|
KillHour posted:I REALLY wish I was in the marketing meeting where this was discussed. I feel this image doesn't accurately reflect the body type that someone ordering LTO tapes might typically have. I mean obviously in my case it would, but otherwise? Not so much. What I am curious about is if this guy could pick up someone in-spite of the toucan? My guess would be yes.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
LochNessMonster posted:I'm not a complete jerk, not retarded and worked with the tools from pre-HP era. Only thing is I'm living in Europe, do you guys have offices over here as well? Our only physical location is in Austin, everyone else (myself included) is remote. I don't believe we've got anyone currently in Europe, or really anywhere outside the US tbh. We were angling for a project with a company in Germany that never really went anywhere though, so I would imagine something could probably be worked out. We mostly do OO/CSA with a little SA and DMA here and there, and so far as I know we don't have a ton of expertise with the stuff you've used--I myself have never really touched any of it aside from a tiny bit of uCMDB. I can talk to my boss if you think you might be interested. Feel free to PM me or email, username at gmail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Better than the 0.65oz package of Kellogg's Krave cereal that was included in my last Monoprice order I had a vendor include a pack of Haribo in my last order of cables. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:Our only physical location is in Austin, everyone else (myself included) is remote. I don't believe we've got anyone currently in Europe, or really anywhere outside the US tbh. We were angling for a project with a company in Germany that never really went anywhere though, so I would imagine something could probably be worked out. We mostly do OO/CSA with a little SA and DMA here and there, and so far as I know we don't have a ton of expertise with the stuff you've used--I myself have never really touched any of it aside from a tiny bit of uCMDB. I can talk to my boss if you think you might be interested. Feel free to PM me or email, username at gmail. dropped you a PM, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 10:57
|
|
|
DigitalRaven posted:I had a vendor include a pack of Haribo in my last order of cables. Sugar Free?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Sugar Free? Nah, this was the real stuff. Not the gastrointestinal apocalypse variety. I keep meaning to put a small bowl of the sugar-free ones on my desk, and have a bowl of the real stuff in a drawer somewhere. That way, the annoying fuckers who just take a couple get all the nasty side effects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
DigitalRaven posted:Nah, this was the real stuff. Not the gastrointestinal apocalypse variety. Just wrap marbles in cellophane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:And I just found out our level one help desk guys are logging directly into DCs to do AD management. loving seriously. I can only use RSAT when LOGGED IN as my admin account (as opposed to my user account where I do 90% of my job). How much of a shithead am I for doing this occasionally instead of logging out and logging back in as my admin account, or RDP into another server that isn't a DC? Edit: I need some help. I've got random users complaining about "slow computers" and I can't quite nail down the problem. It appears to be a lag in network performance of their file shares, but I can't prove it. It could be specific to their profiles, but their profiles load fine on other computers, and my profile loads fine on the computers in question. User profiles are hosted on our SAN along with the files they are trying to access. This affects about 1 in 80 users, and only from certain computers. Their internet performance is fine, there's not a memory leak or an over usage of ram/processor. Does anyone have any suggestions on helping me diagnose this? Note: I haven't certified their network drops. GnarlyCharlie4u fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Why aren't you using Run As for your RSAT? There's no need to actually log in with your admin account in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Why aren't you using Run As for your RSAT? There's no need to actually log in with your admin account in most cases. Yup. Right click while holding shift
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Walked posted:Yup. There was some GPO fuckery preventing this from working. UAC would prompt, but then immediately be closed, then re-prompt and get stuck in an endless loop. Until literally just now I forgot that we fixed that. That's why I had to be actually logged in to the account instead of using "runas /user:" So... I guess I've just been a tremendous dickhead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:There was some GPO fuckery preventing this from working. UAC would prompt, but then immediately be closed, then re-prompt and get stuck in an endless loop. The fact that you're actually reflecting on what happened proves you're not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
So we have a datadog package configured to be present / absent in azure DSC. We want to save the yaml configs in azure blob storage to be accessed by any of our resource groups - anybody here done anything like this? Haven't found any answers yet, figured I'd ask here. Still looking...
