The Shepp–Logan phantom is a standard test image created by Larry Shepp and Benjamin F. Logan for their 1974 paper "The Fourier Reconstruction of a Head Section". It serves as the model of a human head in the development and testing of image reconstruction algorithms. == Definition == The function describing the phantom is defined as the sum of 10 ellipses inside a 2×2 square:
ISSCO Graphics
Integrated Software Systems Corporation (ISSCO), doing business as ISSCO Graphics, was an American software developer and publisher based in San Diego, California, and active from 1970 to 1986. They were best known for their enterprise graphics software packages, including Tellagraf, CueChart and Disspla. == History == ISSCO Graphics had considered acquiring Breakthrough Software, whose software focus involved PC DOS, as a means of getting into the PC arena, but backed off when Computer Associates made an offer to acquire ISSCO. By early 1987 it was reported that "Issco users breathe sigh of relief" that all was well. The ISSCO User's Group was founded in 1976. ISSCO, which was founded in 1970 by Peter Preuss, was acquired by Computer Associates in 1986. == Notable products == === Tellagraf === ISSCO's Tellagraf is an early software package designed to allow end-users to "turn out full color, professional quality charts" with initial results displayed on a screen, modified as needed, and then "a final 'hard-copy' can be made .. or made into 35mm color transparencies for projection onto a screen." Users of Tellagraf often had access to CueChart and Disspla software. Often computer sites having one had all three. Terminals with varying degrees of graphics, such as the DEC's VT100 and Tektronix's Tektronix 4xxx family of text and graphics terminals. were supported, and the software ran on popular computing platforms. Four years are important to Tellagraf's early history: 1978: ease of use 1980: graphic-artist quality 1982: introduction of CueChart, and recognition by IEEE. 1983: "quality graphics enters the mainstream of data processing with ..." Tellegraf was eventually acquired by Computer Associates and renamed CA-Tellegraf. SAS users found it helpful. Universities, research institutes and financial services firms were among early users. === Disspla === Disspla is a package of data plotting subroutines that can be used from high level languages. It was also acquired by Computer Associates. === Tellaplan === In 1983 ISSCO introduced Tellaplan, "a project planning, report and schedule charting system for Tell-A- Graf users in IBM MVS or CMS or Digital Equipment Corp. VAX computers" atop which they built "two visual project management software packages" three years later.
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
Link-richness
Link-richness is the quality, possessed by some websites, of having many hyperlinks. Classified advertising sites like Craigslist tend to be very link-rich, sometimes with hundreds of links on their main page. They help users find the links they are looking for by grouping links into clusters. Inadequate link richness has been described as frustrating to readers, as it reduces transparency of site content from the main page. Students new to wiki collaboration were found to need guidance in how to take full advantage of the medium's potential for creating link-rich content. Link-richness in some contexts can be distracting, as when an article is surrounded by extraneous links. Indeed, it is becoming accepted as a best practice for universities to have link-rich home pages that do not rely on user categorisation and exploration of long sequences of links and are not constrained by traditional boundaries between departments. Tools are sometimes needed to make the publishing of link-rich web sites tractable, and many people may lack the technical skills, time, or inclination to engage in hand- crafting new digital document forms. A link-rich site that is low on content is sometimes referred to as a "gateway site." Link-rich portals were popular on the Web in 2000. Yahoo! and other sites featuring categories with many links were heavily used and often required fewer than three clicks to reach the content. Web designers were creating flat sites with content positioned close to the top of pages.
