Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 5/31/19: Confirmation, Computers, Clinton, Cruz, And Comments

Good morning.

Trying to get used to my new computer, Microsoft 10, files I can’t find and many other things. Everything is going sloooooowly. Be merciful.

1. More on the Martin Luther King revelations. Yesterday I wrote about King biographer David Garrow’s article revealing the some disturbing and previously unrevealed results of the  FBI’s (illegal) surveillance of Martin Luther King. Predictably, Garrow is under fire for daring to sully an icon’s reputation, and because the source of the material is Hoover’s attempt to undermine King, that is the mode of attack. Garrow won a Pulitzer Prize for “Bearing the Cross,” his 1986 biography of King, and has said in the past  that FBI files should be treated with skepticism. However, he is obviously so disturbed at the new revelations that were inadvertently released that he is performing what he sees as his duty as a historian. He told the Washington Post that the summaries made by FBI agents who were spying on King are accurate, noting that different types of records warrant different levels of trust in their accuracy. The files claiming King was communist, he said,  “are coming literally third- or fourth-hand from a human informant,”so their accuracy is “highly dubious…But with the electronic surveillance records, those are very highly reliable, other than when the FBI can’t understand who’s talking.”

Confirmation bias is the key here. Garrow has none that I can see: his reputation is at risk if he is wrong, and he was an admirer of King, though not blind to his previously known flaws, like his epic infidelity. So far, the reflex deniers of Garrow’s conclusion all appear to be “keepers of the flame,” or at least invested in keeping King’s reputation intact.

It is encouraging to see the Post, which apparently refused to publish Garrow’s article,  covering the story. Most media sources are not, and that is signature significance. Many of the same sources have assumed that Donald Trump engaged in wilful sexual assault based solely on his recorded hyperbolic boasts to Billy Bush. The integrity of journalism in the U.S. could not be at lower tide.

In my case, I know enough about history and the important figures who stroll, dash and charge through it not to be surprised when any of them are revealed to have engaged in objectively horrible conduct at various points in their lives. Given King’s documented sexual appetites and epic infidelities, the likelihood that he was a sexual predator is strong. Again, my position is that King’s personal, even criminal conduct shouldn’t affect the assessment of or national gratitude for his public achievements at all. This isn’t the “personal conduct” dodge that Bill Clinton’s enablers used: his conduct with Lewinski and others was related to his job, his position, and in fact occurred in his office. That’s professional, workplace conduct, not personal.

I assume this will be another story inconvenient to the news media’s favorite causes,  that journalists and editors will attempt to bury, muddy, and minimize. Yes, and anyone who attempts to raise it, analyze it and verify it will be tarred as a racist. Perhaps I am naive and optimistic, but I don’t think that will work here. Just as eventually we had to face the truth about Thomas Jefferson and Bill Cosby, even those who want to deify King will have to deal with his private character, and decide whether they really want his statues and memorials, street signs and holiday, to come down.

Of course, there will be some good people on both sides of the argument.

2. Dear Prof. Turley: I admire your blog and your integrity. But if you are not going to moderate your comments, don’t allow them. Virtually  every post is followed by a incoherent rants, tangential screeds and worse. You’re responsible for all of the content on your site. Look to Professor Althouse as a role model.

3. Dear Prof. Reynolds: Your site is an invaluable compendium of news and commentary related to current events and popular culture from a conservative perspective. Are you aware, however, how many racist and misogynist comments your readers make every day? The vile jokes and venom especially flourish on your “open threads,” which almost immediately devolve into a collection of silly memes, nasty name-calling and ad hominem attacks every night.

4. Outrageous in so many ways. Hillary Clinton is actually the keynote speaker at the FireEye Cyber Defense Summit. No, this is not satire. The woman’s complete cluelessness, lack of responsibility and competence vacuum in all matters related to computers and electronic devices caused chaos in the 2016 campaign, the election, and the culture. It is an insult to attendees to allow her to speak at such a conference, jaw-dropping that she should be paid a cent to do so, and a new entry in the Clinton Gall Hall of Fame that she would accept such a gig.

5. The unethical conduct of angry ex-wives of ventriloquists is generally low on the Ethics Alarms topic radar, BUT…this was pretty nasty. After her marriage broke up with ventriloquist Jeff Dunham, first wife Paige (yes, he cheated on her) set out to sabotage the looming new Mrs, Dunham, a fitness guru, by registering such domain names as  AudreyDunham.com, AudreyDunham.net, AudreyDunham.us and AudreyDunham.biz. This led to some protracted litigation.

