In computer networks, a reverse proxy or surrogate server is a proxy server that appears to any client to be an ordinary web server, but in reality merely acts as an intermediary that forwards the client's requests to one or more ordinary web servers. Reverse proxies help increase scalability, performance, resilience, and security, but they also carry a number of risks. Companies that run web servers often set up reverse proxies to facilitate the communication between an Internet user's browser and the web servers. An important advantage of doing so is that the web servers can be hidden behind a firewall on a company-internal network, and only the reverse proxy needs to be directly exposed to the Internet. Reverse proxy servers are implemented in popular open-source web servers. Dedicated reverse proxy servers are used by some of the biggest websites on the Internet. A reverse proxy is capable of tracking IP addresses of requests that are relayed through it as well as reading and/or modifying any non-encrypted traffic. However, this implies that anyone who has compromised the server could do so as well. Reverse proxies differ from forward proxies, which are used when the client is restricted to a private, internal network and asks a forward proxy to retrieve resources from the public Internet. == Uses == Large websites and content delivery networks use reverse proxies, together with other techniques, to balance the load between internal servers. Reverse proxies can keep a cache of static content, which further reduces the load on these internal servers and the internal network. It is also common for reverse proxies to add features such as compression or TLS encryption to the communication channel between the client and the reverse proxy. Reverse proxies can inspect HTTP headers, which, for example, allows them to present a single IP address to the Internet while relaying requests to different internal servers based on the URL of the HTTP request. Reverse proxies can hide the existence and characteristics of origin servers. This can make it more difficult to determine the actual location of the origin server / website and, for instance, more challenging to initiate legal action such as takedowns or block access to the website, as the IP address of the website may not be immediately apparent. Additionally, the reverse proxy may be located in a different jurisdiction with different legal requirements, further complicating the takedown process. Application firewall features can protect against common web-based attacks, like a denial-of-service attack (DoS) or distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS). Without a reverse proxy, removing malware or initiating takedowns (while simultaneously dealing with the attack) on one's own site, for example, can be difficult. In the case of secure websites, a web server may not perform TLS encryption itself, but instead offload the task to a reverse proxy that may be equipped with TLS acceleration hardware. (See TLS termination proxy.) A reverse proxy can distribute the load from incoming requests to several servers, with each server supporting its own application area. In the case of reverse proxying web servers, the reverse proxy may have to rewrite the URL in each incoming request in order to match the relevant internal location of the requested resource. A reverse proxy can reduce load on its origin servers by caching static content and dynamic content, known as web acceleration. Proxy caches of this sort can often satisfy a considerable number of website requests, greatly reducing the load on the origin server(s). A reverse proxy can optimize content by compressing it in order to speed up loading times. In a technique named "spoon-feeding", a dynamically generated page can be produced in its entirety and served to the reverse proxy, which can feed the page to the client as the connection allows. The program that generates the page need not remain open, thus releasing server resources during the possibly extended time the client requires to complete the transfer. Reverse proxies can operate wherever multiple web-servers must be accessible via a single public IP address. The web servers listen on different ports in the same machine, with the same local IP address or, possibly, on different machines with different local IP addresses. The reverse proxy analyzes each incoming request and delivers it to the right server within the local area network. Reverse proxies can perform A/B testing and multivariate testing without requiring application code to handle the logic of which version is served to a client. A reverse proxy can add access authentication to a web server that does not have any authentication. == Risks == When the transit traffic is encrypted and the reverse proxy needs to filter/cache/compress or otherwise modify or improve the traffic, the proxy first must decrypt and re-encrypt communications. This requires the proxy to possess the TLS certificate and its corresponding private key, extending the number of systems that can have access to non-encrypted data and making it a more valuable target for attackers. The vast majority of external data breaches happen either when hackers succeed in abusing an existing reverse proxy that was intentionally deployed by an organization, or when hackers succeed in converting an existing Internet-facing server into a reverse proxy server. Compromised or converted systems allow external attackers to specify where they want their attacks proxied to, enabling their access to internal networks and systems. Applications that were developed for the internal use of a company are not typically hardened to public standards and are not necessarily designed to withstand all hacking attempts. When an organization allows external access to such internal applications via a reverse proxy, they might unintentionally increase their own attack surface and invite hackers. If a reverse proxy is not configured to filter attacks or it does not receive daily updates to keep its attack signature database up to date, a zero-day vulnerability can pass through unfiltered, enabling attackers to gain control of the system(s) that are behind the reverse proxy server. Giving the reverse proxy of a third party access to private keys (for caching or optimizing content) places the entire triad of confidentiality, integrity and availability in the hands of the third party who operates the proxy. A reverse proxy is a single point of failure for the back-end services it fronts: an outage caused by misconfiguration, a denial-of-service attack, or a software fault can make every fronted service unreachable to outside clients, even when the back-end services themselves remain healthy. For example, a 2020 outage at Cloudflare briefly took down major sites and services that relied on its reverse-proxy edge, including Discord.
