JHeaton

If you're losing fat and gaining weight then chances are, that is indeed why. I'm using MyFitnessPal myself and I'm surprised by how effective it's been. I started towards the end of November and since then I've succeeded in using it every day (once you've got into the habit, it's much easier - my streak is 98 days) and have lost 1st 8lbs without doing anything other than modifying my eating. I think a big part of why it's working out so well is that I won't eat anything until I have already entered it into MFP - this means that either I see how bad (or not!) it would be for me and can decide not to eat it, or I just decide it's really not worth the effort to try to find my phone for the sake of a few custard creams (fig rolls, on the other hand, are a completely different story...). I would definitely recommend giving it a try to anyone looking to start out losing weight, I just wish I'd started putting this effort in much earlier - I was 17.5st for far too long.

My quest for someone in IT who enjoys this show continues.

Phineas and Ferb?

Hello everyone. I've recently moved to a school that has a bunch of Samsung Chromebooks for use by the students, which is something pretty new for me. Up until recently, they've been running fairly smoothly, but I've been informed that they are now prompting students for credentials to authenticate with the proxy server as soon as they boot to the login screen. The Forefront server that these devices point to does have both Integrated and Basic authentication methods checked, but the box that requires all users to authenticate is unchecked; additionally, all of the rules seem to have the All Users group in them, rather than All Authenticated Users. As far as the Change Tracking tab is concerned, nothing has been altered since July, so the settings on the server are all the same (this leads me to think that some updates may have been installed on the Chromebooks at some point - I'll need to check that). If I uncheck both authentication options and apply the settings, the user is no longer prompted for credentials on the Chromebooks, however my understanding is that anyone could connect a device to our wireless network and browse without having to supply details and, on top of that, this would make monitoring a lot more difficult on this server because user details would no longer be tracked. Does anybody know how we could set this up so that the Chromebooks don't require authentication, but other devices do? It seems only to be these that are causing problems, as if you connect an iOS or Android device to the network and use this proxy server, you're only ever asked to authenticate the first time round. There are options for SSL Certificate and RADIUS authentication, but I am not sure whether or not either of these would be of any use here (I really need to start reading up on Forefront stuff ). Perhaps there's a way of setting up a rule for a group of IP addresses that can bypass the need to provide credentials? That way I could stick some reservations in DHCP for the Chromebooks and do things that way, but I'm really not confident just diving in and messing around with a live server and getting one set up for testing is going to be a bit tricky in our current situation. If someone can provide a starting point, though, then I'd appreciate having something to go off. If anybody has any advice to offer, I would be very grateful as I'm honestly quite clueless on this one. Thank you in advance.

Wouldn't be the first time. :/

Would anybody like to guess what happened to the laptop on my desk?

Something that's bugging me at the moment with Office 2013. A few people have mentioned that they don't want their name to be displayed here (see attached file) when they're showing documents on the IWBs, but I can't seem to find any options to hide it or disable the feature. I had a search and found a registry change that removes the option to sign in, but so far nothing to actually hide the name (although you can delete the contents of HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Office\15.0\Identity\Identities\[email protected]_AD\FriendlyName and it will display a blank name in that spot). Does anyone know if it is possible to do this (and if so, how)? It's really starting to get on my nerves at the moment. Cheers.

Does this register the name on the mouse/keyboard itself, or does that just associate the ID of that device with that Mac? Might be a handy way of seeing if the right one is at least paired to the machine though. I'll try changing those bluetooth settings and see if it makes a difference. I think this will end up being my suggestion, although I can't see them going for it, sadly. They keyboards and mice are already labelled for the machine they're supposed to be with, and this doesn't seem to be what's happening. I think they're just messing around with them, honestly. Thank you for all the replies, they're appreciated!