Packard Bell Statesman
The Packard Bell Statesman was an economy line of notebook-sized laptops introduced in 1993 by Packard Bell. They were slower in performance and lacked features compared to most competitor products, but they were lower in price. It was created in a collaboration between Packard Bell and Zenith Data Systems. The Statesman series was essentially a rebrand of Zenith Data Systems Z-Star 433 series, with the only notable difference of the logo in the middle and text on the front bezel. == History == In June 1993 Zenith Data Systems announced an alliance with Packard Bell. Zenith acquired about 20% of Packard Bell and they would both now work together to design and build PC's. Zenith would also provide Packard Bell with private-label versions of their portable PC's. The Packard Bell Statesman was a rebrand of the Zenith Z-Star notebook computer series. While the Statesman was being advertised by Packard Bell, the Z-Star series was also still being sold by Zenith. The Statesman was first introduced on October 4, 1993. Prices started at $1,500 for a monochrome or color DSTN model with a 33 MHz Cyrix Cx486SLC, 4 MB of RAM, 200 MB hard disk drive, internal 1.44 MB floppy disk drive, and MS-DOS 6.0 with Windows 3.1 for the included software. A "J mouse" pointing device was included, similar to the TrackPoint. The Statesman was expected to begin shipping within the next few weeks. == Specifications == === Hardware === CPU The first two models, the 200M and 200C, used the Cyrix Cx486SLC. This was Cyrix's first processor, which was a 386SX pin-compatible chip with on-board L1 cache and 486 instructions, being known as a "hybrid chip". The processor was clocked at 33 MHz and had 1 KB of L1 cache. It was a 16-bit processor and was pin compatible with the Intel 80386SX. On the bottom of the unit, the motherboard had an empty socket for a Cyrix FasMath co-processor, which could improve floating-point math performance. The 200M and 200C plus models had a Cyrix Cx486SLC2 clocked at 50 MHz, which was 50% faster than the original 486SLC. The SLC2 similarly had 1 KB of on-board cache and was pin compatible with the previous model. Graphics & Display For video all models used three versions of the Chips & Technologies 655xx, the CT65520, 65525, and 65530. The 65520 was first introduced in early 1992 as the first controller with Super VGA resolution. It supported resolutions up to 1024x768 in 16 colors or shades of gray. If in 800x600 resolution, it can display up to 256 colors. All 3 chips were the same, with the CT65525 identifying as a CT65530. The CT65530 had an ability of 5V and 3.3V mixed operation and linear video memory addressing. All models used a 9.5in 800x600 resolution DSTN LCD. The 200M and 200M Plus had a monochrome display, while the 200C and 200C Plus had a color display. Audio All models had only basic audio available, with just a piezo speaker soldered onto the motherboard and no sound controller. Memory Standard RAM included was 4-8 MB of EDO RAM. The RAM was on a proprietary SIPP package that could only be upgraded to 12 MB maximum if the user had compatible modules. Storage For storage all models used a hard drive with a size of 100 or 200 MB, and all models had an internal 1.44 MB floppy disk drive located on the side of the unit. The maximum capacity hard drive compatible if the user wanted to upgrade was 500 MB.Ports & Expansion For ports all models had 1x serial, 1x parallel, 1x VGA output, and 1x PS/2 keyboard/mouse input. For expansion all models only had one PCMCIA type II slot. Keyboard & Mouse All models used a small-scale keyboard with control keys. One interesting feature of the keyboard is that the J key also acted as a mouse, working similar to IBM's ThinkPad TrackPoint. On some models additional keys such as S, D, F, G and space let you do other mouse actions such as right click, left click, double click, and middle mouse click. === Software === The series shipped with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 as the included operating system. == Model Comparison == Statesman 200M — The first Statesman model, it came with a DSTN monochrome screen, and a Nickel-cadmium battery pack which could last up to 4 hours. It weighed 7.4 lb and was $1500. Statesman 200C — The second Statesman model, it was the same as the 200M with the only notable differences of a DSTN color display rather than monochrome and a slightly decreased battery life of about 3 hours. It cost $700 more than the 200M at $2200. Statesman 200M/200C Plus — The 200M/200C Plus were both identical to their previous base models, with the only difference of them having a Cx486SLC2 running at 50 MHz. In 1994 it cost around $2,295 for the 200C plus with 4 MB of ram, with 8 MB costing an extra $400. == Reception == The Statesman received fair reception, with most reviewers giving positivity for the low price and high battery life, but mainly criticizing the performance and screen quality of the model line. A review by PC World writer Rex Farrance and Owen Linderholm said the 200M had a good price, being only $1500, and a good battery life which lasted about 4 hours. In benchmarks however, the 200M performed "noticeably below the average". It was noted that the 200M's worst feature was its monochrome display, being "cloudy and a bit dim for our tastes". The J mouse was considered a decent choice, and was said to be "highly usable" after some practice. The 200M was listed as number 3 on PC World's top 20 budget PC list. PC World also reviewed the 200C, saying the color display is only a "marginal, although an improvement on the monochrome version". The 200C placed 9 on the PC World top 20 budget PC list. Compute! Magazine reviewed the 200C Plus in September 1994 stating it "lagged far behind the others, especially the DXs, but then speed isn't everything". It was given pros for low cost and good display, but criticized for its low performance, not having a trackball, and poor external monitor support.
Emergent algorithm
An emergent algorithm is an algorithm that exhibits emergent behavior. In essence an emergent algorithm implements a set of simple building block behaviors that when combined exhibit more complex behaviors. One example of this is the implementation of fuzzy motion controllers used to adapt robot movement in response to environmental obstacles. An emergent algorithm has the following characteristics: it achieves predictable global effects it does not require global visibility it does not assume any kind of centralized control it is self-stabilizing Other examples of emergent algorithms and models include cellular automata, artificial neural networks and swarm intelligence systems (ant colony optimization, bees algorithm, etc.).
Style sheet (web development)
A web style sheet is a form of separation of content and presentation for web design in which the markup (i.e., HTML or XHTML) of a webpage contains the page's semantic content and structure, but does not define its visual layout (style). Instead, the style is defined in an external style sheet file using a style sheet language such as CSS or XSLT. This design approach is identified as a "separation" because it largely supersedes the antecedent methodology in which a page's markup defined both style and structure. The philosophy underlying this methodology is a specific case of separation of concerns. == Benefits == Separation of style and content has advantages, but has only become practical after improvements in popular web browsers' CSS implementations. === Speed === Overall, users experience of a site utilising style sheets will generally be quicker than sites that do not use the technology. ‘Overall’ as the first page will probably load more slowly – because the style sheet AND the content will need to be transferred. Subsequent pages will load faster because no style information will need to be downloaded – the CSS file will already be in the browser’s cache. === Maintainability === Holding all the presentation styles in one file can reduce the maintenance time and reduces the chance of error, thereby improving presentation consistency. For example, the font color associated with a type of text element may be specified — and therefore easily modified — throughout an entire website simply by changing one short string of characters in a single file. The alternative approach, using styles embedded in each individual page, would require a cumbersome, time consuming, and error-prone edit of every file. === Accessibility === Sites that use CSS with either XHTML or HTML are easier to tweak so that they appear similar in different browsers (Chrome, Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.). Sites using CSS "degrade gracefully" in browsers unable to display graphical content, such as Lynx, or those so very old that they cannot use CSS. Browsers ignore CSS that they do not understand, such as CSS 3 statements. This enables a wide variety of user agents to be able to access the content of a site even if they cannot render the style sheet or are not designed with graphical capability in mind. For example, a browser using a refreshable braille display for output could disregard layout information entirely, and the user would still have access to all page content. === Customization === If a page's layout information is stored externally, a user can decide to disable the layout information entirely, leaving the site's bare content still in a readable form. Site authors may also offer multiple style sheets, which can be used to completely change the appearance of the site without altering any of its content. Most modern web browsers also allow the user to define their own style sheet, which can include rules that override the author's layout rules. This allows users, for example, to bold every hyperlink on every page they visit. Browser extensions like Stylish and Stylus have been created to facilitate management of such user style sheets. === Consistency === Because the semantic file contains only the meanings an author intends to convey, the styling of the various elements of the document's content is very consistent. For example, headings, emphasized text, lists and mathematical expressions all receive consistently applied style properties from the external style sheet. Authors need not concern themselves with the style properties at the time of composition. These presentational details can be deferred until the moment of presentation. === Portability === The deferment of presentational details until the time of presentation means that a document can be easily re-purposed for an entirely different presentation medium with merely the application of a new style sheet already prepared for the new medium and consistent with elemental or structural vocabulary of the semantic document. A carefully authored document for a web page can easily be printed to a hard-bound volume complete with headers and footers, page numbers and a generated table of contents simply by applying a new style sheet.