happymeal

Afternoon/evening! I've got an issue but I don't know if I should pop it under here, or Server03... We've been rolling out Win7 machines to a number of our sites, with Server03 on the majority of sites (Rolling out Server08R2 in a few months) - so far we've not had too many issues, but a re-occurring issue is that the users are having their Windows accounts locked out. This is happening either when they are logged in and lock the screen, or when they try to run a batch-file on their desktop which kicks off some software in a folder on the Server (They get a "referenced account is locked out" after a few minutes though sometimes). To start with - I assumed they were getting a Windows prompt asking them to enter their Windows "Class" domain details and either entered their "Work" domain details, or entered their "Class" one and then changed the password - locking the account out through either mis-reading the prompt or using older cached details. I've had a poke around, and I can't see anything to back that up though. I haven't seen anything consistent, and one user who we purposely haven't changed her password is getting locked out every few hours. We've cleared caches on most sites, but that hasn't changed much. I can't see the GP at present (That's looked after by our head office down Saarf - not a chat I want just yet), and I'm running out of potential ideas to get us through until we roll out the new servers. In the meantime - I've added "users" and "everyone" with full control to the batch-file and the folder on the server it relates to, just to see if that helps the issue short-term until we can get around to kicking off the new server rollout, and will look at the site tomorrow morning after classes start to see what crops up in the log files. Can anyone else think of what might be locking the accounts out, or can anyone think of a way to get rid of the Windows Security box that appears when trying to access resources on the server - I'm trying to learn about Servers at the moment, but because I've got a book here, people are asking me for help on this!

Ok, thanks for that guys - I've been using the Virtual Labs for a while but felt they were a bit restricted as in the actual setting up of the server was done and each topic just covers what the features do. I was struggling to work out how it all pieced together in a live machine, but as long as I keep to those as a basic rule, things should be good. I haven't touched Servers as much as I'd like but those I've spoken to say that 2012 is a lot more friendly than previous versions, and I need to learn more Powershell commands. Admittedly I *did* call the first server "Happy.Local" and I was able to set a static address but it didn't like me using google DNS for some reason. I've added DNS and DCHP to it and AD, but I'll scrub it and re-do it until I'm happy enough first. I'll let you know how I get on.

Afternoon all, I come with hat in hand - I've been trying to make the switch from Desktop Support to Server Support and have been playing the CBT's and reading until my eyes are numb. They're good - but I'm now trying to put it all into "real-world" practise so when I take my 70-410/11,12, I know what I'm doing as well as having a clue what to do in real-world situations (ie we decide to have a new server, or create a domain, etc). So far I have just one machine with Server 2012R2 Standard installed (With GUI, I'll move to Core when I'm ready) which I'm looking to make a DC firstly, and then maybe add more later on as time passes. Boiling it down, is it a case of: * Changing address to static (something like 192.168.xxx.xxx) * Installing the required roles (I know I need ADDS, DNS, and GP - is there anything else?) * Setup DNS scope/range * Setup AD DS with a "domain" * Setup GP * Maybe install File/Storage ad create some generic-looking areas? Is there anything else? I mean, is there a set list/plan people use when building/installing a new server? Any hints/advice/flaying's more than welcome - I'm still learning and want to be able to do this a few times before I start booking the exams first.

I thought about that - but: a) Each of the eight boats would have to have a device capable of running that (ie phone?) b) There's a high chance that the boats may capsize and the phone/device would be damaged/destroyed (Unless their waterproof) I was thinking maybe there was a simpler solution in the same way marathon runners can track their timings via chip?

Afternoon all! I do a bit of charity work with Blackburn Sea Cadets and we've been asked to partake in a national event where we all sail at our collective sailing areas in a combined effort to log enough mileage to sail around the UK (Similar to the group of guys that would "run" to Paris on a treadmill by running a few miles each - except on water and in a boat) to raise money for the Charity. Now the biggest task I have to worry about (Apart from man power, nobody drowning, etc), is to log the distance that all of the boats will cover. I'm aiming for around 8 Picos (Small light-weight boats) and I have a "physical" course laid out of around a mile. But the problem is that I need to log the actual mileage they cover (Including tacking and adjusting for wind, etc). So they have a mile-long course, but they may sail slightly more than that while doing it so I can't use a visual count - ie, counting how many times they lap the mile course as a reference. I'm interested in knowing if there's some way of tracking the mileage - I was looking into a GPS-type chip or something along the lines of a running chip that would track the total distance covered. The boats are VERY small and there's no way to secure a bulky object to it. Does anyone have any better ideas, or know someone-in-the-know, or a company that would be willing to help in return for publicity?

