Profile

Scrapbook photo 1
Scrapbook photo 2
Scrapbook photo 3
Scrapbook photo 4
Bill Morgan
Works at ConocoPhillips
Attended Cameron University
Lives in Wilds of New Mexico
172 followers|475,076 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideosReviews

Stream

Bill Morgan

Help Me!  - 
 
PaperPlane Desktop Launcher?

Has anybody used this thing? I'm looking for a replacement for Google's app launcher that is better than the Chrome taskbar thingie.

I don't find much real information from earthlings... only the company website and a few reviews from what appear to be beta tester types.

I can live without this, but I'd rather not.
1
Ralf K's profile photoBill Morgan's profile photoEric Shields (Mass Transit Honchkrow)'s profile photo
7 comments
 
+Bill Morgan I guess it means if you delete it then it's gone. That decision was five chrome versions ago.

Windows Pro users: Group Policy is your Friend.
Add a comment...

Bill Morgan

Issues and Bugs  - 
 
Ghost in the system?

My wife has two names show up on the lock screen. The second one doesn't show up anywhere else, and I can't figure out how to get rid of it. It's her name, where her email address shows up for her "real" account (I'd like to change that, too).

I found this invader when I tried to go in and bypass the password login. The second name only shows up on the login or lock screen--at least I can't find it in any of the usual places.

I don't know how it got there, and my wife can't remember doing anything that may have caused it either.

So, does anyone know where it came from or, far more importantly, how I can get rid of it?

Anybody?
1
Add a comment...

Bill Morgan

Shared publicly  - 
 
And we Americans are very proud of it.
2
Bill Morgan's profile photoPeter Hughes's profile photo
3 comments
 
+Bill Morgan​ lol, yeah but still all equally repulsive ;-) 
Add a comment...

Bill Morgan

Discussion  - 
 
Screen Shooting?

I've made a discovery that is new to me and very good news to me. It could be I'm the last one on the bus again, but hey.

Capturing a screen shot on Notes was really easy at one time. Then with various improvements and upgrades it became, in my opinion, a convoluted mess. I don't do it often, and when I do I need a quick and easy way to do it.

So I accidentally just new learned that as long as I'm using my Logitech keyboard (which is just about all the time) there is a handy and dedicated key that does the job. Print Scr (on the Logitech) up in the top right of the keyboard and dangerously close to the delete key.

Intuitive though it may be, I only found it when moving my tablet and keyboard and finding a screen shot when I set it back down. If anyone else is as slow as I am, this may be helpful information.


4
Andrew Wilson's profile photo
 
The Samsung keyboard has a similar feature.
Add a comment...

Bill Morgan

The New Screen Savers  - 
 
THIS OLD COMPUTER

(As almost suggested on the 9/19/15 episode) is a great idea. This Old Tech would be even better. Instead of the total focus on all the shiny new toys in all other tech shows, a little love for what most people are using would be a treat. I like the new as much as any other geek, but it's not like it's difficult to find information on that stuff. There are tons of podcasts discussing every bit of that from every imaginable angle--even when there's no information. Something that included old relics like my Note 4 oughta have a show, don't you think?

It could include the not so new... like more than six months or a year old--how is it holding up, hows the support, and maybe even what can be done about it. Also the true antiques from clear back to six or seven years ago, say.

The real fossil evidence is fun for some of us old farts, too. Even just to look at and talk about some of it... Leo and guests often do this because they can't help it anyway.

I think there are some possibilities.
6
Jonathan Jesse's profile photoDavid Pick's profile photoBill Morgan's profile photo
5 comments
 
+David Pick I don't know about the profit part... I lean toward the "worth a try" side, but I do see other limitations. Content is a big one... as you dig back through the archeological layers of technology the quantity really thins out. The chances are good that a lot of us elderly geeks started out with P.E.T. computers or TRS-80 series, but anything that could be called a "home" or personal computer is rare. There seems to be quite a few collections and museums featuring the really old stuff... but that's more history than tech.

This Old Computer might work better as a program segment or periodic theme or something.