Neural scaling law
In machine learning, a neural scaling law is an empirical scaling law that describes how neural network performance changes as key factors are scaled up or down. These factors typically include the number of parameters, training dataset size, and training cost. Some models also exhibit performance gains by scaling inference through increased test-time compute (TTC), extending neural scaling laws beyond training to the deployment phase. == Introduction == In general, a deep learning model can be characterized by four parameters: model size, training dataset size, training cost, and the post-training error rate (e.g., the test set error rate). Each of these variables can be defined as a real number, usually written as N , D , C , L {\displaystyle N,D,C,L} (respectively: parameter count, dataset size, computing cost, and loss). A neural scaling law is a theoretical or empirical statistical law between these parameters. There are also other parameters with other scaling laws. === Size of the model === In most cases, the model's size is simply the number of parameters. However, one complication arises with the use of sparse models, such as mixture-of-expert models. With sparse models, during inference, only a fraction of their parameters are used. In comparison, most other kinds of neural networks, such as transformer models, always use all their parameters during inference. === Size of the training dataset === The size of the training dataset is usually quantified by the number of data points within it. Larger training datasets are typically preferred, as they provide a richer and more diverse source of information from which the model can learn. This can lead to improved generalization performance when the model is applied to new, unseen data. However, increasing the size of the training dataset also increases the computational resources and time required for model training. With the "pretrain, then finetune" method used for most large language models, there are two kinds of training dataset: the pretraining dataset and the finetuning dataset. Their sizes have different effects on model performance. Generally, the finetuning dataset is less than 1% the size of pretraining dataset. In some cases, a small amount of high quality data suffices for finetuning, and more data does not necessarily improve performance. Many scaling laws, due to their inherent diminishing returns nature, value data based on a submodular set function which was shown in a paper on this topic. === Cost of training === Training cost is typically measured in terms of time (how long it takes to train the model) and computational resources (how much processing power and memory are required). It is important to note that the cost of training can be significantly reduced with efficient training algorithms, optimized software libraries, and parallel computing on specialized hardware such as GPUs or TPUs. The cost of training a neural network model is a function of several factors, including model size, training dataset size, the training algorithm complexity, and the computational resources available. In particular, doubling the training dataset size does not necessarily double the cost of training, because one may train the model for several times over the same dataset (each being an "epoch"). === Performance === The performance of a neural network model is evaluated based on its ability to accurately predict the output given some input data. Common metrics for evaluating model performance include: Negative log-likelihood per token (logarithm of perplexity) for language modeling; Accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score for classification tasks; Mean squared error (MSE) or mean absolute error (MAE) for regression tasks; Elo rating in a competition against other models, such as gameplay or preference by a human judge. Performance can be improved by using more data, larger models, different training algorithms, regularizing the model to prevent overfitting, and early stopping using a validation set. When the performance is a number bounded within the range of [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} , such as accuracy, precision, etc., it often scales as a sigmoid function of cost, as seen in the figures. == Examples == === (Hestness, Narang, et al, 2017) === The 2017 paper is a common reference point for neural scaling laws fitted by statistical analysis on experimental data. Previous works before the 2000s, as cited in the paper, were either theoretical or orders of magnitude smaller in scale. Whereas previous works generally found the scaling exponent to scale like L ∝ D − α {\displaystyle L\propto D^{-\alpha }} , with α ∈ { 0.5 , 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle \alpha \in \{0.5,1,2\}} , the paper found that α ∈ [ 0.07 , 0.35 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.07,0.35]} . Of the factors they varied, only task can change the exponent α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Changing the architecture optimizers, regularizers, and loss functions, would only change the proportionality factor, not the exponent. For example, for the same task, one architecture might have L = 1000 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=1000D^{-0.3}} while another might have L = 500 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=500D^{-0.3}} . They also found that for a given