jamesb

From what I remember it's a little like Pepsi Raw. Quite nice.

Virtualisation is fundamentally very simple. It's using software to emulate physical devices. Whether that's a server, router, network cabling or anything else. Technically the old console software emulators are virtualised environments. It gets complicated when you get into host systems, as they can be a workstation, single server, collection of servers, fully equipped datacentre or any other configuration of hardware you might care to name. In theory the host environment is irrelevant if you're only considering the virtualisation side of things, and there's no need to get too wrapped up in the details unless that's what you're trying to find out about..

It also states that trademark infringement occurs when the trademark is identical or similar, and is for products or services which are also identical or similar. So, for example, I could release a brand new type of mini-sponge which is especially soft and call it a Microsoft sponge without worrying about trademark infringement - unless Microsoft decided to go into the sponge-making business. I don't really see much for them to get upset about here.

There's not much risk of the two being confused now, is there? More important what sort of publicity is Canonical going to end up with if they decide to go after a Fairtrade cola, which isn't really competing with them in any way or benefiting from their work (aside from the occasional geeks who might pick up a pack of Ubuntu cola)?

General troubleshooting practices and an overview of the different areas that might be involved in a server/client configuration. Network administration tasks such as backup, user creation and so on would be useful to know but less essential than troubleshooting experience on the OS. That's my reading of it anyway.

It depends completely on the job. Some technicians may need to know about IIS, or DFS, or RRAS, or filestores, or AD, or DNS, or client configuration, GPO and so on. Most jobs will give an idea of the specific skills they're after.

Lots of things could be considered non-essential. I take it then that you're happy to live under the open stars (a roof isn't an essential after all), walk to work (cars aren't essential), not read books or watch films (non-essential and therefore can't be justified), eat minimally and only for nutrition (spending money on nice food is non-essential, dietary needs are) and so on. If, on the other hand, you do have non-essential things then complaining about someone taking a holiday is a little hypocritical, don't you think? I've yet to find an environment as stressful and pressured as any of the schools I've worked in. More challenging, yes, and requiring me to stretch myself more, but not as stressful or pressured.

It's a slight modification of an old saying, but I think it fits. Don't live to work, don't work to live, work to enjoy life.

There is, however, nothing wrong with wanting things. There's a fine line between a sensible desire for leisure and enjoyment (and related devices) and outright greed, but it is important to note that the line is there. If I choose to go on holiday somewhere expensive, and I save appropriately to do so, who are you to judge whether or not I 'need' that holiday? Strange, I say the same thing (without the money bit) when people ask me why I left working in education. I am much, much happier where I am than where I was.

I can second this - until recently I've been living alone. I've now got someone living with me which means that not only do I have more time (housework, cooking and such is now taken care of for me) but my costs have actually gone down without any more money coming in. It's largely because there are now meals cooked from scratch each day, which I just couldn't face doing on my own every day.

Yep, it was the threatening letters which made me escalate the whole thing. I consulted with a lawyer, but unfortunately the language in the letters is very careful and doesn't fall under libel (even though it comes very, very close to accusing you of breaking the law) or attempting to extract money with menaces (pay us and we'll leave you alone, otherwise we'll harass you). The letters only stopped after the MP for my area got involved - and I ended up with a written apology for the trouble.

Speaking of which I've been expecting a visit from one of their enforcement officers for the last year, or a letter asking me to reaffirm that I don't need a license (apparently they remove the mark saying that you don't after nine months). So far I've had neither. I'm just wondering if it's got something to do with bringing a MP into it, or if they're just disorganised and have forgotten about me.

I went into a small war with the TV licensing people over this - eventually had to get my MP involved. As others have said though, you only need a license if you are watching live television. If you do not watch live television (whether streamed or broadcast) no license is needed. Good thing too as the only thing I watch is Doctor Who and DVDs. TV license is a waste of money unless you use it.

Thanks for this. My bike's actually due in for it's six week service soon, so I may look at doing this myself instead. Also bookmarked on my phone - just in case I happen to get stranded somewhere and need to do emergency repairs.