I dunno, but I DO know if you want a story on the Moto X or the new iPhone, you can find tons of 'em. Rumors of new features on rumored new phones, YouTube videos about leaks of new parts for new models of announced phones... and the small group of actual people who manage to get one of the small percentage of those that eventually make it to the market still amount to enough of a market to shoot at.

It's really hard to tell, but just as "everyone owns a used car", damn near all of us watching those shows own "old" technology. Many of us do that on purpose to avoid some of the well-named "bleeding edge" pain.

Of course, I'd also like to see more information about tech support from some of these companies, and there's absolutely no interest in that. Other than complaining about it, that is.

One can hope, though.
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
172 people
Rex Hoppa's profile photo
We.Like.SmartPhone's profile photo
Gold Man's profile photo
Mike Blount's profile photo
Cmax Arms's profile photo
César Coyac's profile photo
RUFINO BOA MORTE's profile photo
Suchart Poovarat's profile photo
Naih Karomah's profile photo

Bill Morgan

Introduce Yourself  - 
 
Hello, Microsoft? It's me, Bill. I'm back.

I was a lot of things--consultant, teacher, basic hopeless geek, etc--from DOS (no, really) through about Vista or so. Due to retirement and the damn ribbon menu in Office, I ran off with Google Docs and Android devices for the most part. For the last decade or so I have only visited Windows when I absolutely had to, and only upgraded when it was that or die.

Windows 7 was very encouraging, but I didn't want to risk more pain, so I waited to see if you were really changing. I watched all of the turmoil with mobile and the Windows 8 stuff...but I understand fundamental change can be difficult. I remember when Windows 3.1 was the amazing thing, and the even more amazing thing Windows 95 was. I still have my key fob from the Windows 95 Road Show, even.

Then Windows 10 came up, and it sounded good, almost but not quite good enough to switch back.

What finally made me renew my vows (or drink the Kool-Ade again) was the Surface Pro 4. I was weakened (and astounded) by the successful upgrade from 7 to 10 on my 9 year old Dell laptop, but really it was the Surface.

So I'm out of date and out of practice, but I'm back and I'm ready to make this relationship work again. The ribbon still brings back bad memories, but I guess we'll both have to make some compromises along the way. I'll learn to work with it if you will keep improving too... how does that sound?
3
Matze Schobi's profile photoBill Morgan's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Matze Schobi Oh, I'm okay with the thing now. What ticked me off was that it just showed up with no choice and no warning, and no way to go back. More than that, some functions moved to strange new places and some just went away. Microsoft is not known for excellent communication with users...or anybody else, for that matter...but this was bad even for them.

It really wasn't so much that they made the changes, it was that they just tied them to a brick and threw them onto my system, then they ran away.

But as I've said, they seem to be trying real hard to do better, and they're certainly doing well enough for me to give them a bunch of money along with another chance.
Add a comment...

Bill Morgan

Shared publicly  - 
 
Ho hum. The wrong kind of shooting.
 
For the past week, the media has obsessed over the shooting in Colorado Springs near a Planned Parenthood, and while our attention was drawn to that, another mass shooting occurred. The victim count was huge, but nobody seems to be talking about it, and it’s not hard to see why.
2 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Bill Morgan

Shared publicly  - 
 
Just bumping this because I don't know how to download or save it in G+. It's worth keeping it on top.
 
Twenty-four hours after an attack by Da'esh (the organization formerly known as ISIS [1]) on Paris left 129 dead and 352 wounded, the Internet and the airwaves alike have been filled with profound waves of self-serving nonsense and stupidity from left and right alike. Everyone seems to have found a way in which this situation justifies their position – protect the refugees! Exile the refugees! Bomb someone! Stop all bombing of anyone! – and magically, it seems that one of the most complex political situations of our time can be reduced to simple slogans.

Well, I've run out of patience with this, so let me seriously discuss what just happened here, and what it tells us. I'm going to talk about three things which have combined to lead to yesterday's massacre: the refugee crisis, Europe's Muslim population, and Da'esh. I'll then talk about a few things which I think have little or nothing to do with what we're seeing – most importantly, religion and oil – and a few things which do – such as food and water. And finally, we'll talk about what it's going to take to fix this, both in the short term and the long term.