The practice or taking domain names that refer to other people and organizations than the ones registering them  is obviously unethical, and the law needs to be tightened.

6. Good. Yesterday, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ted Cruz used a Twitter exchange to jointly pledge to get the legislator/lobbyist revolving door closed.  AOC shared a Public Citizen article about the long-time, conflict of interest-breeding practice, and tweeted, “If you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn’t be allowed to turn right around&leverage your service for a lobbyist check…I don’t think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you’ve served in Congress.”

Cruz tweeted back,“Here’s something I don’t say often: on this point, I AGREE with @AOC….Indeed, I have long called for a LIFETIME BAN on former Members of Congress becoming lobbyists…The Swamp would hate it, but perhaps a chance for some bipartisan cooperation?”

Ocasio-Cortez responded she would work with Cruz too produce a “straight, clean ban on members of Congress becoming paid lobbyists,” as long as there were “no partisan snuck-in clauses” and “no poison pills.” Cruz answered: “You’re on”

Gee, maybe there’s some use to Twitter after all!

 

 

31 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 5/31/19: Confirmation, Computers, Clinton, Cruz, And Comments

  1. I don’t know about a lifetime ban, 20 years seems plenty. What is it with our obsession in this country for “lifetime everything”? 3rd strike a marijuana possession? Life in prison!

    Can we please stop the insanity and recognize that 20 years is basically a lifetime and virtually nothing is the same or relevant? People grow, rehabilitate, etc.

  2. Jack, your first few weeks with Windows 10 are likely to be frustrating (and I predict we’ll hear all about it). Once you get used to it, however, I think you’ll like it a lot. It’s MUCH better than its predecessors. Bear with it. You do NOT need to use the silly Cortana feature, but the search function at lower left will help you find nearly anything. My suggestion: work with someone knowledgeable in setting up PCs to arrange your desktop as closely to the way your old machine was.

    • Windows 10 is only good compared to Windows 8.

      After 7, it just seems Microsoft just forgot how to write good operating systems. I am not even countring the mere aesthetic difference between 7 and 10 (only between 7&8 were they meaningful). I am talking about the endless bugs that ague my system at work, and often grind my productivity to a halt. Windows 10 keeps making my mouse vanish, and windows get permanently stuck off screen, forcing me to ctrl-alt-delete and potentially lose hours of work. A program called WINDOWS cannot properly manage windows – the height of incompetence!

      Microsoft only gets away with this because the competition is worse. Apple seems to deliberately alienate any of its modest fans by making all of its accessories unnecessarily obsolete (cannot even use dollar store headphones anymore, got to pony up for a proprietary connector headphones, now. Linux? I’ve tried, I really have. Just no.

      Our whole economy rests on machines that are “just ok”. Even AT&T is building a “just ok” psuedo 5g network (despite their ubiquitous ads to the contrary. The only good news is that the Trump administration seems pretty committed to preventing REAL 5g from using sketchy Chinese parts.

      End Rant. Sorry.

      • I got lucky with 10 – our IT department apparently has a protocol when they set up new machines that includes removing a zillion different on-board software programs that come with the Win 10 software. I have never had a single froggy moment with my work machine and 10 – my wife’s 10 on the other hand, can barely start before it gets lost in a maze of superfluous programs.

        • My IT department did not uninstall the superfluous programs, just disabled them. Every so often, I get a weird error that some program I don’t use and/or never heard of cannot start due to lack of permissions.

          Ugh.

  3. 1. If this gets into the mainstream, the Congressional Black Caucus will introduce a resolution condemning the whole story and anyone involved in it or covering it. The resolution will pass with all Democrats voting for it and Republicans voting present or simply not being on the floor.

  4. 2. and 3. This is the only blog whose comments I read. I don’t even read Ann Althouse’s comments. Any other comments I’ve ever read are horrible and go down hill from there. Quickly. I had assumed the jerks stay away from here, but maybe it’s diligent moderation.

      • I voted for her because I thought Trump was too far outside… everything. This time, I’v voting for Trump and hope he wins. If he doesn’t, I’m going to move to France.

  5. I have it on good authority that Mrs. Clinton’s keynote address is titled: “Like With A Cloth?: Maintaining Data Integrity When You Have None Of The Other Kind”

    • Jeff will be here all week, folks.

