cbdhempquality.com Premieum Designed CBD super store website / automated CBD blog

website www.cbdhempquality.com

This is a CBD affiliate product website. Earn commissions on hundreds of affiliate products, which is actually pretty good, as most CBD product orders average around $ 80 and up. That means commissions of $ 10-20 and more on each sale. Just join affiliate programs to activate product links. After you sign up for affiliate accounts and get approval, I will integrate your affiliate ID into the website data so that your affiliate ID is on all product links. For any questions, please let me know.

  • CBD Blog 100% automated content updated daily through plugins. There are currently more than 800 videos on the site with 4 categories.
  • Free SSL certificate in the domain when the site is hosted with us, (SSLTechnology ensures that all data transmitted between the web server and the browser remains encrypted). An essential element when search engines make your site stand out.
  • Great domain Cbdhempquality.com
  • A premium registered theme.

If you have any questions please let me know,

ACCOMMODATION If you choose to keep the site hosted with us, the fee would be $ 60 a year through PayPal, you can move the site to your own accommodation at any time.

Should CSS framework like Bootstrap be introduced as a step to redesign a web application that was designed 10-15 years ago?

In my organization we are planning to redesign a 10 year old web application that uses jsp. We are thinking of introducing the Bootstrap framework to design and reuse the components defined using bootstrap and using the flexbox or grid layout to better structure web pages. Do you think we should use the boot framework or should we use vanilla CSS?
The team does not include a front-end css expert per se. The application is archaic, slow and ugly. We haven't entered any performance budgets as such, but we don't want it to be slower than it is.

Coronavirus COVID-19 FEATURED – Cheats and scams designed to catch you? Take care!

Seeing many reports of people using COVID-19 or Coronavirus in messages, emails, text messages, social media posts, etc., designate … | Read the rest of https://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1802337&goto=newpost

.net – Is the C # EventHandler designed incorrectly?

State of the union:

C # Events / Eventhandlers are:

  • blocking
  • throwing exceptions
  • sequential
  • determinist executed in order
  • Multicast Delegates
  • a controller always depends on the behavior of previously registered drivers

Actually, they are quite close to regular function pointers. Despite being a sequence of them.

If any event subscriber is doing bad things (blocking, throwing Exceptions):

  • the event summoner is locked (in the worst case, indefinitely)
  • the event summoner has to deal with unpredictable exceptions
  • the internal call of the sequential event handler will be interrupted in the first exception
  • no EventHandler stored internally after the failed Eventhandler will run

C # example in .Net Fiddle

I always thought of c # events as an implementation of the publication-subscription pattern.


This contradicts my intuition of publication / subscriber semantics.
Actually it seems to be the opposite.

If I publish a news / website / book / podcast / newsletter:

  • publication is without blocking (in relation to subscribers)
  • consumption is concurrent
  • reader / subscriber errors do not interfere with my post
  • reader / subscriber errors do not interfere with other readers / subscribers

Transferred to .Net this would mean: event. Summoning (…) leads to:

  • to invoke (…) is to shoot and forget
  • all subscriptions are sent to the thread group
  • and executed concurrent and independent of each other (although not sure)
  • undetermined execution order
  • You may have to take care of thread security when accessing objects
  • a controller cannot "kill" the execution of other controllers

I am aware that this could be very subjective.
I guess there have been good reasons to do it this way.

dnd 5e: is the Dragon of Icespire Peak adventure designed for a 2-character party?

Specifically in the context of running the Dragon of Icespire Peak adventure (from the Essentials Kit) for a player, is this adventure designed for a 2-character party?

I ask why I plan to run this for a player, and the intention seems to be to add a partner to the party to help the main character (i.e. my player's PC).

To run for a player:

If you are running this single player adventure, you can give that player a partner as a secondary character. Let the player choose one of the pre-generated buddies from the buddy card selection. The rules and statistics blocks for the buddies appear in the rule book. You may need to help the player execute the buddy during the first sessions. If a partner is lost or is no longer necessary, the character can return to Phandalin and acquire a new one.

The fact that it says "a Buddy "implies that the adventure expects you to have a group of 2 characters. This is supported by the Running for Multiple Players section:

if you have two or more players, the easiest way to start the adventure is to assume that the characters know each other and have some kind of story together, however brief the story is.