Being entirely out of patience right now, forgive me for being particularly blunt. I suspect that, by the end of this, you will be thoroughly offended by my opinions, whether you are American, European, or Middle Eastern, left or right: nobody has behaved well in the lead-up to this.


The first thing to realize about the refugees streaming into Europe from Syria and its environs is that not only are they not, by and large, terrorists – they're people fleeing these exact terrorists. France was just hit by Da'esh, with over five hundred casualties; in Syria, people are surrounded by Da'esh on one side, and a bloodthirsty army on the other side, and have been seeing death on the scale of yesterday's attack every single day for the past four and a half years. [2] If you were living there, you would very likely be fleeing, too.

But the second thing to realize about the refugees is that there are, in fact, Da'esh members among them. It's clear that at least one of the attackers came in from Syria as part of October's refugee flood, and there's no reason at all not to believe that quite a few more are among them, working both at short- and long-term goals. (More on which in a moment)

Everyone seems to have simplistic solutions, here: kick out all the Muslims (as America's Ann Coulter and Donald Trump suggest), settle the refugees more permanently, build giant prison camps. These solutions tend to miss a few very basic points:

(1) When you have hundreds of thousands of people who are quite literally willing to risk not only their deaths, but the deaths of their families, in order to escape, your odds of being able to keep them out aren't actually great, unless your plan is to mobilize a giant army and start attacking inward until they're fleeing in the opposite direction.

(2) You do not have enough prison camp capacity to handle this many people, nor could you build it. Nor do you have enough housing and residential infrastructure capacity to easily settle this many people, because the flux you're seeing out of Syria is very far from the end of it. 

This is why large regional disasters quickly tend to spread into adjacent regions. This is why it's important not to let regional disasters get out of hand, no matter how politically appealing isolationism may appear.


The second thing to be aware of is that this didn't happen in a vacuum: Europe has a very large Muslim population, and it seems that most of the attackers were French or Belgian citizens. This started out with Europe's colonial ambitions, back in the day: France, for example, ruled over Algeria with a mind-bogglingly bloodthirsty approach [3] for decades, but now has a large population of people with a right to French residence who have been moving in to the country in search of a better economic situation. (Hardly surprising, when you leave behind a colony wracked by a horrifying civil war for decades) And France is far from alone in this.

Europe's Muslim population is both profoundly European and profoundly not European. They are European in that they have been living there, often for more than a generation; they work there, they pay taxes, they have become as assimilated as they can. They are not European in that Europe has been profoundly unwilling to allow them to assimilate. This is far from a historical anomaly: Europe has historically defined itself in terms of villages or cities and their local populations, which one can't really join very easily. Groups marked as outsiders – be they Jews, Romany, or Muslims – have been considered only marginally European. At times, there has been a high degree of apparent assimilation: for example, Jews were thoroughly integrated into European culture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, intermarrying, forming friendships and professional associations across the board. As you may notice, "thorough integration" can be an awfully chancy business. 

Muslims in today's Europe, on the other hand, don't have anything close to this superficial level of integration; France has been routinely passing laws banning Muslims from dressing the way they did in their home countries in the past few years, which should tell you a great deal about local opinions of that population.

So you have a large population who finds it systematically hard to find work, impossible to be accepted, the regular target of police, and told every day that they should probably be kicked out of the country. I'm sure you will find it shocking that, if you do this to a few tens of millions of people for a few decades at a stretch, you will end up with a disillusioned and disenfranchised youth, some of which will combine this with the general hot-headedness and stupidity of being a young adult to become easy fodder for people who have shown up to recruit.

Lots of people seem to have half-assed solutions here, and they tend to be even more foolish than the solutions to the refugee crisis. "Send them back," the European right frequently cries: back to where? Most of the Muslim population is no longer fresh immigrants; they are second and third generation Europeans. They don't have homes anywhere else. The European left, on the other hand, preaches a mealymouthed combination of urging assimilation and unmistakeable racism. 