architecture, the number of parameters necessary to reach lowest levels of loss, given a fixed dataset size, grows like N ∝ D β {\displaystyle N\propto D^{\beta }} for another exponent β {\displaystyle \beta } . They studied machine translation with LSTM ( α ∼ 0.13 {\displaystyle \alpha \sim 0.13} ), generative language modelling with LSTM ( α ∈ [ 0.06 , 0.09 ] , β ≈ 0.7 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.06,0.09],\beta \approx 0.7} ), ImageNet classification with ResNet ( α ∈ [ 0.3 , 0.5 ] , β ≈ 0.6 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.3,0.5],\beta \approx 0.6} ), and speech recognition with two hybrid (LSTMs complemented by either CNNs or an attention decoder) architectures ( α ≈ 0.3 {\displaystyle \alpha \approx 0.3} ). === (Henighan, Kaplan, et al, 2020) === A 2020 analysis studied statistical relations between C , N , D , L {\displaystyle C,N,D,L} over a wide range of values and found similar scaling laws, over the range of N ∈ [ 10 3 , 10 9 ] {\displaystyle N\in [10^{3},10^{9}]} , C ∈ [ 10 12 , 10 21 ] {\displaystyle C\in [10^{12},10^{21}]} , and over multiple modalities (text, video, image, text to image, etc.). In particular, the scaling laws it found are (Table 1 of ): For each modality, they fixed one of the two C , N {\displaystyle C,N} , and varying the other one ( D {\displaystyle D} is varied along using D = C / 6 N {\displaystyle D=C/6N} ), the achievable test loss satisfies L = L 0 + ( x 0 x ) α {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+\left({\frac {x_{0}}{x}}\right)^{\alpha }} where x {\displaystyle x} is the varied variable, and L 0 , x 0 , α {\displaystyle L_{0},x_{0},\alpha } are parameters to be found by statistical fitting. The parameter α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the most important one. When N {\displaystyle N} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.037 {\displaystyle 0.037} to 0.24 {\displaystyle 0.24} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the α = 0.34 {\displaystyle \alpha =0.34} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. When C {\displaystyle C} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.048 {\displaystyle 0.048} to 0.19 {\displaystyle 0.19} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the β = 0.28 {\displaystyle \beta =0.28} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. Given fixed computing budget, optimal model parameter count is consistently around N o p t ( C ) = ( C 5 × 10 − 12 petaFLOP-day ) 0.7 = 9.0 × 10 − 7 C 0.7 {\displaystyle N_{opt}(C)=\left({\frac {C}{5\times 10^{-12}{\text{petaFLOP-day}}}}\right)^{0.7}=9.0\times 10^{-7}C^{0.7}} The parameter 9.0 × 10 − 7 {\displaystyle 9.0\times 10^{-7}} varies by a factor of up to 10 for different modalities. The exponent parameter 0.7 {\displaystyle 0.7} varies from 0.64 {\displaystyle 0.64} to 0.75 {\displaystyle 0.75} for different modalities. This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. It's "strongly suggested" (but not statistically checked) that D o p t ( C ) ∝ N o p t ( C ) 0.4 ∝ C 0.28 {\displaystyle D_{opt}(C)\propto N_{opt}(C)^{0.4}\propto C^{0.28}} . This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. The scaling law of L = L 0 + ( C 0 / C ) 0.048 {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+(C_{0}/C)^{0.048}} was confirmed during the training of GPT-3 (Figure 3.1 ). === Chinchilla scaling (Hoffmann, et al, 2022) === One particular scaling law ("Chinchilla scaling") states that, for a large language model (LLM) autoregressively trained for one epoch, with a cosine learning rate schedule, we have: { C = C 0 N D L = A N α + B D β + L 0 {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}C=C_{0}ND\\L={\frac {A}{N^{\alpha }}}+{\frac {B}{D^{\beta }}}+L_{0}\end{cases}}} where the variables are C {\displaystyle C} is the cost o
W3C Device Description Working Group
The W3C Device Description Working Group (DDWG), operating as part of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Mobile Web Initiative (MWI), was chartered to "foster the provision and access to device descriptions that can be used in support of Web-enabled applications that provide an appropriate user experience on mobile devices." Mobile devices exhibit the greatest diversity of capabilities, and therefore present the greatest challenge to content adaptation technologies. The group published several documents, including a list of requirements for an interface to a Device Description Repository (DDR) and a standard interface meeting those requirements. The group was rechartered in 2006 to work in public towards the development of the Application Programming Interface (API) for a DDR. Early in 2007, the group launched a wiki and a blog to add to the public mailing list. The group subsequently published a formal vocabulary of core device properties, and an API called the DDR Simple API, which became a W3C Recommendation in December 2008. The group closed at the end of 2008, but with the intention of maintaining the Web pages, blog and wiki through W3C volunteer effort. == Publications == The DDWG published several W3C Working Group Notes and one W3C Recommendation. A W3C WG Note that articulates what the W3C and other organizations are doing or have already done with regard to device information. This document suggests an environment in which these technologies work together to meet the goals of content adaptation. The completed document