      She really is a polymath who can read a speech on any and every topic.

  6. In my case, I know enough about history and the important figures who stroll, dash and charge through it not to be surprised when any of them are revealed to have engaged in objectively horrible conduct at various points in their lives. Given King’s documented sexual appetites and epic infidelities, the likelihood that he was a sexual predator is strong. Again, my position is that King’s personal, even criminal conduct shouldn’t affect the assessment of or national gratitude for his public achievements at all. This isn’t the “personal conduct” dodge that Bill Clinton’s enablers used: his conduct with Lewinski and others was related to his job, his position, and in fact occurred in his office. That’s professional, workplace conduct, not personal.

    [My italics there of course].

    [First, apologies to all that I exist and that I think contrarily to the accepted lines. If I am eventually locked in a psychiatric prison I hope that someone will at least write a postcard from time to time! But I am not necessarily choosing to see what I see … or am I? I’m uncertain.]
    ___________________

    THIS IS THE HARD PART, and it is really really hard to see and to face. It is not good, and it has not turned out well, and will not at any point get better, that the Civil Rights Movement happened in America and that the former Republic was radically refashioned. It is just one of the factors that is leading to the destruction of the Republic, its subversion. If not the literal destruction then the reformulation of the Republic under the radical lines that are becoming apparent.

    This seems to be a ‘horrible truth’ — one of those difficult truths that because they are so difficult to face are avoided completely and thus become psychological complexes — that cannot be faced in our present. And because it cannot be faced, it certainly cannot be addressed, and because it cannot be addressed it will continue to *fester*.

    If anyone reading what I have just written thinks that I am comfortable with what I am saying, they are wrong. The whole thing actually makes me very uncomfortable because I cannot quite see what the alternative could or should have been, and I cannot see what it may mean — that is, if the facts were squarely faced.

    MLK fits into a general pattern or a ‘project’ that incorporates numerous different elements. One is ‘egalitarianism’ which has complex origins but is opposed to ‘organic hierarchies’. Also there is hyper-democratic idealism, a kind of misconstrue-ing of the stated Republican ideal of ‘equality before the Creator’. I assume his (MLK) advent, and the advent of a whole emotional wave of pure idealistic sentimentalism that was The Sixties, came about because of the communist ‘infection’ that resulted from siding with Communist Russia — a greater enemy, a more dangerous enemy some say, than the National Socialists of Germany. What happened there? The revisionists have poignant things to say. There is both a visible current or manifestation in MLK which hides and conceals a darker element of manifestation (no pun intended). Maybe the hypocrisy and the hidden perversion of MLKs own life are ‘symbols’ in themselves of the other, more important, perverse elements. (The deliberate creation of a multi-ethnic society, race-blending, multiculturalism under the American model, etc.). Certainly many figures in the era had similar sexual issues and excesses . . .

    I know, I know, it sounds so strange even to my own ears what I seem to propose. I do not know what to make of my own tentative assessment. But I know that people like Madison Grant and a whole array of figures from the early part of the 20th century were vitally concerned about just exactly what is now being faced by the nation 100 years later. They tried to warn about it. And their ideas were vilified and they themselves were ‘buried’: repressed really. It was the world wars, especially the Second World War, through which proper hierarchies were really attacked. Descent initiated, but one that is tarted up to be ‘progress’ and ‘advancement’ in ‘the good’. That shows the power of PR! And all of it was *sold* if you will under a banner of ‘progress’ and ‘goodness’. A sense of really doing the right thing.

    Here, and here especially, the idea of *mythical paradigms mixed into modern ideologies* really becomes apparent. But they are mythologies of such intensity and persuasiveness that they dominate perception and become *metaphysical*.

    Strangely, the puncture of the idol of MLK is similar to the complementary puncture of the Idol of Atticus, the fictional father of beloved Scout. There is a bizarre connection here. But there seem to be many ‘false constructs’ that are being questioned in our present.

    The intricate, woven web of interlocked lies that comprise the fabric of our present . . . begins to shred in crucial areas. The Self confronts a frightening sense of impending impending crisis and writhes under the pressure. I did not write this script. I just observe how it plays out.

