text:
\section{Summary}
We report a new form of cryptography that relies on sending a quantum state at light speed, and
show that it solves a longstanding cryptographic problem.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

Alice and Bob participate in a stock market that trades at a specific physical site.
Alice has a way of generating market predictions, which she wishes to demonstrate
to Bob, in such a way that he can verify the accuracy of her predictions post hoc, but cannot
possibly exploit them before the predicted events occur.   Bob needs a guarantee that
Alice's predictions were genuinely made at or before the point she claims they were, and
were not retroactively altered post hoc.
They can solve their dilemma with a suitably secure protocol for {\it bit commitment}.

Much attention has been devoted to the problem of bit commitment,
which is a basic cryptographic task that is important per se,
and has many applications to other more complex tasks.
It also has intriguingly deep connections to fundamental physics, which have been
uncovered in the search for bit commitment schemes whose security is guaranteed
by the laws of physics alone (i.e. without any need for extra computational or technological
assumptions).

Initially, work in this area focussed entirely on protocols based on
non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
Bennett and Brassard invented the first
quantum bit commitment protocol \cite{BBeightyfour}, which (as they
noted) is secure against
both parties given current technology, but insecure if
Alice has a quantum memory.
Later attempts at unconditionally secure non-relativistic protocols (e.g. \cite{BCJL})
were ultimately shown to be futile by the celebrated results of
Mayers \cite{mayersvthree,mayersprl,mayersone}
and of Lo and Chau \cite{lochauprl,lochau}, later
further elaborated \cite{mkp,darianoetal}, which show
that no unconditionally secure non-relativistic quantum
bit commitment protocol exists.

This picture changes radically
when we also exploit the signalling constraints implied
by special relativity.   The possibility of
using relativistic signalling constraints for bit commitment
was briefly discussed by Mayers \cite{mayersprl},
who suggested that his version of the no-go theorem should also
apply to relativistic protocols.  One strategy for bit commitment based
on temporary relativistic signalling constraints was indeed shown to
be insecure against quantum attacks \cite{bcms}.
The discovery \cite{kentrel,kentrelfinite} that relativistic protocols
{\it can} evade the Mayers and Lo-Chau no-go theorems
thus came as a surprise.
 Encouragingly, such protocols are practical (although
challenging) to implement with existing technology:
ref.~\cite{kentrelfinite} describes a relativistic bit
commitment protocol in which the parties can maintain
bit commitments indefinitely, by exchanging classical information at a
constant -- and presently feasible -- rate between
two pairs of separated sites under their respective control.
It is provably secure against all classical attacks and
against Mayers and Lo-Chau's quantum attacks, and is conjectured
to be unconditionally secure.  However, there is as yet no complete security proof
against general attacks.

Here we introduce a completely new technique for bit commitment,
which relies essentially on the properties of quantum information in
relativistic quantum theory -- specifically, on the
no-summoning theorem \cite{nosummoning}.
It is provably unconditionally secure.
In its simplest form it requires only one quantum state transmission
per commitment.
It illustrates a new way of exploiting cryptographically the
control over physical information that special relativity and quantum
theory together allow.   This seems likely to find many
other applications (e.g. \cite{akloc}).

One interesting potential application of the present work is to
high-frequency financial trading, in which light speed signalling constraints are already
a significant and potentially disruptive
factor \cite{wgf}.  In a financial context, bit commitment is usually thought of as a
technique for making encrypted predictions that can be decrypted and
checked after the event.   However, in an appropriately regulated
framework, it could also be used to commit parties to trades without
immediately making the trade public, or even without immediately
informing one of the trading parties (who would have to have agreed to
a regulatory framework in which the risks and disadvantages of such blind transactions
were appropriately managed and compensated).  The techniques described here
thus illustrate, inter alia, that light speed signalling constraints
also offer a tool for either traders
or regulators to reshape market dynamics via secure commitments.  In a possible future
world in which conventional cryptosystems are rendered suspect by
quantum computers or other developments, they may be the only reliably
secure techniques.

\section{Bit Commitment with Flying Qudits}

We begin by idealizing to simplify the presentation of the
essential idea.   We will relax these unphysical idealized assumptions later.
We suppose that space-time is
Minkowski and that nature is described by some appropriate relativistic version
of quantum theory.
We suppose that both parties, the committer (Alice) and the recipient (Bob),
have arbitrarily efficient technology, limited
only by physical principles.
We suppose that all their operations and communications
are error-free and that Alice can carry out quantum operations
instantaneously.
We also suppose they agree in advance on some
space-time point $P$, to which they have independent secure access,
where the commitment will commence.

We suppose they are independently and securely able to access
every point\footnote{
Alice and Bob should be thought of here as agencies -- which in the
ideal case are represented everywhere in the future light cone of $P$ -- rather than individuals.}
 in the causal future of $P$, and instantaneously process and
exchange information there, and that each is able to keep
information everywhere secure from the other unless and until they
choose to disclose it.\footnote{
In a more realistic model, which deviates from our idealized scenario
but can still illustrate all the key features of our discussion,
Alice and Bob could both be large independent collaborative groups of people,
with each group having its own independent secure network of quantum
devices and channels distributed throughout a region in such a way
that the two networks do not overlap but both includes sites close to
any point where quantum states may be exchanged.}
We suppose also that they can securely exchange quantum states
at $P$, and at other relevant points to which they both have
secure access.

We suppose too that Bob can keep a state private
somewhere in the past of $P$ and arrange to transfer it to Alice
at $P$.  Alice's operations on the state can then
be kept private unless and until she chooses to return information
to Bob at some point(s) in the future of $P$.
We also suppose that Alice can send any relevant states
at light speed in prescribed directions along secure quantum
channels.

They also agree on a fixed inertial reference
frame, and two opposite spatial directions within that frame.
We  initially simplify further by working in one space and one time
dimension; we set $c=1$ and take $P$ to be the origin in the fixed frame
coordinates $(x,t)$ and the two spatial directions to be defined
by the vectors $v_0 = (-1 , 0 )$ and $v_1 = (1,0 )$.

Before the commitment, Bob generates a random pure qudit state $\rho \in {\cal C}^d$, chosen
from the uniform distribution, encoded in a physical system which (idealizing again) we take to be pointlike.
He keeps it private until $P$, where he gives it to
Alice.    To commit to the bit $i \in \{0,1 \}$, Alice sends the state $\rho$ along a
secure channel at light speed in the direction $v_i$, i.e. along the line
$L_0 = \{ (-t, t) , t > 0 \}$ (for $0$) or the line $L_1 = \{ (t, t) , t > 0 \}$  (for $1$).

In the simplest implementation
of this protocol, Alice's secure channel may be physically secured --
for instance, a shielded region
of free space.   In this case,
to fit the standard model for mistrustful cryptography, we consider
the relevant channels as lying within Alice's secure laboratory.
Alternatively, if Alice knows in advance the points at which she
wishes to unveil her commitment, she can predistribute entangled
states
between $P$ and these points, and implement a  secure channel by
teleporting the unknown state to a point on the relevant light ray,
broadcasting the classical teleportation signal from $P$.
Security here is guaranteed since the classical teleportation signals
carry no information about either the transmitted state or (more
importantly) the direction in which it is teleported.

For simplicity, we consider here the simplest implementation in which
the state is directly securely transmitted.
Alice can then unveil her commitment at any point along the transmitted light ray.
To unveil a $0$, Alice returns $\rho$ to Bob at some point $Q_0$ on $L_0$;
to  unveil a $1$, Alice returns $\rho$ to Bob at some point $Q_1$ on $L_1$.
Bob then carries out the appropriate projective measurement to verify that the returned
qudit is $\rho$; if he gets the correct answer, he accepts the commitment as honestly
unveiled; if not (given that at this stage of the discussion we make
the idealized assumption of no errors),
he has detected Alice cheating.

\subsection{Security against Bob}

Given our assumptions, the protocol is evidently secure against Bob, who learns nothing
about Alice's choice until the unveiling.

\subsection{Security against Alice}

\subsubsection{No perfect cheating strategy}

Once Alice has carried out quantum operations of her choice at $P$,
her strategy for optimizing the probability of successfully unveiling $0$ is independent of
the unveiling point $Q_0$ on $L_0$ (and similarly for $1$).   Although Alice is free to
choose the points $Q_0$ and $Q_1$, and may vary them depending on other relevant
information that reaches her from the relevant past light cones, we
may thus without loss of generality consider $Q_0$ and $Q_1$ as
fixed.

Whatever operations and strategies she chooses, Alice cannot guarantee both that she
will be able to unveil successfully at $Q_0$ if she (at $Q_0$) chooses to, and also that
she will be able to unveil successfully at $Q_1$ if she (at $Q_1$) chooses.   If she could, she
would be able to guarantee a successful unveiling at both points, by following the appropriate
strategies at both points.   This would
violate the no-cloning theorem, since she would be able to guarantee producing
two copies of the unknown pure state $\rho$ in the frame in which $Q_0$ and
$Q_1$ are contemporaneous.   More fundamentally, from an intrinsically relativistic perspective,
she would be violating the {\it no-summoning theorem}
\cite{nosummoning}, an intrinsic feature of relativistic quantum
theory that extends the no-cloning theorem \cite{wz,dieks} and the no-signalling
principle.
To see this, note that she would be able to guarantee successfully
responding to a  summons from another party at $Q_0$,
requiring her to produce the state $\rho$ at $Q_0$, and also to a similar summons at $Q_1$ --
and hence to both summonses, which is impossible.

\subsubsection{Full security against cheating}

Suppose Alice decides, at (or in the past of) $P$, that she wishes to retain as much freedom
as possible in her choice of which bit to unveil, and is willing to accept that this may entail
some risk of being caught cheating.   Specifically, she wants to design a strategy which gives
her a probability $p_0$ of successfully unveiling the bit $0$ at $Q_0$, should she (at $Q_0$)
decide she wishes to, and a probability $p_1$ of successfully unveiling the bit $1$ at $Q_1$, should she (at $Q_1$)
decide she wishes to.

