Decision trees == When the decider has to act, there must be some ambiguity. Also, there must be some idea about how to solve this ambiguity. This idea must be translatable to a state to action diagram. == Performance profile == The performance profile estimates the quality of the results based on the input and the amount of time that is allotted to the algorithm. The better the estimate, the sooner the result would be found. Some systems have a larger database that gives the probability that the output is the expected output. One algorithm can have several performance profiles. Most of the time performance profiles are constructed using mathematical statistics using representative cases. For example, in the traveling salesman problem, the performance profile was generated using a user-defined special program to generate the necessary statistics. In this example, the performance profile is the mapping of time to the expected results. This quality can be measured in several ways: certainty: where probability of correctness determines quality accuracy: where error bound determines quality specificity: where the amount of particulars determine quality == Algorithm prerequisites == Initial behavior: While some algorithms start with immediate guesses, others take a more calculated approach and have a start up period before making any guesses. Growth direction: How the quality of the program's "output" or result, varies as a function of the amount of time ("run time") Growth rate: Amount of increase with each step. Does it change constantly, such as in a bubble sort or does it change unpredictably? End condition: The amount of runtime needed
Twproject
Twproject (say: T W Project) is a web-based project and groupware management tool created by Open Lab, an Italian software house founded in 2001. It won the 17th Jolt Productivity Award in 2007 in the project management category. In March 2019 it becomes property of Twproject company. It has widespread use in universities as a teaching tool in project management courses. It is used by Oracle Corporation, Prada, Calzedonia, General Electric and many other companies from corporations to small start-ups. == History == April 2001 - The idea of Teamwork came to Open-Lab founders from a need to overcome the PM tools used at that time. It was built in Microsoft ASP and Adobe Flash November 2002 - Open-Lab decide to move from Flash to HTML and from ASP to Java-JSP. Teamwork 2 development is started. June 2004 - Teamwork 2 released, using top open-source technologies like Hibernate, jBlooming, dynamic CSS, Ajax 7 January 2005 - Teamwork goes open source, under LGPL license; remains such until June 2006 (18 months): it is a hit application on SourceForge, with 38.000 downloads, covered by greeting but starving April 2005 - Open-Lab takes the decision to change commercial strategy to finance development of Teamwork version 3 6 June 2006 - Teamwork 3 is finally out (15 months development). New interface, many new features, agile support and much more 27 March 2007 - Teamwork wins the 2007 JOLT Productivity Awards for project management category July 2007 - Teamwork 4 development started: new interface, extended use of new HTML capabilities, JS-oriented interface, start using jQuery February 2009 - Teamwork 4.0 is out February 2010 - Teamwork 4.4: public project pages, Chinese interface. jQuery is getting more space in Teamwork December 2010 - Teamwork 4.6: released Mobile module available for iPhone, Android, BlackBerry. Intensive usage of jQuery June 2011 - Teamwork 4.7: released Issue Kanban / Organizer January 2012 - Teamwork 5.0 development started. Lighter interface, extensive usage of dynamic pages, easier installer and first time approach. Learning curve highly reduced. A jQuery Gantt editor included and released free for the community July 2012 - Teamwork 5 released and also the free online Gantt editor November 2012 - Teamwork 5.1 with new trees and improved model for staffing March 2013 - Teamwork 5.2 with stronger support for customizations and Japanese interface. April 2014 - Teamwork has changed its name in Twproject because the domain teamwork.com has been purchased by Teamwork. April 2013 - Twproject 5.4 with a redesigned more powerful Gantt chart. August 2015 - Twproject 5 finale release. September 2015 - Twproject 6 with a completely redesigned user interface. March 2019 - A new company Twproject srl has been spun off. September 2021 - Twproject 7 has been released introducing WBS based management and workload management. == Features == Project & task management (with Microsoft Project import/export), and JSON format Gantt editor. Uses jQuery Gantt components Time tracking. Several entry points: dashboard, weekly view, issues, start/stop buttons Resource planning with weekly/monthly view, work load overview, unavailability from agenda Issue tracking & planning(with Kanban), e-mail integration, task dedicated inboxes Dashboard configuration, with customizable portlets and layout Message boards Scrum module Meeting and minute management, attached documents Agenda (Integrates with iCal, Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Entourage, and Google Calendar) Document management, remote file systems link with NTFS, FTP, SVN, S3 (Dropbox, Google drive) Mobile application for iPhone, iPad, Android, Blackberry, Windows phone == Integration == A complete JSON API is available for integrations. The applications runs in Java JDK 8+ on the Hibernate object/relational mapping. The standard distribution uses Apache Tomcat 9, but can run on any J2EE application server. Twproject is tested on these DB servers: MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server, PostgreSql, HSQLDB, but as uses Hibernate can run on many others. There is simple graphical step-by-step installer for Windows, Mac, Linux, .zip/.tar.gz/.rpm packages.
