I was in management a good part of my career, and I learned this.

What management actually entails is the realization that it's not about you, it's about your employees.

As manager, you are there to do whatever you have to do to help them get their jobs done. Sure, at a certain level you might set direction, etc., but you work for them, not the other way around.

Managers who forget this and think it's about "being the boss" are bound to fail, sooner or later.

Yes, it doesn't apply, and that's the point. This person, like myself, avoids TV, because I simply don't want to pay for all this stuff. I might pay for/watch TV if companies offered me acceptable choices.

I *do* get updates to the "malicious software removal tool" on my stock, unbuggered XP SP3 installation. Other security updates, no, but I do get this minimal update from time to time.

It was supposed to be a joke, son.

I lived in North Dakota for a while. Just about everyone worked on their yard, their house, etc. and thought that everyone else should do and be the same. For instance, the first weekend in April everyone raked up their yards. There might still be some snow on the ground, but it was the first weekend of April and raking your yard was what you DID. Period. And so on.

I didn't do those things. I would rather read or do stuff on the computer or go for long bike rides in summer. I didn't fit the norm. But the thing was, while I was perfectly willing to understand that others could have different motivations and priorities, they wouldn't think the same way about me.

Before you assume that my yard was an eyesore and the house a wreck--- I hired out that work. Someone painted for me. Someone mowed for me. But that wasn't good enough, because I refused to be the same as everyone else.

So this is sort of the opposite of what the poster above is saying. I didn't think everyone thinks like me --- everyone else thought I should have thought like them.

They're not "undocumented," they're illegal!

A fad that has lasted decades, and is growing.

Yes, of course. If it's bad, the US is to blame. And independent, totally unbiased, fair-minded and honest organizations with no agenda whatsoever, like the UN, ratify that conclusion at every opportunity.

Sounds like "he said - you said." Some actual facts would help the discussion.Buzzphrases like "bloated piece of bad software" on the one hand and "secure, enterprise-ready solutions" on the other, tell us nothing that can be used as the basis for a choice or decision.

I know very little about Active Directory, but I'm willing to learn if something of substance could be presented.

"the spread is lower than 8% going by score"

That should be 12%

I actually had to read the article to figure this out. The statement that White wins 56% and Black 44% is for games in which a non-draw decision is reached (per the actual article). But with 10% to 33% draws, the actual difference in score is definitely lower. Conventional scoring is 1 for a win and 0.5 each for a draw.

So White does have a persistent advantage, but the spread is lower than 8% going by score. And I think you have to go by score, that's what counts in tournament play.

Let's say over the time period in question there are 20% draws (just for the sake of calculation). Out of 1000 games there are 200 draws. White wins 56% of 800 or 448, so Black wins 352. White scores 548, Black 452, or 54.8% to 45.2%. Still a clear White advantage, but somewhat less, and lesser still as we approach the modern 33% drawn.

I'm no fan of MS or MS Office, and I use Linux/LibreOffice myself. But I'm willing to try to be open-minded and listen to the other side, and you seem willing to present it in a logical fashion. Can you say in what way or ways LibreOffice lags MS Office so badly? I'm not talking about obscure features used by only a few people. A decade of lag implies some really fundamental problems. Can you elaborate?

Heh. I live in Hawai`i. No Canadian Tire here :(

I don't have any of that junk either ... but I'm also an old codger who thinks email is modern and up-to-date, and since I play on chess.com I think I'm an advanced internet user :) I don't bother with Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, SnapChat, or any of the others. I sometimes wonder why I bother with /. for that matter.

But hey, I run Linux and I use Emacs org-mode, so I'm hip, right?

The internet can bring us information but we have to develop critical judgment on our own. That takes experience. However I think for someone willing to put in the effort, having a vast array of knowledge available can be very useful and an aid in the process of developing thinking skills.

I like it a lot more today when I can quickly look up nearly anything at all. The old days, when it took a trip to the library to consult likely out-of-date reference books, were certainly not as good.