jamesb

I'll still stick with my Orange Nokia N85 thanks. The colour scheme's better.

You're just jealous of our Orange Wednesdays.

I always thought that was an expensive drain cleaner. If its not single malt then its suitable only for mixers.

Have you added the AD groups to the SharePoint install by going to People and Groups, new, and importing them there?

The only thing I can think of is that they were connecting automatically.

Perfect, thank you.

psexec is a command-line tool for remotely running commands. You can find all the details on it here: PsExec If you use the @file parameter you can specify a file with a list of computers which it'll then run the command against. If you don't have a file, you can use the PowerShell script above to pipe the output to a file instead of psexec and then use that list in the command.

I've recently started doing a lot of PowerShell scripting, and my favoured editor is pNotepad. However I've had trouble finding/installing a PowerShell scheme for it which would make things a lot easier for me. If anyone knows of one (or even as a last resort another editor which does syntax highlighting for PowerShell already) please let me know.

Start-up script's one option. Or there's the psexec option, but using VBscript or Powershell to grab a list of all computers in the domain and dump their names into the psexec command line. $strCategory = "computer" $objDomain = New-Object System.DirectoryServices.DirectoryEntry $objSearcher = New-Object System.DirectoryServices.DirectorySearcher $objSearcher.SearchRoot = $objDomain $objSearcher.Filter = ("(objectCategory=$strCategory)") $colProplist = "name" foreach ($i in $colPropList) { $objSearcher.PropertiesToLoad.Add($i) } $colResults = $objSearcher.FindAll() foreach ($objResult in $colResults) { $objComputer = $objResult.Properties Write-Host("Uninstalling from $objComputer.name") & psexec [url="file://\\$objComputer.name"]\\$objComputer.name[/url] -u -p msiexec.exe /x {an-extremely-long-product-code} /q } You can take out the -u and -p bits if you don't need to run the uninstall under a specific account, or throw in a -s command to run it under the system account.

VBScript? PowerShell? D'you just want the groups created in one OU, and a long list of groups created, or do you want them organised into different OUs?

Cool, my first ever piece of negative rep. Apparently for flaming , as best I can translate the associated comment.

Fairly low bet that it was caused by a woman, much more likely to be caused by a male tourist out for the first time on the autobahn and not quite understanding that the speed limit's meant to be 'safe and reasonable', as in a speed at which you can comfortably control your car. Either that or a Blues Brothers fan.

It also means that if someone yanks a copy of the AD database off the server, they can't get much out of it - i.e. only users who log on in that part of the domain are potentially compromised.

All I know is that the Orange plan I'm on is 'unlimited', which works out to be about 500MB a month. Not really unlimited but more than I've managed to use so far.

Read-only's more secure, it'll mean that while someone at the second site can still reset passwords and so on they won't be able to do anything major in AD. Massively reduces support calls if people can't mess with their DC.

Remote Apps, works like a charm. You could put the difficult applications on this and have them appear (to the user) to be running locally. Set up a second domain controller on Site 2 and limit replication traffic using AD Sites and Services.

And I take it numbers 2-23 are also advertisers? Obviously any viable competitor would have a reasonable share of the market. No, it is Google's fault. Until recently Google would reserve trademarks if the owners requested it. Recently they've changed their policy on this so that their customers no longer have any right to protect their trademark in search queries. Google have changed this policy, condoning and allowing this unethical behaviour, in order to make more money. I used the stats which I could find. My bad. I take it then that you're saying Google are just a sweet, small little company with no market position worth worrying about? Microsoft aren't a monopoly. They are just the dominant software company. When on earth did I suggest that? I just think that its not unreasonable to take sensible precautions against a company which appears to be highly unethical. No one's talking about lynchings, and we're not talking about people either. We're talking about a company, a corporate entity. Waiting for a court case to be concluded before taking precautions is asking for trouble, these cases have taken years in the past and they will continue to do so. You need to make a sensible judgment based on your own knowledge of the situation, including anecdotal evidence and all other evidence you can gather. If a car manufacturer makes substandard cars with a high level of dangerous failure, and this is known, should I wait for a product recall before I stop driving their car? Google are an advertising agency with a worrying fascination with collecting personal data. Think what'll happen if they get your medical records. Log on to check the latest comment your doctor's put on and get the banner ads 'Buy antidepressants now!'. I'm quite happy to change my position if someone can provide evidence that Google are in fact 'not evil' as they claim. What irks me about them is their attempt to pretend that they are good guys, when in fact they're just another profiteering company. That's the problem I have. I'd love to be organising protests and similar, sadly I have a full-time job at which I often work late and many other interests. My life does not revolve around taking down Google (I don't even really want to see them taken down, just the acceptance that all they are is yet another profit-driven company who'll do anything in the name of a buck).

Where do google sit in the popularity charts on your logs? And the other way around? It allows a giant company to quash their competition by advertising on their trademarks. Lets say you own a small company which make shoes, and you have a fairly brisk online trade. Nike are now allowed to buy your trademark so that when someone's searching for your brand name, Nike is the first thing they'll see. Nope, I'm afraid I do see a problem with that. Wait, so now a monopoly does have to be worldwide? You could turn around and state that if you want, but Google still have a monopoly here in England. Pretending that they don't is willful foolishness. I'm not moving the goalposts. I said that google have a monopoly and they do. I believe there's sufficient evidence that a full investigation into the matter should be launched, and I'm relieved that this is finally starting to happen (even if it is only with the matter of the book scanning so far - more will follow). I am not willing to wait and trust a company simply because they say that they don't do evil, and the nice big friendly courts haven't investigated them yet. We're talking here about a company who have a huge amount of influence - look at the number of ex-Google employees who have been appointed as advisors in the US. For that matter look at the current proposal by the conservatives that your national health service records could be outsourced to google. I'm not willing to wait until the damage is done before complaining about this company and calling for an investigation into them. Unfortunately I lack the political influence to do it, but I can at least try and make people aware of the unethical practices.