For some context, go back to the Charlie Hebdo attacks several months ago. There was a large outcry, saying that what the magazine (a notable left-wing satirical organ) had been doing was entirely in the bounds of proper satire, that the satire of religion was a hallowed European tradition. What this explanation glosses over is that nobody on the receiving end of the satire saw it as satire of religion, for the simple reason that religious affiliation, in Europe as in the Middle East, has little to do with what you believe and much to do with who you are. Charlie Hebdo's targets weren't simply religious extremists preaching from Saudi mosques; they were a portrayal of the French Muslim population as violent extremists, the dangerous other. And that's precisely the European left-wing line: Muslims are fine, so long as they become completely European, to the extent that we can forget that they were ever from someone else. Which, realistically, might mean they have to intermarry for a few generations and acquire blue eyes and blond hair, but that's OK, we welcome them!

The honest fact is this: neither the European left nor the right have ever made the large Muslim community into a full part of society. One side has covered it in nice words, while the other side has blared its xenophobia from the rooftops, but nobody on the receiving end of either of these has been fooled.

You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind. What did you expect was going to happen?


And then we come over to our friends in the Middle East, the psychotically bloodthirsty bastards of Da'esh itself. It's a bit off to even refer to them as Islamist extremists in the mold of al-Qaeda; they've gone so far off the rails of Islam that the only clear ideology that often seems left is power and murder. Exhortations from theologians of any stripe aren't really going to have an effect on them.

But they seem to have realized that they are on an upswing of power, nobody having the resources or will to stop them, and have come up with the idea of spreading this worldwide, with attacks spreading to places like Russia and France – and, as soon as they can, everywhere else. Because as far as anyone can tell, they want to take over the world.

(Yes, this is a kind of screwy plan, and they barely even control chunks of land in the ass end of Syria and Iraq. But they've had enough luck with killing people that they seem to have convinced themselves that if they engage in even more killing people, it'll continue to work just as well. [4])

They seem to have one fairly simple strategic objective with these new attacks: drive a hard wedge between Muslim and infidel populations around the world, so that the Muslims will have no choice but to join them and become their army, overthrowing the local governments and establishing a world-wide Caliphate.

Unfortunately, political stupidity seems likely to help them. If the response to these attacks is to further isolate Muslim populations – both settled and refugee – then they will certainly have a far easier time recruiting among them. It's not actually going to lead to them taking over the world, but it will lead to bloodshed.

This recruitment tends to take a few forms. One is to recruit fighters to come and help in the bloodshed in existing battlefields; the second is to recruit suicide bombers and the like in other countries. These are somewhat disjoint processes, since the process of recruiting someone to commit suicide is rather different and targets different sorts of people, but there is also overlap: one strategy which al-Qaeda long favored was to recruit people to come to places like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Chechnya to fight, and later export trained fighters elsewhere.

One important thing about these tactics is that they seem to be realizing that surprisingly little training and planning is required. Yesterday's attack required some coordination among teams, but nothing spectacular; it did require practice in gunplay. But even this was fairly complex compared to the bare minimum required; consider the amount of chaos caused by the D.C. Sniper back in 2002.


Da'esh poses a particular danger because they seem to have latched onto the idea of exporting their violence to the rest of the world, but they're hardly the first or the last group to do this. If they were to be wiped out, I wouldn't bet any money that someone else wouldn't get the same idea soon after, much like al-Qaeda did before them. It's not even a particularly regional idea; the notion that if we kill enough people we can restructure the world to be perfectly {Aryan, Muslim, Democratic, Christian, Communist, etc.}, or to be the economic vassal states of the {X} empire, is frankly a cliché by now on pretty much every square kilometer of the planet.


