I have Active Directory 2012 running (just got it running like today) and I chose the domain "markonsolutions.com"   I now noticed that when i try to visit www.markonsolutions.com that dns doesn't know what to do with it.   my questions  1) is this a bad practice to name our internal domain the same as our internet domain (my intention was to simplfy my users lives by giveing them the same log on as there email addresses)  2) If its not a big deal to have them both under the same name How can I add www or any of my other sub domains to go out to the internet dns?  Thanks
Possible Duplicate:          There are a lot of really screwed up configurations out there, because people didn't take a minute to sit down and think about something as simple as the name for their Active Directory forest. I'm asking this question to self-answer so that this knowledge can be more readily available. If you think you have a better answer, by all means add your input (but be prepared to defend it!)   So, what should I name my new Active Directory?
Trim string in JavaScript? How do I trim a string in JavaScript? That is, how do I remove all whitespace from the beginning and the end of the string in JavaScript? Newton's third law does not apply to the kinetic energy formula? Here is a classic problem:     A 60kg boy and a 40kg girl are sitting in front of each other on skateboards on a frictionless horizontal surface. The boy pushes the girl and the girl gains a velocity of 0.3m/s during the 0.5s the boys hand was in contact with her. What is the boy's resulting velocity?   Considering Newton's Third Law, the best way is to find the total force applied and rearrange the formula to find the boy's speed.  Newton's Law Method:  $F = m*a$  $a=\frac{0.3m/s}{0.5s}$  $F = 40kg * 0.6m/s^2$  $F = 24N$  Therefore the boy's speed will be:   $\frac{24N}{60kg} = a$  $a = 0.4m/s^2$  $v = 0.4m/s^2 * 0.5s$  $v = 0.2m/s$  Kinetic Energy Method:  $E_{k}=\frac{1}{2}*m*v^2$ the girl's kinetic energy  $E_{k}=\frac{1}{2}*40kg*(0.3m/s)^2$  $E_{k}=1.8J$  Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction the boy should have the same amount of kinetic energy.  $E_{k}=\frac{1}{2}*60kg*(0.2m/s)^2$  $E_{k}=1.2J$  As you can see, using Newton's Third Law, the kinetic energy was not the same. So what's going on here? I thought that in this case they should both have the same amount of kinetic energy due to Newton's Law. I must be missing something since there is more energy going in one direction than the other after meeting. My book used the first method as the answer and, well, it feels wrong. Can I install Android on my non-Android device? I want to do a survey of textbooks in set theory. Amazon returns 3582 books for the keywords "set theory". A small somewhat random selection with number of references in Google scholar is the following.   Two questions:    What textbooks in set-theory are considered standard?  What is a good place to aggregate standard references (of textbooks)?    (I'm only interested in text-books, which as a format already provide a kind of standardization)  Textbooks on set theory (author: title (year) #Google Scholar citations )   Thomas J. Jech: Set Theory 3rd Edition (1978) #2441  Kenneth Kunen: Set Theory (1980) #1881  P. R. Halmos: Naive Set Theory (1974) #1079 AA Fraenkel, Y Bar-Hillel, A Levy: Foundations of set theory (1973) #696 K Kuratowski, A Mostowski, M Mączyński: Set theory (1976) #609 Suppes: Axiomatic set theory  (1972) #589 Quine: Set theory and its logic (1969) #442 A Levy: Basic set theory (1979) #442 Herbert B. Enderton: Elements of Set Theory (1977) #349 Karel Hrbacek, Thomas J. Jech: Introduction to set theory (1999) #284 RR Stoll: Set theory and logic (1979) #281  N. Bourbaki: theory of sets (1970) #211 K Devlin: The joy of sets: fundamentals of contemporary set theory (1994) #182 Ciesielski: Set theory for the working mathematician (1997) #156 YN Moschovakis: Notes on set theory (1994) #138 FW Lawvere: Sets for mathematics (2003) #118 G Takeuti, WM Zaring: Introduction to axiomatic set theory (1982) #106 Kaplansky: Set Theory and Metric Spaces (2001) #103 Potter: Set Theory and Its Philosophy: A Critical Introduction (2004) #91 PT Johnstone: Notes on logic and set theory (1987) #87 Judith Roitman: Introduction to Modern Set Theory (1990) #47 Derek Goldrei: Set Theory: For Guided Independent Study (1996) #31 Basic set theory: A Shen, NK Vereshchagin (2002) #14 Ralf Schindler: Set Theory (2014) #13 Foreman, Kanamori: Handbook of Set Theory (2009) #38   Note:  Please feel free to add textbooks to the list, as long as they are not just on a smaller subset of set theory. (Some of the dates might not be the first published edition.) Option to hide rep/badges on the avatar block displayed of you Comment hint not disappearing when I start to type comment If I click "add comment", the comment hint (placeholder; "Request clarification or add information.") is not a hint, but editable text. If I delete the text and click outside of the comment then the hint appears as it should and when I click back into the comment box the hint disappears as it should.   I am on Internet Explorer 10.0.7.  Am I just oblivious and this is how it has always been (having to delete the comment hint), or is this a bug? I have been looking at the plugin API a bit more in depth recently and I was wondering what real differences there were between action and filter hooks. They both are events that receive data as a parameter and they seem to both be able to do the same things.  Obviously I see that actions are called when actions take place and filters are called when data is manipulated, but it seems to just be a semantic naming difference.  