Any predictions on what the new season will bring? * Mike does a bit of legal work for his new company as well as his job * the DA-guy from the end of the season persues him harder now he's moved out of the job * pressure gets too much now he's being targets and DA wonders why he's out of a job he loved * Mike threatens to expose Jessica unless he's allowed back for the protection * Gets back in, but has to earn the trust back * Louis finds out, and it's left on a cliff-hanger on him going to the DA or not

"Humans - the 'other' meat" - has a ring to it...anyone want to buy some snare/bear traps?

Am I the only one thinking of Rat Burger from Demolition Man?

They suckered me in with the free-trial too...

If anyone wants to see what happens when a world super-power falls though, have a read of John Birmingham's Without Warning. It's a very good (fictional) read of what happened when the bulk of America just "vanishes" on the eve of the Iraqi war - both on a local/domestic scale with looting, continunity of government, and so on, as well as an international look at things when there's no longer a deterrent to prevent countries from settling scores with each other.

You saw X-13 with just a hat on, doing his/her/it's/Squlee's pirate thing? Pics or it never happened... There's a lot of ideas of how we'd react to it on this thread, but if anyone's seen Jericho - that's a very scary reality of how things would happen on a town-sized scale. Looting and how to combat it, fuel supplies, gathering supplies and distribution, effects of EMP-waves/nuclear dispersal, survivors from nearby towns flocking, getting back to planting seeds and harvesting crops, etc. It's also been used as a guide by several pointy-head types as a near-accurate guide on what would happen and how to survive it. There was a short-lived TV series by Chris Ryan a few years back (Back when he was the in-thing with Ultimate Force, and his survival shows) which covered "disasters" and there was one that focused on a typical street during a pro-longer power failure, which turned out to be an EMP. Basically they rolled cars onto the ends of the streets to form a baracade to slow down looters, sealed houses up and fortified them using interior doors and shelving, moved the elderly/ill/infirm into more populated houses to prevent them being killed off by looters, used the fresh meats/supplies, formed patrols day and night to stop looters - it was a pretty good insight into how things may go down... That being said - I'm stealing a boat and attacking humanitarian relief convoys at sea...

Oooh - Reel Big Fish! Take my money. Now.

If he doesn't finish it off, he may well be...

He's put THAT much into the campaign that he can't afford to admit any problems, or admit that his campaign hasn't thought through everything. He's put that much effort in that he expects to be hoisted onto shoulders of the people, to raptuous applause, while flipping off the Westminter Toffs, that he can't accept that he hasn't got all the answers or a plan and is leading people to a Yes through poor planning and lack of clear and concise information. Take the response to George Osbourne for example - THAT would have been an excellent "braveheart" moment to breakdown the reasons WHY Scotland can't keep the Pound, the problems with each point, and how they plan to counter each point to show WHY they CAN keep the pound. Flips off Wesminster, provides an educated rebuttle to inform the masses, and shows leadership heading into what will be a turblant time. Instead, on national TV and in front of the Business Conference he was at, he adopted the "you're wrong, stop bullying me" approach. This is the leading figure of the Yes Campaign!!!! Even if he just admitted "Ok, he might have us on point xyz, but we plan on doing abc or countering it with 123, which will see growth on our/both sides and a reduced risk", or "I don't have an answer for that just yet, but my experts will have an answer for me to present why we should keep the pound" - both of those would have been a lot better and show a bit more calm and leadership that "you're a bad bad man, stop bullying me". *grabs popcorn*