was published on 31 October 2007. A W3C WG Note describing the ecosystem surrounding creation, maintenance and use of device descriptions. The completed document was published on 31 October 2007. A W3C WG Note describing a set of requirements for a reference repository of device descriptions. The completed document was published on 17 December 2007. A W3C WG Note describing a process to manage contributions to an initial core vocabulary, identification of key device properties, a formal initial core vocabulary and the identification of a maintainer for the core vocabulary. The details were contained in the Working Group Note describing the DDWG Core Vocabulary published on 14 April 2008. A W3C WG Note defining useful grouping and structure patterns in device descriptions. The Device Description Structures document was published as a Working Draft on 5 December 2008. The intention is that this document will be future input to other W3C groups. A W3C Recommendation defining a language-neutral programming interface to a Device Description Repository. The DDR Simple API was published on 5 December 2008. There is the possibility of future publications on the DDWG wiki describing implementations of the API in various languages, including Java, IDL, WSDL, C# etc. Much of the DDWG's material was developed in public via the DDWG Wiki and through their public mailing lists.
Packingham v. North Carolina
Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a North Carolina statute that prohibited registered sex offenders from using social media websites was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech. In 2010, Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender, posted on Facebook under a pseudonym to comment favorably on a recent traffic court experience. Police then identified Packingham and charged him with violating North Carolina's law. Packingham moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the state's law violated the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed this motion and ultimately convicted Packingham. A state appellate court initially reversed the trial court, holding that the law did violate the First Amendment, but the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, disagreed and reinstated the conviction. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court's judgment. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD, among many others—is a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech. The Court offered that North Carolina could protect children through less restrictive means, such as prohibiting "conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor". == Background == === North Carolina statute === In 2008, the state of North Carolina passed a law that made it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages". The law defined a "commercial social networking Web site" using four criteria. Specifically, the website must: be "operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the Web site". facilitate "the social introduction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchanges". allow "users to create Web pages or personal profiles that contain information such as the name or nickname of the user, photographs placed on the personal Web page by the user, other personal information about the user, and links to other personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site of friends or associates of the user that may be accessed by other users or visitors to the Web site". provide "users or visitors... mechanisms to communicate with other users, such as a message board, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger". The law exempted websites that "Provid[e] only one of the following discrete services: photo-sharing, electronic mail, instant messenger, or chat room or message board platform", as well as websites that have as their primary purpose "the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services between [their] members or visitors". === Facts of the case === In 2002, Lester Gerard Packingham was convicted of taking "indecent liberties with a child", a felony that required him to register as a sex offender. A North Carolina court sentenced him to 10–12 months in prison with 24 months of supervised release. He was given no other special instructions on his behavior outside of prison other than to "remain away from" the minor. In 2010, after a state court dismissed a traffic ticket against Packingham, he submitted a post on Facebook under the name "J. R. Gerrard", stating: "Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, no court cost, no nothing spent. . . . . .Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!" The Durham Police Department identified Packingham as the author of the post after cross-checking the time of the post with recently dismissed traffic tickets, and a grand jury indicted him for violating the North Carolina statute. === Lower court proceedings === Initially, Packingham moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that it violated the First Amendment. A North Carolina Superior Court judge denied this motion, and he was convicted of violating the North Carolina social media law. Packingham appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision in 2013. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court of appeals determined that North Carolina's law violated the First Amendment because it was too broad, applying to all registered sex offenders regardless of whether the offender had committed a crime involving a minor or whether the offender was a continuing threat to minors. The appeals court also stated that the law had been defined broadly enough to prohibit a registered sex offender from conducting a wide array of Internet activity, such as "conducting a 'Google' search, purchasing items on Amazon.com, or accessing a plethora of Web sites unrelated to online communication with minors". In 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, reversed the court of appeals, holding that the law was "constitutional in all respects". The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the statute was a "limitation on conduct" and did not impede any free speech. The state had a vested interest in “forestalling the illicit lurking and contact of minors” by registered sex offenders and potential future victims, and upheld Packingham's conviction. == Supreme Court ruling == Packingham filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal government also filed a brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant certiorari, arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly decided the case in favor of the state. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in October 2016. Amicus briefs in support of Packingham were filed by the libertarian Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union. The North Carolina Supreme Court filed a brief supporting its prior decision, urging the importance of protecting minors from being stalked online. === Oral argument === The oral argument took place in February 2017. Packingham’s lawyer, David T. Goldberg, argued that the law banned “vast swaths of First Amendment activity”, went too far in restricting which Internet sites could be accessed, and forbade use of the Internet in general. The law targeted speech on some of the platforms that Americans use most often, Goldberg noted, and that under the law Packingham could not even use Twitter to read the myriad messages discussing his own case. He further noted that the law imposes punishment without regard to whether the offender actually did anything wrong. North Carolina’s senior deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, argued for the state, and claimed that communication through social media sites is a “crucial channel”. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Montgomery to provide evidence as to the claim that by giving Packingham Internet privileges, he would commit another crime. Justice Stephen Breyer added that “It seems to be well-settled law that the state can’t (bar usage) unless there is a 'clear and present danger'." === Opinion of the Court === In June 2017 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in favor of Packingham, unanimously voting to reverse the state court's ruling. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the decision, joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan. Kennedy explained the decision: "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." He continued that "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." Citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as a precedent, Kennedy also wrote: "It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'." === Concurring opinion === Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. While Alito agreed that the state statute at issue violated the First Amendment, he noted that there are reasonable scenarios for which legal bans for sex offenders can be placed, such as for sites targeted at teenagers. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the decision of the case. == Impact == Packingham v. North Carolina was one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases to ana
Digital studio
A digital studio provides both a technology-equipped space and technological/rhetorical support to students (commonly at a university) working individually or in groups on a variety of digital projects, such as designing a website, developing an electronic portfolio for a class, creating a blog, making edits, selecting images for a visual essay, or writing a script for a podcast. == History/theory == === Overview === Digital Studios are places with different names but similar objectives. They have risen in response to the need for resources dedicated to improving students' interactions with digital technologies for rhetorical ends. Digital Studios have often been theoretically and administratively linked to writing centers, which are sites where students can seek assistance with their text-based projects. The academic term that has been used for this kind of site (i.e. a writing center with a focus on digital and new media) is multiliteracy center. Besides having a multimodal focus, Digital Studios also make a departure from writing center model in allowing students the freedom to work in the Studio without one-on-one interaction with a writing tutor. === The rise of technology === ==== Computer literacy in popular culture ==== As early as 1983, computer literacy was being hailed in The New York Times as the "new goal in schools." As computer technology became more ubiquitous, and the World Wide Web became more popular and accessible, and as the teaching of computer skills became official US policy with the enactment of the "Technology Literacy