Any quantum bit commitment protocol in which an honest committer can be certain of successful
unveiling allows such strategies, in which the value of the unveiled bit is genuinely undetermined
(not merely unknown to Alice) until the unveiling, for any probabilities $p_0$ and $p_1$
with $p_0 + p_1 = 1$.    To achieve this, the committer simply has to prepare a state of
the form
$$
\sqrt{p_0} \ket{0}_A \ket{0}_I  + \sqrt{p_1} \ket{1}_A \ket{1}_I  \, ,
$$
where the $\ket{}_I$ state is input as the committed bit and the entangled
$\ket{}_A$ state is stored until unveiling and then measured in the computational
basis.\footnote{See e.g. Refs. \cite{kentbccc,kentshort}.}    Indeed, even classical bit commitment protocols can achieve a
similiar outcome if the committer chooses their input randomly, without observing the
random choice.   In this case there is a definite committed bit value (and this is an
important difference in some applications), but from Alice's perspective the unveiled
bit remains unknown, with subjective probabilities obeying $p_0 + p_1 = 1$.

A sensible definition of cheating thus requires that a cheating Alice can at
least ensure that $p_0 + p_1 > 1$.
More precisely, we say a protocol with a security parameter $N$ is unconditionally secure provided that,
for any committing and unveiling strategies, we have $p_0 + p_1 < 1 + \epsilon (N)$,
where $\epsilon(N) \rightarrow 0$ as $N \rightarrow \infty$.

In our protocol, the security parameter is the qudit dimension $d$.   Again, we can treat $Q_0$
and $Q_1$ as fixed.   Suppose that Alice carries out some fixed operations at $P$, with a
view to giving herself some chance of successful unveiling at either $Q_0$ or at $Q_1$.
Let $\rho_0$ be the state she generates at $Q_0$ if she subsequently follows the strategy that
optimizes her chances of successfully unveiling there, and $\rho_1$ the corresponding state
at $Q_1$.    Again, we can treat Alice's decisions whether to
unveil at $Q_0$ and $Q_1$ as independent, and imagine that she chooses
to unveil at both points.    She then produces, at space-like
separated points, the states $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ (which may and
generally will be mixed), which, roughly speaking, are intended to
be near-copies of the initial pure state $\rho$ that are as faithful
as possible.   More precisely, since Bob tests the returned states
$\rho_i$ by measuring the projector $P_{\rho}$ onto the pure state $\rho$, the probability $p_i$ of each state
$\rho_i$ passing Bob's test is $\Tr ( \rho \rho_i )$.
We thus have
$$
p_0 + p_1 = \Tr ( \rho \rho_0 ) + \Tr ( \rho \rho_1 ) \, . $$
Effectively, in a reference frame in which $Q_0$ and $Q_1$ have the
same time coordinate, Alice is attempting to implement $ 1 \rightarrow 2$
approximate cloning of the unknown state $\rho$.  The
expression on the right hand side, $\Tr ( \rho \rho_0 ) + \Tr ( \rho \rho_1 )$, is a standard measure of
fidelity  for this task.   If Alice's process ensures that $\Tr ( \rho \rho_0 ) = \Tr ( \rho
\rho_1 )$, she is implementing symmetric $1 \rightarrow 2$ cloning;
otherwise, her scheme is asymmetric.   Optimality bounds on the
fidelity have been proved\cite{gm,bem,keylwerner,werner,bbh,cerf,ffc,iblisdiretal,iag}
in both cases.  The symmetric bound suffices, since
any asymmetric scheme can be symmetrized by randomization, without altering
  $p_0 + p_1$ (or in the $1 \rightarrow N$ case, without altering $\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} p_i$) , so there must be a symmetric scheme that is optimal
by this measure.  However, in
the $1 \rightarrow 2$ case it seems a little more satisfying to use
the explicit form for the asymmetric bounds.
For $1 \rightarrow 2$ qudit cloning they give
$$p_0 + p_1 \leq 2 - \frac{d-1}{d} (a^2 + b^2 ) \,
$$
where $a^2 + b^2 + \frac{2ab}{d} = 1$.
Optimising via a Lagrange multiplier we find
$$ p_0 + p_1 = \Tr ( \rho \rho_0 ) + \Tr ( \rho \rho_1) \leq  1 + \frac{2}{d+1} \, . $$
We thus indeed have unconditional security: the expression $( p_0 + p_1 - 1 )$ (Alice's ``wiggle room'')
is bounded by a term that is $O( d^{-1})$, i.e. $O ( \exp ( - Cn ))$, where $n$
is the number of qubits that Alice and Bob exchange.

\subsection{The non-ideal case}

Realistically, the qudits
used will not be pointlike physical systems, it will not be
possible for Alice and Bob to have secure access to precisely the
same space-time point to exchange a qudit, and
Alice may not be able to transmit qudits at precisely
speed $c$. \footnote{Even if they are encoded by photons, they may
be sent through some medium with lower light speed.}
Realistically, too, Alice's and Bob's operations will take nonzero time.
All of these limitations effectively
introduce time delays at various stages of the protocol.

These delays can all be allowed for in a realistic definition of the task\footnote{Cf.~the
corresponding discussion for the no-summoning
theorem.\cite{nosummoning}}, without making the
protocols insecure.  However, they do affect the interval over which the
commitment is guaranteed to be secure.
To see this, suppose that Alice and Bob
attempt to implement a protocol which ideally prescribes that
the qudit should be returned at one of the points $Q_0 , \ldots ,
Q_{n-1}$.  Let $Q'_0 , \ldots , Q'_{n-1}$
be the points at which Bob would actually be
able to complete his tests, given a real (non-ideal) implementation
of the protocol, which allows Alice to return the qudit
in specified finite regions of space-time to the future of the points
$Q_i$.    Bob can then only be confident that Alice was committed
at points lying outside the past light-cones of the $Q'_i$ (i.e. that she
has no guaranteed successful strategy for changing her commitment
that relies on operations at any such points).
In other words, although Alice may need in fact to be committed at
the point $P$ (and hence all points in its causal future) in order
to implement her side of the protocol, the security analysis
will only persuade Bob
that she was committed by some point (or in some region) that lies in the
future of $P$.\footnote{As with other relativistic protocols, the fact that the local space-time geometry
in the vicinity of the Earth is not exactly Minkowski can also be
allowed for.\cite{kentrelfinite}}

If the $Q'_i$ are suitably close to the $Q'_i$, this need not make any substantial
difference, and thus may not be particularly relevant unless great precision over the place and time at which Alice
became committed is required. However, when -- as may be the case in our stock market
example -- a relatively precise timing of Alice's commitment {\it is} potentially
crucial, it will be desirable to try to minimize the time delays arising
in practical implementations.

\subsection{Channel losses and errors}

In reality, Alice and Bob's operations will not be error-free.
With some nonzero probability, the qudit state will be
altered somewhere between Bob's sending it to Alice and Alice
returning it to Bob.  Also, with some nonzero probability, the
qudit will either be lost somewhere between Bob's transmitting it at some
point $P'$ in the (presumably) near past of $P$ and his receiving
it at $Q'_0$ or $Q'_1$ (because Bob's or Alice's channels are not
perfect) or will fail to be detected when received
at $Q'_0$ or $Q'_1$ (because Bob's detectors are not perfect).

The possibility of losses can be countered by running $N>1$ copies of
the protocol, timed so that they are effectively run in parallel.
Instead of supplying a single random qudit to Alice at $P$, Bob
supplies a labelled sequence of $N$ independently random qudits
$\rho^{1} , \ldots , \rho^N$, within a time interval short
compared to the times and distances separating $P$ and $Q'_i$ (in
lab frame).   To commit the bit value $i$, Alice is required to
send all the qudits to the point $Q_i$, and return them from there,
with their original labels, to Bob at $Q'_i$.
Bob accepts the commitment as valid so long
as his tests identify $M$ qudits as those he originally sent,
where $M$ is statistically significantly above $N/2$, in the
sense that the probabilities $p'_0$ and $p'_1$ for Alice being
able to satisfy this test at $Q'_0$ and $Q'_1$ satisfy
$ p'_0 + p'_1 \leq 1 + \epsilon(d,N,M)$, where
$\epsilon(d,N,M)$ is suitably small (and can be made arbitrarily small by suitable
parameter choices).

This strategy of redundant parallel commitment also gives a way of
countering channel and detector errors.   Standard (and more
efficient) error
correction techniques can also be used for this purpose.

The possibility of losses and errors is always an issue in
quantum cryptography, and always adds
to the practical challenges in implementing protocols.
The protocols considered here are, of course, no exceptions.
However, errors and losses raise no qualitatively new
problems {\it of principle} for the protocols considered here.
It is not the case, for example, that any nonzero error or
loss rate makes it impossible to implement a secure version
of the protocol.  On the contrary, provided
the loss and error rates are not too large, they can
be countered by standard error correction
techniques, reducing the probability of false positives (Alice
successfully cheating) and false negatives (Bob being unable to
accept Alice's honest unveiling) to arbitrarily small agreed levels --
which is the best scenario possible in practical cryptography.

\subsection{Relation to standard mistrustful cryptography}

Note that relaxing our idealized assumptions allows us to fit the task definition
into a standard cryptographic model \cite{kentrelfinite}  for mistrustful
parties in Minkowski space-time.   The non-idealized case allows us to
drop the assumption that Alice and Bob each have independent secure
access to every space-time point.   Instead, we can adopt the standard
assumption that Alice and Bob
control suitably configured disjoint regions of space-time, their ``laboratories''.
Each trusts the security of their laboratory and all devices contained
within it, but need not trust anything outside their laboratory.

For example, we can take Alice's laboratory to be a
connected region of space-time that includes, near its boundary, $P$ and all allowed
unveiling points $Q_i$, and includes light ray segments corresponding
to the secure channels joining $P$ to each
$Q_i$: this allows Alice to receive a state at $P$ and transmit it
securely to any $Q_i$.    We can take Bob's laboratory to be a disjoint connected region
of space-time that includes a point $P'$ in the near causal past of
$P$, from which he sends the unknown state to $P$, and points $Q'_i$ in
the near causal future of each possible unveiling point $Q_i$, to
which Alice is
supposed to send the unveiled state if she unveils at $Q_i$.
This allows Bob to generate the unknown state securely, transmit it
to $P$, and then Alice to transmit it securely to some $Q_i$ of her choice,
and return it to Bob at $Q'_i$, where he can test it securely.  (See Figure 1.)

As is standard in mistrustful cryptographic scenarios, we
assume that Alice and Bob are the only relevant parties -- no one else
is trying to interfere with their communications -- and that they
have classical and quantum channels (which in principle can be made
arbitrarily close to error-free) allowing them
to send classical and quantum signals between the relevant points.