As this does not mention the cronies, it implies that having only two players (and therefore a group of only 2 characters) is fine.

The generally published adventures are designed for a group of 4 characters, so I just wanted to make sure that this was designed for 2 characters (that is, that a single player only needs one partner added to the party, not two or three). Does this explicitly say anywhere I have missed it, or does it imply that it is balanced for 2 characters?

Why is the data for an x86 GDT input designed this way?

I wanted to learn more about systems and was reading about x86 global descriptor tables for memory segments as one does, and I found this table from here:

GDT table input format

I think I understand why all the information is needed, but I don't understand why the values ​​are divided in this way.

In particular, why did designers prefer the previous design over something like:

first 32-bits: base
next 20-bits: limit
next 12-bits: access-byte and flags


I have come across many places that seem to describe the design of the table entry, but it seems to be more difficult to find information on why things went this way.

Design: Would it be possible to abstract the ability of multiple threading for programs that were not originally designed for such?

Would it be feasible to provide (or more) multicore threading capability for programs that were not originally designed for such?

And in doing so creating a "virtual" CPU core (or for i7 with hyperthreading, "virtual" virtual cores) that, for a program, the program sees as a single core / thread, but on the other side of this virtual core Is it a program / tool / utility that divides work into multiple cores / threads by itself? And for those programs already designed for multi-core support, the virtual core allows an increase in the number of usable cores.

I think this would be useful given the trend in recent years of increasing core counts versus general increases in CPU speed instead of CPUs running against the "roof" of Moore's Law, and the momentum seemingly slow or final in software development to take advantage of these growing number of CPU cores.

I realize that something like this would probably not be simple or easy to achieve, but I wonder especially if it would be feasible to do so.

film – Is it possible to develop C-41 at home with Kodak chemicals designed for commercial use?

I have been developing black and white negatives at home for several years. I also live in a city where there are no C-41 labs left, so I would have to send my film to develop it, adding an additional cost (more than the cost of the rolls).

So I researched a little and discovered that C-41 is not very different from B&W (immerse the film in a series of bathrooms), except for the tolerances of temperatures, particularly in the developer (a problem for me, since I can easily build a very precise and PID controlled water heater without much complication.)

The problem is that there are no "easy-to-use" C-41 kits here in Argentina. All I could find were Kodak chemicals, designed for commercial use. These are the catalog numbers available:

enter the description of the image here

(REV: developer, RELL: resupply, BLANQ: bleach, FIXER: fixative, INITIAL: initiator)

Chemists are not terribly expensive, only $ 5- $ 8 USD each, except the very expensive bleach, almost $ 100! I have been reading some Kodak PDF files and it seems that it is not terribly difficult to mix them.

Is it worth trying to do it with these?
Do the concentrates last at least a couple of years to justify the cost of buying "commercial quantities"?

Design: How can toilet waste bins be designed so that users do not throw toilet paper in those containers?

There is an office building with regular bathrooms with water. There is a garbage container next to each toilet seat, so if users have trash, they will not throw it into the toilet because the toilet and sewer pipes to which it is connected could become clogged.

Then there is the toilet paper that is carefully selected so that it quickly disintegrates when it enters the water and so it can be safely thrown into the toilet and not clog it. This has been proven and is fine. The building owner agrees with this and the city utility company was also contacted and agrees with this agreement, its wastewater processing equipment deals with the appropriate toilet paper.

Then there are signs that say something like Friends, it's okay to throw the toilet paper in the toilet. Please throw all trash in the trash (in a language other than English, so there is no possibility of having an exact quote).

And, of course, there are users. Some throw the paper into the toilet and others throw it into the containers. The containers fill up quite quickly. This requires that the person who cleans the floor of the toilet also empties the bins several times a day and moves the dirty paper along with other trash. That is extra work and extra garbage and a person who moves dirty toilet paper around the office every day.

Removing the containers is out of the question because users will definitely throw the trash into the toilets. What is needed is to keep the containers and also prevent users from throwing toilet paper in the containers.

Is it possible to redesign garbage containers to solve the problem?