jamesb

$strAppend = '@mydomain.com' $credLive = Get-Credential $Session = New-PSSession -ConfigurationName Microsoft.Exchange -ConnectionUri https://ps.outlook.com/powershell/ Import-PSSession $Session $file = Import-CSV('path to CSV file') foreach ($user in $file) { $mail = $user + $domain New-InboxRule -Name "Delete Redirected mail" -Mailbox $user -DeleteMessage:$True New-InboxRule -Name "Redirect to personal mail" -Mailbox $user -RedirectTo $mailaddress -StopProcessingRules:$False } That won't handle outputting the addresses back to the file. I never could get the hang of output again, but you might be best constructing the result in an object and then using Export-CSV.

This is exactly when you seize the role. Normally transferring the role asks for permission before taking it over. If you seize the role, the new DC just takes over without checking first. The important bit is that you never, ever bring that original DC back online. Once the role has been seized from it the official guidance is to decommission it fully, though you can usually get away with reformatting. Again, seize the role. The important thing is to get the network fully functional again. What you do with the dead server afterwards is secondary. Both these answers are just based on what I have been taught, and what I recall as being best practice.

Is it always exactly at 12 o'clock? Can you ping or contact any servers on their end before 12 o'clock? Have you checked that the laser is powered on (you can use a digital camera to see the actual beam)? Does anything specific happen at 12 o'clock? When does the internet disconnect each evening?

Anything between the two schools?

AD is based on LDAP, which is meant to be extensible and customisable. However once you have added an attribute to AD (or any LDAP database) it is there for good. There is ADAM, which is linked in to AD, but has a separate repository which might be an option for you. Microsoft do have a best practice document for extending the AD schema - Extending the Active Directory Schema which might be useful for you.

Yes. It's where the whole 'proof' terminology came from. They used to prove the strength of alcohol by mixing a little of it with gunpowder, and it is essentially a rough measure of flammability. Anything 100 proof or more (slightly more than 50% alcohol) will ignite very easily. Stronger, and you're bordering on the explosive.

I'd be very surprised if they didn't. They are an advertising company focussed on data collection, targeted advertising and personal profiling after all. I'd be very surprised if they could misplace data.

I suspect it's more of the Buzz situation. "Oh, we didn't realise that people might not be comfortable with us doing that, it was an accident, we're sorry." And again, what exactly did they think the data was? Any normal company going around, doing this without telling anyone would've been condemned by now. I don't see what's so different about google, just because they have a history of getting away with ignoring privacy (and copyright). They've already demonstrated a willingness to flout the law with regards to copyright, and to tread as close as they can on privacy, waiting until people complain before correcting their behaviour. That is not how a responsible company should act.

They did however store the data. I find the claim that they were doing it 'accidentally' a little odd as well. An accident would be something I'd believe if, say, it had been happening for a week. Maybe as much as a month. An accident does not continue for several years until a government intervenes and points out what's been going on. Where did they think all of this mysterious data was coming from? The biggest problem is that google's history on respecting privacy and individual rights is not at its best. The whole Buzz incident nicely highlighted that. It seems that as far as google are concerned any expectation or request for privacy is both opt-in, and suspicious. Edit: As for the law, interpretation comes into play a lot. Technically it is unauthorised access, but the defense has been used in the past that failure to implement basic security can be counted as implicit permission to access a system. Obviously, where an attempt has been made to implement security there is no debate, no matter how basic that security may be (anyone whose data was captured when they had set their SSID not to broadcast is not giving implicit permission to access their wifi, regardless of encryption).

I'm going to make an attempt to compromise on a metaphor - google are peering through your windows, and it's your fault for not drawing your curtains as you should have no expectation of privacy. Not a metaphor I agree with 100%, as I feel that google's actions here are unethical and intrusive, as well as indefensible.

They've not left the front door open, just unlocked. Slightly different situation. Google haven't even knocked on the door and checked, just barged in, had a look around, taken what information they can grab and left. So yes, in that situation trespassing charges would be justified.

A* - B, with one C where I didn't do the coursework either (Food Technology - I wanted Home Economics but it wasn't offered, and I was forced to take a technology subject). Granted, but largely because of the way that the national curriculum is designed rather than the way that things are taught. There are too many unrelated facts in the curriculum, and not enough skills being taught. Not that I'm against extending the school day. School running 9-5, with more optional subjects and extra-curricular activities available, maybe. And properly chosen homework would most likely be very useful. Sadly I never experienced that type of homework at school. It should, yes. Whether the worksheets normally handed out do that is a different matter. Yep. Too much random information crammed into the national curriculum again. Narrow the subjects, improve the depth, and give more choice of subjects. Maybe on a vertically tiered platform rather than the horizontal one that we have, so you start with base skills and build on them in the chosen subjects rather than everyone studying at the same level in every subject. Edit: In fact something like this - http://www.lawsloop.com/manifesto.php?name=ozymandius&page=148 - I knew I'd seen the vertical tier structure somewhere. I have less of a problem with homework at A level and university, since there it tends to be related to the subject and skillset being learned. Related, useful homework would be a good step. My parents used to read to me, and we would discuss what I was learning at school. Homework was not needed to help us spend time together, even after I discovered pubs and girls. I know that makes me unusual, but I'm mainly trying to point out that homework is not needed for children to spend time with their parents.

