CD2 Solutions - Profile

dont know if anybody saw this coming, i certainly didn't.

i was thinking, which was more serious; heartbleed or goto-fail. on reflection, the heartbleed is CONSIDERABLY worse.

for those who dont know: goto-fail (the apple ssl bug) meant that basically any ssl cert would pass, so it would be relatively easy to dupe a site and collect information. fairly targeted and specific to apple devices.

heartbleed though, would allow an attacker to breach server security and obtain all of the information in memory on the server. get that information, and you can get anything; personal details, files, access logs, anything essentially.

thing is, we have an old hp here, a fairly limp dual core, with a tiny addon graphics card. runs windows 8.1 fantastically.

my computer at home, about 6 years old, most likely outpaces some of the faster modern machines (it was high spec at the time though). this cmputer however, had nothing but issues on xp. it was slow, crashed, driver issues etc.

windows 7 was extremely good to me. it was faster than xp, looked better and had a lot more features.

in short, dont assume that because your computer is a bit old that it wont run 7 or 8. download an evaluation copy to try and see how it runs.

on the other hand, if your computer isnt fast enough to run windows 7 or 8 comfortably, then it is most likely a dire pig with xp as well. something like a single core athlon will be diabolically slow with anything short of a VERY light linux distro.

xp is thirteen years old, its time to let it go.

its funny because its true.

sadly

what can we do? due to their beliefs (not being racist or anything here), killing them would make them martyrs, mistreating them in any way will have human rights activists in uproar, locking them up permanently will cost too much for scum that dont deserve any freedom.

personally, my views on what should be done to them are a little too harsh to write down, and would probably break every law there is regarding the treatment of prisoners.

what they did to Lee Rigby was disgraceful, and if somebody went and did the reverse (not sure i can go into detail) im sure their treatment would be worse.

sorry if anybody got offended, this particular case winds me up and i sometimes vent...

it was a beautiful piece of engineering and design. i do however understand why it had to end.

had the pleasure of being in one (on the ground mind you, as a museum exhibit), but it was a bit cramped.

so what we need, is a modern version. flying at such speed has its advantages, like high altitude. high altitude means less air-resistance, less air-resistance means less fuel used. apply some more modern technology to it, and i think they could do it, but is anyone willing to take the risk?

i suggest a far more more abundant lighter-than-air gas: hydrogen..........

its perfectly safe, whoever heard of a hydrogen balloon burning up?



oh wait.........

seriously though, we get nuclear fusion going and well have plenty of helium.

spose it could have been much worse.

wrong taxiway eh? must have been using some old maps on his satnav........

there are several options really.

1: if you have the right system running your company site, you could build it into the entire site, without installing another site in a folder or a subdomain. this has the advantage of only running one site on the server, and having everything managed under the one site.
example: yoursite.com/blog

2: install another system within a folder in your existing site. this has the advantage of being semi-independent, in that if the blog breaks, the chances of it breaking the main site are less. you could also design it differently if you want to differentiate it from your main site. the disadvantage is that you are effectively running two sites.
example: yoursite.com/blog

3: subdomains. running a blog on a separate subdomain means that you can have them operate completely independently if you wish, by using a different server. this adds cost, but means that if one fails, there is ZERO chance of it breaking the other.
example: blog.yoursite.com

the third option gives you more flexibility, whilst the first is easiest to set up - provided your site has the right system. the second is somewhere inbetween.

i hope this helps you, and anyone else who sees this

responsive all the way.

you dont need to run 2 sites, you can adapt to different screen sizes on desktop, and - one of my hates - sharing content is easier. i have a friend who finds stories on a major site, but he uses a phone. he sends me them on hangouts, but because this site uses a mobile site, when i open them (normally on my desktop) it opens the mobile site. a poor one.

in theory, all you will need is a copy of google chrome, and a text editor.

simply right click the part you want to change, and click "inspect element". then its a matter of pressing the "plus" symbol on the right of the new debug window, and adding the appropriate css to your page. then, when that element looks the way you want it, add it to the relevant css file in wordpress.

i havent personally made a theme in wordpress, but if its like drupal you can create a basic template theme, and then add to it the css that you want.

i think it took me about a day to get the basics, but the advantage of doing it yourself, is that you dont need to pay for changes.

but the first place to start, is with a design and some idea of how you want it to look. i find that much easier, and it gives you a target to aim for.