Posts Tagged ‘computer’

Software verification researcher ranks among the world’s top young innovators

September 3rd, 2010

Computer scientist Andrey Rybalchenko is one of the world’s top 35 innovators under 35 years of age, according to MIT’s Technology Review. The prestigious “TR35″ list for 2010 is published in the September/October issue of the magazine. The honor goes to Rybalchenko, a professor at the Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM), for his work on software verification.

From theoretical breakthroughs to practical development tools, the contributions of this 32-year-old have the potential to make the software that 21st-century civilization runs on more reliable.

When computer scientists agree that something is impossible, they mean it in a technically specific sense, like a rigorous mathematical proof. So when a promising new approach to a problem long considered impossible is proven theoretically – and then is demonstrated in a practical software program – that in itself marks not one but two major achievements.

And when these insights and innovations address a problem with the potential to affect more or less everyone, every day, then the person responsible has done something truly extraordinary.

This, in essence, describes the work for which Prof. Andrey Rybalchenko of the TUM Department of Informatics has been singled out.

The most familiar face of the problem Rybalchenko addressed, which people encounter as often at home as in the office, is an unresponsive program: Your computer is still running and the program hasn’t crashed, but it has frozen up in the middle of some operation and gives you no clue why. Although the computer may still be able to perform other functions, it can’t do what you want it to do.

Every computer user is likely to have some choice words to describe the experience of staring at the rotating hourglass or colorful pinwheel displayed – endlessly – during this kind of failure, but the technical term is “liveness violation.”

A program fails to respond to a request from a user or from another program and enters a frozen condition, without even showing an error message. As annoying as such failures can be in personal computing, the consequences could be much more serious.

Today the most basic elements of our infrastructure, from power and communications to air and rail transportation, from manufacturing to medicine, depend on the reliability of software systems.

The same is true of safety, surveillance, and emergency response measures.

While tremendous progress has been made since the 1960s in automated software verification – that is, proving that certain kinds of failures are not lurking within millions of lines of computer code – liveness failures remained out of reach.

In fact, since the 1930s “everyone knew” that a general solution to what computing pioneer Alan Turing termed the Halting Problem would be impossible. Andrey Rybalchenko resolved this theoretical impasse with the discovery of “transition invariants,” a new principle for reasoning about liveness.

In essence, he and collaborator Prof. Andreas Podelski (Albrecht-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg) found a way to put liveness within the reach of a divide-and-conquer approach.

Like other problems in computer science and software engineering, liveness reasoning could now be broken down into sub-tasks; so-called approximation techniques could now be applied to each sub-task; and the results could be combined to verify liveness properties for a software program.

Rybalchenko demonstrated the practical power of these insights by developing a verification tool called Terminator.

Applied to the software for Windows device drivers, Terminator was able to show whether or not a driver’s dispatch routines – the functions executed when the computer communicates with a printer or any other device – would always respond to the operating system when they were called.

Through a collaboration with Byron Cook of Microsoft Research, Rybalchenko’s innovative approach is now on a fast track from research demonstration to industrial software tool, giving him confidence, in his own words, “that liveness defects in mainstream software will eventually become extinct.”

Source:http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-09/tum-svr090310.php

Post to Twitter

Evolving ‘robust’ software; $423,000 national science foundation grant awarded to hampshire college professor lee spector

September 3rd, 2010

At some point in the future, human programmers will no longer manually create computer software, says Lee Spector.

Instead, software will learn and evolve, following processes similar to those of biological learning and evolution.

In the future, programs won’t be things that people sit down and write, but rather things that grow and evolve in much more organic ways,” says the Hampshire College computer science professor.

“As a result, we’re going to have much more complex and rich and robust software that can handle unexpected situations better.”

A $423,000 grant awarded to Spector by the National Science Foundation will move that long-term goal forward.

Professor Spector has received numerous grants and awards in the past for his work in evolutionary computing and genetic programming, and is editor-in-chief of the journal Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

The new NSF grant will support work over the next three years as he attempts, with the assistance of two University of Massachusetts Amherst doctoral students and two Hampshire undergraduates, to evolve “robust” software.

Evolution is the source of robustness in nature,” Spector says. “Robust intelligence is capable but also flexible.

Nature produces animals and plants through this very powerful process of evolution, combining random variation and selection of the fittest to build things of startling complexity.

When unexpected variations in the environment occur, they adapt instead of failing.”

In comparison, software produced, as it is now, by hand by human beings, line by line, tends to be brittle and not able to adapt to changing circumstances.