Set-Mailbox -Identity $user.Name -DeliverToMailboxAndForward $true -ForwardingAddress $user.EmailName [/quote] Should do it if I've got the naming right. You may want to test the properties by putting: [code]foreach ($user in $UserFile) { $user } Get-Member $user That should list out all of the users with all of their properties, and give you a list of all the properties available at the end.

As an ex-kid-at-the-top, I can assure you that some of us never wasted our time on homework. I much preferred doing my own reading around subjects. Homework didn't teach me my work ethic, that came from somewhere else. I also never got a detention for missed homework, as I learned very effective interpersonal skills in negotiation early on. Couldn't agree more. Maybe making the work more relevant and engaging would be useful, but throwing out sheets of questions at random is pretty pointless.

One down, 649 to go.

My parents are self-employed, and now have an accountant. When they were starting to build their business they could not afford to pay an accountant. Maths comes in kind of useful then. Not only that, but it's useful to be able to check the amount of change you get, make informed decisions when you read anything with misleading graphs (ones with non-zero origins for example), actually understand statistics in the news (you can see the lack of understanding of stats everywhere these days), risk-benefit analysis at a basic level (is it worth me buying the £30/month breakdown cover when I've got a reliable car), work out restaurant bills, understand interest rates on bank accounts and loans, and many, many other reasons. So while I suppose you could argue that having sub-par mathematics skills won't prevent you from making a living, it will impact your life in all sorts of little, inconvenient ways. I'm not saying that everyone should be expected to understand how to calculate quadratic equations, but basic mathematics skills are not valued highly enough as it is. How does your mate the block paver work out how many blocks he needs to pave an area? I'd be surprised if he doesn't jot down some quick calculations to work out the materials he needs for a particular job.

IWBs? Some schools will really make use of new technology, others prefer to stick with more traditional methods. It's all to do with individual school environment and budgeting.

Not really - I'm just providing you with the information about how it worked here, and what happened. You'd then decide whether that's worth doing for your school, and whether to investigate it as a pilot project, go straight into a full implementation, or other. I'm not sure why you're so desperate to assume that I think school's should be dictating projects to one another when all I'm suggesting is a bit of information sharing. Just because I give you a case study of how something works for me doesn't mean I'm insisting you implement it yourself.

True on the first point - if I put in a significant amount of effort to a project and it fails, then I would feel justified in sharing the resulting knowledge. If on the other hand it succeeds, then sharing the results of that success, the procedure that was gone through and so on, and the effect it has had could be very useful for you when you're choosing which of fifty different projects to move on to next. It was more of an idea to address the resourcing problem for new projects - which I know not all schools have as an issue. It just happens that this was the main issue I came across when I was working in schools and trying to push projects forward.

I wonder what would have happened had he added 'joking' to the post? Taking it to court was more than was necessary in this case. I'd've been a little more sympathetic if they'd just issued him a caution.

Couldn't agree more. I find it scandalous how many ladies are showing their ankles these days with no regard for public decence! And the number of men walking around with bare arms, it's enough to make me want to hit the laudanum. However the Victorians, in terms of technology, were very progressive so perhaps are not the best example in this case. I think the biggest problem with technology in schools and moving forward is to do with personnel. The more you use technology, the more resources you need to support and implement it. There is simply a limit to what you can do while still providing a reasonable standard of support to everyone else. As such any new development is seen as a resource drain rather than an opportunity - which is often the case when it is implemented. In schools I've seen where technology is pushed forward everyone is involved in driving that push, not just technical staff but also management, educators and even students. If not everyone is on board the extra workload can scupper any project, no matter how great the opportunity it offers. A middle road is needed, possibly with a group of schools working together. Each takes an implementation of technology to investigate, and takes on the risk for that implementation. If it fails, it fails, if it succeeds then they pass on the expertise and knowledge gained to others. Maybe an internet community could be set up to help with this, so that schools on the cutting edge can post details of what they are doing to others who can use those experiences to decide when is the right time for them to put technology in place. We could call it School Geek, or Educational Techies or something.

I've got something like this on my new laptop. After the first few tries it'd pick me up each time without hesitation, which was convenient. If I stand up the system locks, and switches to another user when they sit down. However I really wouldn't think it'd be appropriate in any situation where security is required. I use it purely for convenience. The system is very easily fooled with a photograph.

Green Technician needs food now!

I never learned my times tables, and still don't know them, but then I'm also reasonably good at mental arithmetic and so have never needed them. The main problem seems to be that people learn in so many different ways, and can understand subjects in different ways. There seems to be an obsession with teaching each and every possible method to make sure that you include all of the kids, rather than just trying to teach the basics and let people derive their own methods. In my opinion pretty much any rote learning seems to be a waste of time and stifle actual development of skills.

I just got the warm fuzzies.