It is perhaps worth stressing here that, as with all such models, the main
purpose is to show that the task is well-defined and implementable
according to standard definitions.  The model is not meant to
prescribe how the protocol must be implemented in practice: for example, if
Alice uses teleportation to transmit the qudit, her labs need not be connected.
The point here is only to note one sensible way of implementing the protocol that uses only standard
cryptographic assumptions.

\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{bcsummoningfigure}
\caption{One implementation of the non-ideal protocol in
$1+1$
dimensions.   (Not to scale.)  Alice and Bob control disjoint regions of space-time,
representing their respective secure laboratories.   Bob sends the
unknown state to Alice at point $P$, and she propagates it at near
light speed to one of
the points $Q_i$, from where she sends it for Bob to receive at
$Q'_i$.   The arrows within Alice's lab denote light rays; the separations from $P$ to the $Q_i$ are
timelike to allow for delays at either end as well as possible subluminal
communication.   Note that, while Bob's laboratories here are disconnected, in
more than one spatial dimension they can be connected without
overlapping with Alice's. }
\end{figure}

\subsection{Three dimensions and Committing more Data}

We now consider three space dimensions, and suppose that Alice wants to commit
to a value in $\{ 0 , \ldots , m -1 \}$, for some integer $m \geq 2$.
To achieve
this we generalize the above protocol.  We fix $m$ distinct lightlike directions from the
commitment point $P$, defined by $m$ distinct vectors $v_i$ in
the agreed fixed inertial frame.\footnote{For efficiency, if no other
relevant constraints apply, the vectors should be roughly equally
separated.}     To commit to the value $i$, Alice sends the
received qudit from point $P$ at light speed in the direction $v_i$.   To unveil
her commitment, she returns the qudit to Bob at some point $Q_i$ on the
relevant forward light ray from $P$.    By the reverse triangle
inequality for future-oriented timelike and lightlike vectors in
Minkowski space,
any such point $Q_i$ is spacelike separated from any other such $Q_j$ (for $j \neq i$),
and so Alice's decisions about unveiling at $Q_i$ cannot be influenced by her
communicating to $Q_i$ information she learns at any point $Q_j$ on
any of the other light rays.

Suppose that Alice carries out some fixed operations at $P$, with a
view to giving herself some chance of successful unveiling at each of
the points $Q_i$.  Again, without
loss of generality, we can analyse security while treating the $Q_i$ as fixed
and (since an unveiling at $Q_i$ can be postponed to
any future point on the relevant light ray) assuming they have
the same time coordinate in some inertial frame $F$.
Let $\rho_i$ be the state Alice generates at $Q_i$ if she subsequently follows the strategy that
optimizes her chances of successfully unveiling there.
Again, we can treat Alice's decisions whether to
unveil at $Q_i$ as independent of her actions at $Q_j$ for $j \neq i$, and imagine that she chooses
to unveil at all $m$ points.   In the frame $F$, her actions then
become an attempt at $1 \rightarrow m$ cloning.

The optimality bound \cite{gm,bem,keylwerner,werner}
for symmetric $1 \rightarrow m$ qudit cloning implies,
via the symmetrization argument mentioned earlier, that
$$ \sum_i p_i =  \sum_i \Tr ( \rho \rho_i ) \leq  1 + O( 2 m d^{-1} )   \, . $$
We thus have unconditional security in this case also: the expression $( \sum_i
p_i - 1 )$
is again bounded by a term that (for fixed $m$) is $O( d^{-1})$, i.e. exponentially
small in the number of qubits used.

In principle, this strategy of direction-dependent commitment allows
an arbitrary amount of data to be securely committed and unveiled, using a single qudit,
and within a fixed finite space-time volume.
However, there are two important caveats here.

First, security requires that $2 m d^{-1}$ is small, meaning that
the dimension $d$ needs to scale at least\footnote{One might choose
tighter security criteria in this case.} linearly in $m$.
Second, Alice needs to be able to transmit from $P$ in $m$ distinct
directions, and Bob needs to be able to distinguish $m$ distinct
unveiling points on the relevant light rays.  Alice thus needs to
be able to specify transmission directions to within a solid angle\footnote{Or angle,
if the relevant directions lie in a plane.} small compared to $m^{-1}$, and Bob needs to be
able to distinguish separations small compared to the distances
between the corresponding unveiling points.   These precisions
are thus exponential in the number of bits committed, $\log_2 m$.   In realistic
implementations, attaining such precisions should be considered as consuming resources
that also scale at least exponentially in $\log_2 m$ for large $m$.

\section{Discussion}

The new bit commitment protocols described here are theoretically
interesting in that they make use of a property of relativistic
quantum theory -- which seems most fundamentally characterised
by the no-summoning principle \cite{nosummoning} -- that has not previously been exploited
cryptographically, and which looks likely to find many other
applications.   Working out in full generality precisely which applications of
bit commitment can be implemented using sequences of these protocols
poses some interesting theoretical and practical challenges.

To implement the protocol efficiently and reliably requires
transmitting qudits efficiently and reliably (by teleportation,
or within cryptographically secure regions of space), at near light speed
along pre-determined alternative paths.
If one takes an optimistic view, common among quantum information scientists,
technological barriers that currently prevent near-ideal
implementation of quantum information processing and communication
will ultimately be overcome.  At some point, the transition to
practical quantum information processing and communication
will take place -- and at that point the practicality of quantum computing
motivates a transition from (newly vulnerable) classical cryptographic
protocols to secure quantum protocols.   This is sufficient
motivation for the protocols described here: if and when practical and
reliable quantum information processing technology emerges, they will
be both practical and practically relevant.

That said, it is worth reviewing how practical the protocols already are
with present technology.  For a proof that the basic concept can be implemented, Alice
needs only be able to route photons at near light speed along
alternative paths -- which may be through free space -- in regions
which we can assume lie within her laboratory (and thus are secure),
and return the photons to Bob's detectors.   Moreover, for a partial proof
of concept, one might initially accept an unreliable implementation,
in which Alice's commitments are sometimes verified by Bob but
sometimes (because of losses or errors) unverified.
One might too accept implementations in which the photons travel at
significantly lower than light speed (along optical fibres of high
refractive index): such implementations still guarantee a finite
(though shorter) duration commitment, so long as the allowed unveiling points
are space-like separated.
Under some or all of these relaxed assumptions, the protocol seems
well within the scope of current technology.   How reliably
it can presently be implemented, over what ranges, with what
levels of security, and how small the transmission and other delays
can be made compared to the ideal protocol, are open questions,
which we offer as challenges to the ingenuity of experimentalist
colleagues.

Returning to the optimistic long term view of quantum information
technology, it seems to us that a plausible future cryptographic environment
will require unconditional security for bit commitments
of short duration, and that these protocols may turn out to be the most efficient and easiest
solutions.   For example, one can imagine short term commitments
relating to a stock market being made and unveiled by two parties
exchanging photon signals that are transmitted along
independently secure links.
For such applications, it will be particularly interesting to explore and
analyse the security and efficiency of
chaining protocols and redundant encoding (discussed in the
Appendix).

Previous protocols \cite{kentrel,kentrelfinite} that make use of the
Minkowski causal structure to implement secure bit commitment rely on the
fact that data introduced at one site is not available to
an agent at a space-like separated site.   As noted earlier, these protocols
are immune to Mayers' and Lo-Chau's cheating strategies.
The MLC strategies do, in principle, define an operation
that the committer could carry out in order to cheat the protocols of
Refs. \cite{kentrel,kentrelfinite} by altering their
commitment. However, this operation always depends on data introduced
at a space-like separated site, and so is never knowable by the
committer.

The protocols introduced here highlight another significant limitation
of Mayers' and Lo-Chau's no-go theorems that appears to have
previously gone unnoticed.   Namely,
in relativistic quantum theory, the unitary operation required for a MLC attack can be
known to both parties but impossible to implement physically, as it
represents a spacelike translation that would violate causality.
This reinforces the point -- if any reinforcement
were needed -- that these celebrated and fundamental
theorems are correctly understood as applying specifically to protocols
that rely only on non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
They can be extended to some important classes of relativistic protocols -- for
example those in which the unveiling point takes place at a fixed
point in the causal future of all the operations carried out in the
commitment phase -- but do not apply to general protocols based on
relativistic quantum theory.

Like all intrinsically quantum bit commitment protocols \cite{kentbccc,kentshort}, the protocols
considered here allow the committer to commit a bit in quantum
superposition, which is ``collapsed'' to a classical bit value only
when unveiled.   For some important applications of bit commitment,
this feature makes no essential difference.  For example, if the bit
commitment encodes a prediction, allowing the committer to make a
superposition of predictions merely gives them the freedom to add
a random element to their prediction -- which is also possible with
any classical bit commitment scheme, since the committer can always
randomize their input.   Indeed, for some intrinsically quantum applications,
in which the ultimate aim is to unveil a quantum state,
it may be a positive advantage that the scheme allows commitment of
a qubit rather than a bit.   On the other hand, our scheme cannot be
securely used in applications of
bit commitment in which it is crucial that the committed bit takes
a classical value fixed at (or before) commitment.
It bears reemphasizing that this is a quite general feature of
intrinsically quantum bit commitment schemes, and quite separate from
the cheating possibilities pointed out by Mayers and
Lo-Chau.\footnote{If (which we disrecommend) one were to break with established convention
and define quantum bit commitment so as
to require a guarantee of the classicality of the committed bit, it
would become almost trivial to show that quantum bit commitment is
impossible \cite{kentbccc}, and Mayers' and Lo-Chau's impossibility
proofs for non-relativistic quantum bit commitment would be
unnecessary.}

The protocols we have described are unconditionally secure, but not
necessarily optimally efficient, in the sense that they achieve
optimal security for given resources.   It will be interesting to investigate the range of
possible strategies and their efficiencies.   One particularly
interesting possibility is to consider protocols based on summoning
an entangled state.   For example, Bob could generate a randomly
chosen maximally entangled pair of qudits, and initiate the commitment
protocol by giving one of them to Alice -- who must later return it
as above -- while he keeps the other.   To verify the unveiled
commitment in this case, he needs to recombine his stored qudit
with the returned qudit at a single site using secure quantum channels, or else carry out a
non-local measurement.   Either way, he cannot generally verify with
certainty at the point of unveiling, but can do so at a future
point.\footnote{One might hope by this method to obtain a security bound
of $O( d^{-2} )$ instead of the $O( d^{-1} )$ bound obtained above;
however we are not aware of any analysis to date, so this may be an
interesting open question.  Implementations using non-maximally entangled
states also seem worth analysing.}