So let's review where we are, for a moment. There's a large European Muslim population which is disillusioned, disenfranchised, underemployed, and generally treated as outsiders and fair political punching bags by the society as a whole. There's a giant stream of refugees pouring in to Europe, combining huge numbers of people running for their lives from bloodthirsty maniacs with small numbers of bloodthirsty maniacs looking to recruit. There's a factory of particularly bloodthirsty maniacs with a vision of taking over the world through (a) killing people and (b) convincing the rest of the world to treat Muslims even more like outsiders, who are actively trying to both create refugee streams and send out recruiters, to this end.


At this point, I expect to hear a chorus of voices blaming two things for this: religion (specifically, Islam), and oil (specifically, the West's insatiable need for it). To which my main response to both is "hogwash."

The reason I reject Islam as an explanation for this is that there's nothing particularly Muslim about any of it. The European Muslims which are being treated as second-class citizens aren't being treated that way because they pray on rugs facing Mecca, rather than in pews facing an altar; they're being treated this way because they're "dirty foreigners." (I'll spare you the actual terms used to describe them) Da'esh's plan to take over the world isn't rooted in a theological destiny of Muslims; it's rooted in an explicitly political vision of conquest. And quite frankly, the people being shot at the most are Muslims, too; remember who the refugees were running from?

More profoundly, people in the Middle East aren't systematically any more religious than people are in America. You have the same spectrum from the wholly secular to the crazed fundamentalist, with the former predominating in cities and the latter in the countryside. There's a tendency to assume (for example) that any woman wearing a headscarf must be extremely devout, or subject to domination and terror by some devout man; you have to back away and look at it in its local context, where sometimes it's a sign of devotion or a political statement, but it's also just what people wear; for many people, walking around with one's hair exposed is not done in much the same way people don't walk around in most of the US or Europe with their asses hanging out.

Oil is generally used as a proxy for "if only the Americans|Europeans never intervened in the Middle East, it would be peaceful there!" This bespeaks a rather curious innocence as to the history of the Middle East, combined with a reversed vision of (generally American) exceptionalism, that somehow our surpassing evil can corrupt otherwise noble savages. It's certainly true that without oil, most of the Middle East would be desperately poor – but as it happens, most of it is desperately poor anyway. Oil is not uniformly distributed, and Syria doesn't have that much of it to begin with.

There is one sense in which this is true, which is that the 2003 invasion of Iraq created a spectacular disaster. George W. Bush's belief that if we just created enough of a power vacuum, democracy would magically rush in to fill the void – the precise belief which his father didn't have, mind you, which is why GHWB made the explicit and deliberate decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power – proved to be exactly as unwise as it sounds when written so plainly. The result was a giant area of anarchy and civil war smack in the center of the Middle East, into which would-be fighters from all over the region (as well as other regions) swarmed: veterans of Chechnya and Bosnia found new employment in Iraq, as Sunnis and Shi'ites alike slaughtered one another. This anarchy, never resolved, has been the perfect factory of chaos which quite easily spilled over elsewhere.


But there's one profound factor which has driven the violence in the Middle East far more than oil ever could: water.

The entire Middle East has been in a water, and thus food, crisis for decades. In Egypt, for example, the Nile Valley has been drying out ever since the Aswan Dam was completed in 1970; as this once-fertile soil turned to desert, people have streamed into Cairo, doubling and tripling its population by forming tremendous shantytowns. Unemployment was extreme, as it's not like the cities suddenly had tens of millions of new jobs in them; the government kept order as well as it could by importing grain in tremendous quantities (the government's by-far largest annual expense) and selling bread cheaply. Unfortunately, a drought in Russia and Ukraine, Egypt's primary suppliers, caused those countries to cut off wheat exports in 2011 – and the government collapsed soon after.

Syria is a similar story: the lead-in to the collapse of Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship was steady droughts in the Syrian countryside driving people into the cities by the hundreds of thousands, leading to mass unemployment and unrest. People's livelihoods had simply disappeared. Stories like this repeat across the entire Middle East.


When we talk about the ultimate causes of the situation, this is the fact we tend to ignore: at the root of it, there isn't enough water, and there isn't enough food, and droughts have been hitting the area harder and harder for a decade. When there isn't enough food, people move from the countryside to the cities; and now you have giant groups of people who still don't have jobs or food, and that's a recipe for the collapse of governments as surely today as it was in Europe in the 1840's.