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:I can only use RSAT when LOGGED IN as my admin account (as opposed to my user account where I do 90% of my job). If your "non-admin" account means it's just not a domain admin but is still a local admin, then you're losing 90% of the expected protection of separate accounts. If your regular account gets served an angler ad and a key logger installed, you'll still be exposing the admin user+pass to an infected keyboard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Literally every person at my workplace uses local admin as their daily account.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
CloFan posted:Literally every person at my workplace uses local admin as their daily account. Please stop
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
sudo su - and chill
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
CloFan posted:Literally every person at my workplace uses local admin as their daily account. University IT is the best. I'm going to have serious culture shock once I get into a real environment where your average user doesn't have local admin on their machines. (Yes, I know this is terrible. No, there isn't anything I can do to change it.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
We used to have a three-strikes policy where if a user contracted virus/malware three times within a year, they lost local admin. Faculty raised a stink, VPs got involved, that policy got revoked. Now we just reimage their poo poo and say "I hope you backed everything up!" Lucky for us, modern AV and an enforced UAC has kept us pretty clean. That, and since implementing a remote assistance program users don't mind calling and asking if something is legit before clicking on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
CloFan posted:We used to have a three-strikes policy where if a user contracted virus/malware three times within a year, they lost local admin. Faculty raised a stink, VPs got involved, that policy got revoked. Now we just reimage their poo poo and say "I hope you backed everything up!" I've come to the conclusion that the majority of users are still simply too incompetent to be subjected to policies like that. When possible, it's better to remove the temptation all together by either blocking access to Facebook chat and ISP email services outright (since they have a bad track record of giving a poo poo about phishing/trojans; Google, Yahoo, and MS do a substantially better job) or proxying them and blocking file downloads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
keseph posted:If your "non-admin" account means it's just not a domain admin but is still a local admin, This doesn't make sense to me. Why would this be a thing? I also remembered why I have a bad habit of RDP into servers for AD poo poo. I pretty often have to gently caress around with ownership/permissions and move files between people's shared drives. It generally involves changing perms for like 6 different groups so I'm not gonna icacls "h:\location\of\path" /q /c /t /grant Users:x" when I can just log into a server and check a bunch of boxes. CloFan posted:We used to have a three-strikes policy where if a user contracted virus/malware three times within a year, they lost local admin. Faculty raised a stink, VPs got involved, that policy got revoked. Now we just reimage their poo poo and say "I hope you backed everything up!" It only takes once to get cryptolocker though... They're right in not allowing local admin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
We use 3:4 monitors at 1024x768, and I asked my boss when we were going to get monitors from this century. His response was to get mad at me, say the resolution is fine and it's all anyone should need. "What, you want us to buy everyone 22" widescreen monitors!?!?" Uh.... yes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
keseph posted:If your "non-admin" account means it's just not a domain admin but is still a local admin, then you're losing 90% of the expected protection of separate accounts. If your regular account gets served an angler ad and a key logger installed, you'll still be exposing the admin user+pass to an infected keyboard. Hey my domain admin got owned by a pen tester this morning and I think this is why  Time to set up a dedicated RSAT box
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
KillHour posted:We use 3:4 monitors at 1024x768, and I asked my boss when we were going to get monitors from this century. His response was to get mad at me, say the resolution is fine and it's all anyone should need. "What, you want us to buy everyone 22" widescreen monitors!?!?" From my experience, they'll all want you to set the resolution to 1024x768 anyway. We've upgraded a ton of folks to 22" 1080 monitors and they all complain "I can't see the icons, they're too small". 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
TWBalls posted:From my experience, they'll all want you to set the resolution to 1024x768 anyway. And then bitch about the black bars on the sides.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:And then bitch about the black bars on the sides. No, they will want it to stretch to fill the black space. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
TWBalls posted:From my experience, they'll all want you to set the resolution to 1024x768 anyway. We've upgraded a ton of folks to 22" 1080 monitors and they all complain "I can't see the icons, they're too small". That's fine. I dealt with a guy today that had 150% zoom at 1024x768. It makes him happy. But when I'm remoted in, I need to be able to see to work on the guy's computer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
KillHour posted:That's fine. I dealt with a guy today that had 150% zoom at 1024x768. It makes him happy. But when I'm remoted in, I need to be able to see to work on the guy's computer. Holy poo poo. I hope these people don't drive if their vision is that bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
TWBalls posted:Holy poo poo. I hope these people don't drive if their vision is that bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
TWBalls posted:Holy poo poo. I hope these people don't drive if their vision is that bad. He also complains things don't fit on the screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
TWBalls posted:From my experience, they'll all want you to set the resolution to 1024x768 anyway. We've upgraded a ton of folks to 22" 1080 monitors and they all complain "I can't see the icons, they're too small". I'm not sure what's worse, running a super low resolution or running a super high DPI. Actually the DPI has a funny side effect, it makes Outlook signature images super loving huge to the recipient.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Nearsightedness and farsightedness are different problems, hope this helps 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
I just had an interview with 3 different people where 2 of them would be working under me and I would be reporting directly to executive management, and all 3 are already management. I think 2 of those 3 people didn't really appreciate that my job there will exist. I've never had an interview for such a position, should I expect going in that i may be hated just for existing in the company? I'm also younger than the 2 that would be working under me
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Yea that seems a reasonable thing to think. I'm not in management but do potential managers routinely get interviewed by underlings?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
SaltLick posted:Yea that seems a reasonable thing to think. Seems abnormal to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
yeah that seems awkward as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
They are going through a restructuring after realizing their rapid growth requires a high level engineer to rearchitect or they could possibly not have the capacity to meet demand, and this is apparently part of their reorganization. A lot of it was abnormal, and some part downright scary (like no one being able to tell me what hardware they use in the core) but I was referred by a friend at the company who said the risk is worth the scare. It wasn't too awkward, maybe more for them than me, but I am an easy going guy and made it very clear I am less interesting in managing people and more interested in helping solve their problems
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
SaltLick posted:Yea that seems a reasonable thing to think. If you're a small company and the underling is the only one who has a clue about technology, I could see them being around for at least the first round / part of the interview. I have been on both sides of that table. But that specific situation does sound super awkward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
I've been in the situation where the company owner wanted to hire a manager for the project I started that would be above me. He also didn't tell me I would be under him until after I interviewed him. I wasn't happy about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
SaltLick posted:Yea that seems a reasonable thing to think. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 21:46
|
|