Hello all! We have a suite of iMacs here and they are driving me absolutely crazy. For whatever reason, they were purchased with the wireless keyboards and mice, which are causing issues on a regular basis. Each Mac starts off with a single keyboard and mouse paired, after I've spent however long sorting the whole lot out. But then we receive complaints of keyboards and mice working on machines all around the room, even though they're still sat in front of (and paired with) the machine they're supposed to be with. Someone suggested unchecking the "Discoverable" box in the Bluetooth settings, but that seems to make no difference. Does anyone know of any other way to prevent this from happening? Getting a bit tired of going over there to sort it every couple of days, not least because the teacher has absolutely no control of the students and I'm not all too fond of having to dodge whatever objects they've decided to launch this week... Any assistance which keeps me from tearing my hair out would be much appreciated.

Hi everyone, been over to another school in the area for the past couple of days and although we've solved a few of the issues so far, there's one that is still plaguing us and that is the replication between the two new domain controllers. They have recently been promoted, and the old Server 2003 DCs demoted, but now there are a number of things that have been left not working. In terms of replication, we're all finding it a bit odd. If a file is created on DC1, it is replicated to DC2. If it is created on DC2, it is replicated to DC1. Same goes for deleting it. If we change the contents of a file on DC1, changes are then replicated to DC2 however if the changes are made on DC2, they are not replicated to DC1. This is causing a massive headache as, as far as we can tell, everything looks right with the exception of the following: Running the dcdiag command on both servers results in this appearing in the output and I assume this is the cause of the problem, but I can't see why that would be. Starting test: NCSecDesc Error NT AUTHORITY\ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS doesn't have Replicating Directory Changes In Filtered Set access rights for the naming context:DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=localdomain,DC=local Now, we found this which suggests to make changes to permissions in ADSIEdit for the domain's own naming context; does that mean that the DC=DomainDnsZones,DC=localdomain,DC=local is just a representation of that or should I be looking for that specifically? We've checked the permissions in ADSIEdit as they are and the ENTERPRISE DOMAIN CONTROLLERS group has the Replicating Directory Changes In Filtered Sets access rights, so we are left somewhat confused by this. If anyone can help point us in the right direction, I would be grateful as solving this would leave us with a much smaller list of things to do. Cheers.

But cricket on Sky just does not work. Ratings were fantastic in 2005, national interest was growing again and then it was taken over to Sky, where coverage has gotten worse and viewing figures have dropped sharply. As said above, you don't need to pay your licence fee if you don't use your TV to receive live broadcasts. Don't use it and don't want to pay? Don't pay. Inform the TV licensing company of this and off you go. If it wasn't for the F1, I doubt we'd even have one. It's pretty much the only thing we really watch - we already got rid of Sky because it was an absolute waste of money. If F1 moves over to a pay TV channel, I'm not sure there would be any point in us paying the licence fee, to be honest. I can't see much sense in a decision to drop the coverage, really. The average viewing for a grand prix is 5-6 million people. Canada saw 8.4 million; that's the kind of figure you would expect to see for a season finale where the title was going down to the wire. Compare this to the highest figures for a programme on BBC4 - 1.6 million - and it just doesn't add up. It would be much better to cut some of the crap from BBC1 and BBC2, axe BBC4 and put the few good shows from there on the mainstream channels. Otherwise, merge BBC3 and BBC4 and show the best programmes from each, as both channels are clogged with repeats and pointless filler. That they are only on for half a day each (or has this been changed?) is another issue with this: they can still manage to fill both with programmes that are not top-quality. If it turns out that the sports budget is a specific area where money needs to be saved, how about getting rid of Match of the Day instead? Apparently over the course of a year it's more expensive and pulls in less viewers. This adds more to the theory that this is a bargaining tool to get a better deal from Bernie, in my opinion.

As far as I'm aware, it's fully functional. Much like: Justin Bieber Linux

Network manager, senior tech and tech (me) here.

Now that does look interesting. Thank you for that.

Out of my head, please. :| This is what I've been planning out in my free time at the moment, reason being that I hate installing the SIMS client all around the school and then dealing with client-side updates all the time. If everything was accessible by pointing your browser at the server, life would be much simpler. My only issue is only having a very basic understanding of PHP, which is causing very slow progress on the project; I'm still having to learn things whilst planning out bits and pieces. Sorry for being somewhat off-topic in your thread, Steve21. >.>