If you've ever wondered why I have often said that we need to be very actively worried about climate change, this is it. Changing climate breaks agriculture in various areas; the people who were farming there don't magically turn into factory workers or teleport to places which are (slowly) becoming more fertile; they become desperate former farmers, generally flooding into cities. 


So given all of this, what can we actually conclude? I think the most important thing is that you can't bury your head in the sand, and assume that problems in some other part of the world aren't your own. A drought or a civil war somewhere else can easily start to spill over in unexpected ways.

If you want to avoid terrible consequences, what you have to do is plan, and in particular never let kindling build up. For example:

(1) If you have a large, disenfranchised, population, this is trouble waiting to start. The only way to fix this problem is to enfranchise them: give them a full stake in your society. Yes, that means treating people who are very different from you like full equals. Yes, it also means that your society – that is, the set of people that you're responsible for – now includes a bunch of people who are a lot poorer than you are, and this is going to be expensive to fix. You're not going to like it. But you're going to like the alternative a whole lot less.

(2) If there's political instability, or worst of all, food supply instability somewhere else in the world, it doesn't matter how far away it seems: you need to get together with everyone else and have a serious plan to deal with it. Once masses of hundreds of thousands of people start streaming across the countryside, chaos will follow in their wake. 

(3) Climate change isn't an abstract fear for the future; it's a major political problem right now. You can't punt it away and talk about what to do about carbon emissions or its effect on the economy; you have to sit down and come up with serious strategic plans for what to do when agricultural productivity in critical breadbaskets drops sharply, or watersheds dry up. Contingency planning for any government needs to include anything from hurricanes to long-term droughts, and not just as one-offs, but what to do if these start happening a lot. The reason you need to plan for this is that it's not a goddamned hypothetical, you idiot.


What do we do in the short term? This is harder, because right now Da'esh has been sending agents across the planet to cause as much trouble as they can. One obvious prong of the solution is ordinary police work; that's proven far more effective than complex intelligence solutions at catching terrorists. Another prong is stopping their support system at the root. Because Da'esh's plans are so focused on actual conquest, a collapse of their regime back home is likely to have more of an effect on their satellite agents than the collapse of a more ideologically-oriented organization like al-Qaeda.

A third prong is to stabilize the situation in Syria: here the key isn't so much blowing anyone up as giving people a way to stop fighting. There are three key obstacles to this. One is Da'esh, which seems to be pretty committed to fighting for its own sake; this is unlikely fixable by any means short of straightforward military defeat. One is the underlying lack of food availability. The third is that quite a lot of people have reason to believe that they will be killed either if al-Assad regains power, or if he loses power. They need a serious guarantee of personal safety in any peace.

What this probably means is that a peace agreement will require very heavy international support: aid to rebuild the country, neutral military forces to guarantee cease-fires, and some way to deal with the underlying economic issues. That's going to require heavy international coordination of the profoundly unsexy sort: not deploying giant militaries to bomb targets and wave banners, or propping up regimes and helping them "suppress insurgencies," but working on the long-term realities of helping locals build a government that they're invested in – even when said government is unlikely to be either similar to Western norms, or friendly to Western aims. Military force to crush Da'esh is almost certainly needed as a precondition to this, but it's by far the smaller part of the game.


The short version is: if you want to fix problems, you're going to have to deal with some very serious, expensive, and unsexy solutions. Because life isn't simple, and you can't just bomb your way out of trouble.

[1] See this recent editorial for the argument for switching to the term Da'esh more broadly: https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/ [Thanks to +Lisa Straanger for finding this more in-depth discussion than the Boston Globe op-ed which I had earlier cited]

[2] cf, for example, this infographic: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/14/world/middleeast/syria-war-deaths.html

[3] cf, for example, this obituary of a proud French torturer: https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/1PQQQ3XfnYA

[4] cf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B3slX6-_20
500 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Bill Morgan

Shared publicly  - 
 
If your happiness depends upon the behavior of others in any way...