“We can only get so far. We can only build software for things that we understand well enough to write it,” says Spector. “It takes a lot of time and effort for human programmers, and the way we do it produces systems that tend to crash if something goes wrong. In comparison, the products of nature can face minor injury and go forward. Evolution can figure out things we can’t do now.”

By applying the principles of evolution to specific computational challenges, Spector hopes to move us closer to more robust software that will be better able to handle changing circumstances. He will attempt to evolve two types of programs, using them to explore the core ideas of the project, rather than seeking a particular product.

The first test case will be a simple productivity software application, such as an address book, that requires different types of data and different uses for data. The second, a time-variant game, will be much more complex. One model he is thinking of using is an economics game, based on computerized games that exist and replicate stock market day trading. Whatever the game is, it will have changing circumstances, getting input from many sources and making decisions of many kinds as the software evolves.

Professor Spector understands and acknowledges that trust in an evolving program raises a complicated set of issues.

“There are definitely things to think about in terms of the appropriate use of this technology,” he says, “but the alternatives we have aren’t any better and they may be worse.

You have to compare it against trusting today’s programs, which can break catastrophically, and in which society already places too much trust.

Evolution should be able to produce programs that are more, rather than less, trustworthy, but the issue of reliance on software that can fail is a bigger issue that we need to address for all software.”

Hampshire College students will also benefit from Spector’s research grant.

In addition to the students who will work directly on the project, many others enrolled in his courses will be able to pursue their own independent projects that use and extend software produced by the research.

Source:http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20100903.063243&time=07%2011%20PDT&year=2010&public=0

Post to Twitter

Beware of ’scareware’ computer scams

September 3rd, 2010

If you’ve spent any time surfing the Internet you’ve probably seen them–those pesky pop-up messages telling you your computer is infected with a virus.

To get rid of it all you have to do is order the antivirus software advertised in the pop-up; before you click, beware!

Most internet security companies will not use ads to tell you your computer’s been infected with a virus; most of these pop-ups are scams and according to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center it is one of the fastest growing types of Internet fraud.

The scam, known as “scareware”, uses scare tactics to get you to purchase their “antivirus” software. This so-called antivirus software actually installs malicious software (malware) into your system.

Many of these criminals operate outside the U.S., making investigations difficult and complex for law enforcement, officials said.

How to spot a “scareware” scam: Does the pop-up use “nonclickable” icons? To build authenticity into their software, “scareware” will show a list of reputable icons, like those of software companies or security publications.

However, the user can’t click through to the sites to see the actual reviews or recommendations.

Is the pop-up ad hard to close? “Scareware” pop-ups employ aggressive techniques and will not close easily after clicking the “close” or “X” button.

Have you heard of the software before? Cyber criminals use easy-to-remember names like Virus Shield, Antivirus, or VirusRemover.

How to protect yourself: Make sure your computer is fully protected by legitimate, up-to-date antivirus software.

Source:http://www.crestviewbulletin.com/news/beware-11247-computer-scams.html

Post to Twitter

Take-two interactive software (ttwo) rating maintained at piper jaffray

September 3rd, 2010

Take-Two Interactive Software (NASDAQ:TTWO) maintained Neutral at Piper Jaffray.

The stock closed yesterday at $8.85 on volume of 3,614,300 shares, above the average daily volume of 1,598,425.

In the past 52-weeks, shares of Take-Two Interactive Software have traded between a low of $7 and a high of $12.57 and are now at $8.85, which is 26.4% above that low price.

Take-Two Interactive Software is currently below its 50-day moving average (MA) of $9.40 and below its 200-day MA of $9.95.

In the last five trading sessions, the 50-day MA has fallen 1.53% while the 200-day MA has slid 0.81%.

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. develops, markets, distributes, and publishes interactive entertainment software games and accessories.

The Company’s products are for the personal computer, PlayStation game console, PlayStation 2 computer entertainment system, Xbox, Nintendo GameCube, and Nintendo Game Boy Advance.

Take-Two operates offices worldwide.

Source:http://www.mysmartrend.com/news-briefs/technical-analysis/take-two-interactive-software-ttwo-rating-maintained-piper-jaffray

Post to Twitter

How To Monitor Another Computer – Computer Monitoring Software

September 3rd, 2010

Computers are full of applications and Internet based distractions that may be of some concern if you are an employer, parent or suspicious partner. Whilst it is always best to be honest and up-front about issues relating to computer usage, there may come a time when you will want to know how to monitor another computer.

The question of how to monitor another computer is fairly easily answered by the plethora of computer monitoring programs that are currently available. Many boast a broad range of features that make monitoring a remote computer quite easy. Features can include monitoring websites visited, time spent on particular applications or websites, Internet filters, keyloggers and screenshots of what is being viewed on the monitored computer.