\acknowledgments
I thank Adam Brown for drawing my attention to Ref. \cite{wgf} and
Charles Bennett, Serge Massar, Stefano Pironio and Jonathan Silman for
very helpful comments.
This work was partially supported by a Leverhulme Research Fellowship,
an FQXi mini-grant, a grant
from the John Templeton Foundation, and by Perimeter Institute for Theoretical
Physics. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and
by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Lambert, Lambert: cgs unit of luminance. Mark L
Spectralon delivers almost complete Lambert refrective reflections can be designed in. Applied computer graphics in computer graphics, lambertian reflectance, well as a diffuse reflection model commonly used.
Beer-Lambert-Bouguer law, or the same meaning than simply known as Beer's law) has formulated the absorption of light by the law. Rule name from Augusto Behr, Pierre Bouguer and Johann Heinrich Lambert.
That happens by transitions from the absorption of light and think in the quantum theory, molecules and atoms and ions using the energy of photons (electromagnetic waves) lowest energy eigenstates to high energy eigenstates.
Example: aqueous Green laser light. Rays progresses in the solution will be weak.
You can calculate it using radiant flux F, light being absorbed into the molecules of effective area is called absorption cross sections.
Black-body radiation
Wilhelm Wien (german, Wilhelm Carl Werner Otto Fritz Franz Wien), High vibration frequency in the region explained well readings.
Planck's constant (in English) is a physical constant characterizing the quantum theory. Was named after Max Planck, one of the founders of quantum mechanics. Dimension of the action, called quantum. In SI units is the Joule-second (symbol: J s).
Amount of h/2 pi divided by 2 times π(Π), PI(The relationship between circle with Diameter, bout 3 times bigger than it) is commonly used.
Planck presents the Planck's law in the low-frequency region and measurements to match fix Wien theoretical form.
Derivation of the heat radiation, the discovery of argon by collaborative research and discovery of the light scattering study showing why the sky is blue (Rayleigh scattering), earthquake surface waves (Rayleigh wave) Ramsey treated classically Rayleigh-jeans law, such as Baron Rayleigh (English physicist) John William Strutt, 3rd Baron Rayleigh
Boltzmann constant is a physical constant relating State and entropy in statistical mechanics. Was named after Austria was an important contribution in the field of statistical mechanics physicist Ludwig Boltzmann
Constant has dimensions of entropy, is positioned as a constant temperature that relate to energy. In the international system of units (SI) unit is joules per Kelvin (symbol: J K-1) is used.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
The Collaboration Paradox
By Scott Schreiman
There's a lot of excitement and buzz about the productivity improvements that workplace collaboration offers. But it seems to me that true collaboration is a bit of a Holy Grail. It's more than the right attitude and mindset. It's also about the tools we use. And therein lies the gotcha. Because from where I sit, the mechanics of collaboration are broken, holding back the potential of genuine collaboration.
Think about it. Ever get frustrated trying to find that email with that one report attached that you need for your next meeting? Which email address did it come to? Which email folder did you put it in? When did you get it? Who sent it to you? What was their email address again? What was that report called? Do you remember the file name? What format was it? PDF? DOC? XLS?
Somewhere there's a cloud storage system that has a version of the report on it. But hang on a minute. You don't know if it's the most recent version of that report. Maybe a couple team members talked about it and modified the report an hour ago. But that version isn't with your email, so you don't have it. Now you go into your meeting, ignorant of the latest information, but making decisions anyway. Only to find out the decisions need to be revisited once you get the latest report. This is efficiency? This is effectiveness? Nope. That's the collaboration paradox.
What is the Collaboration Paradox?
The Collaboration Paradox is the tension between our collaboration efforts and results produced. The more collaboration tools we use, and the more we encourage people to work in a collaborative manner, the more difficult it becomes to synthesize and act on all the output of collaboration.
Think of Big Data. We have the technology to create, collect, and store an astonishing amount of data. However, our capacity as humans, and the data analysis tools we use, to pull out actionable insights from Big Data can't keep up. We know insights are in there. But we struggle to get to them.
Well, we're now creating the same situation with collaboration. The growing volume of output of all this collaboration – the increase in content and the conversations that surround it – is making it more difficult to use the collaboration output in an efficient and meaningful way.
If our collaboration efforts don't lead to us into making better and faster decisions – what's the point?
How does collaboration output stymie the goals of collaboration?
Let's take a closer look at the spiral of the Collaboration Paradox.
Content silos: Teams have great collaboration tools. Cloud-based file sharing, project management, messaging apps, brainstorming tools, business process workflows. But they're all isolated from each other.
Content and conversation aren't connected: The isolation isn't just the bits of information, but all the conversations that give them meaning and context. Why was that report changed? When was that decision made? Who made it? How did I miss that discussion? The conversations are separated from each other and from the content that inspires them.
The challenge of context switching: Every time someone needs to move from one data source to another, jump into the middle of an on-going conversation, or find an available resource, she needs to re-orient herself from the context of the previous task to the new one. Since we don't really multi-task, all this context-switching takes a toll on productivity, efficiency, and increases the risk of miscommunication and misunderstanding.
So the greater the collaboration, the greater the volume of output we have to create, follow, and digest before we can act on it.
Resolving the Paradox
The solution to the Collaboration Paradox lies within the paradox itself. We need a better tool — a unifying force that centralizes all the collaborative output for a team or a project. Where teams can access relevant content and conduct their conversations in one place.
More importantly, the conversations sit with the content so all team members stay on the same page regarding how a project is moving forward. New team members are quickly brought up to speed. Decisions aren't made without the most up-to-date information available to everyone. The logistics and substance of the project are transparent to all, minimizing confusion and delay.
Of course, the unifying platform must resolve the paradox, not contribute to it. Another challenge of collaboration productivity is the complexity of so many of the centralization tools that already exist. Preparing quarterly reports or launching a new marketing campaign aren't as complex as a multi-million dollar construction project. Navigating the unifying platform shouldn't add to the overhead of collaboration.
When a team can bring together their various content sources along with their conversations, then it's finally paving a straighter path to the ultimate goal of collaboration: discovering insights to make better, faster business decisions.
Previous articleCold Call Success: Attitude Plus Tools
Next article5 Ways to Maximize Your Time


text:
the Fischer LP360™ connector wins in two categories of the Red Dot Award: Product Design 2021
The Red Dot Design Awards stand for outstanding achievements in product design. The jury evaluates thousands of entries each year. For its Fischer LP360™ connectors from the Fischer Freedom™ Series, which have already won numerous industry awards, Fischer Connectors has now been awarded the prestigious Red Dot Award for Product Design in two categories: the "Mobile Phones, Tablets and Wearables" category, and the new "Smart Products" meta-category. The judges praised the connectors' unique design concept, which makes them both appealing to users and particularly easy to use.
What was rated "smart" in the Fischer LP360TM is the connectivity solution's multifunctional integration capability and modularity. The new connector is indeed truly multi-talented. It is a miniaturized active device, a fastening mechanism and an electrical signal and power connection all in one.
The rugged, low-profile connector was expanded in 2019 into a versatile technology platform that serves as an enabler for wearables and connected ecosystems in the Internet of Things and of Humans (IoT/IoH). The breakthrough plug-and-use technology benefits both engineers and end-users. Multiple configuration options facilitate application design. The panel plug can easily be extended to multifunctional wearables, such as biometric sensors, communication systems, GPS, lighting and bodycams. These can be snapped quickly and easily onto the cabled receptacle, which is integrated into flexible structures like ready-to-use smart personal protective equipment (PPE) vests. Since the connector has no key code, it can be plugged in any position, optimizing cable routing and power management. Contacts are IP68-sealed with a membrane, ensuring that the connector is fully cleanable. The low-profile design enables easy integration into any application, such as smart work vests. Mobile workers thus benefit from lightweight equipment without cable clutter, faster and more intuitive setup, easy handling and cleaning, reliable connectivity, and fast data transmission for enhanced safety and performance.
These features also convinced the Red Dot Award jury. In the citation for the award in the Smart Products category, the jury said: "These connectors impress as a miniaturized and, at the same time, versatile technology platform with innovative 360-degree plug-in connectivity." For the award in the Product Design category, the LP360's user-friendliness was particularly highlighted: "The LP360 is impressively intuitive to use. It can quickly be inserted into the socket and is integrated into a connected vest, forming a hub."
Jérôme Dabonneville, CTO and R&D Director of the Fischer Connectors Group, explains: "Initially the Fischer LP360TM design had to solve users' pain points in a way that helped unify the connector's form and function, transforming "how it works". On that journey, our teams went beyond our heritage as a connector manufacturer and ended up proposing a connectivity solution platform. The Fischer LP360TM connectors are indeed more than just connectors. They are also smart devices which are opening new doors for designing devices, contributing to the development of the Internet of Things, smart electronic ecosystems, as well as wearable technology and its networking and digitalization. We are very honored to receive these two Red Dot Awards as a testimonial of the Fischer Connectors Group's connectivity solution that goes beyond the connector."
Jonathan Brossard, CEO of the Fischer Connectors Group: "At Fischer Connectors, we have always seen ourselves as innovation drivers. The development of the Fischer LP360TM is a real milestone in our company history. We're very proud that our developers' outstanding performance has now been honored with two Red Dot Awards. This recognition of our achievement in industrial design by renowned experts is also an incentive for us to continue developing our connectivity solutions in such a way that they contribute to a networked industry and to the connected human".
The winners of the Red Dot Awards 2021 will be announced during the virtual Red Dot Design Week from June 21-25, 2021. During the entire week, the award winners will be given a digital stage. The event will center on a web special on the Red Dot website. All the award-winning products will be presented there. Moreover, the Red Dot Design Museum in Essen, Germany, will display impressions from its two special exhibitions.
Tags: connectors
Renesas Expands Portfolio of World's Smallest Photocouplers for Industrial Automation and Solar Inverter Applications
SEGGER's emRun Runtime Library Licensed by SiFive for Superior Code Size and Performance Improvements
SEGGER's emRun Runtime Library Licensed by SiFive for Superior Code Size and Performance Improvements


There's nothing sadder than a fat dog. It's bad enough that we American's need to stuff our faces until we all look like Baron Vladimir Harkonnen from Dune, but it's even worse that we fatten our animals too. This dog treadmill will help you keep your dog from being a big slob, while you sit by and watch while snacking on your Cheetos.
It is specially designed for canines to get the exercise they need at a comfortable pace. Get your dog in shape even if you have a busy schedule. This piece of doggy exercise equipment is only $1,159.97(USD) from Amazon.
Dogs were not meant to be fat, so it's time to liberate your lab from the lard.