2018 Google data breach
The 2018 Google data breach was a major data privacy scandal in which the Google+ API exposed the private data of over five hundred thousand users. Google+ managers first noticed harvesting of personal data in March 2018, during a review following the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The bug, despite having been fixed immediately, exposed the private data of approximately 500,000 Google+ users to the public. Google did not reveal the leak to the network's users. In November 2018, another data breach occurred following an update to the Google+ API. Although Google found no evidence of failure, approximately 52.5 million personal profiles were potentially exposed. In August 2019, Google declared a shutdown of Google+ due to low use and technological challenges. == Overview of Google+ == Google+ was launched in June 2011 as an invite-only social network, but was opened for public access later in the year. It was managed by Vic Gundotra. Similar to Facebook, Google+ also included key features Circles, Hangouts and Sparks. Circles let users personalize their social groups by sorting friends into different categories. Once allowed into a Circle, users could regulate information in their individual spaces. Hangouts included video chatting and instant messaging between users. Sparks allowed Google to track users' past searches to find news and content related to their interests. Google+ was linked to other Google services, such as YouTube, Google Drive and Gmail, giving it access to roughly 2 billion user accounts. However, less than 400 million consumers actively used Google+, with 90% of those users using it for less than five seconds. == The breaches == In March 2018, Google developers found a data breach within the Google+ People API in which external apps acquired access to Profile fields that were not marked as public. According to The Wall Street Journal, Google didn’t disclose the breach when it was first discovered in March to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. 500,000 Google+ accounts were included in the breach, which allowed 438 external apps unauthorized access to private users' names, emails, addresses, occupations, genders and ages. This information was available between 2015 and 2018. Google found no evidence of any user's personal information being misused, nor that any third-party app developers were aware of the leak. In November 2018, a software update created another data breach within the Google+ API. The bug impacted 52.5 million users, where, similarly to the March breach, unauthorized apps were able to access Google+ profiles, including users' names, email addresses, occupations and ages. Apps could not access financial information, national identification, numbers, or passwords. Blog posts, messages and phone numbers also remained inaccessible if marked as private. Unlike the previous breach, access was only available for six days before Google+ learned of the breach. Once more, Google+ found no evidence of data being misused by third-party developers. == Responses == In October 2018, the Wall Street Journal published an article outlining the initial breach and Google's decision to not disclose it to users. At the time, there was no federal law that required Google to inform their consumers of data breaches. Google+ originally did not disclose the breach out of fears of being compared to Facebook's recent data leak and subsequent loss of consumer confidence. In response to the Wall Street Journal article, Google announced the shutdown of Google+ in August 2019. After the second data leak, the date was moved to April 2019. In response to the data breach, enterprise consumers were notified of the bug's impact and given instructions on how to save, download and delete their data prior to the Google+ shut down. Google's Privacy and Data Protection Office found no misuse of user data. Prior to the Google+ shutdown, Google set a 10-month period in which users could download and migrate their data. After the 10-month period, user content was deleted. On 4 February 2019, consumers were no longer able to create new Google+ profiles. Google shut down Google+ APIs on 7 March 2019 to ensure that developers did not continue to rely on the APIs prior to the Google+ shutdown. Google is the principal entity of its parent company, Alphabet Inc. After the data breach, Alphabet Inc. share prices fell by 1% to $1,157.06 on 9 October 2018 after an earlier drop of $1,135.40 that morning, the lowest price since 5 July 2018. After the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, share prices dropped as low as 2.1% in two days on 10 October 2018. Share prices steadily increased from this point and met the 8 October 2018 share price on 5 February 2019. Google planned to rebuild Google+ as a corporate enterprise network. Google Play will now assess which apps can ask for permission to access the user's SMS data. Only the default app for telephone distribution is able to make requests. Prior to the data breaches, apps were able to request access to all of a consumer's data simultaneously. Now, each app must request permission for each aspect of a consumer's profile.
Colour banding
Colour banding is a subtle form of posterisation in digital images, caused by the colour of each pixel being rounded to the nearest of the digital colour levels. While posterisation is often done for artistic effect, colour banding is an undesired artefact. In 24-bit colour modes, 8 bits per channel is usually considered sufficient to render images in Rec. 709 or sRGB. However the eye can see the difference between the colour levels, especially when there is a sharp border between two large areas of adjacent colour levels. This will happen with gradual gradients (like sunsets, dawns or clear blue skies), and also when blurring an image a large amount. Colour banding is more noticeable with fewer bits per pixel (BPP) at 16–256 colours (4–8 BPP), where there are fewer shades with a larger difference between them. The appearance of colour banding is exaggerated by the Mach bands effect. Possible solutions include the introduction of dithering and increasing the number of bits per colour channel. Because the banding comes from limitations in the presentation of the image, blurring the image does not fix this unless the image BPP is higher than the original.
