Gibson335

Is there any categorical evidence to confirm that with 'Education' the feature upgrades can't be managed by WSUS?

Pushed that out last month and have had no reported issues, and not seen anything myself.

Cited after the game doesn't help England during the game. The TMO influenced the Farrell yellow, but if they thought that warranted a card, why didn't they intervene for the attack on Brown? Don't get me wrong, that's not the reason we lost the game, but if one is a card then so is the other, and given all the TMO influence we've seen so far, where was it when it would have favoured us for 10 minutes? Burgess clearly deserved his, so again how was that not given? It's all got a bit messy since they took decision-making away from the three main officials - mainly because it's crept into the game more and more, and not just for try/no try.

There's no shame in being beaten by the better team, and England were this weekend. Where they failed in the Pool was in not beating a poor and injury-ravaged Welsh side. We picked up a few injuries of our own in that game, so it made no sense at all that when Wales suffered two more at the same time we then made several unforced changes. England lost all impetus at that point. Then, with basically our third-string hooker on, a man with a reputation for not throwing particularly well, we opt for a lineout rather than take a penalty to level things up. To counter the pressure on the hooker Robshaw opted to go short in the lineout, thereby making it so much easier for Wales to push us into touch. The only issue I took exception to in the Aussie game was seeing Farrell get a card for what was, really, an offence no worse than one that occurred in the first half when Mike Brown was taken out of a ruck by an Aussie who smashed him with his shoulder having run 10 yards to do it. We got the penalty, but no card was shown. Burgess's tackle was possibly the worst of the three, and went unpunished!! What drove me mad was seeing England time and time again playing into Aussie hands by our players running into contact alone and getting turned over - when you know that's the Aussie strength, counter it by having another player go into contact at the same time, don't leave your man to get scavenged. I always thought we might lose this game, but we could and should have beaten Wales, making the games to come very interesting indeed. Oh, well, at least I'm half Irish.

Would send out the wrong message in my view. Hardly fair on the players who did make themselves available for all those games leading up to the tournament by staying here. Armitage is exactly the kind of player we're missing, one of the best in his position, so it's a big miss. The Aussies changed the rules and were able to bring back several players, and had we done the same a year or so ago and had Armitage playing since, then fair enough. But allowing him to turn up and play here and now and then wave goodbye again immediately afterwards is not the answer - in my view.

Yeah we've had it for longer than I can remember, and wouldn't be without it now...don't know why I always thought it updated the global list, but may simply have made that assumption right from the beginning.

That's very interesting Rich - I had assumed it was being updated. That's a bit of a mark against it, but not a deal breaker for me...

I don't have the answer to that - it would appear so, as I can't see any way in which it could work otherwise. All I can say is that we've been using it for years - having initially tested securus - and find it extremely useful for all kinds of reasons, with 'safeguarding' being one of them. Only the other day we were able to pinpoint a user who had printed something unsavoury about another student...had a screenshot of the incident, tagged to his network account, date, time, computer used.

Not much of a rule if you can just forget about it when it suits. I think it's a bad rule and should be scrapped, but it's there and has to be abided by. I think D'arcy is being unnecessarily harsh on the actual performance, but I also don't agree with Burgess being there. His union experience is limited, and much of it not spent playing centre, and I think Burrell would have been the better option. Lancaster's thinking - to me at least - is all over the place, because having selected Burgess for certain strengths, he then withdrew him at a point where Wales were playing the type of game that would have suited Burgess...when his physical presence may have been an advantage.

There are red-flag screenshots and logs of users/computers/sites visited/documents used/ plus black and white lists, configurable by room/group if necessary. It's a great tool.

Yeah, I'd feel quite comfortable that another NM could come along and that our depth of documentation would allow them to take over speedily, but not that a technician could step up and do the same.

That's exactly the way I see things, and also the kind of change I'd like to make to staffing here.

Do you have an ICT faculty head? If so, speak to them about the academic/curric side of things. It's very hard not to use tech-speak and acronyms when developing a plan, so make sure you include a key as to what everything means. I would do two documents - a bullet point general strategy, followed by a more detailed breakdown of what it is, why it's important, its predicted longevity, and some ballpark figures. But also be aware that 5 year plans will change...3 year plans will change...going into this summer I was completely unaware of 2 major developments that SLT have subsequently agreed to do next summer, snatching away 30 grand of my budget plans in the process...have B, C and even D plans as well...

In my view, the situation has changed over time. Many years ago it was quite natural for techs to gain all kinds of skills that were interchangeable with that of NM, but the larger and more complex networks have grown, I'm not sure that's always possible now. Unless you get someone in from a networking background, then it's not always easy to find either the right staff or the right training/opportunities for techs to become engineers...and if you do they'll probably leave for better money. I looked at our situation a few years back and decided it would be better if there was no overlap whatsoever, and that the techs concentrated on specific tasks and the normal firefighting stuff. Given another staffing change I could easily revert back...but currently, in answer to your question, no they couldn't. If something happened to me, our external support providers would step up whilst a replacement person or system was sorted.

Been using Stone for many years, have had only 2 account managers and they have both been superb. For pre- and post-sales, support and quality of workstation, I would highly recommend them. Wouldn't do the same for their laptops, but stations are great with a very small failure rate.

I suspect many of the people who would opt for less security would be the first to moan if their lesson or their data was compromised by something a student did. Many of them have no concept of just how much damage could be done.

Am having a trial of JitBit at the moment and liking it.

Boks v Japan best game so far - easy one to choose there. England looked nervy, which was understandable, but have to take several huge steps forward to even get out of the group. Ireland have every aspect of the game it seems to me, but their forwards need to step up a little. Wales good in parts, but progress may depend on injuries. NZ not at their best, but dominated the second half - they swarm all over teams for 80 minutes and always look as if they have 1 or 2 more players on the pitch.

This is what we do - so perhaps I've also missed the point of the question. Once we create them we never touch them again until they leave.

I provide a guide, with a special section for staff, which is stored on a network share and they can access it from a link I include in a mail. There is also an Excel file for them with all new students users on it. In the same area they also get their remote RDP files.

Don't overlook the legal side - insurance, misuse, loss, theft, damage, etc. Also, if using in a way where data may be collected, or using mail, then also include the issue of remote data wipe.

Has anyone ever had a single printer just disappear from the list on their print server. In this case it was a Toshiba printer-copier. I've read threads where whole lists disappear and reappear after spooler restart, but this device just wasn't there anymore. It's a 2008R2 server, but unsure whether this is a server-specific or device-specific matter. I would normally suspect a user deletion, but only 3 of us have permissions to do so, and none of us did. Any thoughts? Cheers.

Came in this morning to a load of old external mails - cue beaming smile. Ran tests prior to informing staff - no mail again...cue blazing fury!!

Apparently, they are working with Cisco on this as equipment they had to replace simply isn't working as expected.

Yep - problems yet again.