Garacesh

Schools can and reasonably frequently (in the grand scheme of things, not individually) change domains. For example, in recent years a lot of schools have opted to drop the .county.sch.uk in favour of something easier like .uk or .com, plus there's a lot of schools that will have changed domains due to becoming an academy or joining a MAT. It's probable, I'd go as far as to say guaranteed, that the contact information you have is outdated and that a percentage of schools you emailed legitimately did not receive your request. Not that I want to encourage spam, but you could consider checking the emails you have on file against the school website which IIRC legally must list an email address for the head and a few others? (Please correct me if I'm wrong) FOI'ing schools to obtain contact information is a bit of a waste of time - both yours and anyone else's. Either you're using your mass-list you already have which obviously won't reach the ones you don't have correct addresses for, so they can't reply to correct you in the first place, or you start checking websites to find out email addresses, in which case there's no need to email them to ask.

Brackets seems good if you're not after WYSIWYG (I don't really know how WebPlus works, never used it), it's replaced Notepad++ as my web-coder-of-choice.. Just be aware that you can't pre-populate extensions for users because they live in \AppData\Roaming\Brackets. It does have a 'live view', but, I can't say I've ever used it, and you can't move or position elements with it, so it depends how simple you want to go with it. MoviePlus X6 - at least for us - is still fit for purpose and doesn't need replacing. Having no support is a bit tosh, but users don't seem to get themselves into too much trouble with it so it's not a big deal.

"I don't have housemates", $200 edition.

Typical I-don't-want-to-sign-up-for-yet-another-service-to-replace-something-that-already-works-just-fine, plus privacy. Yes, but nowhere near as much as they have to pay per card transaction. Plus then you have chargebacks, that cost a lot (comparatively speaking) if they happen, and bunch of other fees briefly listed here

Yeah, I've done them with ul/li and also with buttons&classes. Not sure which method I prefer yet. I think I'm leaning towards div/button/class if you're just loading different content on the same page (javascript toggled display: block;/display: none; ), and ul/li if it's navigating through pages (a href). Or maybe I'm just over-complicating things. I tend to do that a lot

So for example, you ran a news site or blog (assuming you wouldn't just use a CMS for it, because... reasons...) you'd do #header, #footer, and maybe #menu, but div.MenuItem and div.ArticleContent ? (It's the only example I can think of off the top of my head lol) Edit: Actually probably not the best example, 'cause you'd probably use #menu.item Multiple ways to skin a cat and all that lot

#content { position: relative; width: 768px; margin: auto; padding-top: 20px; } Stuff VS div.content { position: relative; width: 768px; margin: auto; padding-top: 20px; } Stuff I know functionally they both do the same thing, both elements would look identical using the code above, but what's the general census as to which way (and why) the 'proper' syntax is? Going off gut-feeling, it makes more sense to me to do div.class, because you're going to have multiple different types/classes/styles of div, but then again, if I'm going to div.content, div.header, div.footer, etc, it makes more sense to #content, #header and #footer for (minutely) smaller filesizes.

It's really easy to write off cash because there are other - arguably better1 - methods of undertaking a transaction. But there's a lot of places that can't have the infrastructure for taking card payments (outdoor markets, door-to-door, new businesses, buying something off your mate)2 or simply don't want to deal with the transaction fees. Then again there's some businesses that just don't for the sake of not doing. You can decide for yourself whether they deserve your custom or not, to each their own, but I don't think that cash should be a complete write-off, and apparently neither do the Treasury. 1: Better from a functional perspective. As @difinity points out, they may not necessarily be better from a privacy perspective 2: Not that I'm necessarily saying these styles of business do or do not need preserving, only that they exist.

I thought New Zealand rounded up, so $x.99 = $(x+1).00? I wonder how they've got around the 'opening the till' issue, then? Maybe they just take a harder approach to stock-takes.

This marries up with my experience too. If a printer is missing and I navigate to \\print-server\ and right-click/connect, the printer shows up in software such as MS Office, but the vast majority of the time does not appear in the Devices and Printers lists. Printing to the printer works from software works as expected. Occasionally, as with your experience, an Unidentified Device appears with a GUID for a name and no further info.

