Windows 10-Open File Explorer to This PC

It was initially frustrating to discover that clicking on the File Explorer icon (Start Button) in Windows 10 sent me to the ‘Quick Access’ view. Trying to be helpful, annoyingly, through ‘Quick Access’ Microsoft is suggesting folders and files you have lately or frequently used, assuming you wish to access them again. As with Cortana and Edge, I don’t need and certainly don’t want Microsoft trying to anticipate or influence my needs and wants. If you feel the same way, you can readily change where File Explorer initially sends you. I prefer that File Explorer open to ‘This PC’. (‘This PC’ is what Microsoft used to call ‘My Computer’ and later, just ‘Computer’. Should you desire to change ‘This PC’ back to ‘My Computer’, here are the instructions.) This blog will detail the instructions for opening File Explorer to ‘This PC’.

  • Click the Start Button.
  •  Click the File Explorer icon.
  • On the view that opens, click View on the menu.
  • Click Options (far right of View menu).Changing to This PC
  • One drop down choice will appear: Change folder and search options.
  • Click on Change folder and search options.
  • The following Folder Options window will open:
  • Changing to This PC3
  • Click the down arrow to the right of Open File Explorer to:.
  • Select This PC.
  • Click Apply and OK to close the window.
  • Close File Explorer and reopen to This PC.
  • Your screen should look something like this:Changing to This PC 4

History tells us what will happen next with Brexit & Trump

Reposted from

Firstly, I am a conservative, or rather, I am conservative and usually vote the Republican line. This election is different. While I do agree with some of what Trump has said, I have reservations about the person who will attempt to carry them out. I just can’t help thinking about how Hitler rose to power. Not that in any way do I believe Trump to be even remotely capable of causing any like the horrific acts of the Nazis. I only fear that his presidency could move us even further away from being a constitutional republic with three equal branches than Obama has taken us.

Stone brillantly reviews current global trends through an historical lenses and give us some reason to pause and reflect. I am disappointed in his taking such a strongly biased perspective and I take umbrage to his assertion that intellectuals know better than the rest of us. My experience is that they (experts and intellectuals) may have more knowledge and education but for the most part are seldom “smarter” when it comes to judging beyond their field of expertise.

An interesting side note is the inclusion of the Timeline of Wars. When I tire of peace movements and peaceniks,  I have frequently said that there is no time in recorded history when there wasn’t a war or at least group versus group murderous conflicts. Peace is not the norm yet we will continute to hope and pray.

It seems we’re entering another of those stupid seasons humans impose on themselves at fairly regular intervals.

My background is archaeology, so also history and anthropology. It leads me to look at big historical patterns. My theory is that most peoples’ perspective of history is limited to the experience communicated by their parents and grandparents, so 50–100 years. To go beyond that you have to read, study, and learn to untangle the propaganda that is inevitable in all telling of history. In a nutshell, at university I would fail a paper if I didn’t compare at least two, if not three opposing views on a topic. Taking one telling of events as gospel doesn’t wash in the comparative analytical method of research that forms the core of British academia. (I can’t speak for other systems, but they’re definitely not all alike in this way).

So zooming out, we humans have a habit of going into phases of mass destruction, generally self imposed to some extent or another. This handy list shows all the wars over time. Wars are actually the norm for humans, but every now and then something big comes along. I am interested in the Black Death, which devastated Europe. The opening of Boccaccio’s Decameron describes Florence in the grips of the Plague. It is as beyond imagination as the Somme, Hiroshima, or the Holocaust. I mean, you quite literally can’t put yourself there and imagine what it was like. For those in the midst of the Plague it must have felt like the end of the world.

But a defining feature of humans is their resilience. To us now it seems obvious that we survived the Plague, but to people at the time it must have seemed incredible that their society continued afterwards. Indeed, many takes on the effects of the Black Death are that it had a positive impact in the long term. Well summed up here: “By targeting frail people of all ages, and killing them by the hundreds of thousands within an extremely short period of time, the Black Death might have represented a strong force of natural selection and removed the weakest individuals on a very broad scale within Europe,“ …In addition, the Black Death significantly changed the social structure of some European regions. Tragic depopulation created the shortage of working people. This shortage caused wages to rise. Products prices fell too. Consequently, standards of living increased. For instance, people started to consume more food of higher quality.”