Buying an interactive whiteboard (IWB) is a decision that shouldn't be taken lightly. There are many options on the market in 2019, and the pricepoint varies widely depending on the kind of technology you opt for.
It could be that a basic black and white smartboard will suit your needs. There's also full color IWB's. Do you need smart phone connectivity? Are you interested in the benefits of having a fully fledged 4k UHD interactive smartboard?
To help you in your search we have pulled together 5 top model boards, covering a range of budgets and specifications. A summary of our findings are laid out in the table below. For an ultimate IWB buyer's guide plus in depth reviews of each of the selected boards, keep on reading.
Quality, build design, level of features and warranty support are all important factors that have enabled us to rank the available interactive boards for review.
Based on these rating criteria (and a whole lot more), we have selected what we believe to be 5 of the best interactive whiteboards on the market today.
The Plus C-20W is a portable integrated IWB unit that comes with 2 writing surfaces, integrated application layer, and network support that allows for internet connection, as well as data storage and retrieval from remote FTP (file transfer protocol) servers.
It uses the pen mode, and its writing surfaces allow for horizontal scrolling, which increases the effective writing area beyond the physical area bound by the IWB frame.
The board is designed to operate as either a copy-board or a capture-board depending on current needs. As a copy-board, it allows data/information written on its surface to be stored, transmitted to a remote server, or printed via an optional printer (which must be acquired separately).
Relatedly, the standard IWB capabilities of its writeable screen surface makes it an effective capture-board that can be used with frontal projection system to write over projected images.
This high-performance, feature-rich, and high-quality IWB is designed and made by the Plus Corporation of America, and its model number is C-20W.
This IWB model can be installed in two ways; wall mounting (or partition mounting) using magnets attached to the IWB, or mobile floor mounting to a self-standing mount with T-shaped legs.
a CD user manual and hardcopy documents with setup and assembly instructions.
A pair of vertical frame covers must be fitted on the IWB frame, while a sheet covers the panel that serves as the projection field (with the sheet allowing one to write and draw diagrams that overlay the projected image).
The IWB control panel is located at the lower section of the left vertical frame cover. It has press buttons that allow one to save work in a USB or PC; or print it in color or black-and-white.
On the downside, this board lacks mouse functions across the projection field. The entire ready-to-use unit weighs about 55pounds, while the IWB is 78inches long, 39.4inches high, and 3.5inches thick.
The mobile mount weighs 27.5pounds, and is sometimes omitted from the package. The color scheme of this IWB unit is silver-gray-white.
as well as Mac OS X 10.5 and later editions.
Its application layer allows for internet connectivity through the following web browsers: Internet Explorer 8.0 and later editions, and Safari 5 and later editions.
The IWB is a standalone computer that can be password-protected to ensure unauthorized users cannot use it as a copy-board or capture-board, but can still use it as a traditional whiteboard.
It also makes it compatible with color laser and inkjet printers with (printer) connection provided by Type A USB port. If the data cannot be printed immediately, then it can be saved in the internal memory (local drive) whose storage capacity is 32GB.
The other alternative is to connect an RJ-45 network cable to the ethernet port which allows the IWB data to be stored or shared across a networked system, including a system that incorporates FTP servers.
Its application layer allows for task organization and communication-wide organization, besides allowing data to be saved and retrieved from USB drives.
Relatedly, when connected to the PC, it is recognized by the PC OS as an external memory device from which stored data can be downloaded from, or PC data can be uploaded into the IWB.
The effective writing surface is 70.1inches long and 35.4inches high. This is also the size of the scannable area (also described as scanning surface area).
The endless horizontal scroll greatly maximizes the writing area on each panel, while capture-board functionality is supported by saving options that allows projected images, written notes, and drawn charts and diagrams to be saved in PDF formats for documents or JPG or PNG image formats.
The scanning time (duration for capturing the entire projection field) is 21 seconds for both color and black-and-white formats with the scan resolution capped at 50dpi. Even so, print resolution are capped at 300dpi.
The writing surface RGB LED as the light source for native illumination. Paging is achieved using horizontal scrolling, with its drive method being sheet movement; while a contact-image sensor provides reading capabilities.
Two writing surfaces means that this IWB has 2 pages. The internal memory can save up-to 100pages, though this number varies depending on the data types.
Smartphone integration is provided by an application called meeting pocket app (MTG App) which can be installed in both Android and Apple smart devices. This app provides scan function that allows the projected image to be saved in the phone, tablet, or phablet.
Moreover, the app allows for video and audio recording, with the recorded files bundled in the same folder as the saved projected image. This allows for file organization. Even so, this app can connect to the IWB via a wireless access point (WAP).
This is an energy efficient IWB model that requires AC power input of 100-240 Volts (V) at 50-60Hertz (Hz) with current flow capped at 0.75amperes (A).
It uses 3 watts (W) when in standby mode, and this increases to 12W during operation without a printer. Its power output is 12V direct current (DC) at 3.0A. This IWB model benefits from a 12-month warranty.
Effective writing surface is 70.1inches long and 35.4inches high.
Supports wall-mounting and mounting on wheeled mobile stands.
Endless horizontal scrolling on writing surface.
Can be used as a capture-board or copy-board.
Network support and smart-phone integration.
Multiple output formats: PDF, JPG and PNG.
Smartphone integration provided by a stable MTG app.
IWB has internal storage of 32GB.
Printer must be purchased separately.
Lacks mouse (click-and-drag emulation) functions across the projection field.
IWB lacks internal speakers hence audio support must be provided by external speakers.
Plus C-20W is a portable integrated IWB unit that comes with 2 writing surfaces, integrated application layer, and network support that allows for internet connection, as well as data storage and retrieval from remote FTP servers.
It uses the pen mode, and its writing surfaces allow for horizontal scrolling. It supports wall-mounting and mounting on wheeled mobile stands, and can be used as a capture-board or copy-board.
It also allows for quick scan with the scanned file being saved in multiple output formats: PDF, JPG and PNG. It also has an internal storage capacity of 32GB, and is supported by a 12-month warranty. These aforementioned features along with its high quality and good build design make this IWB model the best color smart board in this review.
This is a portable integrated IWB unit that operates as a copy-board with 2 writing surface and an integrated application layer.
Its construction and operational designs are quite similar to the Plus C-20W, though devoid of capture-board capabilities, as well as lacks network supports which eliminates remote data transfer potential. Even so, it uses the pen mode, and its writing surfaces allow for horizontal scrolling.
It only allows for data/information to be written on it, and thereafter erased, stored, or printed via an optional printer (which as expected must be acquired separately).
Lack of capture-board hardware and functionalities also makes the Plus M-17S much cheaper and lighter (less heavy) than the C-20W, which is also designed and made by the Plus Corporation of America. The model and part numbers of this copy-board are M-17S and 423-084 respectively.
Just like the C-20W, this copy-board can be installed in two ways; wall mounting (or partition mounting) using magnets attached to the IWB, or mobile floor mounting to a self-standing mount with T-shaped legs.
A pair of vertical frame covers must be fitted on the IWB frame, while a sheet covers the panel that serves as the projection field.
The ready-to-use copy-board weighs about 33pounds, while the IWB is 58.3inches long, 39.4inches high, and 3.5inches thick. The mobile mount weighs 23pounds, and is sometimes omitted from the package. The color scheme of this IWB unit is silver-gray-white.
In this copy-board, horizontal scrolling of the writing surface allows for two writing surfaces to be combined side-by-side into a single writable surface.
Its control panel is located at the lower section of the left vertical frame cover. It has press buttons that allow one to save work in a USB or PC; or print it in black-and-white.
Just like the C-20W, this copy-board has the same downside, lack of mouse functions, including click-and-drag emulation, across the projection field.
Functional-wise, this copy-board differs from the capture-board in one major way – the copy-board can only print black-and-white images while the Plus C-20W has the additional benefit of printing color images.
The panel size is 51.2inches long and 35.8inches high, while the effective writing surface is 50.4inches long and 35.4inches high. This also defines the scanning surface area.
Its copy-board functionalities are supported by saving options that allows for written notes, and drawn charts and diagrams to be saved in PDF formats for documents or JPG or PNG image formats.
The scanning time is 15 seconds with the scan resolution capped at 50dpi. Even so, print resolution are capped at 300dpi. Scanning is quicker in this copy-board as compared to the C-20W capture-board because the copy-board has a smaller scanning area.
The writing surface and reading area of this copy-board uses RGB LED for native illumination. Paging is achieved using horizontal scrolling, with its drive method being sheet movement; while a contact-image sensor provides reading capabilities.
Unlike the C-20W model, the M-17S model lacks a stable smartphone integration.
Its application layer allows for internet connectivity through the following web browsers: Internet Explorer 6.0 and later editions, and Safari 4 and later editions.
Printer connection is provided by Type A USB port. Furthermore, even if a color printer is connected, the printed document would still be black-and-white.
On the upside, batch printing is supported with 10 documents being printed simultaneously. Nonetheless, if the data cannot be printed immediately, then it can be saved in the internal memory (local drive) whose storage capacity is 32GB.
Its application layer allows for task organization and communication-wide organization, besides allowing data to be saved and retrieved from USB drives. Relatedly, when connected to the PC, it is recognized by the PC OS as an external memory device from where data can be retrieved or stored.
This copy-board is an energy efficient IWB that requires AC power input of 100-240 V/50-60Hz with current flow capped at 0.75A. It uses 3W when in standby mode, and this increases to 12W during operation without a printer. Its power output is 12V DC at 3.0A. It also benefits from a 12-month warranty.
Effective writing surface is 50.4inches long and 35.4inches high.
Supports batch printing of up-to 10 pages simultaneously.
Can print only black-and-white documents.
The Plus M-17S is a portable integrated IWB unit that operates as a copy-board with 2 writing surface and an integrated application layer. It uses the pen mode, and its paging allows for horizontal scrolling.
It supports wall-mounting and mounting on wheeled mobile stands. It also allows for quick scan with the scanned file being saved in multiple output formats: PDF, JPG and PNG.
Even so, it only supports black-and-white printing, with an allowance for batch printing. It also has an internal storage capacity of 32GB, and is supported by a 12-month warranty.
These aforementioned features along with its superior construction quality and good build design make this copy-board the best black and white interactive whiteboard in this review.
This is a 75-inch complete standalone IWB whose all-in-one touch PC provides a highly cohesive software-to-hardware interface that allows for tele-conferencing, including video-conferencing, to be combined with whiteboarding.
Furthermore, the 10-point multi-touch capability of the TFT LED touchscreen allows the user to switch interchangeably from the finger-mode (touch-mode) to the pen-mode.
The touchscreen is overlaid on a 4K infrared display. Its hardware supports a harmonized communication system that features collaboration tools and corresponding support services, including cloud support through OneScreen Connect Cloud and Swap Cloud and related Annotate services.
Real-time support services are also provided via Skills Guru, which attests to the high-standards of technical supports that customers benefit from.
This infrared, interactive, all-in-one PC-based collaboration hub is designed and made by the American company, Clary Icon as part of its OneScreen Solutions brand of collaborative tools.
The Hubware H4 uses an integrated PC module that a processing unit that is compatible with Windows 10 and Android OS.
1TB of secondary hard drive memory.
This processor comes with an integrated graphic processing unit that handles graphics, including multimedia graphics, diagrams, writings, and charts.
The processing unit also features a separate 1.40Ghz processor that is paired with 1.5GB RAM and 8GB ROM (secondary memory) for running Android 5.0.1 and its apps, which can be downloaded from Google PlayStore.
It also comes with an inbuilt camera for tele-conferencing, but it lacks an inbuilt speaker, which compels one to use the speakerphone.
This camera is a 1080p full HD camera with 30fps and a lossless zoom of X10. It benefits from ZEISS lens certification and has 5 presets, with a field of view of 90 degrees, and a pan of 260degress and a tilt of 130degrees.
This model is shipped in package that weighs about 282pounds, and is 77inches long, 54inches wide, and 12inches thick.
OneScreen Annotate Software, and OneScreen Swap Cloud Service.
There is also a user guide, and a separate installation guide.
The fully set-up IWB weighs about 165pounds. The color scheme for the IWB frame is black.
This model uses infrared touch sensing technology that allows for three input methods; finger, stylus, and pen. Its speakerphone features two expansion mics with 20-feet diameter range.
This Bluetooth-enabled speakerphone uses AEC audio encoding, and has a sensitivity of -28dB. Additionally, the keyboard comes with touchpad functionality, and the wireless range of both the mouse and keyboard is 33feet.
This model is flush mounted on the wall. Its PC inputs and outputs are 5 USB ports, a VGA port, a HDMI port, an RJ45 ethernet port, and an ear and mic ports.
The VGA and HDMI ports allow for additional monitor displays to be connected to the IWB. There are also 2 touch USB ports, 3 HDMI ports, an RS232, YPBPR, AV and Audio input ports, as well as a VGA and an RJ45 ethernet port. The main audio output ports are a mini-AV port, an audio CVBS output terminal, coaxial audio, and an earphone port.