Functionally speaking it makes sense. People don't use them, 90% of the time they get tossed or 'stashed' (piggy banks or some other flavour of money-horde). Personally I stash anything lower than a 50p. By the time my big ol' plastic bottle gets some sizeable weight to it, I end up with about £150-200 in it, though that does take a few years. But I can't help but feel this is just a dumb way of doing it. Nobody will keep prices at £x.99 because that means you are literally unable to pay with cash, so everything will go from costing £x.991 and instead cost £x.052, the treasury will have to print a bunch more 5's to compensate and people will end up with excess 5's and the cycle repeats itself. The main 'issue' seems to be that people are saving money instead of spending money. The money isn't circulating (primarily because it's worth so little, and if you do any circulating of them in your shop, you're probably just circulating the one or two per transaction, ie, the ones you get in change for something being £x.99). If you want to solve that, the solution is to make easier ways to 'cash in' your pennies without having to bag them up and go to the bank (or lose 7% to those coinstar machines) 1: Because keeping prices at a non-exact-pound amount is important, as it forces the teller to have to open the till to give change, ensuring every transaction is recorded and no money goes disappearing. 2: Because nobody is going to lower their prices to £x.95, that's less money, and companies don't want less money.

I was tempted to spin it as a remote access pun, but usually it's (alleged) Russia with remote access to everywhere else, not vice verca

Probably for the best. Redundant acronym syndrome syndrome probably undermines a leader's speeches.

Ooh that's promising. Thanks! And I'm right in thinking licences are transferable only between devices of the same hardware specification? That is to say, revoking and reassigning a licence is meant to be used to replace a damaged/failed machine, rather than an upgrade? It's not like in 3-5 years we can declare a bank of chromebooks EOL and buy a new set sans-licences and re-use the licences from the set we've just decommissioned?

This is the bit where I grumble about people without open storefronts again, isn't it? Can't seem to find anything on any of their sites about prices. Are they a flat-rate and they just want another email to spam, or is it a variable-per-device/user-numbers bulk-buy type of deal? I get that they probably want you to contact them for quotes, but since we're literally looking for just one single license atm it's just a pain to have to do the whole quotes thing or have to fend off whatever additional services they might want to try to upsell me. (Not that I'm not appreciative, though. Thank you for the info ) Edit: To expand upon, because I still worry I'm coming across as ungrateful, it's mostly to do with knowing what kind of pricing schema I'm going to be facing. If it's a flat-rate, then there's no trouble, but if it's a bulk-buy type thing it gives me chance to convene with departments to see how many would be interested, and then I can buy them all together saving the school a bit of money, rather than maybe buy 30 now, 30 later, then 30 after that, amounting to a larger overall cost.

Looking to test the viability of Chromebooks, so we've bought one to play with, but I can't enrol it into our G Suite. Their support tells me it's because we don't have a license. There doesn't seem to be a way to buy licenses direct from Google, their storefront is clearly affiliated with Promevo, but I'm wondering who else is out there, how much it costs people, terms of the licence, etc. Is it normal to have to buy them separately? Do they not get sold with them in case you're transferring a license? (I've heard they can be revoked/reassigned) Have we just mucked up and bought one 'as is' and the supplier has just assumed it's for personal use? (I can log in with my personal (non g-suite) Google account without having to buy any further license)

Currently we have our Smoothwall set up to use Kerberos authentication with our Windows machines, so it's all based off AD credentials. Since our iPads don't have user accounts, they are filtered just the same but there's no way we can know which specific user was using the iPad at the time. How are people with Chromebooks managing logging? We're looking at Chromebooks but this is potentially an issue. Are we going to have to look into RADIUS, where our users sign on with their AD credentials if they want internet access? Or is there some other way of doing it?

Well isn't the entire point of a vector that it can be resized to any resolution and not lose detail? Anyway. The script. You might want to try using window.location.href instead of window.open. Edit: Katy wins again.

Scalable Vector Graphics, you can code an image (so to speak) by listing its properties and it'll be created as a vector so it'll scale up and down without becoming distorted or pixellated. It's a really good idea in concept but I don't think I've ever actually used it.

You can use CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) to change the default display properties of basically any element. For example, rather than putting ../img/Header.png at the top of every web page, you could simply do and define the header element in your stylesheet #header { width: 768px; height: 250px; margin-top: 20px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 20px; background-image: url("../img/Header.png"); } An image header isn't the best example though.. You can go much further, dictating default font colour, size, style, element background colours/gradients, image effects, so much stuff. If you do even basic web design, it can be incredibly useful.

Can you do onClick with an SVG? I thought that was inherent to buttons?

Rather than using an image you could use a button and then just use CSS to style the button

No. Not unless you use ./ urls. If you specify http://url that's where it goes to. It only does relative links if you use ./ (or other such relative paths like ../ etc) Sorry, I misunderstood the scripts current behaviour. Katy's response should sort you out.

Pfft. You'll win in theory, but like every basic theory, you're assuming operation inside a vacuum

Yeah, most web browsers will accept file:// as a valid url, though, it's probably best to set up the host as an actual webserver and then link to http://server/path rather than file://server