What existing materials could be precedence for The Great Wheel of Eurovision?

Eurovision has been around since 1956 and DnD just a little bit less.

What existing materials could be used as precedence for an EPIC annual contest between bards, where each of the Outer planes in the Great Wheel Cosmology puts forward one performing representative (a talented bard), an Over The Top contest occurs, and delegates from all planes vote on the winner?

Part of what this would entail a contest between bards. Are there existing modules or campaign references that have a contest between bards, including ways to adjudicate besides "roll a skill check"?

The GM has access to both the Pathfinder reference "The Great Beyond" and the 3.5e "Manual of the Planes." The Great Wheel Cosmology would be preferred over the Pathfinder planar treatment: what existing "outer plane" materials in either system would be of use here?

Asking for a friend, whose Players though it would be fun to create a party that is a band (all the PCs are musicians, not all are bards) and the GM wants to punish them. This question also partially inspired by the recent movie Eurovision Song Contest: the story of Fire Saga.

This group primarily plays Pathfinder 1e but other material could be tweaked/twisted/ squeezed into shape.

Is there a way to stop using emails for new accounts, but continue for existing?

Hi, all. :)
My question has to do with emails.
I want to update and get some new ones, as the ones I have are on a few lists.
Sven said all I have to do is uncheck them and add new and the unchecked ones will still be used to verify etc. for targets that are halfway through the process of posting and the new (checked) emails will be used for new accounts.
Will I still be able to post additional links on existing accounts if the emails that were used at the time are present but unchecked?
I want the benefit of clean emails, but I also want to begin posting additional links where possible.
If not, I guess I can just create a new project with the new emails, and continue using the old ones to post on the old projects.
Thanks.

retry on reverify existing backlinks

i had a load of links removed after reverifying & when i checked the urls the links were still there, is it possible to have gsa ser retry to verify a few times because the urls were probably just having hosting issies or whatever, i have looked under
project>options at the top & cant see anything.
the tick box “remove after 1st verification try” is greyed out & cant be ticked (not what i wanted but cant be ticked anyway)
theres an option “dont remove urls” which can be ticked, but i want it to recheck the urls, & then remove the links if the link is definitely not there,

Best approach for extending a foreign relationship for an existing table

I’m not sure the title accurately reflects my question. I have an existing Rate table that has an identity column key and contains a [Rate] column. col1 + col2 + col3 don’t uniquely identify a row:

+--------+------+------+------+------+ | RateId | col1 | col2 | col3 | Rate | +--------+------+------+------+------+ 

I have a new table that needs to match a rate. The new table has 3 of the required columns to make a match but those columns will return a number of rows in the Rate table. To uniquely identify a rate for the new table I need to match on MaterialTypeId and UnitTypeId where UnitTypeId can be null.

+------------+------+------+------+----------------+------------+ | MaterialId | col1 | col2 | col3 | MaterialTypeId | UnitTypeId | +------------+------+------+------+----------------+------------+ 

What is the best approach to resolving this? I could add the two additional columns to the Rate table but that would not be relevant for the current uses of the Rate table, i.e. the two additional columns would be null for all existing rows.

I could introduce an intermediate table and join on MaterialTypeId & UnitTypeID which would return multiple rows and then join using the existing columns to uniquely identify the rate:

+--------+----------------+------------+ | RateId | MaterialTypeId | UnitTypeId | +--------+----------------+------------+ 

Is that the correct approach?

Simple and Universal way to password-protect existing webservices that are exposed to internet

There are many tools, devices and programs that by default run a http server and expose a user interface on port 80. Even my coffee machine has a web ui that it provides on port 80.

Now, it’s easy to make these existing webservers available through the internet by simply doing port-forwarding on the internet facing NAT.

I want to do this, but I want to password protect access to them in a simple, generic and secure way.

On simple way would be to just NOT expose them and access them only through a VPN connection. Currently I’m doing this – but I want to be able to access the services without a vpn tunnel from anywhere in the web.

So, let’s say I have three http services in my Lan that I locally can access on

CoffeeMachine:80 MyLightSwitch:80 ToiletFlush:80 

Now I want to be able to access them over the internet by going to

http://mystaticIP/coffeemachine http://mystaticIP/lightswitch http://mystaticIP/toilet 

But for all of them, I want that they are ONLY accessible after some form of user-password authentication.