You can give a bad reference, so long as it is accurate and you can back up anything you say. In fact, if you give a reference, you are legally required to give an accurate and honest one. You can refuse to give a reference though. References and job offers : Directgov - Employment

My family was close to the head teacher of my old school, who was appointed in my second year though. When she began the school was failing, suffering from bullying issues, poor results, and generally a bad ethos. The head teacher's method to deal with this was to simply fire the bad teachers that were in the school. Her comment was that if a teacher was bad, a disciplinary issue could be found. These were then replaced with enthusiastic NQTs and a few more experienced, more practiced teachers. The other part of her method was to get rid of disruptive students - there were about a dozen epulsions in my first year there. Over the course of a year everything in the school improved, and it went from failing to being one of the most respected schools in the area. She wasn't at all popular for the steps she took - particularly for the dismissal of some teachers who had been there a long time, but they were steps which needed to be taken so they were. The problem seems to be largely the fear of reprisals for getting rid of the few 'bad' teachers. Unfortunately these bad teachers have a disproportionate effect on the school as a whole.

I believe that you could also just set permissions on the items such that only the teachers group could see teacher items, etc. This would need each individual item to have the permissions set, but would give you just the one calendar list to work from.

Makes you sound like an ancient mariner. Nice turn of phrase.

Twenty-seven now, started out in IT at some age I can't recall doing the networking for my parents small business. In and out of it until University, usually working at schools, then left uni. Somewhat hectic time after university for a while and ended up working as a field engineer for a large company - worked out as petrol prices rose and my pay didn't that I was actually losing money by working for them. Left that job, took six months out (not by choice), got a part time job while studying with OU at a school on recommendation of my old head teacher, eighteen months later did a bootcamp course (yes I know people's complaints about them, but I still believe that if the intense training suits your method of learning and you have the experience they are incredibly valuable), found a job as a NM at a private school within two weeks of the course, moved on after revamping their network and basically putting myself out of a job to escape into the private world and haven't looked back since.* * Sequence shortened.

It's not necessarily even about getting huffy, but what's the point of replying to a post with your advice if the 'expert' has already had their say? They're the authoritative one after all, and if your advice disagrees with theirs you must be wrong. Exaggerating above but I'm trying to point out that even if someone's not overly sensitive, short tempered or anything else then having designated 'experts' can discourage others from posting a suggestion or fix. Anything which restricts the advice available is a bad thing. More points of view, generally, are better than just one if you're looking for advice.

Buy a good bike instead? I recommend a Giant Hybrid/comfort with front fork suspension. Not a recommendation for eco reasons, but dropping the daily commute from your driving mileage will reduce the total for insurance purposes. It'll also save you more than you think in petrol, get you exercise, and once you've done it for a few days you'll start to really enjoy the cycle. Of course, since a bike is cheap you'll still be able to buy a car without affecting your budget too much. Unless you're interested in high speed racing I recommend avoiding a road bike - they're fast, but you're sacrificing comfort. A mountain bike would be another option but they're somewhat wasted unless you're spending most of your time off trail. Comfort bikes, or hybrids, are ideal for a commute or a quick trip to the shops.

The quality of the staff member should definitely have an effect on things. If I'm better at my job, I should get paid more than someone who is poor at the same job. If one of them is friendly, efficient, hard-working, knowledgeable and interesting in increasing their skills to better their work and the other isn't then yes you should pay them more. Whether that's the one with qualifications or the one with experience is a different matter. Yep. Equally if they are simply better at the job they are doing. So what you're saying is, if I work hard, do the job well and work harder still to do it better then I should not be rewarded more substantially than someone who simply breezes by doing the minimum that they have to? Wasn't that the philosophy they tried in the USSR? I agree. Someone should not be rewarded for simply doing their job. If, on the other hand, they do it exceptionally well and go above and beyond what they are expected to do then they should be rewarded for that. There are more options than simply incompetent and competent. Thank goodness. I, personally, am rather glad that if I work harder I'm rewarded for it by more than a sense of self-satisfaction and well-being. It gives me a reason to try and get better still at the job I'm doing. You're saying that this shouldn't be the case?

By that logic, the manager of a small shop (say a Tescos Metro) should earn the same as the manager of a larger one (larger Tescos, say Extra). Jobs are not equal across all schools - a more challenging school needs more incentive to attract people, otherwise they'll all go for the easier jobs. They may not all get those jobs, but the better ones will, so you end up with a lower quality of staff at schools where a higher quality of staff is needed. Would you expect a network manager of a school with a small network (say 30 PCs) to earn the same as a network manager at a school with 400 PCs and a few dozen laptops?

My issue was more with the mention that someone liked the fact that not everyone owns one, since that way it's an exclusive club. The analogy was aimed at that, not aimed to criticise the phone itself.

It's a phone, a tool. Do you buy designer hammers? Having said that I have considered a Nexus and may get one at some point, but not because it makes me a member of some exclusive little club. That attitude, if anything, puts me off buying one.