The 75-inch touchscreen interactive display has a resolution of 3840 X 2160, with a dynamic contrast of 4000:1 and maximum screen brightness set at 350 candela-per-square-meter (cdm-2).
Its color depth is 10-bit and the number of colors is 1.07billion. This display benefits from a crystal-clear anti-glare tempered glass overlay.
The touch response is about 8 milliseconds (ms) which gives the users instantaneous interactivity. Furthermore, an aspect ratio of 16:9 for wide-screen views. The external dimensions of the monitor display are 69inches by 42inches.
This model comes with a feature-rich application layer whose groupware supports the hubware attributes of the IWB. This includes support for ad-hoc conferencing, video conferencing and whiteboarding.
The OneScreen Connect Cloud Service serves to secure data transfer during video conferencing, while OneScreen Swap Cloud Service saves shared data and images.
Relatedly, OneScreen Annotate Software supports brainstorming sessions. This allows for up-to 8 ad hoc participants and 99 users to be hosted simultaneously on an internet-enabled collaborative environment.
Even so, OneScreen Connect Cloud Service and OneScreen Swap Cloud Service come with a 12-month subscription, after which one has to renew the subscription.
This infrared IWB is designed to be used with standard 110-240V AC power. It is also backed by a 12-month warranty.
Has an interactive and unified software-to-hardware interface that allows tele-conferencing to be combined with whiteboarding.
Supports both pen-mode and touch-mode, which gives it mouse (click-and-drag emulation) functions across the projection field.
Supports secure data transfer and storage via cloud services.
Uses a high-resolution 4K display with multi-touch support.
PC module is compatible with both windows 10 and Android OS.
Comes with a high-quality full duplex speakerphone.
Multiple input and output ports that supports multiple TFT displays.
Wireless support allows for use of non-wired keyboard and mouse to control the PC.
Comes with an inbuilt 1080p, 30fps Full HD camera with a lossless zoom of X10.
OneScreen Connect Cloud and OneScreen Swap Cloud Services are provided for free for only the first 12months after which one must renew the subscriptions.
while the 10-point multi-touch capability of the TFT LED touchscreen allows the user to switch interchangeably from the finger-mode (touch-mode) to the pen-mode.
Connect Cloud and Swap Cloud and related Annotate services. Real-time support services are also provided via Skills Guru. This infrared, interactive, all-in-one PC-based collaboration hub is the best interactive touchscreen display in this review.
This is a special type of portable connectable IWB that can wirelessly connect to a PC and does not need an overhead projector. This model is specially designed to transform flat surfaces into plug-n-play interactive displays. It uses ultrasound and infrared tracking technology that gives it positional accuracy of +/-1 mm.
Unlike standard IWBs that come with a display panel, the Ebeam Edge Plus uses a multi-charge cradle to project an interactive display onto a flat surface, including a that of traditional whiteboard.
This cradle is powered by a rechargeable battery that lasts for 8 hours once fully charged, with the charging time estimated to be 3 hours.
This cradle integrates a receiver and interactive stylus into a hand-held, remote-control-sized device that can be magnetically attached onto a surface, especially on traditional enameled whiteboards.
This model is designed, manufactured, and warranted by eBeam as part of its eBeam Edge+ Complete line of IWB products.
This model is packaged as a marker pack which contains the multi-charge cradle, a rechargeable three-button stylus, and an Edge+ wireless dongle.
The stylus is powered by a lithium-ion battery whose charge time is 3hours and can continuously power the device for 15hours. Use of batteries allows for IWB use in areas where there is no AC power. The firmware that runs the entire unit is loaded into the multi-charge cradle. The stylus weighs about 0.8oz.
It is shipped as a single package that weighs 0.21pounds.
a 16.4-meter long USB cable, and a meter-long (stylus) USB charging cable for Stylus.
Additionally, one is required to download the eBeam software.
As expected, the cradle can only work when the wireless dongle is connected to a PC, and this requires a device driver to be installed in the PC. This driver has minimal system requirements that determine the PC hardware and OS that is compatible with this model.
as well as Mac OS X 10.6 and later versions.
It can also be used with a Chromebook – whose Chrome OS is forked from Linux distros – if a stable internet connection is available.
or Pentium Core 2 Duo with minimum processor speed of 1.5Ghz for Mac PC.
Likewise, the driver and other supporting groupware require a minimum of 250MB of hard drive storage.
USB port (2.0 or higher), optical drive, 2GB RAM, and an active internet connection.
Relatedly, the PC can be connected to the IWB via a USB cable. PC connection allows for documents and data to be saved in popular file formats, including PDF, PPT, and image formats.
The multifunctional stylus provides mouse emulation and supports cursive writing. The active work area created by this IWB is 16feet long and 5feet high, which is considerably large for an interactive projection field.
The installation options allow for easy and flexible IWB installation, especially on metallic board frames, with the mounting plates allowing for installation on non-metallic/non-magnetic surfaces.
Additionally, the tracking technology used minimizes lag between stylus and receiver. Still, its most unique feature is ability to create size-scalable interactive surfaces.
This IWB benefits from a 2-year warranty.
Can create a size-scalable interactive surface.
Maximum interactive surface area is 16feet by 5feet.
Uses ultrasound and infrared tracking technology.
Has positional accuracy of +/-1 mm.
Supports both pen-mode with mouse (click-and-drag emulation) functions.
PC module is compatible with Windows, Linux, and Mac OS.
Battery-powered unit that can be used without AC power supply.
Long-lasting batteries with short charging times.
Cheap as compared to the afore-reviewed IWB models.
Comes with a relatively thin application layer, which compels one to rely mostly on PC programs.
Wireless functionality mostly requires internet connection to work.
EBeam Edge Plus is a special type of portable connectable IWB that can wirelessly connect to a PC and does not need an overhead projector. It lacks a display panel, and is specially designed to transform flat surfaces into plug-n-play interactive displays.
It uses ultrasound and infrared tracking technology that gives it positional accuracy of +/-1 mm. The maximum interactive surface area that can be achieved is 16 feet by 5 feet. Additionally, this battery-powered unit has long-lasting batteries with short charging times.
These aforementioned features along with a quality build design makes this model the best interactive whiteboard system in this review.
This is a portable, integrated 42-inch digital IWB that operates as a capture-board that supports real-time collaboration through sharing of information.
It uses an all-in-one touch PC that is designed as a large 42-inch graphics tablet so as to provide a unified software-to-hardware interface that allows for tele-conferencing to be combined with whiteboarding. Design-wise, it is the digital analogue of the flipchart.
It has a single writing surface, an integrated application layer, and network support that allows for internet connection. It supports wireless and bluetooth connections.
This is achieved through the Bluetooth 4.0 Dual-Mode wireless technology that is backwards compatible with the earlier Bluetooth 2.1. More importantly, its capture-board functionality is powered by a proprietary technology – the Digital Vision Touch (DViT) technology – which allows for written notes and drawn images to be captured in real-time.
It uses the pen mode as the primary data input method. Its smartphone integration is provided by SMART Kapp app – a free app that is bundled in the application layer of the IWB. This high-performance, feature-rich, and high-quality IWB is designed and made in Mexico by Quartet, and its model number is SK5234.
This digital capture-board must be mounted to the wall, as mobile mounting options are limited. As a non-magnetic markerboard, it uses a mounting hardware dubbed French cleat, which can be used together with the standard VESA mount. Its writing panel is made of glass.
The product is shipped in an assembled state in a package that contains the following items: capture-board, 4 bullet-tip dry-erase markers, power supply adapters, round eraser, and mounting hardware kit.
The thin-profile capture-board is 23inches by 44inches, and its white frame features a white plastic finish. It should be oriented vertically so as to mimic an ordinary size A4 paper. The ready to use unit weighs about 35pounds.
The use of a digital markerboard eliminates the need for IT integration, and the user just needs to download the required apps and start using the board. Its collaboration allows for up-to 35 people to participate in a collaborative session, with the premium app increasing this number to 250 participants.
This IWB comes with an inbuilt camera that can take snapshots of the written notes, while the USB 2.0 port allows for these snapshots to be stored in removable storage drives. Furthermore, the snapshots can be saved into JPEG formats or as PDF files that can be shared via Google Drive, Evernote, and Dropbox.
This IWB is compatible with both Apple and Android phones which use iOS 8.1 and Android 4.4.4 and later versions respectively. It also supports four popular web browsers; Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari.
This is an energy efficient IWB model that requires AC power input of 100-240V/50-60Hz. This IWB model benefits from a 12-month warranty.
Network support and smart-phone integration via the SMART Kapp app.
Multiple output formats: PDF and JPEG.
Capture-board functionality powered by proprietary DViT technology that allows for written notes and drawn images to be captured in real-time.
Supports Bluetooth and wireless connectivity.
Has no internal speakers hence audio support must be provided by external speakers.
Quartet SK5234 Kapp is a portable, integrated 42-inch digital IWB that operates as a capture-board that supports real-time collaboration through sharing of information.
It uses an all-in-one touch PC that is designed as a large 42-inch graphics tablet so as to provide a unified software-to-hardware interface that allows for tele-conferencing to be combined with whiteboarding.
It has a single writing surface, an integrated application layer, and network support that allows for internet connection. It supports wireless and Bluetooth connections. Moreover, its capture-board functionality is powered by the DViT technology which allows for real-time capture of written notes.
Additionally, its smartphone integration is provided by SMART Kapp app. These aforementioned features and superb build design make this model the best whiteboard for mobile connection in this review.
The following factors must be considered when preparing to purchase an IWB, or when choosing the best interactive whiteboard that suits your needs.
The place where the IWB is going to be used matters a lot. Schools can benefit from peer-reviewed guidelines on choosing the right IWB based on current and projected classroom uses. As expected, classroom use differs from office use, and therefore you need to choose an IWB that has been purposed for use and installation in your desired area of use.
The cost of the desired IWB must be within the range of your budget. Even so, cost-benefit analysis can optimize your choice of IWB as you can get the best IWB within a given price range.
In the classroom, the teacher remains the center of attention regardless of the level of collaboration or interactivity demanded by the situation, and thus an IWB whose projection system allows for this should be chosen. Moreover, use of front-of-classroom display allows for easier accessibility to content by the students. The same also applies to office training sessions.
This is related to IWB use, with focus placed in classroom use, though it also applies to office use. Multi-user capability means that more than one student, user, or presenter can input data to the IWB at the same time. This allows for efficient collaboration and interaction between the users.
The IWB must be used in a room with limited space, and thus you must choose a model whose size fits well into the area where it is going to be fitted, or installed. Small-sized models are sometimes designed to be portable with a mobile stand allowing for their installation in any room.
You should determine where the IWB is going to be fitted. If it is going to be fitted in the wall and not be moved, then it is prudent to choose a fixed IWB model. Conversely, if the IWB is to be moved from place to place, then it is prudent to choose a portable model.
There is need for you to choose a data input method that you are most comfortable with, either through touch or by writing using a pen. If you are comfortable with both data input methods, then it advisable to acquire an IWB that supports both pen-based and touch-based operation.
IWBs with durable construction last longer than IWBs that are made from non-durable materials. Durable IWBs are also less prone to catastrophic failure during use as compared to low-quality models.
This determines the touch accuracy, power efficiency and degree of user convenience of an IWB model. It is recommended that you choose an IWB technology that you are familiar with, or whose learning curve is shallow in relation to your current training.
You should check the accessories that comes with each IWB model. Mostly, you should check for printer support, tablet support, and options for incorporating a wireless unit and PRS to the IWB. Also, you should check the saving options, as well as ensure that the saved files can be stored in removable media, especially a memory card, USB stick, or an external hard disk.
The application layer that comes with an IWB model determines its range of functionalities, and capacity for customization to meet your needs. You should therefore scrutinize the range of software that come bundled by default with the IWB as this would allow for cost-benefit analysis between choosing a pricier software-rich model, or a cheaper model with a thin application layer that would compel you to purchase software separately.
IWBs that come with training as part of consumer education allows for better utilization of the available tools and maximization of productivity.
Training can be provided as a series of lectures by company representatives, or be published in informational booklets such as user guides and manuals. Informational audiovisuals such as webinars and video-on-demand tutorials can also be used.
This training should equip you with the practical skills of installing, assembling, operating, and integrating hardware, as well as basic troubleshooting.
IWBs do suffer from technical faults which can interrupt learning. In such instance, technical support, in form of technical expertise provided by the manufacturer (or its representative), as well as technical advice on best practices for optimal IWB utilization should help you get the IWB working again. Besides, you gain knowledge on how best to get the most out of your IWB.