But for the people living through it, as with the World Wars, Soviet Famines, Holocaust, it must have felt inconceivable that humans could rise up from it. The collapse of the Roman Empire, Black Death, Spanish Inquisition, Thirty Years War, War of the Roses, English Civil War… it’s a long list. Events of massive destruction from which humanity recovered and move on, often in better shape.

At a local level in time people think things are fine, then things rapidly spiral out of control until they become unstoppable, and we wreak massive destruction on ourselves. For the people living in the midst of this it is hard to see happening and hard to understand. To historians later it all makes sense and we see clearly how one thing led to another. During theCentenary of the Battle of the Somme I was struck that it was a direct outcome of the assassination of an Austrian Arch Duke in Bosnia. I very much doubt anyone at the time thought the killing of a minor European royal would lead to the death of 17 million people.

My point is that this is a cycle. It happens again and again, but as most people only have a 50–100 year historical perspective they don’t see that it’s happening again. As the events that led to the First World War unfolded, there were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big was wrong, that the web of treaties across Europe could lead to a war, but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit, and Trump are dismissed now.

Then after the War to end all Wars, we went and had another one. Again, for a historian it was quite predictable. Lead people to feel they have lost control of their country and destiny, people look for scapegoats, a charismatic leader captures the popular mood, and singles out that scapegoat. He talks in rhetoric that has no detail, and drums up anger and hatred. Soon the masses start to move as one, without any logic driving their actions, and the whole becomes unstoppable.

That was Hitler, but it was also Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, Mugabe, and so many more. Mugabe is a very good case in point. He whipped up national anger and hatred towards the land owning white minority (who happened to know how to run farms), and seized their land to redistribute to the people, in a great populist move which in the end unravelled the economy and farming industry and left the people in possession of land, but starving. See also the famines created by the Soviet Union, and the one caused by the Chinese Communists last century in which 20–40 million people died. It seems inconceivable that people could create a situation in which tens of millions of people die without reason, but we do it again and again.

But at the time people don’t realise they’re embarking on a route that will lead to a destruction period. They think they’re right, they’re cheered on by jeering angry mobs, their critics are mocked. This cycle, the one we saw for example from the Treaty of Versaille, to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, appears to be happening again. But as with before, most people cannot see it because:

1. They are only looking at the present, not the past or future

2. They are only looking immediately around them, not at how events connect globally

3. Most people don’t read, think, challenge, or hear opposing views

Trump is doing this in America. Those of us with some oversight from history can see it happening. Read this brilliant, long essay in the New York magazine to understand how Plato described all this, and it is happening just as he predicted. Trump says he will Make America Great Again, when in fact America is currently great, according to pretty well any statistics. He is using passion, anger, and rhetoric in the same way all his predecessors did — a charismatic narcissist who feeds on the crowd to become ever stronger, creating a cult around himself. You can blame society, politicians, the media, for America getting to the point that it’s ready for Trump, but the bigger historical picture is that history generally plays out the same way each time someone like him becomes the boss.

On a wider stage, zoom out some more, Russia is a dictatorship with a charismatic leader using fear and passion to establish a cult around himself. Turkey is now there too. Hungary, Poland, Slovakia are heading that way, and across Europe more Trumps and Putins are waiting in the wings, in fact funded by Putin, waiting for the popular tide to turn their way.

We should be asking ourselves what our Archduke Ferdinand moment will be. How will an apparently small event trigger another period of massive destruction. We see Brexit, Trump, Putin in isolation. The world does not work that way — all things are connected and affecting each other. I have pro-Brexit friends who say ‘oh, you’re going to blame that on Brexit too??’ But they don’t realise that actually, yes, historians will trace neat lines from apparently unrelated events back to major political and social shifts like Brexit.