    • I think these events are inevitable. Each of the steps toward societal collapse you mention, the Civil War, the 1960s, and King Jr., are links in a continuous causal chain, even if they’re larger links than others. I think liberalism is a doomed enterprise, like a crop of plants which upon reaching maturity release herbicides. The American founding was something like an armistice. Faced with apparent oppression from British rule and with the wars of religion still in living memory, an ideologically divided people agreed on some propositions to serve as a foundation of unity. These propositions lacked philosophical groundwork because they had to – the otherwise opposed ideologies would have divided upon discussion of metaphysical, philosophical, or religious truths. Fortuitously, in spite of the divisions, Humanists, Protestants, Catholics, Deists, &c., have a number of points in common. By enshrining those points in law, avoiding discussion of the means by which those points are rationally supported, and placing a number of mechanistic guarantees that each ideology wouldn’t trample the others, a rubric for social cohesion was struck.

      I think this worked as long as it did because Humanists, Protestants, Catholics, Deists, &c. could rationalize many of the foundational propositions through their own philosophies. These arguments were “non-canon” though, and expected to remain as unstated premises. We can see their thin agreement in their vague civic prayers that have slowly since eroded away. But what if some new ideology entered the collective and expected to be treated as equal? How would, say, a nihilist, rationalize some foundational proposition like “all men are created equal”? To him, it would simply be an alien brute fact. He would rationalize it in disparate ways and draw conclusions from it and those necessary rationalizations quite distinct from the conclusions of the original ideologies. In order for a propositional society to exist at all (and I assert that all societies are to some degree propositional), there has to be agreement on the fundamental propositions.

      A society that’s open to ideas contrary to its foundational ones is doomed to suffer a death by attrition. It’s the same result one expects to see of a nation without national borders. No unifying ideal, no unity. A country with three such ideals might as well have three presidents and congresses. Because the ideal at the start was muted behind conciliatory language, no authoritative voice can end the historic or current disputes. A collective with no ideological defenses is as open to ideological attack as a collective without weapons is open to physical attack. At any given time, is this “our” country, and if so, who are “we”? Why does what “we” agreed upon at the time of its founding have to win a debate for legitimacy against contrary thought on equal terms in “our” country? In our immediate context, because we accepted these terms as a defining proposition of liberalism.

      The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.

      Once a foundational set of ideals is established, it’s nonsensical to think that they should be treated as open questions – exactly as nonsensical as to think that would-be conquerors at the gates should be given a fair and equal fight rather than repelled with the full advantage of greater numbers, positioning, firepower, and tactics. Because there’s no official way to fight such an ideological fight in our current, modern context, it is forced into the metaphorical realm of guerrilla war, where contrived narratives and images and societal acids are the weapons of choice.

      • In order for a propositional society to exist at all (and I assert that all societies are to some degree propositional), there has to be agreement on the fundamental propositions.

        This is a fascinating observation, I’ll have to think about it more. My sense has been that there is no longer a ‘unifying proposition’ and there are different aspects of this. One is that those who hold to the Patriotic Dream of a former uniting proposition and vision engage in imaginary anachronism. You have to be a sentimentalist or a ‘stubborn dreamer’ to think that there still exist a propositional unity.

        Then, at another extreme, there are many people who have conceptually devolved within a postmodern America that has substantially eaten away at *meaning*. Perhaps they do not even think much about where they are or who they are. I wonder when I see them what *America* they conceive and how they see themselves in it. I don’t think they have much of a conception really. They seem subsumed in the machinery of the city landscape, its roads and highways, its quick-stop shops, this ‘structure’ that encases people who try to eke out an existence, though strange and postmodern. I saw many examples of this on my recent stay in Orlando. This *machinery* that surrounds them: it really has no rhyme nor reason: it has no ‘proposition’.

        Then, there are different ‘identity groups’ (as the term is used today). Peoples (tribes perhaps one should say) with some identifiable history and some sort of narrative through which they define their being. But they are as different as the people who comprise the groups, and they do not concord. People in one group have a very hard time communicating with people in the other. More or less, they don’t really communicate.

        A society that’s open to ideas contrary to its foundational ones is doomed to suffer a death by attrition. It’s the same result one expects to see of a nation without national borders. No unifying ideal, no unity. A country with three such ideals might as well have three presidents and congresses. Because the ideal at the start was muted behind conciliatory language, no authoritative voice can end the historic or current disputes. A collective with no ideological defenses is as open to ideological attack as a collective without weapons is open to physical attack. At any given time, is this “our” country, and if so, who are “we”? Why does what “we” agreed upon at the time of its founding have to win a debate for legitimacy against contrary thought on equal terms in “our” country? In our immediate context, because we accepted these terms as a defining proposition of liberalism.