Grandmother gift PowerPoint is a template design for PowerPoint dedicated to Grandmothers that can be used to share love with your grandmother or to include photos about the family and photo album to surprise your Grandmother. You as a grandson can use this in PowerPoint presentations. The template has a white background with nice curve effects and a few gift boxes with colors.
This free gift background for PowerPoint can be used to make presentations with bow styles for Valentine's day as well as other slide designs with ribbons, bows or even other slide templates for PowerPoint presentations like the free gift PowerPoint template backgrounds.


text:
Michael Jackson Does Not Deserve to be Remembered Like This
in: Celebrities
A drugged up Michael Jackson seems to be mumbling on a tape released during the trial of Dr. Murry weeks before his death. Jackson talks about what he wants for his fans. Michael said, "We have to be phenomenal. When people leave this show, when people leave my show, I want them to say, 'I've never seen nothing like this in my life. It's amazing. He's the greatest entertainer in the world.'" Also they release a photo of Michael after he died. That hurt my heart. I can't believe they released it to the public. I personally don't just fault the doctor for what happened and I think he is just the only one they could pin at the time. That's my opinion. But now that the trial has started Michael Jacksons family has come out. Janet, Latoya and Jermaine were shown entering the court house. Now back to the photo… It is disturbing. I am taking a deep breath thinking about it. Very sad. I don't want to see him like that. I like remembering Michael Jackson living and breathing.
Prosecutors played the audio for the first time during opening statements as they portrayed Dr. Conrad Murry, who is 58 as an incompetent physician who used a dangerous anesthetic without enough safeguards and whose neglect left Michael Jackson abandoned as he lay dying. Defense attorneys countered that Michael Jackson caused his own death by taking a drug dose including propofol. This was supposed to be after Dr. Murry left the room. I sit on the fence with the whole situation. I think there is fault on both sides. I believe the doctor should not have given the King of Pop medicine that he knew could not be prescribed. Also I believe Michael knew what he was doing and what he wanted. Dr. Murry had become more than a Doctor to Michael Jackson. He was a friend. Thought Michaels family sits in the courtroom grieving, part of me don't feel remorse because where were they when Michael was struggling with his pain and life.
To me it feels as though everyone only appears when there is drama or there for his money. But that is just my opinion. It was said that Dr. Murry was in the process of weaning The King of Pop off of propofol. Murry was using benzodiazepines trying to lull him to sleep. On June 25, 2009, on the last day of Michael's life, he was said to be begging the Doctor about the medicine. Saying that he didn't know why he couldn't sleep and that if he didn't get any sleep they were going to cancel the show. Michael was so stressed and concerned about his performance that he was willing to take anything just to get much needed rest. It is very saddening that he was going through this. There had to be a better way for Michael to get the rest that he needed. I almost wish that I could have been there for Michael Jackson. Such a brilliant man left too soon. But of course no matter what age he would have died, it would have still been too soon. But it would have been better if he would have died from natural causes than this. Now every single one of Michaels fans, family and friends have to relive the pain and agony of Michael's death through this trail. I hope justice is served. Not saying that I hope Dr. Murry gets convicted. I just hope the real truth comes out… More to come. The trial has only just begun…
The objective for Vyzion Internet Radio is to deliver online radio that fulfills entertainment for the masses. Vyzion Internet Radio is comprised of an international team that is delivering the best of live radio and Internet Radio. We offer free IPhone and Droid Apps, Contact us at 1-800-957-9650.
Ms Luvly
Spin Live Weekly
Tags:conrad murray hearingconrad murray trialInternet Radiomichael jackson doctorVyzion
Previous : Gotham Independent Film Awards
Next : Chance Jolivette Drops Another Mixtape
Stephanie Bailey
Trick Daddy Miami Rapper Insults Millions of Black Women
Chris Brown Gets Sued Again For Beating Manager Mike G
Jamie Foxx Officially Dating Katie Holmes No Longer a Secret


Fort Valley State Rep. Tony Sellier died last night after complications from surgery. He was 65.
That's according to Peach County coroner Kerry Rooks and Sellier's Republican colleague Rep. Allen Peake.
Peake, who said he spoke to Sellier's wife, said Sellier became dehydrated after a medical procedure about a week ago. He apparently died of congestive heart failure, Peake said.
Rooks said Sellier died Tuesday night at Peach County Medical Center.
Arrangements include two visitations Friday at th Byron Municipal Complex. The first begins at 11 a.m. and ends at 2 p.m. The second will be from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m. with a Rosary service immediately folling the 7 p.m. visitation.
Funeral services will be held at St. Juliana's Catholic Church in Fort Valley at 3 p.m. Saturday. In lieu of flowers, the family requests donations be made either to the American Cancer Society or a favored charity.