I don’t need individual users/passwords for the different servers. Can be all the same.

What’s an easy but yet secure way to expose all these three services to the internet, without having to tamper with the http servers on these devices themselves? (by secure I mean that without knowing the password it won’t create a trivial security hole. I don’t worry about man-in-the-middle attacks or so).

Tools I have available to solve this:

  • Adding an additional server running any linux distro/services to the local network
  • Set portforwarding on my NAT

Is there any existing obfuscation scheme that makes cipher text indistinguishable from plain text? [migrated]

Suppose a totalitarian government (in the name of anti-terrorism / protection of intellectual property):

  1. has outlawed encryption itself – encryption is only approved for cases where the state has reviewed the design and made sure it can decrypt/inspect the message, and made any unapproved encryption a criminal offense
  2. has total control over anything in and out of the network at ISP-level, as well as anything that passes through web services

How could two citizens Alice and Bob, using approved (and monitored) instant messaging service to set up a secure line of communication, conceal the fact that the communication is encrypted, i.e. to make it indistinguishable from unencrypted data, or at least, make it computationally- or financially-infeasible to distinguish it from plain text?

For example, no one would assume the following message to be encrypted:

  • Across the Great Wall, we can reach every corner in the world.

But it would be assumed that the following is:

  • WZ2A805Wq3rzpiuzE+ZCulgDrn76pVRW5PVUJ4DDadFQD4P9PsTeegbo5CAkqI4yZrO//p
    sYT+ZQkqZ6IrSGng==

  • 599D80F34E56AB7AF3A62BB313E642BA
    5803AE7EFAA55456E4F5542780C369D1
    500F83FD3EC4DE7A06E8E42024A88E32
    66B3BFFE9B184FE65092A67A22B4869E

For the purpose of this question, we assume the following technical details:

  1. the IM service is text-only, binary data is not allowed (in an IM setting, sending primarily small binary fragments back and forth would probably raise suspicion anyway)
  2. communication between Alice and the IM service, Bob and the IM service, are both end-to-end encrypted. A government agent Eve has a copy of the decryption key the IM service used
  3. proof that the message is encrypted is not required. I.e. Eve does not need to know the plain text or the algorithm used to produce the cipher text. She only needs to tell, with a reasonably-low false-positive rate, if a message is the result of an encryption
  4. the endpoint is secure, no backdoor or malware on the computer/router, etc.

I’d like to know if there are any reliable research on this, is it feasible or not, and if feasible, any existing protocol or algorithm developed for this?

Eve, in case you are watching, I’m asking this for academic purposes only. 😄

Use a domain, sub-domain or sub-folder for adding a physical location to an existing content website?

We currently have a global photography website located at https://phmuseum.com. We will be adding a physical location, school/events space in Bologna, Italy this year. We will be targeting the services this physical location mainly to local Italians but also a lesser extent Europeans and Globally.

We will create a microsite for bookings and promoting this space in Italian and English.

What would the best route to take in terms of targeting and SEO to add this website to our current offering? As I see it there are a few options or a combination of the following:

  • Sub-folder: https://phmuseum.com/space (/en & /it)
  • Sub-domain: https://space.phmuseum.com (/en & /it)
  • Domain: https://phmuseumspace.com (/en & /it)
  • Domains: https://phmuseumspace.it (local) && https://phmuseumspace.com (global) (Hreflang)

We could even go hyperlocal with https://phmuseumspace.bo.it

Any thoughts, recommendations or suggestions would be welcome.

New Page/Post Screen Opens an Existing Post

When I go to add a post or page to my WordPress site, the permalink and featured image are already populated with a 10 year old post, thus we are unable to create new content.

Recent changes done on the site:

  • We ran a find-and-replace in wp_posts to rebrand part of our company, however that should only have affected that string inside <p> tags since our search included spaces
  • We deleted old post revisions from the database to make it lighter
  • We ran a database cleanup plugin

I know one solution will be to rollback the database before these changes were made, but this bug was only discovered now (a week later), so recovering from the error is preferable.