OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Models and Theories in Human-Computer Interaction/Business forecasting with Accelerated Returns
### Kurzweil in Business (Richard Lee)

Kurzweil’s view of our longstanding perception of technological growth is captured in his Intuitive Linear View, which can be illustrated by one’s inability to perceive curvature of the earth due to the limiting viewpoint relative to the scope of the curvature itself.
His explanation of the Law of Accelerated Returns makes a lot of sense to me (up to a certain point - event horizons are tough to see past). In particular, the idea of chained paradigm shifts seems applicable to business - re: his note on Moore’s Law being but the latest in 5 similar ‘laws’ when examining exponential grown in cost per calculation since the 1800s. In short, as many web properties have grown, their revenue growth (via current paradigm) has exploded at first, then seen diminished growth (in exponential terms) until they collapse under their own weight or find a new paradigm for growth. It seems likely that this could be used to determine WHEN such points are to occur and to prepare for them as best as possible. The inverse could be leveraged as well, inspecting competitors or even entire markets to determine when disruptive events are likely to occur and acting accordingly.
# Models and Theories in Human-Computer Interaction/Avoiding Social Loafing

Avoiding Social Loafing
The WikiBook collaborative platform is a great tool for compiling and sharing information. The information is formed, expanded, and reviewed by other users who make edits and contributions based on their expertise. In this way WikiBooks operates like open source software where the constant peer review leads to robust and optimized results. The format is susceptible to uneven contribution distribution, a phenomenon known as social loafing. This effect can be minimized by eliminating anonymity, decreasing the size of the collaborating group, and increasing diversity. If properly executed the WikiBook platform can be an effective supplement, or even a replacement, for face-to-face collaboration. As an example one might use the WikiBook platform to create documentation for an application developed by a team of individuals. Because each developer knows their contribution the best the collaboration results in the most accurate documentation. Edits could be routed to a project lead for approval. The project lead strives to maintain order and flow in the document and provides a sense of oversight to decrease anonymity of the team members.
# Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/Shocks and Springs/spring reviews
### Espelir

Spring Rates - 20%-30% more than stock.
Drop - S14 Drop = 30mm Front / 25mm Rear S13 Drop = 50mm Front / 30mm Rear
Price - $219

### DropZone

Spring Rates -
Drop - 2" Front/2" Rear
Price - $99

### RSR Race

Spring Rates - 5k Front/ 4.5k Rear
Drop - 1.4" Front/ 1.2" Rear
Price - $298

### Tein H-Tech

Spring Rates -
Drop - S13- .9" Front/ .6" Rear S14- .7" Front/ .4" Rear
Price - S13- $177 S14- $192

### Tein S-Tech

Spring Rates -
Drop - S13- 1.5" Front/ 1.2" Rear S14- 1.3" Front/ .9" Rear
Price - S13- $160 S14- $184

### Eibach Sportline

PROGRESSIVE Spring Rates - S13 -Front- 119 lbs/in (2.130 kg/mm)to 234 lbs/in (4.189 Kg/mm) -Rear- 128.5 lbs/in (2.262 kg/mm)to 199 lbs/in (3.554 Kg/mm)
Drop - S13- 2.2" Front/ 2.1" Rear S14- 1.7" Front/ 1.4" Rear
Price - $229

### Eibach Prokit

Spring Rates - S13 -Front- 114 lbs/in (2.036 kg/mm)to 199 lbs/in (3.554 Kg/mm) -Rear- 114 lbs/in (2.036 kg/mm)to 148 lbs/in (2.643 Kg/mm)
Drop - S13- 1.8" Front/ 1.6" Rear S14- 1.2" Front/ 1" Rear
Price - $214
# Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/Shocks and Springs/shock reviews
#### KYB AGX

Adjustability- 4 way front/8 way rear
Price-$419

#### KYB GR2

Adjustability- Non adjustable
Price- S13-$209 S14-$309

#### Koni Yellows

Adjustability- They are, but I cant find out how much.
Price- $659
Other Features- Lifetime Warentee

#### Tokiko HP

Adjustability- non adjustable
Price- $404
# Nissan 240SX Performance Modification/weblinks

In your quest to modify your nissan 240sx you may find the following links useful:

# Forums
## National

http://www.zilvia.net
http://www.240sxforums.com
http://www.7tune.com
http://www.club240.com/forums
http://forums.freshalloy.com
http://www.nissansilvia.com
http://www.ka-t.org
http://www.sr20forum.com
http://forum.aempower.com/forum/index.php?