        There you make a very good points. And it is not really any single person’s fault that the uniting propositions have fallen to pieces. What seems to happen in the Postwar and in postmodernism America-style is that public relations entities, in one form or other, try to create what are essentially propaganda-newsreels in which Unity and Concord are the theme. But they are filled with actors. There is no longer a foundational people, but there is a chaos of persons, and the old unifying story is rehearsed with slick production values: a patriotic commercial really. But it is substantially unreal and thus false. It does not unite nor bind. In some senses it actually widens the cognitive divide in people, perhaps making them feel more alone, more lonely.

        How strange it would be that even if people really wanted *to unite* — as all people do long to do — that with every effort, even well-meaning, it led to more estrangement.

    • Roger Kimball spells out just such an ideological decay in academia at New Criterion in an acticle titled Restoring the Lost Consensus (link omitted because WordPress is being temperamental).

      Feser cites the same mechanism as causing the Church’s current sorry state:

      People wonder: Where did all these heterodox prelates come from? The answer is that they gained prominence in the Church, and in many cases were made bishops and cardinals, precisely under John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

      Now, these popes certainly tried to reign in the worst heretical excesses of the post-Vatican II period, but they were never as draconian as their enemies liked to pretend. Though famous dissident theologians like Hans Küng and Charles Curran lost the right to label themselves officially as professors of Catholic theology, they were not excommunicated or defrocked. They have remained priests in good standing, and have continued teaching and writing and otherwise freely spreading their ideas in Catholic circles. And these are just the most visible dissidents. Countless other heterodox theologians have been left entirely unmolested and free to teach and write whatever they like, in Catholic institutions and elsewhere. Naturally, these people have had an enormous influence on generations of Catholic laymen, priests, and prelates, even if the latter usually don’t express their heterodox views frankly and in public.

      This patience with heterodoxy contrasts with the attitude of past popes. It is one thing to try to live up to the Church’s teachings and to fail, but quite another to reject those teachings and lead others to do the same. That is why, while the Church has always tolerated those guilty of sins of weakness (drunkenness, fornication, etc.), she has, traditionally, not tolerated heresy. You can’t follow Catholic teaching even imperfectly if you don’t know what it is. Hence, while other sins are like a bad flu, heresy is like cancer. If it is found in some part of the Church, it must either be cured straightaway (by convincing the heretic to repent) or removed (by excommunication, if there is no repentance). Otherwise the whole organism is threatened.

      So, why were John Paul II and Benedict XVI less severe than past popes in dealing with heterodoxy? That’s a complicated issue, but I suspect that two of the main reasons are these. First, with Vatican II, the Church sought to affirm, as far as was possible consistent with orthodoxy, whatever positive aspects might be found in modernity. This led churchmen increasingly to adopt the rhetoric of freedom, democracy, human rights, religious liberty, the dignity of the person, etc., and to deemphasize those aspects of traditional Catholic teaching that do not sit well with such rhetoric. Now, this rhetoric is, of course, the rhetoric of the liberal political tradition, broadly construed – the tradition of Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Mill, and company. And central to this tradition is the ideal of minimizing coercion, and respecting the liberty of the individual conscience, as far as is reasonably possible.

      Now, churchmen whose moral sensibilities have been formed by this sort of rhetoric are naturally going to find distasteful the exercise of coercive power. Gently persuading the heterodox is bound to seem more agreeable than disciplining them, and more in keeping with the ideals of freedom, democracy, etc. That, I submit, is one factor underlying the leniency of the post-Vatican II popes.

      The second factor, I would suggest, is that both John Paul II and Benedict XVI were intellectuals, and started out as academics. Now, the intellectual, and especially the academic, highly values the give and take of free debate, and wants to settle disagreements through argumentation rather than the exercise of authority. Of course, in an academic setting that is exactly the right approach to take. But it might be tempting for an academic who becomes pope to transfer that approach to this very different context – to treat the Church as if it were a big classroom or professional academic meeting, and the faithful as students or fellow academics who will come around to the right conclusions if only you set out the arguments for them in a compelling way.