Besides semantics and what they are used for, what real differences are there between them? Unable to load DLL (Module could not be found HRESULT: 0x8007007E) Question about Subrings and integraly closed Find all solutions to the functional equation $f(x) +f(x+y)=y+2 $ $S_3$ permutes the elements of $\mathbb{R}^3$, show that $\sigma (x_1, x_2, x_3) = ( x_{\sigma^{-1}(1)}, x_{\sigma^{-1}(2)}, x_{\sigma^{-1}(3)})$. There are 'n' candies and 't' boxes. Find the number of ways to place the candies in the boxes for each of the conditions (given in the problem). There are 'n' candies and 't' boxes. Find the number of ways to place the candies in the boxes for each of the conditions (all the candies must be spread out) : (a) candies and boxes are different; (b) candies of the same diiferent boxes should not be empty cartons: (c) candies equally new, boxes are different; Edit :(d) candies are different, the boxes are the same, there should be no empty boxes; (e) candies of different boxes alike.(Edit : candies are different, boxes are equal) Specify the display type that matches the placement, if possible. My Answers : (a) Each layout is encoded with a word of $n$ letters from the alphabet of 't' letters $\implies$ possible $n^t$ variants. (b) Write, $n$ candies in the form of balls ina line, we need to put $(t-1)$ partition in $(n-1)$ place, but we can't put two partitions on one place, so we get : $^{t-1}C_{n-1}$. (c) First we need to choose a candy in a box (in the first box $n$ ways, in the second box $(n-1)$, $\cdots$ in the $t-th$ : $(n-t+1)$ ways $\implies$ total $n!/(n-t)!$ methods, and then we distribute the remaining $(n-t)$ candies into $t$ boxes, this is encoded with owrds from the alphabets (for each candy $t$ variants) $\implies$ $t^{n-t}$. The Answer is : $\frac {n!}{(n-t)!}*t^(n-t)$ Are my answers (a), (b) &amp; (c) are correct? For (d) &amp; (e) I don't know how to proceed? Please help me. Unable to activate Windows 8 I have asked more than 100 questions on SO. The problem with asking so many questions is that it's sometimes very hard to navigate to the question I want.  Is there any way to improve the interface further? Windows Metro apps have wrong icon in search UI Installing other fonts on wine Why must a field whose a group of units is cyclic be finite? Rename all the files within a folder with prefix “Unix_” Rename all the files within a folder with prefix “Unix_” i.e. suppose a folder has two files a.txt and b.pdf than they both should be renamed from a single command to Unix_a.txt and Unix_b.pdf Is it possible to learn a neural networks for a constant target? I saw a paper () where they learn L based on the following cost function: $$(D_1L(q(k-1), q(k)) + D_2L(q(k),q(k+1)))² = 0$$ Here $D$ is the derivative with respect to ith argument of L. This can be obtained via automatic differentiation and it is fully compatible with backpropagation. So the target is always zero independently of the input of L but how does the optimization method knows the real values of L for a given input? I mean as long as the cost function is satisfied with a zero value the model is learning but it can be learning wrong values for L. For instance, if the real value of $D_1L(q(k-1), q(k))$ is 10 then the real value of $D_2L(q(k),q(k+1))$ has to be -10. However the neural network may be learning wrong values for L as long as they are symmetric, for example -3 and 3. This is an ill posed problem due to the infinite possible solutions. Am I missing something or the method in that paper simply doesn't make any sense? Is it possible to learn a neural network in regression task with constant target? Edit: The goal is not to predict always that value. The goal is to learn L by predicting always zero (see the cost function). The question here is in order to learn L in such a way that it respects the cost function, there are infinite possible solutions, for instance if $D1L(q(k−1),q(k))$ = x then D2L(q(k),q(k+1))=-x and its sum gives 0 respecting the cost function. But as you can see x can assume any value as long as the cost function is respected, when in reality the goal is to learn a specific L. But the optimization doesn't know a priori value for L so I guess it should just assume a random value for x. In the paper they don't mention the ill posedness of the problem, either they solved it or not. I would like to know if what I'm thinking makes sense or if I'm just missing something. I have seen many folks doing this  concluding that shadow from point A on the Moon can travel to point B on the Moon faster than light.  What I fail to understand here (and I am sure I am wrong), is nothing can travel faster than light. I also read about Relativity where Einstein stated that every event happening for you depends on how fast the light gets from where the event is happening to you.  This is my particular problem with this Moon shadow experiment. You cannot make a shadow travel faster than light, because in order for the "disappearance" of light to get to the Moon, it has to travel at light speed.  Here is one way to understand my point. Consider we shine a flashlight on Moon, like the guy in the linked video did, we move the finger across the face of the flashlight, before we moved the finger it was casting the shadow at Point A on Moon, after we finish moving our finger, the shadow is at Point B on the Moon.  When the finger reaches the end of it's moving length, the light waves that have left the flashlight before the finger reached there will have to hit Point B and it will take them a second and a half to get there, and another second and half for us to see that shadow on point B, which makes it 3 seconds + finger moving time for us to actually see the shadow at point B. That means shadow traveled (say) across the diameter of the Moon in 3 seconds.   So. about 3000 Km in ~3 seconds make it 1000 Km per seconds which is very tiny compared to the speed of light. How can these experiments conclude that Shadow could be made to travel faster than light? What is the obvious clue that I am missing here?