NATO - the criteria for membership of NATO which we currently have: The Membership Action Plan (MAP) mechanism is the stage in the procedure for nations wishing to join where their formal applications are reviewed by the current members. The mechanism was approved in the 1999 Washington summit. A country's participation in MAP entails the annual presentation of reports concerning its progress on five different measures:[18] * Willingness to settle international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and democratic control of armed forces * Ability to contribute to the organization's defence and missions * Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership * Security of sensitive information, and safeguards ensuring it * Compatibility of domestic legislation with NATO cooperation The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. Also Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty describes how non-member states may join NATO: “The Parties may by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.” This article poses two general limits to non-member states. European states are eligible for membership and these states need the approval of all the existing member states. The second criterion means that every member state can put some criteria forward that have to be attained. In practice, NATO formulates in most cases a common set of criteria, but for instance Greece blocks the Republic of Macedonia's accession to NATO, due to the disagreement over the use of the name Macedonia. Turkey similarly opposes the participation of the Republic of Cyprus with NATO institutions as long as the Cyprus dispute is not resolved. The founding members of NATO are Belguim, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, US and the UK. Nuclear weaponery isn't a criteria (From what I can see - NPT). They would have to apply for Partnership for Peace (aimed at building trust), then the Individual Partnership Plan, followed by the Intensified Dialogue, and then finally the Membership Action Plan (See here) If Scotland went and got Independance, they would in effect not be a part of the UK and not be a NATO member (Despite Mr Salamond's claims they will be). They also wouldn't be covered by NATO either. They would have to apply independantly and prove they can satisify the criteria - this could take up to a decade (mostly building their military and proving they can work towards NATO objectives without leaving themselve un-defended). They could try with the Partnership for Peace before moving up in NATO, but again they could be blocked by any member. We're agreed that Scotland would not automatically become a NATO member. It would be a long drawn-out process for them to apply and even longer before they're awarded the same rights as the UK (Fully-fledged members...hehehe). Just to draw an example - the Republic of Kosovo is STILL trying to apply for NATO membership, and they were declared independant in 2008 by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX). How long would it take for Scotland? Military - This one got more arguments that answers. There are two streams of thought for the bases currently in place, and three for the military: Sovereign Base Areas - Army, RN and RAF bases are given SBA status meaning they can operate freely on them, but need permission to move off the bases (See Cyprus and Germany as an example). This would afford Scotland limited protection while they rebuild their military organisations. Not given SBA status - the UK pulls ALL of it's assets back to UK borders and mothballs/dismantles/destroys it's camps. Scotland would then have to very quickly put their own assets in place - a limited boom for shipbuilding/aircraft building, and re-build their military. Depending on what was taken/done to the camps, they may have to rebuild or demolish which is pretty expensive, or just use them as is. Keeping in mind that UK Forces take their security pretty seriously, I can't see them leaving much behind that could be used. That's the bases dealt with. We were (and still are) undecided on the military, so we've got three views: Keep UK Forces on SBA, but train their own - Scotland keeps UK Forces within it's borders, while it trains their own military up. This would mean they'd lose massive numbers because any Scottish-based Regiments/Brigades/etc part of the UK Forces would be re-branded/amalgamation with UK-based branches. Anyone with a Scottish background *may* be allowed to continue (in the spirit of the Gurkhas, Aussies, etc) but offered a discharge if they wanted to re-enlist in the new Scottish military. Would allow them to push for NATO/EU membership to a degree, building their military as well as being protected. Keep UK Forces on SBA, use UK Forces instead of their own - I can't see that happening in honesty, but there have been occasions where neighbouring countries or countries with good relations have been used to help out (Iceland for example). I'm sure there will be a hefty fee, but again, I can't see them doing this especially with the SNP banging on about independance. Remove UK Forces and SBA - UK Forces move back within their borders over a set period of time, forces nicknamed the Scottish Division (or falling under them) would either be amalgmated back with UK Forces, or disbanded (Personnel offered discharge, or posting). Bases would be mothballed or closed down/dismantelled/destroyed to prevent information being gather about UK Forces/usage. Scotland would be un-protected for a number of years and unable to deter/protect their borders and oil refineries as well as provide assistance to sailors/Coastgaurd. EU and NATO membership wouldn't be considered at this stage. Trident would be relocated to HMS Raleigh (in theory). We're undecided on how this would play out, but the common theory is that we'll take out boys and toys and go home and leave Scotland to it. Diplomatically, we may leave a small contingent if Scotland request it, but we can't see them asking. I personnally think we'll keep UK Forces on SBA's in Scotland, with a push to withdraw by a certain time. Read, critque, go for it. I'm interested in what other people think will happen - just keep it civil