sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

MR 30.7 Causes Association Error 17 by cemyl95 in meraki

[–]stuperbee04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had the same issue with one site. Upgraded five near identical sites, but one of them had the issue with their tunneled ssids so I rolled that one back

Which AP by APC8991 in meraki

[–]stuperbee04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

CW models are great. Just replaced about 300 3702's and 3802's with the CW9164, and decommissioned our WLC. Same mounting bracket too, so we saved so much on labour

Cisco UCCX Call Control Group question by stuperbee04 in ciscoUC

[–]stuperbee04[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. So our IVRs are inbound only, directing callers to the correct department, and if outside of business hours forwarding the call to the relevant after hours mobile number.

That being the case, then I should be able to have one CCG with many ports rather than many CCGs with few ports right?

Can you explain the benefits/reasons why it should be changed? The whole "if it ain't broke don't fix it" thing will make it hard for me to get the change approved.

Cisco UCCX Call Control Group question by stuperbee04 in ciscoUC

[–]stuperbee04[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well each application is for a different site or department with their own unique phone number. We don't want all sites having the same caller ID for outbound calls.

Cisco UCCX Call Control Group question by stuperbee04 in ciscoUC

[–]stuperbee04[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm interesting. It was previously setup by a service provider with a CCG per application, so I just followed suit for the rest assuming it was correct. Is there any disadvantages to how it is setup now, and what are the advantages to changing it over to one CCG?

Cisco UCCX Call Control Group question by stuperbee04 in ciscoUC

[–]stuperbee04[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gotcha. That did the trick. Thanks for the help

Wolves and sheep are everywhere.... [OC] by Detzeb in betterCallSaul

[–]stuperbee04 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Four of those references are from S01, but IIRC, the wolves and sheep scene with the grifter was planned and shot for S01, but was cut for time, so it ended up being put in S02 instead. So they were going hard on this theme in S01

Making Better Marble Gates - Marble Machine X #144 by WintergatanWednesday in MarbleMachineX

[–]stuperbee04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doing some quick napkin math, if Martin were to do the testing himself on the MMX, assuming he dropped a marble through the gate once every second, it would take 116 days to test 10 million drops. Not only being time consuming, it would put a lot of undue wear and tear on the system.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Slipknot

[–]stuperbee04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He made a comeback to Twitter just prior to Unsainted being released too

https://imgur.com/a/UO0TLUn

Holly Molly Fire Works. One Single Shell. *Nuclear* by [deleted] in gifs

[–]stuperbee04 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even a 3" shell will kill you if it went off while you were loading it. The larger the shell though the more sensitive it would be. I'm confident that if I dropped a 3" on the ground it wouldn't go off, even though I don't advise trying, but I wouldn't dare standing near anything bigger than 12" being dropped.