text:
Will this be the world's most expensive book?
Familiarly known as the Bay Psalm Book, one of the finest surviving copies of the first book printed in what is now the USA is expected to become the world's most expensive book at Sotheby's New York in November.
ATG Reporter
The preface to the Bay Psalm Book, which Sotheby's anticipate could make as much as $30m when offered in New York in November.
Congregationalist Puritans who had emigrated to the Massachusetts Bay colony in search of religious freedom wanted a Book of Psalms closer to the Hebrew original than the one they had brought from England, and such prominent figures as John Cotton, Richard Mather and John Eliot were among those who worked on a new metrical translation.
Funds were raised in England and Holland for a printing press, types, etc. by the Rev. James Glover, who also hired Stephen Daye, a locksmith whose 18-year-old son was an apprentice printer. Glover died on the voyage out but Daye and his family set up the press and, probably after producing some now lost ephemeral work, printed 1700 copies of the Bay Psalm Book in 1640.
Just 11 complete examples survive of that first edition, which was utilitarian and in constant use. This is one of the two currently retained by the Old South Church in Boston and the only one previously seen at auction is one they sold at Parke Bernet in 1947 for a record-shattering $151,000 - a price put in context by the $22,000 paid for a First Folio Shakespeare and £2700 for a Birds of America in that same auction season.
Historical Importance
Selby Kiffer of Sotheby's has called the Bay Psalm Book "one of the greatest artifacts of American history" and David Redden, worldwide chairman of their book departments, cites it as a forerunner to American independence.
The current record for any printed book stands at £6.5m ($11.5m) paid at Sotheby's London in 2010 for an Audubon Birds of America - though some might argue that is essentially a print collection. A Shakespeare record was set at $5.6m at Christie's New York in 2001 and back in 1987, the ex-Dyson-Perrins/Doheny copy of the first volume only of the Gutenberg Bible sold at $4.9m.
All those sums will pale in comparison if the Bay Psalm Book achieves anything in the $15m-30m range suggested by Sotheby's. It will be sold in the week preceding Thanksgiving after a 20-city US promotional tour.
Psalm book sets £8.1m auction record for a printed book
Irish firsts: the word is heard and a "a terrible beauty is born"
Painting Spode by numbers
Signalling for Victory
Mark Twain rents a kitten or three as company for the summer vacation in New Hampshire…


text:
Unique shipwreck proves the ancients right
Home - Scuba News - Unique shipwreck proves the ancients right
Ship 17's timber hull. (Picture: Christoph Gerigt / Franck Goddio / Hilti Foundation)
When the Greek historian Herodotus visited Egypt nearly 2500 years ago, he wrote an account of watching what he regarded as unusual Nile river-boats being built. But since ancient times no trace of the sort of vessel he described had ever been found – until now.
A Nile barge or "baris", constructed almost exactly as the historian described, is one of more than 70 wrecks to have been revealed in the world's largest graveyard of ancient ships, dating from the 8th to the 2nd century BC.
Discovered in the sunken port-city of Thonis-Heracleion in Egypt's Aboukir Bay, into which the Nile flows, the vessels are undergoing long-term excavation by underwater archaeologist Franck Goddio's European Institute for Underwater Archaeology.
Oxford University's Centre for Maritime Archaeology has also been involved in the work and one of its divers, Alexander Belov, has just published a book about the baris. Herodotus described it so accurately in 450 BC that Belov suspects that he might have been reporting from the very shipyard where the find was built.
The 28m vessel had been well preserved under the silt, and the excavation work has revealed a crescent-shaped timber hull, about 70% of which has survived. Its acacia-wood planks are cut to lengths of about 1m and instead of being jointed are held together by ribs up to 2m long, fastened using pegs.
Papyrus was used to make the seams watertight, and also to make the sails. The mast was made from acacia and a single axial rudder passed through a hole in the keel. Almost every detail in the Herodotus text corresponds exactly, according to Belov, although the wreck is slightly smaller than the example described.
Belov has been diving with Goddio for 20 years, and was hooked early in 1999 while working under water in poor visibility. As he cleaned what he thought was a rock, the head of a sphinx emerged from the concretion.
"It was very exciting!" he says – though the baris, as the first large Egyptian trading boat ever to be discovered, is likely to prove more archaeologically significant.
Belov's book "Ship 17 – a Baris from Thonis-Heracleion" describes how the vessel would have been used on the Nile – and recycled afterwards by being built into the marine structure of the port.


Register Domain Name to establish your on-line business identity at affordable prices. You can reigster all major TLDs and cTLDs.
Professionalize your business communication by having domain customized E-mail ID.
Reach out to the world by having your company and business profile on the web. Host your website!
Resellers act as completely independent hosting providers, while selling our resources as their own. Each reseller gets an independent admin CP.
SMS is a great way of expressing your thoughts, feelings, emotions or just be in contact at both personal and business front.
Book and Host Can do Presentations like CD Presentations, Flash Presentations and E Commerce presentations.
Web Hosting vizag, Web Designing vizag, Web Development vizag, Reseller Hosting vizag, Dedicated Servers vizag services are offered by Book and Host Online Services an IT company based in visakhapatnam, vizag, india focused on developing online web Applications, cheap web hosting services, domain registration, Custom email packages, asp, jsp, asp.net, php, mysql, mssql services.
Looking for a service provider who can offer Low priced Domains, Low priced Hosting, Low priced Designing, Low priced Dedicated Servers, Low priced Payment Gateway, Low priced SMS, Low priced Server management, Low priced reseller accounts, low priced presentations, low priced business development modules, low priced sms gateway then you are at the right place, bookandhost offers Windows 2003, Windows 2008 or Red Hat / CentOS Linux Hosting for a very affordable costs and excellent support with Quality hosting ? Book and Host offers hosting services and excellent support.
Book and Host servers over 40,000 clients in this hosting industry.
Windows 2003 has become one of the most reliable and cost effective hosting solutions for small business and individuals. By focusing exclusively on the Microsoft platform we are able to offer our clients support and services that are above the level of most web host providers. The combination of our affordable rates, outstanding friendly customer support, and world class network places Book and Host in a class by itself.
Resellers can have their own control panel URL, DNS server names, company information, corporate logos and all other parameters visible from the user's control panel. Resellers appear to end customers as totally independent hosting providers. Furthermore, reseller control panels are inaccessible by IP, which excludes the possibility of accidental or intentional visits to our control panel or website.
Book and Host offers cheap web hosting services, domain registration, custom email packages, asp, jsp, asp.net, php, mysql, mssql support. We also offer cheap reseller hosting with many features like advance helm helm extensions. We offer Cheap Linux reseller hosting and Cheap windows reseller hosting.


The inclusion of dance education in public schools has stimulated lengthy debate over how to: evaluate the arts; define and justify dance's existence within an education system, and create meaningful experiences for students. With the 1997 inclusion of the arts as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), or The Nation's Educational Report Card, major steps have been taken to formalize arts assessment and overcome traditional standardized testing protocol. Educators have had the difficult task of capturing, what is in essence, an intangible area of study; moving product, gone as quickly as it was created.
The question of what dance assessment entails and how a teacher can develop evaluation methods that contribute to student success, is constantly evolving. When effective, this can provide a basis from which meaningful dialogue can surface between student and teacher. Evident from literature, assessment, for progressive learning in the arts, involves gathering evidence with the objective of discovering learner potential for exceptional achievement, versus under-achievement. When constructed and executed properly, assessment links learning to society and makes a substantial impact on a student's self-motivation to learn. It also identifies a student's strengths and guides their improvement while cultivating individual experiences. Thoughtful assessment aims to give students the opportunity to be evaluated from vast perspectives, over an extended period of time; in order to chart growth. This also provides educators the simultaneous advantage to validate dance's positive effects within a scholastic curriculum and give further educational dimension to dance studio training.
The key however, is to not over assess and only implement measures which make sense and aren't governed by the mentality of "assessing just to asses." They should be warranted, meaningful and give the student an earnest, transparent sense of how to progress with long term results. Below, I'm sharing with dance educators a reading list I have found most helpful throughout the years in terms of understanding what assessment in the arts entails and how to designing measures which makes sense to us as dancers! Good luck!
Alter, J. B. (2002). Self-appraisal and pedagogical practices: Performance-based assessment approaches. Dance Research Journal, 34(2), 79-95.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. & Bloom, B. (2001). The cognitive process dimension. In A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (pp. 63-91). New York: Longman.
Eisner, E. W. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hong, C. (2006). Unlocking dance and assessment for better learning. In P. Taylor (Ed.), Assessment in arts education (pp. 27-37). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McCutcheon, B. P. (2006). Examining how national arts initiatives affect dance. In Teaching dance as art in education (pp. 23-41). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mirus, J., White, E., Bucek, L. E. & Paulson, P. (1996). Dance education initiative curriculum guide. Golden Valley, MN: Perpich Center for Arts Education.
Ross, J. (1994). The right moves: Challenges of dance assessment. Arts Education Policy Review, 96(1), 11.
Stiggins, R. (2000). Student-involved classroom assessment (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Warburton, E. C. (2006). Evolving modes of assessing dance: In search of transformative dance assessment. In P. Taylor (Ed.), Assessment in arts education (pp. 3-26). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


text:
FIA offloads 70 passengers traveling to Malaysia
KARACHI: The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) barred 70 passengers from traveling to Malaysia at the Karachi airport.
According to sources, despite having visas and work permits, the FIA refused immigration of over 35 people. A total of 70 passengers, traveling to Malaysia, were offloaded by the FIA officials.
The passengers were flying to Malaysia via Colombo in a Sri Lankan airline. Most of them had labor work visas to go to the Southeast Asian country, sources added.
A protest was recorded by passengers, who claimed that the investigation agency prohibited them from flying despite having all proper traveling documents.
On the other hand, the officials of FIA have not provided any explanation over the incident as of yet.
FIA probes alleged corruption in PIA aircraft deal
FIA cybercrime officials involved in extortion
FIA busts another Chinese human smuggling gang


Puritan's 3" Sterile Cotton-Tipped Applicators with Polystyrene Handle areabsorbent cotton tipped applicators produced withHigh Quality USP grade cotton which is carded and coiledonsite to maintain consistency. It is bonded securely to asemi-flexible polystyrene handle by an aqueous based adhesive.
This all-purpose general swab is medical grade quality with a soft, smooth, absorbent tip. It is ideal for such uses as wound care, application of topical dressings and specimen collection.