## Regional

(New England) - http://forums.240sxone.com/
(Carolinas) - http://www.carolinanissans.com/
(Norcal) - http://www.ncda.net/forums
(Norcal) - http://www.nor-cal240sx.com
(Midwest) - http://www.midwest240sx.com
(SW Missouri) - http://clubnosm.com/phpBB/index.php
(Northwest) - http://www.northwestnissans.com/
(Southeast) - http://240atlanta.com
(Mid-Atlantic) - http://www.MA240sx.net

# Info Pages

Factory Service Manuals - http://www.zeroyon.com
Factory Service Manual alternate link - http://www.vosko.net/media/fsm/
Another FSM Source - http://www.carfiche.com/
Lets Radio - http://www.lazypenguin.net/letsradio/
Racing Seat Weights - http://www.supercarx.com/articles/specifications/seat_guide.htm
An enthusiast’s web site which includes how-to articles and project progress - http://www.project-mayhem04.com/index2.htm

# Retailers

http://www.frsport.com
http://www.201motorsports.com
http://www.7tune.com
http://www.j-ondemand.com
http://www.splparts.com
http://www.pdm-racing.com
http://www.turbo240.com
http://www.xatracing.com
http://www.driftfactory.com
http://www.wiringspecialties.com
http://www.phase2motortrend.com
http://www.enjukuracing.com
http://www.rbmotoring.com
http://www.jspec.com
http://www.projectnissan.com
http://www.performancenissanparts.com
http://www.tougefactory.com
http://www.sensemotorsport.com
http://www.justjap.com
http://www.240sxmotoring.com
http://shop.hybridynamics.com/
http://www.hayakuracing.com/store/
http://www.rs-enthalpy.com/
http://www.enjukuracing.com/
http://www.bikirom.com/
http://www.jimwolftechnology.com/
http://www.advancedjapautoimports.com.au
# ACT

(cost)
Not my preferred clutch. Friction material tends to shear off with aggressive driving. Also has an extremely stiff pressure plate. This helps with increased load bearing, but places a high load on the thrust bearings of the engine.

# Clutch Masters FX400

$485.00
This is my single plate design of choice. Not real good wear if used for daily driving in stop and go traffic and areas that require you to stop on hills (Seattle, San Francisco). The pressure plate is not overly stiff, just solid. The clutch relys on a good strong ceramic friction material to do the work. The feel is that of an on/off switch, instant and strong engagement.

# Exedy Stage 1 (SR20DET)

(cost)
This is a single plate, organic clutch upgrade for the SR20DET motor. The pedal effort is very close to stock and the feel is also close to stock. Its rated up to 240lbs of torque, so its only for lightly modified cars. I am a little dissapointed with it and I wish I went with a harsher clutch/lightweight flywheel set up.

# XTD Stage 3 Racing Clutch

$129.00 on EBAY
This is a 6 puck MIBA copper ceramic clutch. I have had mine for about 30,000 miles on my NA/KA. the enguagement is pretty stiff and took a little bit to get used to , but once I did it got fun. My car can launches hard and I can pop the clutch and spin tires if I want to on my stock KA. They are rated to 320HP
Some recent stage 3 clutch pressure plate has very light pedal pressure. It's not a very solid feeling and definitely not suitable for drifting.
# ISR

The best I have seen on the market is the ISR. It has a completely new housing, and is very easy to install. It is cheaper than the B&M. ISR is a new company and is now being recognized for having very solid products. Give them a try and you will not be disappointed.

# Fidanza

Hint: NEVER take the shifter off the bass B&M provides. If you do it will never shift the same again. ALWAYS remove the assembly, plate and shifter, as one unit. :-)
# Legal framework of textual data processing for Machine Translation and Language Technology research and development activities/MT-MP:Derivative Works Cases Case Studies
## Case #19 Distribution of Annotations of a Data Set I

Case description :
| Actor | Researcher-Resource Compiler & Provider |
| Intended use | Distribute the annotations to an original dataset (e.g. images, broadcasts) incl. links to specific instances of the web available dataset (e.g. the hand on an image, time sequence of a film) |
| Conditions | I have asked for permission for the originals but received no reply |
| Question | Can I distribute it under the licence of my choice? Or Do I ask for permission from sources Or Simply state the sources (attribution-like) Or Refrain from distributing it? |
| Suggested legal solution ||
| Legal position | The annotations, to the extent they are my own original work or constitute works that are not copyright protected (e.g. a URL) can be distributed under any licence of my choice. With regard to the inclusion of extracts from the original work see above. |
| Suggested course of action | Do not ask permission for linking but only for re-using original content. When the annotation includes original extracts it may still be deemed fair use/dealing or falling within the limitations and exceptions as a form of critical approach -in the broadest sense- of the original work (see e.g. Greek law 2121/1993, art.19). |
| Type of Terms and Conditions | Any licence of my choice. |
| Legal basis | Copyright Law. Emphasis on limitations and exceptions. |
# Models and Theories in Human-Computer Interaction/CSCW and the collaborative wiki platform

CSCW and the collaborative wiki platform
I have used wikis both within collaborative work environments and more recently in an online student environment. In work environments I’ve used them to communicate project requirements, processes, team accountability, and as a general repository for resources and assets.
They were very useful for quickly ramping new team members onto projects that were already mid-stream and to mitigate some of the repetitive process questions that are inevitable when new people join a company, especially if they were working remotely. They also had the benefit of providing team members, specifically engineers, with access to the learnings of others on current and past projects.
From a business perspective, the wiki platform was better at facilitating these learnings than face-face interaction because they offered a 1:many outcome, rather than the time-consuming and repetitive 1:1.
In this respect they were a time-saving tool, that ultimately saved a project money, through the two basic mechanisms of aggregation and synergy that make groups perform better than individuals (Carroll 2003). Synergy & aggregation in the form of engineering contribution, where learnings and solutions discovered by a team within one department, could be readily accessed by a team in another department, and in many instances improved upon.
Naturally the success of the wiki was dependent on the quality and consistency of contribution from team members and a taxonomy had to be agreed and adhered to across many disparate projects. This aligns with the input-process-output model that says the success of a group depends upon inputs that the group has to work with and the interaction among team members (Carroll, 2003).
It absolutely required coordination and common goals to maintain its efficacy and to minimize social loafing, where team members assume that their efforts are being pooled with the efforts of other team members and begin to work less hard (Carroll, 2003).
The fact that the wiki was open, had visible attribution, and was accessible to everyone in the company, including executives, helped to incentivize quality contribution. Group members are motivated to expend efforts and are discouraged from slacking off, knowing that others can see their input, evaluate their performance and position them as experts when compared to other less skilled members of the team (Carroll, 2003).
Cited Carroll, J. M. (2003). HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science (Interactive Technologies) Elsevier Science. Kindle Edition.
# Models and Theories in Human-Computer Interaction/Communication and Collaboration of Distributed Knowledge

The Wikibook exercises definitely can be considered an expression of Distributed Cognition—in particular the communication and collaboration of distributed knowledge. According to Carroll (p. 210), “Distributing work across a group of agents must involve the organization of that group to coordinate activity through some form of communication.” Professor Jordan communicates the work needed by tasking students with homework assignments, identifying into which chapters students should contribute, and defining the subject of the submissions. The wikibook becomes a dynamic system, pregnant with new information each week. The submissions themselves are mental representations of students’ understanding of course content. All of this effort “constitutes the system’s expertise” and is distributed across the heads of actors. While it is possible for a single person to be aware of the organization (the only exception to the framework for Communication and Coordination of Distributed Knowledge), it is unlikely that a student will read every other submission before submitting his or her own—in fact, it would be impossible to do so unless the last student to submit to wikibook read every other submission first. Because of this group effort, the wikibook has become an artifact that can be used in problem solving by future users.
Citation
Carroll, John. 2003. HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks. San Francisco, California. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
# Models and Theories in Human-Computer Interaction/Collocated Teams's Wiki Usage

I am a longtime user of the Wikibook collaborative work tool, but had never considered it to be more than an at-times useful, at-other-times worse than nothing at all solution for groups to document their systems, processes, and other group-specific data. Viewing the tool through the lens of CSCW lends it somewhat more gravitas, and simultaneously makes more transparent the relative strengths and weaknesses of the format. The goals of CSCW are to support distributed groups (be they geographically disparate, spread across a campus, or working in different shifts), and to make those groups more effective in their goals.
While it’s true in many cases that an organization’s wiki achieves these goals through aggregation and synergy, its success depends to some degree in the team’s ability to overcome the challenge of coordinating their efforts effectively, ala Steiner’s Process Loss. The more contributors to a wiki, the more viewpoints - i.e. strength in diversity. This is offset in part by the committee effect, i.e. potentially many points of view to align. In my experience, users get out of the wiki what they put in - GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), but this is also mediated to a large degree by two factors: the find-ability of information (the categorization model used by the organization) and the commitment by the organization to maintain the wiki in a reasonable state of currency.
It takes strong leadership to support a team’s being allotted time from productive work hours to populate and groom a wiki’s contents, but if care is taken to quality control and to conscientiously keep the tool up to date it can be a very valuable resource for a team, collocated or not.
Richard Lee
# Models and Theories in Human-Computer Interaction/Can Fitts’ Law be used in modern world?
### Can Fitts’ Law be used with conjunction of other design theories? (Rajan S Thanigachalam)

In his book (chapter 3), Carroll describes nicely about the Fitt’s law and its usage. I agree with the author that the Fitts’s Law is one of the most robust and highly adopted models of human movement. It helps to predict the movement time based on the index of difficulty (according to Fitts’ Law the Movement time is directly proportional to Index of difficulty). It proved that the closer and larger a target, the faster it is to click on that target. However, the author failed to explain when you should not use Fitts’s Law to measure user experience. I feel that there are some areas we should not use the Fitts’s law with the current form, especially when you design system with high-precision inputs.
For example, Power Off slides bar button on smart phone devices (on touch screen). We often carrying smart phone device in our pockets, which can trigger ‘Power off’ commands by accident. In these situations, it required to use high-precision input method such as sliders bar. It uses a higher Index of difficulty to make sure that a command is not execute accidentally. If I think of Fitts’ Law in this situation, I would have designed with a click button where it has low Index of difficulty rather than the sliders bar mechanism to power off the device.
Even though the FItts’ Law is more powerful tool on helping designers to make educated decision in Human Computer Interface, it should be used in conjunction with other factors. I think we need to consider Fitts’ law carefully when you consider about security and the commands that executes infrequently such as unlocking the screen, two-step verification methods for password, turning off the device, wake up alarms and administrative tasks.
In his book, author Carooll would have explained when to use the Fitts’ Law with its original form and how to use it with conjunction of other design theories in this modern world.
# Models and Theories in Human-Computer Interaction/Collective Effort and Wikibook

Applying Karau and William’s collective effort, let’s look at how Wikibook motivates and deters collaboration in group work.
How Wikibook motivates collaboration - Since this is a knowledge contribution source, everyone is motivated to share their knowledge. Because they understand that by contributing they are also benefited by learning from others. This is referred to as attractiveness of task. - When name is included within the posting (which is the case for our class), it is referred to as identifiability. It could do two things: It could encourage user if he/she contributes something very interesting and useful (uniqueness of own contribution). Or it could deter user to write due to fear of being criticized if he/she writes something sensitive or controversial (social pressure). - Being able to edit others’ posts can be an effective collaboration tool as long as all editors communicate (via an outside channel) to ensure they know what’s being edited. - Having no comment feature eliminates the “fear” of being directly criticized. This is another instance of social pressure.
How Wikibook deters collaboration (more technical) - Others can access your document and edit (or even accidentally delete) it without you knowing. - The ability to edit or delete might work towards the interest of the writer. Yet it is hard for other users to acknowledge the fact that the post they have read has just been edited. Having a time stamp feature might help with this. - If a group of writers are working on a posting simultaneously, the content is likely to be uncontrollably moved, typed and deleted. Google Doc provides a better tool for multiple users to edit one same document at the same time.
# Models and Theories in Human-Computer Interaction/CSCW and Wikibook - A Successful Example of Distributed Collaboration

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) is a growing area of HCI. This sub-field of HCI looks at building and evaluating tools that will help dispersed groups more successfully accomplish their joint work. The globalization of the economy has resulted in companies (and their respective workers) being distributed all over the world. Often times there are people working on the same project who are not even on the same continent. To be sure this poses some issues as to how these groups can effectively collaborate and work together. Research into CSCW is largely based on social psychology research. One of the factors that has been noted to detract from dispersed group collaboration is that of social loafing. Social loafing refers to the tendency for those in groups to work less hard as an individual because they view their contributions as being less important as they are part of a collective. This decreases individual motivation and thus decreases individual output. Group projects in which the deliverable is one particular report or item lends itself to social loafing. Each member is part of one collective deliverable; the communication for which is generally over email, or cloud based sharing documents. In essence, this one "group" deliverable could be completed by just one of the group members; there is no benefit or requirement for collaboration. The risk for social loafing is rather high in these situations. Wikibooks, however, is a much better platform for dispersed group collaboration that aids in insulating against issues like social loafing. Wikibooks is a collective of postings made by a group of people. This collective of postings in essence creates a "book". It could be argued that there is indeed "one" deliverable, the "book" - but the "book" would not exist, there would not be chapters without the contribution of each and every group member. In this way it is an individual activity in that each group member has an important piece to contribute, but the sum of all those contributions creates an even greater whole. Because there is an individualist piece to creating a wikibook, this helps prevent social loafing - individual motivation is increased which increases individual output and the result is a myriad of productive postings. Clearly wikibooks is an excellent example of CSCW.