Restricting website usage for Google Maps API doesn’t prevent it from being used in the browser?

Say I’ve restricted my Google Maps API key to the website abc.com/*. This would mean that no other website domains could use my API key to make requests to maps.googleapis.com.

However, using the API key through the browser url bar to make requests to maps.googleapis.com still works fine. Calls made through Postman also work.

What’s the explanation for this and is there an elegant way to prevent this?

Btw, I’m using the Maps Static & Javascript API. From my understanding both are client-side Maps API and called from the browser?

How can I tell a player to stop something without seeming like I’m restricting them too much?

I have been running VtM in the form of the players playing as ghouls however one of my recent players has made a charmer character. I am okay with characters wanting to get laid however he considers these things to be fluff and says that he believes the flirting part is important for character development. He does not insist on roleplaying the sex part however he does wish to roleplay how he showers his love interest with kisses and most of his interactions with NPC’s involve similar things.

He seems rather invested in the game so I don’t want to just tell him to stop or tell him that we will be glossing over the flirting but I am starting to feel uncomfortable having to play these NPC’s. It’s been about two weeks since he joined and he has slept with his fellow ghoul,a prostitute and he attempted to sleep with his domitor each involving a fair bit of flirting. (As a note. I have been running him private sessions to catch him up to the group both immersion and experience vice.)

So my question is that how can I make him dial this type of stuff back without seeming judgemental or like I am telling him to change his character?

Restricting users to Edit directly on SharePoint List

We have created a SharePoint framework app which adds items to SharePoint List. As we are in client side we gave “Contribute” level Permission to all the users to edit the form (to add update the List item from form). Is there any way to restrict the users on updating the items directly from List. We have already restricted the user on accessing the site contents page and list pages using javascript, still the users can edit the values using rest API or direct item link.

Any other approach to restrict the same and update the item on client side also will be helpful.

Restricting randomisation in Gambit

I am trying to use Gambit (specifically, gambit-enumpoly) to the compute the mixed strategy Nash equilibria of some very large games. To make this computationally feasible, I would like to place some restrictions on which subsets of strategies players can randomise over. Is there a way to do this?

To be more concrete, suppose that each player has three strategies $ A, B, C$ . Is there some way to impose the restriction that players cannot randomise between (for example) $ A$ and $ C$ ?

Many thanks in advance!

Restricting to single domain users in People picker in SharePoint 2013

My organization has 2 domains. DomainA and DomainB are 2 separate forests with mutual trust.

When I use the SharePoint people picker the auto-complete displays user profiles from both domains.

I’m trying to restrict the SharePoint people picker to look in to a single domain, DomainB.

I tried using this script outline in this MS article, however the people picker still displays both profiles. “Restrict People Picker to a certain group in Active Directory”

stsadm -o setsiteuseraccountdirectorypath -path "OU=Sales,DC=DomainB,DC=local" -url http://sitecollection 

Configure People Picker in SharePoint 2013

Is restricting a Google API key for an Android app useless?

According to Google, one can add the SHA-1 certificate fingerprint and the name of the package in the Google Developers Console to restrict the usage of his API key to his Android app, so that developers can make sure that their API keys are not being used by other clients than theirs.

According to this and this, programmers should simply add the SHA-1 fingerprint and the package name to their HTTPS-request headers in order for Google to be able to verify that the request comes from the “authorized” app and consequently serve it.

But since the SHA-1 fingerprint and the the package name are publicly known, then anyone else can also very simply add them to his HTTPS-request header and let his program very easily bypass the restriction and verify himself by Google as the “authorized” app!

Therefore, I do not understand the usefulness of this kind of restrictions which are based on infos that are publicly known!

What are our options to get a (e-)visa for China as a British citizen in Netherlands while restricting the time without ID to no more than a day?

We are a Dutch-British couple living in Netherlands. We want to visit China for 2-3 weeks. We both need a visa for that. Due to my partner needing his (British) passport (to enter work), we can’t just send off his passport. This is not such a big problem for me, as I have a Dutch national ID card too.

I read about e-visas. They are a printed thing, so you don’t need to send your passport off. Apparently you need to travel with two people, so we tick off that box too. This sounds useful for us.

This Dutch website offers e-visas for China. They appear to offer them for Dutch, Belgian, German, French and Spanish citizens. They apparently allow a 21 days stay. They also mention that you need to enter with two people. That seems perfect for us, except they don’t offer it to British citizens.

This US based website also offers e-visas for China. They appear to offer them to more Nationalites than the Dutch website (at least including UK and Dutch which I require), but they are only for 15 days and require a US shipping address.

Neither of these websites seem to work for us. We can make a trip to the embassy if required, but we really can’t miss the passport for more than a single day. What are our options to get a (e-)visa for China as a British citizen in Netherlands while restricting the time without ID to no more than a day? We’re fine with options that leave him without a passport for a maximum of one weekday (up to two times, not in the same week), get him a second ID (even if valid only in Netherlands) or otherwise solve the problem of needing an ID for work (taking time off is not an option).

Note: we’re not business travelers, so business traveler exceptions do not count for us.

Update: We’ve been in contact with e-visums.nl. It appears they do offer e-visas for UK citizens after all, on their UK website and just updated their Dutch website to now offer it to UK citizens too. This may be an option, but we cannot be sure yet until we are ready to apply. Answers with different options and/or personal experience still very much welcome!

Restricting users to certain sites

I am very new to the world/maze of SharePoint online permissions, so I have a fairly basic question.

Inside SharePoint online, is it possible to restrict a user from accessing certain sites?

Let us say that we have two sites:

company.sharepoint.com/sites/SiteA company.sharepoint.com/sites/SiteB 

Is it possible for an admin to set permissions such that a user can only see and access one of the two sites?

Restricting a User to a Specific Directory

Guys first of all i have this same problem Restrict user to a directory vsftpd

and i did as you said in that post,but it’s not working,i have 2 users,one with sudo access,it’s my regular account,and then i’ve create another one for a friend,just for ftp access,he can login and he can’t go to my regular account’s home directory,but he can go to higher,like this https://puu.sh/DzoTK/7137fcfe03.png so is there any other working way to do this?please give me a help,thanks in advance.

Restricting hosts in a user specific ssh config

I am trying to create a new config file in (user_home)/.ssh/ and setup some rules that would over ride the default system rules and restrict only logins for one user on the system. I was able to get it to work by blocking logins from systems on DNS that have a registered hostname in DNS, but I am noticing that one system I am testing with that has an IP and is not in DNS, is still able to login with the public key.

Is there something that I am missing where I can allow only one hostname and/or IP in the users ssh config that will block that user from trying to log in from other locations other than the hostname and/or IP that is specified in the users ssh config?

I am hoping that someone can point out what I may be missing. Here is the current config (after quite a bit of playing around):

Host (hostname)         HostName (hostname)*         ForwardAgent no         ForwardX11 no         ForwardX11Trusted no         Port 1472         Protocol 2         ServerAliveInterval 60         ServerAliveCountMax 30         PasswordAuthentication no         PubkeyAuthentication yes         AllowUsers (user) Host *         HostName !(hostname)*         AddressFamily any         PasswordAuthentication no         PubkeyAuthentication no         DenyUsers *