Challenge" by the Clinton Administration in 1996, educators across disciplines began to investigate with renewed vigor the role of computer technology in curriculum as both a means and an end. ==== Scholarly interest in 'multiliteracies' ==== The same year that President Clinton initiated the "Technology Literacy Challenge", the New London Group (NLG) issued a call for scholars of literacy pedagogy to account for the burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies. This includes understanding and competent control of representational forms that are becoming increasingly significant in the overall communications environment, such as visual images and their relationship to the written word – for instance, visual design in desktop publishing or the interface of visual and linguistic meaning in multimedia. This account for new text forms, combined with a similar account for "increasingly globalized societies," is called 'multiliteracies' by the NLG. ==== Technological literacy in rhetoric and composition ==== Two years later, during the 1998 CCCC Chair's Address, Cynthia Selfe (who founded the peer-reviewed journal Computers and Composition in 1983) addressed professionals in the field of Rhetoric and Composition with an objective similar to that of the NLG, arguing that as a field, composition scholars had "paid technology issues precious little focused attention over the years." She called this lack of attention "dangerously shortsighted." What was needed, Selfe claimed, was for teachers to "pay attention" to "how technology is now inextricably linked with literacy and literacy education in this country." In a way, Selfe's call marked the beginning of a new scholarly interest in what Selfe called "critical technological literacy": Composition teachers, language arts teachers, and other literacy specialists need to recognize that the relevance of technology in the English studies disciplines is not simply a matter of helping students work effectively with communication software and hardware, but, rather, also a matter of helping them to understand and to be able to assess – to pay attention to – the social, economic, and pedagogical implications of new communication technologies and technological initiatives that affect their lives. Scholars who took up this call included Barbara Blakely Duffelmeyer, who conducted studies involving the incorporation of "critical computer literacy" (an adaptation of Selfe's term) into first-year composition. ==== Communications across media, inside and outside school ==== The years following Selfe's address saw more rapid advancements in mobile technologies, social media, and Web 2.0, creating even more new venues of composing for teachers to pay attention to. In her own CCCC Chair's Address in 2004, Kathleen Blake Yancey cited these new venues in her argument as a "new curriculum for the 21st century," one that would bring "together the writing outside of school and that of inside." Such a curriculum, she said: is located in a new vocabulary, a new set of practices, and a new set of outcomes; it will focus our research in new and provocative ways; it has as its goal the creation of thoughtful, informed, technologically adept writing publics. A professor at Clemson at the time of her speech, Yancey also argued for the creation of an undergraduate major in composition and rhetoric. She soon moved to Florida State University, where she helped to establish a new major in line with the one she argued for at CCCC called Editing, Writing, and Media (EWM). As teachers and administrators across the country looked to incorporate more digital technology into their curriculum, the need for spaces for digital composition and for support with the innumerable digital composing platforms became apparent. A Digital Studio is one such space. === Link with writing centers === With the need for support for students who would engage with digital writing and multimedia projects, professionals involved with work in writing centers began to draw comparisons between their traditional work — assisting students with alphabetic texts on the page — and a new kind of work: assisting students with their multimedia projects on the screen. John Trimbur predicted in 2000: My guess is that writing centers will more and more define themselves as multiliteracy centers. Many are already doing so – tutoring oral presentations, adding online tutorials, offering workshops in evaluating web sources, and being more conscious of document design. To my mind, new digital literacies will increasingly be incorporated into writing centers not just as sources of information or delivery systems for tutoring but as productive arts in their own right, and writing center work will, if anything, become more rhetorical in paying attention to the practices and effects of design in written and visual communication — more product-oriented and perhaps less like the composing conferences of the process movement. Later, just months before Yancey delivered her CCCC Chair's Address, Michael Pemberton, writing in the Writing Center Journal, asked: As we enter an era when electronic publishing and computer-mediated discourse are the norm, an era when new literary genres and new forms of communication emerge on, seemingly, a weekly basis, we must ask ourselves whether writing centers should continue to dwell exclusively in the linear, non-linked world of the printed page or whether they should plan to redefine themselves – and retrain themselves – to take residence in the emerging world of multimedia, hyperlinked, digital documents. To put it plainly, should we be preparing tutors to conference with students about hypertexts? Pemberton also surveyed (by his account) the forty-year history of how "writing centers [have] viewed new technologies," observing that "the relationship between writing centers and computer technology has been, overall, only a cordial one." Pemberton's article is evidence of the continuing discussion among writing center professionals about the need for support for students' digital creations, support which they saw as analogous to work in writing centers. In 2010, a collection edited by David Sheridan and James Inman, Multiliteracy Centers: Writing Center Work, New Media, and Multimodal Rhetoric, was published. Many of the chapters therein cite the above Trimbur and Pemberton quotes as they work to explain the exigence for the collection, the instances in which multiliteracy centers have been established (the founding of the Clemson Class of 1941 Studio for Student Communication is the subject of two chapters), and both theoretical and practical analyses of potential futures of such work. === 'Studio' vs. 'Center:' A break from the model === The conflation of digital studios and writing centers into multiliteracy centers is helpful in some respects, for example, administratively the two may be managed in similar ways and staffed by the same people. In other respects, it has been said that it is better to separate them into two distinct kinds of facilities. The very choice of naming a "writing center" or "digital studio" by either (or another) title, for instance, ought (according to some) to be informed by what kinds of student-activities are expected to take place there. A writing center is a place for individual students to seek help from individual writing
EPUAP
ePUAP (Electronic Platform of Public Administration Services) is a Polish nationwide platform for communication of citizens with public administrations in a uniform and standardized way. Built as part of the ePUAP-WKP project (State Informatization Plan). Service providers are public administration units and public institutions (especially entities that perform tasks commissioned by the state). The platform provides service providers with technological infrastructure to provide services to citizens (recipients). Among the participants of ePUAP there are both central administration units and local governments, including municipal offices. Among the services offered by ePUAP is also Profil Zaufany (Trusted Profile), which enables electronic filing with legal effect without the need to use a qualified signature and SAML-based single sign-on mechanism, which enables the same ePUAP account to log on to websites of various service providers. The website www.epuap.gov.pl enables defining citizen and businesses service processes, creates channels of access to different systems of public administration and extends the package of public services provided electronically. Services available through the ePUAP platform may be accessed at the official website. Currently all administration services are available in Polish only. == Overview == It is described by the Polish government as "a coherent and systematic action program designed and developed to allow public institutions make their electronic services available to the public". The platform provides citizens, businesses and institutions with a number of services intended to ensure smooth and safe communication between: customer to administrations (C2A), business to administration (B2A), administration to administration (A2A). === Main goals === The main project objectives are to create a single, secure and electronic access channel to public services for citizens, businesses and public administration and also to reduce time and lower the costs of sharing information resources and functionalities of administration domain systems. Within the project, the following functionalities and services were delivered: Public services catalogue – a method of presenting and describing administration services, ePUAP platform – a web platform designed to provide public services on the Internet, Interoperability portal – a portal for experts working on recommendations for electronic documents and forms used within Polish administration systems to assure the uniformity of IT standards, Central Repository of Electronic Document Models – a database for valid document models and electronic forms. == History and background == The ePUAP project was carried out in the years 2005–2008. Currently, a continuation project ePUAP2 is being carried out with the following objectives: to increase the number of online services available to the public including the registry services, to widen the scale of usage of public electronic services, to integrate subsequent systems of public administration and business on ePUAP portal, to define new processes of customer and business services. === ePUAP2 === ePUAP2 is a public and administrative project that extends the set of functional services developed during the first edition of the project and is another step in the process of transforming Poland into a modern and citizen-friendly country. The implementation period for the project covers the years 2009–2013. Project financing The