      In short, though we admirers of John Paul II and Benedict XVI often think of them as Philosopher-Kings, they were really Professor-Presidents. And the students they should have failed or dropped from the class have now taken over the classroom.

      “edwardfeser.blogspot.com” popes-heresy-and-papal-heresy

      If this recipe wrecked ecclesiastical structures and academia in short order, one can only be surprised the nation’s lasted this long. Perhaps it was bolstered in the past by a healthy ecclesia and academe. The academy, the Church, and the state need to pronounce anathemas in order to survive.

      • This reminds me of the relevance of ‘traditionalism’: the deliberate choice to attempt to strive for a solid foundation. I turned to traditional Catholicism, though it was not my natal religion, at first because I ‘conceived’ of it as ‘properly grounded’.

        But I could only be aware of my *more real* position in acute modernism. Therefore, from my more real but lost state I desired and longed for the traditional state and understanding: that which has been said to have been disrupted if not destroyed in postmodernism, a condition of being and of consciousness.

        How odd to understand that one lives in and out of a liminal state. Well, that is how I conceive myself (and this is shared by the people around me, friends and family). We are *lost* people who are trying to find ourselves, trying to ground ourselves. I think that if I am living this — if we are living this — it is likely that the same thing is going on perhaps all over the world, but certainly in Europe, and within different people.

  7. Rich in CT:
    “I am talking about the endless bugs that ague my system at work, and often grind my productivity to a halt. Windows 10 keeps making my mouse vanish, and windows get permanently stuck off screen, forcing me to ctrl-alt-delete and potentially lose hours of work. A program called WINDOWS cannot properly manage windows – the height of incompetence!”

    I’d be looking to your work SOE (Standard Operating Environment) Rather than W10.

    After his last frustrated rant about his old computer I sen’t Jack an email telling him to get with the times and get a new computer with W10. I work in the industry with a small third party support company that has clients ranging from individuals who are complete technophobes, but think because they are the top of their chosen field that any computer issues must be the computer, Windows, or our, fault, through to national companies and franchises where we are the IT department. This is in Oz so, yeah, perhaps not big by US standards!

    I haven’t seen the problems you mention. Perhaps our people are just better at managing the system?

    My dearly beloved is a technophobe but knows it. I have to help her with copy and paste at least once a week, but since setting her up with a new computer and the latest version of Office, the latter with many changes, I haven’t had the slightest increase in ‘support calls’.

    P.S. Holding Alt + Tab shows all open windows and allows you to step through them!

    Stick with it Jack. W10 (Pro!) is fantastic, the best windows ever and there is a reason it is ubiquitous! As for the latest version of Office, Google is your friend; a frustrating, annoying, sometimes misleading friend, but still your friend. WordPress however is the enemy!

    Meanwhile, back at the topics:
    1. Apparently there is an episode of The Simpsons (Yeah, yeah, I saw a meme) where Homer finishes reading through the Bible and comments to the kids: “Everyone in this book is a mess; except this one guy”.
    I have long thought of this fact when the subject of hero/statue toppling comes up. The Bible doesn’t hide the failings of it’s greatest heroes, indeed it highlights them. Part of the reason it does this is to remind us that we all have feet of clay and are dependent on God, that we can’t ‘make it’ on our own, and part of the reason is to let us know that even when we stuff it up big time we don’t need to rip down to the beach and pull a wave over heads. Sadly, so many use this as an excuse for saying “Sky man bad” because they mistake recording facts for condoning failings.

    2 & 3. Part of the reason that this blog is at the top of my browser tab, and the only one I ALWAYS read.

    4 & 5. Best I don’t say anything. I’d just give people who hate Christians grounds for criticism!

    6. No one gets it wrong ALL the time! However, plenty do seem to be working at it!

    • Unless you need access to stuff like group policy/AD or RDP (remoting in not out) I don’t see much of a point to Pro vs home editions of w10.

      also jack would recommend getting used to some shortcuts (most of which work fine on earlier versions of windows as well.

      Windows key + e = file explorer
      from here on I will call WIndows key “super”
      Super + d = hide all windows
      Super + tab = show all open windows (don’t have to hold it like alt tab can just look through and click the one you want)
      Super + c/x/v = copy/cut/paste respectively
      Super + “+” or “-” = open magnifier and zoom on your mouse cursor

      I agree with the people saying to use google docs for office, however if you must use Microsoft office, O365 is $70 a year and always up to date.

Leave a Reply to JP Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.