The internet is a copy machine. At its most foundational level, it copies every action, every character, every thought we make while we ride upon it. In order to send a message from one corner of the internet to another, the protocols of communication demand that the whole message be copied along the way several times. IT companies make a lot of money selling equipment that facilitates this ceaseless copying. Every bit of data ever produced on any computer is copied somewhere. The digital economy is thus run on a river of copies. Unlike the mass-produced reproductions of the machine age, these copies are not just cheap, they are free.
Our digital communication network has been engineered so that copies flow with as little friction as possible. Indeed, copies flow so freely we could think of the internet as a super-distribution system, where once a copy is introduced it will continue to flow through the network forever, much like electricity in a superconductive wire. We see evidence of this in real life. Once anything that can be copied is brought into contact with internet, it will be copied, and those copies never leave. Even a dog knows you can't erase something once its flowed on the internet.
Two-way latent grouping model for user preference prediction
Eerika Savia, Kai Puolamäki, Janne Sinkkonen and Samuel Kaski
In: UAI 2005, 26-29 July 2005, Edinburgh, Scotland.
A pre-relational databases datamodel. "Preceeded" by the relational model since the flexibility of this makes it hard to work with. Now re-invented in RDF :)
July 11, 2006 with social media, the consumers are in control of production, programming, and distribution … which is a complete reversal of the traditional media model. This reversal in control leads to some interesting consequences, the most obvious
K. Sousa, H. Mendonça, and J. Vanderdonckt. Task Models and Diagrams for User Interface Design, volume 5963 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, (2010)
Mwathi. IJIRIS:: International Journal of Innovative Research in Information Security, Volume VI (Issue I):
20-28(January 2019)1. Khidir, M. and Ali, A. (2011).A Comparative Study of Authentication Methods for Wi-Fi Networks. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Communication Systems and Networks Online, pp. 190-194. 2. Sheila, F., Bernard, E., Les, O., Karen, S.(2007). Establishing Wireless Robust security Networks: A Guide to IEEE 802.11i, NIST.US. 3. Kwang-Hyun, B., Sean, W. and David, K. (2004). A Survey of WPA and 802.11i RSN Authentication Protocols. Dartmouth College: Computer Science Technial Report TR2004-524. Available at: www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~dfk/papers/baek-survey-tr.pdf 4. Borisov,N. , Goldberg,I. and Wagner, D.(2001). Intercepting Mobile Communications: The Insecurity of 802.11. In: Proceedings of 7th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, Rome, Italy: ACM Press. 5. Yizhan, S. (2006). Complexity of System Configuration Management, PhD thesis, Tufts University..
H. TARIQ, W. YANG, I. HAMEED, B. AHMED, and R. KHAN. IJIRIS:: International Journal of Innovative Research Journal in Information Security, Volume IV (Issue XII):
01-07(December 2017)1 Hugh A. Chipman, Edward I. George, and Robert E. McCulloch. “Bayesian CART Model Search.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 93(443), pp 935–948, September 1998. 2 Sujata Garera, Niels Provos, Monica Chew, and Aviel D. Rubin. “A framework for detection and measurement of phishing attacks.” In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on Recurring malicious code - WORM ’07, page 1, 2007. 3 Abhishek Gattani, AnHai Doan, Digvijay S. Lamba, NikeshGarera, Mitul Tiwari, Xiaoyong Chai, Sanjib Das, Sri Subramaniam, AnandRajaraman, and VenkyHarinarayan. “Entity extraction, linking, classifica- tion, and tagging for social media.” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, Vol. 6(11), pp 1126–1137, August 2013. 4 David D. Lewis. Naive (Bayes) at forty: The independence assumption in information retrieval. pages 4–15. 1998. 5 Justin Ma, Lawrence K. Saul, Stefan Savage, and Geoffrey M. Voelker. “Learning to detect malicious URLs.” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, Vol. 2(3), pp 1–24, April 2011. 6 FadiThabtah Maher Aburrous, M.A.Hossain, KeshavDahal. “Intelligent phishing detection system for e-banking using fuzzy data mining.” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37(12), pp 7913–7921, Dec 2010. 7 AnkushMeshram and Christian Haas. “Anomaly Detection in Industrial. Networks using Machine Learning: A Roadmap.” In Machine Learning for Cyber Physical Systems, pages 65–72. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017. 8 Xuequn Wang Nik Thompson,Tanya Jane McGill. “Security begins at home: Determinants of home computer and mobile device security behavior.” Computers & Security, Vol. 70, pp 376–391, Sep 2017. 9 Dan Steinberg and Phillip Colla. “CART: Classification and Regression Trees.” The Top Ten Algorithms in Data Mining, pp 179–201, 2009. 10 D. Teal. “Information security techniques including detection, interdiction and/or mitigation of memory injection attacks,” Google patents. Oct 2013. 11 Kurt Thomas, Chris Grier, Justin Ma, Vern Paxson, and Dawn Song. “Design and Evaluation of a Real-Time URL Spam Filtering Service.” In 2011 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp 447–462. May 2011. 12 Sean Whalen, Nathaniel Boggs, and Salvatore J. Stolfo. “Model Aggregation for Distributed Content Anomaly Detection.” In Proceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Artificial Intelligent and Security Workshop - AISec ’14, pp 61–71, New York, USA, 2014. ACM Press. 13 Ying Yang and Geoffrey I. Webb. “Discretization for Naive-Bayes learning: managing a discretization bias and variance.” Machine Learning, Vol. 74(1), pp 39–74, Jan 2009..