cost of the project “Construction of electronic Platform of Public Administration Services” – 32 million PLN was covered in 75% by the funds from the European Regional Development Fund (under the Sector Operational Programme "Supporting Competitiveness of Enterprises for the years 2004–2006"), while the remaining 25% of the cost was covered by a Polish national co-financing. Funds for the ePUAP2 project were gained from the 7th priority axis of the Innovative Economy Operational Programme and amounts to 140 million PLN (85% of eligible expenses were covered by the European Regional Development Fund, 15% were covered by a national co-financing). The trustee of ePUAP is the Polish Ministry of the Interior and Administration. == Legal regulations == According to the Polish law from 1 May 2008, public authorities are required to accept documents in electronic form (bringing applications and proposals and other activities in electronic form). ePUAP enables public institutions to meet this requirement by providing a service infrastructure to set up am electronic inbox. The ePUAP inbox meets legal requirements, in particular: issuing an official confirmation of receipt in accordance with the regulation of the Prime Minister of 29 September 2005 on the organizational and technical conditions for the delivery of electronic documents to public entities; cooperation with hardware security modules (HSM), meeting the technical requirements set out in the law; handling documents electronically in accordance with the minimum requirements set out in the Regulation of the Polish Council of Ministers of 11 October 2005 on minimum requirements for ICT systems. == Incidents == === Crashes === The ePUAP system very often happens smaller or larger failures. Because it is used to sign the application profiles trusted also in other electronic systems such as public administration. Electronic Services Platform created by ZUS, the system fault ePUAP it very difficult to settle official matters most electronically. === "Infoafera" === According to TVN and the release of TVP News from 10 April 2014, the creation of ePUAP is also associated with the so-called "Infoafera." On 10 April 2014, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Poland confirmed the information that the American technology company HP confessed to its participation in the Polish info-tour and corruption of Polish officials. By March 2014, the construction of ePUAP and its maintenance cost PLN 98.4 million. PLN 67.8 million has been used for this project. Challenged expenses only on the portal itself is approx. PLN 20 million.
Digital classics
Digital classics is the application of the tools of digital humanities to the field of classics, or more broadly to the study of the ancient world. == History == Classics was one of the first of the humanities disciplines to adopt computing approaches; the first references to the use of computing in the classical humanities date to the early 1960s, which might be surprising considering the reputation of the discipline as old-fashioned and stuffily traditionalist. Major projects such as the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, founded in 1972, and the text collections of the Packard Humanities Institute set the trend, and there are still a significantly large number of ancient world projects among Humanities Computing projects today. Also, the success of traditional scholarly publications in digital guises, such as seen in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, and the early adoption of hypertext in high profile projects like the Perseus Digital Library helped to legitimize computing in the study of classics in ways that has not always been the case in other areas of the humanities. This apparent paradox may be as a result of the many methodologies and different sources of evidence that classicists have always had to embrace, from literary sources and linguistics, to art history and archaeology, history, philosophy, religious theory, ancient documents such as inscriptions and papyri, and so forth. The fragmentary nature of many of the texts and languages of the ancient world, the scattered evidence from the material culture of ancient Greece and Rome, and the necessity to evaluate all these varieties of evidence in context are particularly likely to benefit from digital approaches such as databases, text markup, image manipulation and machine learning. == Digital classics projects == There are currently several major projects that aim to encourage and develop digital approaches to classical scholarship. The Stoa Consortium at the University of Kentucky distributes news of the discipline, and serves as a peer-reviewed electronic publication venue, and encourages open source approaches to digital classics. The Perseus Project is a digital library that also provides a collection of digital texts and analysis tools to the public; principally (but not exclusively) classical. Digital Classicist is another project and community which shares information and advice about the digital humanities applied to the field of classics. Epigraphy.info is an international open community pursuing a collaborative environment for digital epigraphy. The Liverpool Classics Mailing List is a project which can be subscribed to in which one receives email regarding Classics events around the world, as well as call for papers, studentships and public lectures.