Most software will also generate easily understandable reports at preset intervals. Some standout programs can monitor computers over a web browser, so that there is no need to monitor from one remote computer. This is particularly useful for monitoring large numbers of computers at once with more than one administrator, for example, in a school or large company.

Depending on the intended use of monitoring software, there are many types that have specific combinations of features that are highly suited to specific needs. For example, some programs offer a detailed filtering system, for use with young children and teens, whilst others will monitor time spent on social networking sites to suit employers looking to optimise productivity during time spent at work.

There are also many basic programs that simply log keystrokes, called keylogger software, which will let the monitoring party know exactly which keys have been pressed at what time. There are many contentious privacy issues surrounding the use of such programs, particularly when it is used for illegal means, such as obtaining passwords.

Most monitoring software is only legal to install on computers that belong to the person installing it, or where the person is an administrator of the computer. Whilst it can be useful to know how to monitor another computer, it is also well worth bearing in mind the legality of using monitoring programs in some circumstances.

Source:http://www.booshnews.com/2010/09/03/how-to-monitor-another-computer-computer-monitoring-software/

Post to Twitter

Visusoft limited v robert harris and arh software solutions ltd

September 2nd, 2010

Mr Harris was employed by Visusoft Limited from January 2005 to March 2006. Prior to entering this employment, Mr Harris had developed a software programme called Risc 5.

The copyright in this software was never assigned to Visusoft but Mr Harris, in conjunction with other Visusoft employees, further developed the programme, which was subsequently marketed by Visusoft as Datapos.

Following the termination of Mr Harris’ employment in 2006, he was required to remove all copies of source code and other components of the Datapos software from his personal computers, which he confirmed that he had done in a letter to the plaintiff.

After leaving this employment, Robert Harris developed and marketed software called Risc 7. Visusoft alleged that Risc 7 was substantially copied from its Datapos programme.

There was no dispute that Robert Harris had expended skill and labour on behalf of Visusoft in developing Datapos and, as such, the plaintiff had copyright in elements of the Datapos programme.

Expert evidence tendered by both the plaintiff and the defendant showed that elements of Datapos were incorporated in Risc 7 and, indeed, it was subsequently discovered that Robert Harris had retained a version of Datapos, which he deleted only after the litigation had commenced.

There was conflicting evidence as to the degree of similarity between Datapos and Risc 7 and Murphy J had to decide whether the evidence showed that Datapos formed a substantial part of Risc 7.

His Honour quoted with approval the decision of Pumfrey J in Cantor Fitzgerald International v Tradition (UK) Limited [2000] RPC 95 which held that it would be simplistic to regard every part of a computer programme as “substantial”, even if every part is essential.

Murphy J was not satisfied that Datapos constituted a substantial part of Risc 7. Despite parts of the source code being similar, he found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that there were common ancestry files, particularly as code can be generated by computer.

In particular, two of the expert witnesses could only conclude that it was not impossible for Risc 7 to be a copy of Datapos and the judge held that this assertion fell short of positive evidence.

As a result, the Court’s decision did not ultimately turn on copyright infringement but rather it found that Mr Harris had breached his original agreement and subsequent undertaking given to Visusoft concerning deletion of the Datapos software and code.

The Court accordingly refused to find that Risc 7 infringed Visusoft’s copyright in Datapos, but that it was entitled to damages for breach of contract.

It will be interesting to see whether the damages finally awarded by the Court are equivalent to an amount which might otherwise be awarded for copyright infringement damages.

Source:http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f0124560-bd08-4bbe-9200-bd41567f67d5

Post to Twitter

Roland gaia sound designer software editor

September 2nd, 2010

The GAIA Synthesizer Sound Designer is a software-based editor application for the Roland GAIA SH-01 Synthesizer.

Compatible with both Windows and Mac OS X, the GAIA Synthesizer Sound Designer allows users to access the GAIA synth’s entire set of sound parameters visually via a computer.

The GAIA Synthesizer Sound Designer is the perfect companion for all GAIA synth owners—beginners, music educators, and pros alike.

Once the GAIA Synthesizer Sound Designer is installed, all that is required is a single-cable USB connection between the GAIA synth and the PC.

With the GAIA Synthesizer Sound Designer’s interactive interface, users have complete command over sound creation.

Every control for the GAIA’s three synthesizer engines is represented, while the unique Waveform Display shows the shape of the currently edited waveform in a virtual oscilloscope, providing a graphical representation of the sound.

Source:http://www.pcmusic.org/news/view.php/lang/en/id/9497/

Post to Twitter

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes