11.5 C
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Home Tags Shoes

Tag: shoes

A master roundup of our favorites from America's biggest tabletop convention.
Being a malware researcher means you are always busy with the struggle against mountains of malware and cyberattacks around the world. Over the past decade, the number of daily new malware findings raised up to unimaginable heights: with hundreds of thousands of malware samples per day!
Yes, there's a single-player campaign, but EA hasn't skimped on the features for multiplayer.
Years ago, all you needed to be a developer was an editor, a compiler, and hopefully some kind of revision control system. (Sadly, many developers still donrsquo;t use revision control systems properly.)These days, you need to know more even for basic software development. Herersquo;s the top 10 list of tools every modern developer should know and use:[ The art of programming moves rapidly.
InfoWorld helps you navigate whatrsquo;s running hot and what's going cold. | Keep up with hot topics in programming with InfoWorld's App Dev Report newsletter. ]
Git and GitHub: Although there are companies that still use Subversion or CVS even, let alone the awful Clearcase, you probably shouldnrsquo;t work at one of them.

Git is now a basic skill like tying your shoes or spell checking. SSH: Yeah, I know: Yoursquo;re a Windows developer and you donrsquo;t know no stinking shell.

But yoursquo;re going to run into having to create an SSH key or do other SSH stuff.
So you may as well learn now. Terminal Services or remote login: Even if yoursquo;re a Linux or Mac person, sooner or later yoursquo;ll have to deal with Windows.

These tools are how you will connect in. Amazon Web Services: AWS isnrsquo;t just cloud, it is the reason you donrsquo;t have to wait on IT.

There are other cloud providers, but yoursquo;ll have to deal with AWS sooner or later.

AWS has gotten so big that you canrsquo;t know all of AWS any more, but you do need to know at least the EC2 stuff. JavaScript: You donrsquo;t need to know it cold, but this is the scripting language of the now.
If a product or tool is going to add a scripting API, it will probably be for JavaScript. Bash and PowerShell: Sure, more modern devops tools are handy, but sooner or later something isnrsquo;t going to work and it wonrsquo;t have quite what you need.
So, expect to need to know how to write a basic restart script, grab an error code from an exiting command, or do a few things in a loop.

Thatrsquo;s what Bash (in Linux, many Unixes, MacOS, and Windows 10) and Microsoftrsquo;s PowerShell let you do.

Bonus: Add a tool like Grep (PowerShellrsquo;s equivalent Select-String is more wordy) and yoursquo;ll be an even more powerful deity. MongoDB: You need to know how to work with at least one document database. MongoDB is the easiest to learn. Whether yoursquo;re ultimately going to use MongoDB isnrsquo;t relevant; what matters is learning how to deal with a new-generation database.
If yoursquo;re going to use an index like Apache Solr, which is document-shaped, or yoursquo;re going to work with a more columnar structured database, the MongoDB skills will transfer. Curl and Invoke-RestMethod: Most software now has a REST API. On Mac and Linux, Curl is the command-line tool that lets you test and tweak and even script against a REST API.
In PowerShell, it is Invoke-RestMethod (although like everything on PowerShell, it requires more typing).

There are GUI tools like Postman that accomplish the same work, but a serious developer needs to be able to move past a point-and-click interface for efficiencyrsquo;s sake. Markdown: This is the format of the README.md file in GitHub. You should be able to read and write a simple Markdown document.

And thatrsquo;s easy because it has just seven symbols: (# is a header, ## is a subheader, * is a bullet, __ and ** are bold, _ and * are italics, ` is monospace, and --- is a break or rule). Markdown editors often have extensions but those are the basics.

From that basic markup language, you can get slides, PDFs, and HTML. Often these output formats can be consistently formatted with CSS or some other way.

Best of all, you donrsquo;t end up with smart quotes in your code samples. Basic HTML: I canrsquo;t make a decent-looking web page to save my life; Irsquo;m a back-end developer.

But whether yoursquo;re going to stub something out or have to parse HTML, you will need to know basics of the web markup language. To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Ars technical director: "I, I, I... think we need to call 911."
Running well isn’t easy, and neither is making a good running coach.
LONDON, United Kingdom — Ananas Anam, the creator and maker of Piñatex™, a patent-protected natural and sustainable alternative to leather, today announced it has completed a new round of financing which will enable the group to ramp up its supply chain and address the demand of global brands such as Hugo Boss, adidas, John Lewis, KangaROOS Shoes etc.The financing round builds on an exceptional year for Ananas Anam which saw a rapid growth of its... Source: RealWire
Let’s make one thing clear. Whether you sell shoes, dishwashers or car insurance, technology is embedded in the fabric of your day to day, and most certainly in the interactions with your customers.I’m not here to tell you how important a digital transformation is for your business, because at this point, that ship has sailed. Having an app or user friendly website is no longer a competitive differentiator, it’s an enterprise standard.
In a digitally transformed world, the start line has shifted forward and consumer expectations for digital fitness are on an entirely new level that’s unreachable by simply hiring more developers or launching an in-store app.To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Hundreds of entries came down to this one winner (along with two runners up).
A personalized shoe that can “adjust the strength, durability, and the shape.”
EnlargeFBI reader comments 29 Share this story Last year, the US Department of Justice released a report that involved some painful self-examination.

The DOJ looked at its own performance when it came to the analysis of hair samples—these were once used to identify potential suspects, but the FBI discontinued that practice in 1996.
In looking over past cases, however, the feds discovered that agents had systematically overstated the method's accuracy in court, including at least 35 death penalty cases. Now, in response to this and other reports on problems with forensic analysis, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has issued an analysis that extends to half a dozen forensic techniques, including fingerprinting.

The report finds that all of the techniques have problems when it comes to operating on a firm scientific footing, so PCAST makes strong recommendations for how to get forensic science to take its name seriously. The history that got us here is more than a bit ironic.

DNA testing, which we now consider nearly foolproof, started appearing in court in the 1980s, before the people doing it had a strong grip on how to use it effectively.

The ensuing chaos eventually led to it being ruled inadmissible in a case in New York.

This prompted reforms and analysis that eventually put the field on firm scientific footing.
Its use to reanalyze older cases, however, revealed problems in many convictions based on other forensic techniques. Rather than prompting equivalent scientific revolutions among the practitioners of those other techniques, however, these practices continued to be used unchanged.

This situation ultimately prompted a 2009 report on forensics from the National Academies of Sciences that was critical of a number of evidentiary approaches. Problems continued to be uncovered, ultimately resulting in President Obama asking PCAST to determine what could be done to improve matters. The results of that request are what have now been released.

The report looks at seven different forensic approaches, finding potential or serious problems with all of them.
In no case does it find the techniques live up to the sort of language that has been used to describe them in court: “100 percent certain” or having an error rate that's “zero,” “essentially zero,” or “negligible.” Hair analysis: Here, the new report simply evaluates the science behind the DOJ's report.

Even though this document candidly admitted problems, PCAST felt it didn't go far enough in recognizing the technique's flaws.
In the future, it suggests, these sorts of evaluations are best left to a scientific agency, rather than a legal one. DNA analysis: The basic technique was found to be scientifically sound, but the role of operator error is often downplayed during testimony.

As the PCAST authors put it, "Although the probability that two samples from different sources have the same DNA profile is tiny, the chance of human error is much higher." Investigators are now starting to try to identify suspects using samples where the DNA of several individuals has become mixed.

Early work has established it can be effective for a mixture from up to three people, but its effectiveness in practice hasn't been tested. Fingerprints: This is a subjective process and one where studies have shown that investigators can be subject to confirmation bias if they think they have a match and can be swayed by other evidence from the case.

There are currently no good estimates of error rate, though, and proficiency testing tends to be lacking. PCAST was optimistic about the prospects for computerizing the analysis and converting it from a subjective to objective method. Firearm markings: Different guns are thought to leave distinctive marks on cartridges fired in them. PCAST finds that we only have a single study rigorous enough to define this technique's error rate, which may be as high as one-in-46.

That's a far cry from practitioners' claims that the technique "has near-perfect accuracy." More studies are needed to define an accuracy rate that can be used in testimony, and again, computerized image analysis may convert this from a subjective to an objective technique. Footwear analysis: The PCAST authors didn't question whether a footprint could lead investigators to the type and size of shoe that left the impression.
Instead, they looked for studies that showed distinctive marks from well-worn shoes could be transferred to prints.

There are none.

That, obviously, needs to be corrected. Bitemark analysis: This approach fares the worst in all of the ones examined.
It's a subjective analysis and is one where the examiners can't even agree: "Available scientific evidence strongly suggests that examiners not only cannot identify the source of bitemark with reasonable accuracy, they cannot even consistently agree on whether an injury is a human bitemark." PCAST's conclusions are worth quoting in full: We note that some practitioners have expressed concern that the exclusion of bitemarks in court could hamper efforts to convict defendants in some cases.
If so, the correct solution, from a scientific perspective, would not be to admit expert testimony based on invalid and unreliable methods but rather to attempt to develop scientifically valid methods.

But, PCAST considers the prospects of developing bitemark analysis into a scientifically valid method to be low. We advise against devoting significant resources to such efforts. Overall, the PCAST report finds that most of the forensic techniques it looked at needed to be put on a more firm scientific foundation.

For subjective ones, this would involve testing trained practitioners to determine their error rate; for objective ones, we'd need studies that showed the underlying principles behind the technique actually apply to it.

This work, PCAST suggests, is best carried out by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Separately, it calls on the FBI Laboratory to improve the design of black box (blinded) studies of proficiency, as well as ongoing proficiency testing of practitioners.

The FBI Lab should also pioneer the development of objective identification methods. In the meantime, PCAST recommends things we can do now while waiting for that to happen.

The group calls on the attorney general to instruct its court experts on how to make sure the current state of the science is reflected in their testimony.

Federal judges, meanwhile, should be made aware of what the success of these techniques really is and should be ready to block testimony that doesn't accurately reflect it. Unfortunately, these recommendations focus on federal agencies. While it will take some time to see any of them implemented at that level, it will take even longer for the recommendations to filter down to state and local courts.
NISTreader comments 24 Share this story Cisco Systems has confirmed that recently-leaked malware tied to the National Security Agency exploited a high-severity vulnerability that had gone undetected for years in every supported version of the compa...