Brexit — a group of angry people winning a fight — easily inspires other groups of angry people to start a similar fight, empowered with the idea that they may win. That alone can trigger chain reactions. A nuclear explosion is not caused by one atom splitting, but by the impact of the first atom that splits causing multiple other atoms near it to split, and they in turn causing multiple atoms to split. The exponential increase in atoms splitting, and their combined energy is the bomb. That is how World War One started and, ironically how World War Two ended.

An example of how Brexit could lead to a nuclear war could be this:

Brexit in the UK causes Italy or France to have a similar referendum. Le Pen wins an election in France. Europe now has a fractured EU. The EU, for all its many awful faults, has prevented a war in Europe for longer than ever before. The EU is also a major force in suppressing Putin’s military ambitions. European sanctions on Russia really hit the economy, and helped temper Russia’s attacks on Ukraine (there is a reason bad guys always want a weaker European Union). Trump wins in the US. Trump becomes isolationist, which weakens NATO. He has already said he would not automatically honour NATO commitments in the face of a Russian attack on the Baltics.

With a fractured EU, and weakened NATO, Putin, facing an ongoing economic and social crisis in Russia, needs another foreign distraction around which to rally his people. He funds far right anti-EU activists in Latvia, who then create a reason for an uprising of the Russian Latvians in the East of the country (the EU border with Russia). Russia sends ‘peace keeping forces’ and ‘aid lorries’ into Latvia, as it did in Georgia, and in Ukraine. He cedes Eastern Latvia as he did Eastern Ukraine (Crimea has the same population as Latvia, by the way).

A divided Europe, with the leaders of France, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and others now pro-Russia, anti-EU, and funded by Putin, overrule calls for sanctions or a military response. NATO is slow to respond: Trump does not want America to be involved, and a large part of Europe is indifferent or blocking any action. Russia, seeing no real resistance to their actions, move further into Latvia, and then into Eastern Estonia and Lithuania. The Baltic States declare war on Russia and start to retaliate, as they have now been invaded so have no choice. Half of Europe sides with them, a few countries remain neutral, and a few side with Russia. Where does Turkey stand on this? How does ISIS respond to a new war in Europe? Who uses a nuclear weapon first?

This is just one Arch Duke Ferdinand scenario. The number of possible scenarios are infinite due to the massive complexity of the many moving parts. And of course many of them lead to nothing happening. But based on history we are due another period of destruction, and based on history all the indicators are that we are entering one.

It will come in ways we can’t see coming, and will spin out of control so fast people won’t be able to stop it. Historians will look back and make sense of it all and wonder how we could all have been so naïve. How could I sit in a nice café in London, writing this, without wanting to run away. How could people read it and make sarcastic and dismissive comments about how pro-Remain people should stop whining, and how we shouldn’t blame everything on Brexit. Others will read this and sneer at me for saying America is in great shape, that Trump is a possible future Hitler (and yes,Godwin’s Law. But my comparison is to another narcissistic, charismatic leader fanning flames of hatred until things spiral out of control). It’s easy to jump to conclusions that oppose pessimistic predictions based on the weight of history and learning. Trump won against the other Republicans in debates by countering their claims by calling them names and dismissing them. It’s an easy route but the wrong one.

Ignoring and mocking the experts , as people are doing around Brexit and Trump’s campaign, is no different to ignoring a doctor who tells you to stop smoking, and then finding later you’ve developed incurable cancer. A little thing leads to an unstoppable destruction that could have been prevented if you’d listened and thought a bit. But people smoke, and people die from it. That is the way of the human.

So I feel it’s all inevitable. I don’t know what it will be, but we are entering a bad phase. It will be unpleasant for those living through it, maybe even will unravel into being hellish and beyond imagination. Humans will come out the other side, recover, and move on. The human race will be fine, changed, maybe better. But for those at the sharp end — for the thousands of Turkish teachers who just got fired, for the Turkish journalists and lawyers in prison, for the Russian dissidents in gulags, for people lying wounded in French hospitals after terrorist attacks, for those yet to fall, this will be their Somme.

