Technische Lösungen könnten sexuelle Missbrauchsdarstellungen mit einer Präzisionsrate von 99,9 Prozent erkennen, behauptet die EU-Kommission ohne echte Belege.
Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der Hercegowina : Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Rad se bavi temom društvenoga čitanja u kontekstu mrežnog okruženja. Društvenom čitanju pripada sve što je u najopširnijem smislu povezano s razmjenom mišljenja i činjenica o pročitanim knjigama među čitateljima. Društveno čitanje u digitalnom dobu posebna je komunikacijska praksa koja je nastala kao rezultat tehnološkog razvoja. U radu će se najprije prikazati povijest društvenog čitanja, a zatim suvremeni trendovi istog kroz primjere tzv. digitalnih margina, društvenih mreža za ljubitelje knjiga te virtualnih čitateljskih klubova. Digitalne margine pojavljuju se kao mogućnost e-čitača, a omogućuju korisnicima pisanje bilješki i napomena u margine e-knjiga. Društvene mreže za ljubitelje knjiga gdje korisnici imaju prilike ostavljati kritike i komentare na pročitana djela te pogledati preporuke za nove naslove koje bi željeli pročitati danas imaju višemilijunsko članstvo. Najpoznatije strane društvene mreže za ljubitelje knjiga i čitanja su Goodreads, LibraryThing i Litsy, a među hrvatskim izdvaja se portal Najbolje knjige. Uz društvene mreže, nastaju i čitateljski klubovi na mreži čiji članovi mogu razmjenjivati dojmove o određenoj knjizi koju su čitali u isto vrijeme. U radu će biti prikazani neki od suvremenih aktivnih virtualnih čitateljskih klubova, kao što su Between Two Books, The History Book Club, Our Shared Shelf, Urban Fantasy, Fantasy and Paranormal Romance i dr.
mimikama: Internationale Koordinationsstelle zur Bekämpfung von Internetmissbrauch und zentrale Anlaufstelle für Internetuser, die verdächtigte Internetinhalte melden möchten.
Wäre das Internet ein Staat, würde es an sechster Stelle in Sachen Energieverbrauch liegen. Jeder Klick im Internet verbraucht Strom. Hochgerechnet kommt da eine ganze Menge zusammen.
New academic project shows that users trust librarians when it comes to evaluating information. In their opinion, librarians have better credibility then Google.
This article provides an introduction to the use of altmetrics as a tool to assess research impact. In particular, it looks at the evidence behind claims that altmetrics allow the impact of research to be measured in days rather than years. Low correlations between altmetrics and article citations make it doubtful that altmetrics can reliably predict future citations. In addition, there are good reasons to qualify statements that altmetrics measure the wider impact of research on society. Librarians should be careful not to overstate the value of altmetrics when recommending their use as a complement to more traditional measures of research quality.
This paper presents a review of altmetrics or alternative metrics. This concept is defined as the creation and study of new indicators for analysing scientific and academic research activity based onWeb 2.0. The underlying premise is that variables such as mentions in blogs, numberof tweets or saves ofan articleby researchersin reference management systems, may be a valid measure of the use and impactof scientific publications. In this respect,these measuresare becoming particularly relevant, being at the centre of debate within the bibliometric community. Firstly,an explanation is given of the main platforms and indicators for this type of measurement. Subsequently,a study is undertaken of a selection of papers from the field of communication, comparing the number of citations received withtheir 2.0 indicators.The results show that the most cited articles within recent years also have significantly higher altmetric indicators. Next follows a review of the principal empirical studies undertaken, centering on the correlations between bibliometric and alternative indicators. To conclude, the main limitations of altmetrics are highlighted,alongside a reflective consideration of the role altmetrics may play in capturing the impactof research in Web 2.0 platforms.