... you're screwed.
1
Add a comment...

Bill Morgan

Discussion  - 
 
I'M GOING IN!

So I went through the Lollipop bluetooth hell with my Note Pro upgrade, and my Note 4 has been upgraded to 5.1.1. I've noticed a serious drop in the already fairly awful battery life in the tablet, and some wonkiness in the Note 4 bluetooth... dropping connection, mostly, and sometimes audio is all choppy when I change headsets. The Note 4 problems go away after a reboot.

Having written Samsung support off as a complete waste of time and money, I've been reading various forums and consulting the Google search oracle. I've decided to do a factory reset. From what I've read, the only time a factory reset seems to do anything worthwhile is after an update. That, at least, sort of makes sense to me.

A little bit of extra backing up, and I'm going to pull the trigger. So there's like an hour or two from right now if anyone has any dire warnings or stuff to look for. The phone goes first, then probably tomorrow, the tablet. I'll post the results unless I totally nuke everything.
2
Steven Le Mercier's profile photoBill Morgan's profile photo
3 comments
 
Well, dang. What true strangeness. The goofy bluetooth problem is still there... at least part of it is. It appears to have trouble completely disconnecting from one bluetooth headset when I switch to another one. Restarting bluetooth takes care of that now, and the other problems I was having seem to be gone. According to system monitor pro, disk i/o is improved, too... but as usual I didn't record the numbers.

I'll keep looking, but I do seriously wonder what a reset really does. The simple answer, it seems to me, is that it cleans up stuff... that's what used to happen with Windows... junk left in the regestry and the like.

All in all, the Note 4 seems happier after the reset, and the numbers I have managed to look at do reflect a slight improvement in some areas, so it was worth it. My plans have changed a bit due to a family illness, so I won't be doing the tablet for a few days. We shall see.
Add a comment...

Bill Morgan

Discussion  - 
 
Backup and Reset?

I've never used the built in stuff to do this, and I haven't found any clear information on what it does. With Samsung at least, I've learned that skimpy information is normal and making assumptions is a big mistake. So:

There are two built in options in settings. One is to backup to your Samsung account, which sort of implies you can back up all of your "data." The illustrations show only the basic apps that come preinstalled. I haven't tried just going in there and looking around to see what it actually does yet. The other option is to back up some specific stuff...wifi settings and passwords (what could possibly go wrong) and application settings for apps downloaded from Google Play.

Before I do a factory reset, do I need to do both? Is local backup the only good way to go? At this point it wouldn't be horrible to just set the thing up again manually... very little data is stored on the tablet...but I thought I'd try the built in anyway.

Any backup and reset button veterans in here?
2
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
172 people
Rex Hoppa's profile photo
We.Like.SmartPhone's profile photo
Gold Man's profile photo
Mike Blount's profile photo
Cmax Arms's profile photo
César Coyac's profile photo
RUFINO BOA MORTE's profile photo
Suchart Poovarat's profile photo
Naih Karomah's profile photo
Education
  • Cameron University
    English, 1967 - 2000
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Story
Tagline
Old enough that I don't understand these kids today, but not so old I leave my turn signal on.
Introduction
I am a basic geek.  Privacy skeptic.  Libertarian.  Nervous about even having a public profile, but hey.
Work
Occupation
Staff Geek
Employment
  • ConocoPhillips
    Staff Geek, present
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Wilds of New Mexico
Previously
Southern California - Here, Germany, Oklahoma - vinh long, viet nam
Links
We took our children and our grandchildren for their fourth trip to Purgatory. The most amazing thing is how efficient and relatively painless the equipment rental process is. If there is a way to get a huge mob of people through the fitting and demonstration needed to get them all dressed up and out on the slope any faster, I can't imagine it. Everything that makes it easy and fun to get to the part where you actually ski was great. Obviously, so was the skiing.
Public - 6 months ago
reviewed 6 months ago
It ain't here. It's missing. Nothing is here. It's somewhere else.
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago
2 reviews
Map
Map
Map