What can we do? Well, again, looking back, probably not much. The liberal intellectuals are always in the minority. See Clay Shirky’s Twitter Storm on this point. The people who see that open societies, being nice to other people, not being racist, not fighting wars, is a better way to live, they generally end up losing these fights. They don’t fight dirty. They are terrible at appealing to the populace. They are less violent, so end up in prisons, camps, and graves. We need to beware not to become divided (see: Labour party), we need to avoid getting lost in arguing through facts and logic, and counter the populist messages of passion and anger with our own similar messages. We need to understand and use social media. We need to harness a different fear. Fear of another World War nearly stopped World War 2, but didn’t. We need to avoid our own echo chambers. Trump and Putin supporters don’t read the Guardian, so writing there is just reassuring our friends. We need to find a way to bridge from our closed groups to other closed groups, try to cross the ever widening social divides.

(Perhaps I’m just writing this so I can be remembered by history as one of the people who saw it coming.)

Coding, iOS 10 Beta 2, & Faux Chromebook

I’ve been busy.

Coding: Many years ago I taught myself the BASIC programming language to the point that I successfully wrote a gymnastics scoring application. The application was used by only one person and for only one season. Well, I thought it was successful. Since then I’ve learned to create applications in dBase (xBase programming language) and macros (however roughly) in Quattro Pro and Excel. It’s time I learned to code in the modern high-level language. I chose Python and have been at it for about two weeks. The hardest part so far was learning how to set it up to write in interactive mode and scripts. Firstly, I tried installing and using the text editor Sublime Text, the choice of most professionals I’m told. I had already downloaded and installed Python 3.5.2. To get started with the Sublime Text installation process, I downloaded Cygwin, a tool to make Windows function like Linux. Then I installed curl, git, and opens within Cygwin (having no idea why). The installation of git automatically installed an older version of Python (2.7.12) but I didn’t notice it until after I downloaded and installed Sublime Text, the next step. I was then able to use Sublime as a text editor and write simple executable scripts for execution in Python. The problem was it was doing so in Python 2.7.12 and I wanted to learn to use the newer 3.5.2 version. For the life of me, I could not make Cygwin use 3.5.2. Frustration!!!! While messing around with Python I noticed that along with 3.5.2 an application titled IDLE (Python) which is an Integrated Development and Learning Environment for Python. And it’s been around sometime during version 1. Duh! So that’s where I’m at present and progressing slowly.

iOS 10 Beta 2: Downloaded and installed on iPhone 5. No problems and seems to work without glitches but I haven’t pushed it hard or played around with new features yet. The new Home tab doesn’t really interest me so I moved it into my Apple Apps (that I don’t need) folder. Then I tried to download and install it on my iPad 2 (I know, old). No trouble downloading it but every time I attempted to install (Settings>General>Software Update) the following appeared: “iOS 9.3.2 Your software is up to date”. After spending a couple of hours trying every trick I could find online to correct this apparently common issue, I gave up. My old iPad will just have to wait for the release version.

Faux Chromebook: Chromebooks have surpassed iPads as the go-to device for education 1:1 programs. Consequently, I thought I would try working with one. I fully understand the concept and the advantages and disadvantages of Chromebooks versus iPads but do you really know unless you try? I didn’t want to shell a couple hundred dollars for a “real” Chromebook. I have a couple of older laptops laying around so I went the CloudReady (from Neverware) route and installed the CloudReady Chromium OS in dual boot mode on a Windows 10 HP laptop. The installation was laborious and lengthy, requiring preparation of an 8+ Gb USB drive. I prepared the USB drive on a different laptop than the one on which I performed the install. Detailed instructions can be found here. The first time I booted into CloudReady, everything seemed to work well. I set a few things up then later tried viewing a Youtube video embedded in an article. Nothing. Spent another three hours researching and attempting resolution without any luck. Has something to do with Java and HTML5. Still, can’t play online videos. Not good. During my attempts to resolve the issue, it was necessary to reboot a number of times. Each occurrence of selecting the CloudReady option during reboot required shutting down and restarting at least twice before it booted up correctly. So I haven’t had much opportunity to mess around the Chromebook way but it seems pretty simple. All executables must be online and files can be saved on the local computer, space permitting, or online. Now I need to find a way to remove the partitions to return my computer to pure Windows.