C. Savaglio, G. Ciatto, A. Omicini, and G. Fortino. AI&IoT 2019 -- Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things 2019, volume 2502 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Sun SITE Central Europe, RWTH Aachen University, (November 2019)
C. Draude. Many Worlds. Many Nets. Many Visions. Critical Voices, Visions and Vectors for Internet Governance., Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) and Leibniz Institute for Media Research / Hans-Bredow Institut (HBI), (2019)
N. Dankwa. Many Worlds. Many Nets. Many Visions. Critical Voices, Visions and Vectors for Internet Governance., Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) and Leibniz Institute for Media Research / Hans-Bredow Institut (HBI), (2019)
Narita. IJIRIS:: International Journal of Innovative Research in Information Security, Volume VI (Issue VI):
117-128(November 2019)1. Symantec, 2019 Internet Security Threat Report, Vol. 24, 2019. 2. Akamai, 2019 State of the Internet / Security: Media Under Assault, 2019. https://www.akamai.com 3. J. Xia, S. Vangala, J. Wu, L. Gao, and K. Kwiat, “Effective Worm Detection for Various Scan Technique,” Journal of Computer Security, vol.14, no.4, pp.359–387, 2006. 4. W. Yu, X. Wang, X. Fu, D. Xuan, and W. Zhao, “An Invisible Localization Attack to Internet Threat Monitors,” IEEE Trans. Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol.20, no.11, pp.1611–1625, 2009. 5. M. Narita, K. Ogura, B.B. Bista, and T. Takata, “Evaluating a Dynamic Internet Threat Monitoring Method for Preventing PN Code-Based Localization Attack,” Proc. 17th International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems (NBiS 2014), 2014. 6. M. Narita, B.B. Bista, and T. Takata, “A Practical Study on Noise-Tolerant PN Code-Based Localisation Attacks to Internet Threat Monitors,” Int. J. Space-Based and Situated Computing, vol.3, no.4, pp.215–226, December 2013. 7. W. Yu, S. Wei, G. Ma, X. Fu, and N. Zhang, “On Effective Localization Attacks Against Internet Threat Monitors,” Proc. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp.2011–2015, 2013. 8. UCSD Network Telescope. https://www.caida.org/projects/network telescope/ 9. Guillot, R. Fontugne, P. Winter, P. Me´rindol, A. King, A. Dainotti, and C. Pelsser, “Chocolatine: Outage Detection for Internet Background Radiation,” 10. Proc. Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA), June 2019. DShield. http://www.dshield.org/ 11. M. Eto, D. Inoue, J. Song, J. Nakazato, K. Ohtaka, and K. Nakao, “nicter: A Large-Scale Network Incident Analysis System: Case Studies for Understanding Threat Landscape,” Proc. 1st Workshop on Building Analysis Datasets and Gathering Experience Returns for Security, pp.37–45, 2011. 12. D. Inoue, M. Eto, K. Suzuki, M. Suzuki, and K. Nakao, “DAEDALUS-VIZ: Novel Real-Time 3D Visualization for Darknet Monitoring-Based Alert System,” Proc. 9th International Symposium on Visualization for Cyber Security, pp.72–79, October 2012. 13. H. Kanehara, Y. Murakami, J. Shimamura, T. Takahashi, D. Inoue and N. Murata, “Real-time botnet detection using nonnegative tucker decomposition,” 14. Proc. the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, pp.1337–1344, April 2019. 15. X. Fan, C. Li, and X. Dong, “ A Real-Time Network Security Visualization System Based on Incremental Learning (ChinaVis 2018),” J. Visualization, pp.1–15, October 2018. 16. Y. Shinoda, K. Ikai, and M. Itoh, “Vulnerabilities of Passive Internet Threat Monitors,” Proc. 14th USENIX Security Symposium, pp.209–224, 2005. 17. J. Bethencourt, J. Franklin, and M. Vernon, “Mapping Internet Sensors with Probe Response Attacks,” Proc. 14th USENIX Security Symposium, pp.193– 208, 2005. 18. S. Wei, D. Shen, L. Ge, W. Yu, E.P. Blasch, K.D. Pham, and G. Chen, “Secured Network Sensor-Based Defense System,” Proc. SPIE 9469, Sensors and Systems for Space Applications VIII, 2015. 19. W. Yu, N. Zhang, X. Fu, R. Bettati, and W. Zhao, “Localization Attacks to Internet Threat Monitors: Modeling and Countermeasures,” IEEE Trans. Computers, vol.59, no.12, pp.1655–1668, 2010. 20. ENISA, “Proactive Detection of Network Security Incidents, Report,” https://www.enisa.europa.eu/2011. 21. M. Kamizono et al., “anti Malware engineering WorkShop ~MWS Datasets 2015~,” MWS2015, 2015..