If you're concerned only about legal cases then Google are currently being investigated for their settlement regarding orphaned books, giving them a monopoly on rights for any books where the rights holder is unknown or cannot be contacted. I suspect more cases will follow now that Google are no longer seen so much as the sweet innocent kid of the internet. Where? I very rarely notice any adverts which aren't provided by Google. No, it'd be like sneaking into an Audi showroom and slipping up to potential Audi customers, handing them flyers advertising BMWs. Or given that they can use misleading language in the adverts themselves, more like setting up your own showroom in front and slapping to wrong logo on your door to get people to come in. Google condone this. Before Microsoft's unethical practices were determined in court, were they still unethical? If someone doesn't face trial for something immoral, does that mean they did the right thing? If a loophole lets someone escape, should they be said to be innocent? So what you're saying is the number varies widely, and that China's usage (with a huge population) skews the figures? I'll have a look and see if I can find Microsoft's market share in England and the US, since we've got Google's share in those two countries. A monopoly doesn't have to be world-wide, it can apply to one nation. Yeah, like I said, I goofed on that one. My bad. Doesn't discredit the rest of my argument and at least I admitted my mistake.

No one is forced to use Windows for computing. Linux is available for very competitive rates. Obviously then Microsoft don't have a monopoly. Google's market share means that Microsoft and Yahoo are rarely used. When did you last see any site using someone else's advertising banners, other than possibly alongside Google's? The point isn't whether they can police it or not, its whether, when called on it, they allow it. Google have stated that they believe this is fair and reasonable and that they will not be preventing the sale of trademarked keywords to competitors for advertising, nor preventing competitors using trademarked terms in their adverts. Just to clarify that would mean that as far as Google are concerned Coca Cola could buy Pepsi as a search term, and use it to advertise their own products. What they do with it is mislead their customers, charge them variable amounts with little or no justification or explanation, and abuse their dominant marketplace position. Worldwide search stats have proved very hard to track down, but Google is far and away in the dominant place in most countries. The only exceptions that are noted by hitwise are Russia, the Czech Republic, Korea, China and Japan. If you can find an actual worldwide statistic, feel free to let me know. Google's market share is close to 90% in the UK, and over 70% in the US. That seems like something very close to a monopoly for me, but maybe I'm just assuming that having a dominant market position and abusing it to unfairly profit from your customers is what monopoly laws are there to prevent. Safari. IE8 by the way gives you the option during install to change the default search engine, as well as the search accelerators used. This's improved since last time I looked, so my mistake. Try looking into how they treat their advertisers. Not the big companies who can afford to pay a fortune, but the more common, reasonably sized companies. There are sources all over the place about the unethical practices by google to unfairly target these people.

Yes. They're users, what do you expect? And unlike in a school there might actually be people working late (in theory, I don't know if civil servants actually know that you can stay at work past four-thirty), so you can't do a site-wide automatic power down.

But they are using their market share in online advertising/search engines to force people to use their advertising mechanism despite the layers of secrecy that prevent customers being able to use it effectively, and which unfairly impose surcharges on customers. Not to mention the ethics of selling other people's trademarks to competitors in many countries. A monopoly is a monopoly, even if its in a service. Approximately 88.4% of machines which log on to the internet are running a Microsoft OS. In the UK google have approximately 90% of all search hits. Many browsers use google as the default search engine, and make it very hard to change (Yes, IE uses Bing but its easy to change if you want). As such, the only option for advertisers is to go to google and accept their unethical business practices. Yes, this is google leveraging their market share to force unfavourable terms on many of their advertising clients.

My, you are an optimist. As to Google they're a monopoly, in every sense of the world. Not only that but their practices with online advertising are plainly immoral. They obfuscate the method as much as they can, refusing to give any details. They've brought in such wonderful things as automatic matching (if your budget isn't spent by your normal bidding, they'll automatically spend the rest each month unless you opt out - which takes some doing). Its possible to pay over the odds for a keyword, and still have your result showing on the fifth page of the searches, and they actively encourage domain parking (content free sites full of adverts). On top of all this they're facing various data protection charges, their behavioural tracking is worse than any government's, and they have the guts to say that their company motto is 'Don't be evil'. I think that last bit is what gets me most of all. At least Microsoft never pretended to be the good guys.

Please, Apple are more Microsoft than Microsoft are nowadays. While Microsft are (very cautiously, and with more than a little difficulty) embracing open source Apple have built their own closed-source Linux which will only run on their hardware, and will sue anyone who tries to built hardware compatible with it. They're also locking people into their media players and phones as tightly as they possibly can, and doing their best to kill the possibility of anyone else using their (admittedly relatively good) media store. Obviously Apple have finally learned from Microsoft's tactics, just when Microsoft are starting to get beyond them. Google are just as bad.

Just looking for prices for a friend of mine who's after a cheapish laptop which'll allow them to do DVD editing, and word processing. They've picked up an Acer Aspire 5935 which they're going to take back as it was an impulse buy from the high street, and they've paid over the odds. I said I'd help them find better prices. Doesn't have to be an Acer, but does need to be able to display and edit DVDs and have a decent sized keyboard.