multiple desktops defeats task-oriented purpose

i don’t understand the added desktops in windows 10. like in Ubuntu Gnome desktop, the added desktop windows make it a type of extension. you can have icons or files on one that do not show up on the others.

but in windows 10, the added desktop windows are duplications. are mirrors of each other. so the only reason to have a second or third desktop window would be to have different programs open on them. in which case it’s the same thing to shuffle through three program windows on one desktop, as it is to shuffle through three desktop windows with one program on each.

so i don’t get it. feels like there has to be something i’m missing. i suppose if you are a user that leaves bunches of programs running at the same time….the multiple desktops as mirrors could still be used to categorize what you have up and running. but i’m not seeing how there is such a great need for that.

i think it’s there to impress the users that have never used Ubuntu or any of the other free Linux systems that have multiple desktop environments. so a multiple desktop on windows 10 seems like an amazing thing. i see it as mostly annoying though is a way to “scroll” through open programs if you are on a windows tablet or touchscreen, i guess. unless that feature is not there for the touchscreen and still involves having to click a window manager to switch between desktops.

i just think all the programming for that is going in the wrong direction. instead of more programs and more windows, why not a simplification for what the user is on the computer for in the first place. is not like there are that many categories.

email/communication
news/video
social sites
production aka work
games
education
shopping

so based on what you are looking to do at the moment, it could bring up a different user interface for that, and do superfetch for just the programs pertaining to that category. work computers could have social and game sections locked out. the beginning screen would just be a friendly 7 buttons, not a mess of icons on a desktop or in a start folder.

i saw something similar to that idea on a late-night ad for a computer built for seniors. but i think the concept of simplifying how many things you can do at one time, is worth exploring. rather than more things, and more windows and desktop environments that are really taking a powerful programming and using it for what amounts to show and tell. focus on the TASK, why is this person on the computer in the first place….and then hone efficiency to get them on and off the computer in a decent timeframe.

instead we have what amounts to the rich-person’s hedge-maze by the mansion up the hill. and i wouldn’t object, because mazes are fun afterall…..but maybe if things were a little more task-oriented we could all find our lives again, on the computer as well as off the computer.

the dawning of the age of incompetence

effected by incompetence
how do so many people know so little?
yes i’m trying to set up Windows 10
it wasn’t me
i know how to bow out
when can’t do my best
maybe we should be an unmoving state
humans tested and in jobs they CAN do
not in positions they dream of being
it feels like this huge weight
supporting needs for unassuaged egos
the child that has to help mom in the kitchen
so mom has twice the clean up at the end of the day
and dinner was greeted with gentle smiles
fake as fake can be
can’t discourage a contributive factor
but why not? was not always this way
moms used to send the children packing
get out of my hair!
but now all the world is staring at their meal
incompetence
the result of coddled dreams
see i find it a bitter reality
because acceptance requires only a sigh
how do we reconcile structure?
we call them systems
the system must change
but maybe it’s us
maybe people need to change
because skill in the end
is all man has
has for his own
that singular trophy of ability
i was planning to order my world today
to find paths where stasis involves complacency and reactive result
coffee is still warm and fading smiles are heavy to breathe

 

WP_20141110_13_10_56_Pro

in case you thought this poem doesn’t rhyme:

effected by incompe
tence how do so many people know so little? yes
i’m trying to set
up Windows 10 it wasn’t me
i know how
to bow
out when can’t do my best
maybe we
should be
an unmoving state
humans test
ed and in jobs they
CAN do not in positions they dream
of being
it feels
like this huge weight
supporting needs for unassuaged
egos the child that has
to help mom in the kitchen so mom has
twice
the clean up at the end of the day
and dinner was greeted with gentle smiles
fake
as fake can be
can’t discourage a contributive fac
tor but why not? was not always this way
moms used to send the children pack
ing
get out of my hair!
but now all the world is star
ing at their meal
incompetence
the result of coddled dreams
see i find it
a bitter reality
because acceptance requires only a sigh
how do we reconci
le structure? we call
them systems
the system
must change
but maybe it’s us maybe people need to change
because skill
in the end is all
man has
has
for his own that
singular trophy of ability i was plan
ning to order my world today
to find paths where sta
sis involves compla
cency and reactive result coffee
is still warm and fad
ing smiles are heavy to breathe

net neutrality in a nutshell

net neutrality in a nutshell:

Internet service providers want to double their rates by charging the SERVERS on the internet in addition to the END USERS. (well is more like adding fees for servers, but same thing)

within the implementation of those charges, there is a potential for unchecked favoritism and bias.

they (ISP’s) want to create a new market — where websites compete with each other according to how much internet bandwidth they can afford.

if the internet can be defined as a utility under title II, the FCC will have the authority to enact measures that protect internet companies as well as internet users – rather than currently having to take each ISP individually to court to attempt reasonable controls.

this issue has now come to a head, because at this point protection is needed for corporations and companies on the internet, not just the internet user. the FCC needs sufficient authority under title II so that it can regulate the ISP’s and ensure that no unfair advantage is taken due to the necessity of their services.

how many thoughts do you own?

it’s common sense that there’s only so many combinations of words in the English language. the sounds make up words, the words make up sentences, and the sentences make up books.

at the book level, ok the odds for one person to create the exact or similar writing is fairly slim. but if you have a sentence with a copyright, like some poets do online — odds are pretty high that thing has been said before. especially if it holds any sort of cliché.

which means that at that point, we might as well be copyrighting WORDS. like you know what? i want the word PANTY, panty is mine and no one can use that word without my permission.

now while this argument is an obvious form of reductio ad absurdum ….there is a point where any writer has to ask themselves if they “own” the words they write. you own the space of time assembling those words — but the words themselves?

perception is an important thing in life. we always “borrowed” books from the library. do we only ‘borrow’ words to form expression? are you selling the words, or the time? if it was the time, maybe each book sale should reduce the price of a book?

so when a writer decides to place “copyright” on written words, perhaps they should think about this for a moment: is there such a thing?

or does a perception of owning sentences and blocks of text more easily go under a very particular type of delusion? delusion that expands grandeur itself into a realm where there is no turning back, no getting out of that carnival ride.

do ideas live forever, or are they forever a part of the churning mass of collective conclusions that live only because each is a piece or branch from the one before?

just because you CAN copyright something, does it make sense?

WP_20141110_11_08_10_Pro

no muse calls

if we want to be a hero
there has to be a disaster first
any savior requires damnation
which is all terribly put-upon
but…you have no idea how confident
i don’t know how to say that the concept
of neutral is boring
but living in neutral is kinda cool
how the entire definition of demands
and right there i lost my train of thought
is it mine or is it memorex?
and we have fear
familiar, my thoughts go in metered ambiguity
in pointing out the need to not panic
because it is a panic over what has
already been done
and evil paths cannot be unwound
what is a messenger?
i only always just heard
pass along the different noise
the thing that says why do you know i should panic?
i’m pretty sure i was instructed
the clues stick in my head
things said in the past\ from the past
confident in the love the dead had (for us)
another person where the only thing that holds
is belief in love (to nowhere) how does trust solidify
this writing is disjointed
don’t worry i have interchangeable filters
it is not how my thoughts go (why do you care?)
it is how yours should be received but i do not like the (w)hole

WP_20141028_15_54_16_Pro