18 U.S.C. 793(f)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Computer Literacy vs Computer Science

Since my initial encounter with technology in education in the late 1990’s I have noted that the two terms, computer literacy, and computer science, are frequently confused, used interchangeably and possibly incorrectly. And rightfully so in-as-much as the guru technologists aren’t in agreement regarding definitions or categorization. So I’ve developed a few thoughts of my own to assist me in practice to distinguish the two.

Thought 1: Computer literacy is all about the competent and safe use of computing hardware and software.

Thought 2: Computer science is all about computational thinking leading to critical thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration, and creativity and innovation.

Thought 3: It doesn’t matter because one, computer literacy, is intrinsically embedded in the other and computer science is to a great extent dependent on computer literacy.

Prior to 2007, the ISTE standards for students emphasized student computer use and safety. From a “technology integration” and teaching perspective, activation of the standards in curricula amounted to achieving the lower three levels of Dr. Ruben Puentedura’s ( SAMR model: substitution, augmentation, and modification. The 2007 standards move into the “redefinition” arena defined as, “Computer technology allows for new tasks that were previously inconceivable.” I am certain that the 2016 standards’ remake will go even further by emphasizing creating, making, inventing, developing–basically doing through technology.

The following is an excerpt from Jeff Weiner’s (LinkedIn CEO) email to his employees regarding the purchase of LinkedIn by Microsoft (

Remember that dystopian view of the future in which technology displaces millions of people from their jobs? It’s happening. In the last three weeks alone, Foxconn announced it will replace 60,000 factory workers with robots, a former CEO of McDonald’s said given rising wages, the same would happen throughout their franchises, Walmart announced plans to start testing drones in its warehouses, and Elon Musk predicted fully autonomous car technology would arrive within two years.

Whether it’s worker displacement, the skills gap, youth unemployment, or socio-economic stratification, the impact on society will be staggering. I’ve said it on multiple occasions and believe it even more so every day: creating economic opportunity will be the defining issue of our time. That’s why I’m here and why I can’t imagine doing any other job. Simply put, what we do matters, and matters more than ever.

Those few examples are “new tasks that were previously inconceivable.” Technology infusion into the curriculum at the earliest ages possible at a level well beyond use and safety is essential. We are no longer becoming a technological society,.we are one. This necessitates innovating, refocusing and restructuring the learning process across genders, across age and grade groupings, across subject areas, across organizational types, and across geographical areas. Learning must become open and project-based and if not in our educational institutions, then elsewhere.


During my stints as a senior manager or executive, I frequently used the tagline, “You should never resolve a leadership issue with an administrative action.” We’ve all see it happen numerous times. Example: one or two employees are late to work a few times. Talk ensues among the others. Instead of addressing the issue one-on-one early on, the manager publishes a policy applicable to all employees stating hard and fast, progressively onerous consequences for violations. That’s not leadership. That’s not even management. That’s administration. The manager has transferred the issue to HR where it becomes but a matter of counting times late, issuing stock warnings, and eventual termination. Not a morale booster.

Then, in the mid- to late 1980’s along came technology and computers on each desk. I had to expand my tagline: “You should never resolve a leadership issue with either an administrative or technological action.” Senior managers (school administrators also as pertains to students) desire that employees not be sending and receiving personal email or text messages, be on Facebook, or otherwise surf the web for other than organization purposes during business hours. This is akin to prohibiting personal phone calls and reading magazines at work in the pre-technology days. Common sense, given that the employer does not wish to compensate employees for time and activities not in her best interest. The non-leadership way to deal with this issue is to transfer the whole mess to the IT department. Block and filter. Ah, but employees and students are technically savvy and will find ways around the blocks and filters. So IT joins forces with HR by spying (reviewing logs) and reporting suspicious activity to HR. HR combines a restrictive administrative policy intended to curb the inappropriate usage of organizational property with the technological reports to again relieve the manager of leadership responsibility. Now we all have smartphones that are not tied to our organizational networks. At this writing, management has two options. The first is to illegally jam all cell phone signals emanating from within the confines of the organization. The second is to employ individual and group leadership.