Deductive language
A deductive language is a computer programming language in which the program is a collection of predicates ('facts') and rules that connect them. Such a language is used to create knowledge based systems or expert systems which can deduce answers to problem sets by applying the rules to the facts they have been given. An example of a deductive language is Prolog, or its database-query cousin, Datalog. == History == As the name implies, deductive languages are rooted in the principles of deductive reasoning; making inferences based upon current knowledge. The first recommendation to use a clausal form of logic for representing computer programs was made by Cordell Green (1969) at Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International). This idea can also be linked back to the battle between procedural and declarative information representation in early artificial intelligence systems. Deductive languages and their use in logic programming can also be dated to the same year when Foster and Elcock introduced Absys, the first deductive/logical programming language. Shortly after, the first Prolog system was introduced in 1972 by Colmerauer through collaboration with Robert Kowalski. == Components == The components of a deductive language are a system of formal logic and a knowledge base upon which the logic is applied. === Formal Logic === Formal logic is the study of inference in regards to formal content. The distinguishing feature between formal and informal logic is that in the former case, the logical rule applied to the content is not specific to a situation. The laws hold regardless of a change in context. Although first-order logic is described in the example below to demonstrate the uses of a deductive language, no formal system is mandated and the use of a specific system is defined within the language rules or grammar. As input, a predicate takes any object(s) in the domain of interest and outputs either one of two Boolean values: true or false. For example, consider the sentences "Barack Obama is the 44th president" and "If it rains today, I will bring an umbrella". The first is a statement with an associated truth value. The second is a conditional statement relying on the value of some other statement. Either of these sentences can be broken down into predicates which can be compared and form the knowledge base of a deductive language. Moreover, variables such as 'Barack Obama' or 'president' can be quantified over. For example, take 'Barack Obama' as variable 'x'. In the sentence "There exists an 'x' such that if 'x' is the president, then 'x' is the commander in chief." This is an example of the existential quantifier in first order logic. Take 'president' to be the variable 'y'. In the sentence "For every 'y', 'y' is the leader of their nation." This is an example of the universal quantifier. === Knowledge Base === A collection of 'facts' or predicates and variables form the knowledge base of a deductive language. Depending on the language, the order of declaration of these predicates within the knowledge base may or may not influence the result of applying logical rules. Upon application of certain 'rules' or inferences, new predicates may be added to a knowledge base. As new facts are established or added, they form the basis for new inferences. As the core of early expert systems, artificial intelligence systems which can make decisions like an expert human, knowledge bases provided more information than databases. They contained structured data, with classes, subclasses, and instances. == Prolog == Prolog is an example of a deductive, declarative language that applies first- order logic to a knowledge base. To run a program in Prolog, a query is posed and based upon the inference engine and the specific facts in the knowledge base, a result is returned. The result can be anything appropriate from a new relation or predicate, to a literal such as a Boolean (true/false), depending on the engine and type system.
Language engineering
Language engineering involves the creation of natural language processing systems, whose cost and outputs are measurable and predictable. It is a distinct field contrasted to natural language processing and computational linguistics. A recent trend of language engineering is the use of Semantic Web technologies for the creation, archiving, processing, and retrieval of machine processable language data. Meta-Language Engineering is a proposed extension of Language Engineering first recorded in 2025, associated with the work of Delyone de Paula Canedo Filho. The term is used to designate an approach that, in addition to natural language processing, encompasses the symbolic, cognitive, and epistemological structuring of language systems.
Medical data breach
Medical data, including patients' identity information, health status, disease diagnosis and treatment, and biogenetic information, not only involve patients' privacy but also have a special sensitivity and important value, which may bring physical and mental distress and property loss to patients and even negatively affect social stability and national security once leaked. However, the development and application of medical AI must rely on a large amount of medical data for algorithm training, and the larger and more diverse the amount of data, the more accurate the results of its analysis and prediction will be. However, the application of big data technologies such as data collection, analysis and processing, cloud storage, and information sharing has increased the risk of data leakage. In the United States, the rate of such breaches has increased over time, with 176 million records breached by the end of 2017. By 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported 725 large healthcare data breaches affecting approximately 275 million individual records in a single year, marking a significant escalation in both the frequency and scale of incidents. == Black market for health data == In February 2015 an NPR report claimed that organized crime networks had ways of selling health data in the black market. In 2015 a Beazley employee estimated that medical records could sell on the black market for US$40-50. == How data is lost == Theft, data loss, hacking, and unauthorized account access are ways in which medical data breaches happen. Among reported breaches of medical information in the United States networked information systems accounted for the largest number of records breached. There are many data breaches happening in the US health care system, among business associates of the health care providers that continuously gain access to patients' data. == List of data breaches == In February 2024, a ransomware attack on Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, compromised the protected health information of approximately 100 million individuals, making it the largest healthcare data breach in United States history. The attack disrupted claims processing for healthcare providers nationwide for several weeks. In May 2024, MediSecure suffered a cyberattack involving ransomware in Australia. In May 2021, the Health Service Executive in the Republic of Ireland was the victim of a cyberattack involving ransomware, in the Health Service Executive cyberattack, with admission records and test results present in a sample of the data reviewed by the Financial Times. In October 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the US reported that around 75,000 individual records had been affected by a data breach that took place through the ACA Agent and Broker Portal. In 2018, Social Indicators Research published the scientific evidence of 173,398,820 (over 173 million) individuals affected in USA from October 2008 (when the data were collected) to September 2017 (when the statistical analysis took place). In 2015, Anthem Inc. lost data for 37 million people in the Anthem medical data breach In 2014 4.5 million people using Complete Health Systems had their data stolen In 2013-14 1 million people using Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services had their data stolen In 2013 4 million people using Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation had their data stolen In 2011 4.9 million users of Tricare services had their data stolen due to an employee error by Science Applications International Corporation In 2011 1.9 million people using Health Net had their data stolen In 2011 1 million people using Nemours Foundation had their data stolen In 2010 6800 people using New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center had their data breached. In response, those organizations agreed to pay the United States Department of Health and Human Services a US$4.8 million dollar fine. In 2009 1 million people using BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee had their data stolen == Regulation == In the United States, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act require companies to report data breaches to affected individuals and the federal government. Under the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule, covered entities must notify affected individuals without unreasonable delay and no later than 60 days after discovering a breach of unsecured protected health information. Breaches affecting 500 or more individuals must also be reported to the HHS Secretary and to prominent media outlets serving the affected state or jurisdiction within the same timeframe; HHS publicly lists these larger breaches on its breach portal, commonly known as the "wall of shame." Breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals are reported to HHS annually, no later than 60 days after the end of the calendar year in which they were discovered. Health Information Privacy Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). - 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information and Security Standards for the Protection of Electronic Protected Health Information. HIPAA includes provisions designed to save health care businesses money by encouraging electronic transactions, as well as regulations to protect the security and confidentiality of patient information. The Privacy Rule became effective April 14, 2001, and most covered entities (health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers that conduct certain financial and administrative transactions electronically) had until April 2003 to comply. This security provision became effective April 21, 2003. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is the baseline set of federal regulations governing medical information. It does three things: i. i. i.Establish a structure for how personal health information is disclosed and establish the rights of individuals with respect to health information; ii.Specify security standards for the retention and transmission of electronic patient information; iii.Need a common format and data structure for the electronic exchange of health information. California-Specific Laws California’s medical privacy laws, primarily the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), the data breach sections of the Civil Code, and sections of the Health and Safety Code, provide HIPAA-like protections, although the terminology is different. HIPAA establishes a federal "minimum standard" that applies where there are gaps in California law, and HIPAA also specifies that stricter state laws will override or supersede HIPAA. California's health care privacy laws apply to providers who provide personal health records (PHR), while HIPAA only applies when the provider providing the PHR is a business associate of a covered entity. Federal law does not grant individuals the right to file a lawsuit in the event of a data breach (only the Attorney General can file a lawsuit), but California law does. This means that California law sets a higher standard for medical privacy, and that individuals in California enjoy stronger legal protections and more ways to hold entities that violate their medical privacy accountable. In the UK, the legal framework for how patient data is cared for and processed is the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), which incorporates the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) into law, and the common law duty of confidentiality (CLDC). The data protection legislation requires that the collection and processing of personal data be fair, lawful and transparent. This means that the collection and processing of data as defined by data protection legislation must always have a valid lawful basis and must also meet the requirements of the CLDC. In the China, Article 18 of the "National Health Care Big Data Standards, Security and Services Management Measures (for Trial Implementation)" (National Health Planning and Development (2018) No. 23) promulgated by the National Health Care Commission in 2018 states, "The responsible unit shall adopt measures such as data classification, important data backup, and encryption authentication to guarantee the security of health care big data." However, the scope and definition of important data are not covered. Although the "Information Security Technology-Healthcare Data Security Guide" (the "Guide") issued by the National Standardization Committee also proposes that important data should be evaluated and approved in accordance with the regulations, there is likewise no definition of the connotation and definition of important data.