Beach Haven

This post was originally published in March of 2017 on another platform:

The September 14, 2016 edition of RadioWorld posted an interesting interview with Ray Sokola. He is a VP at DTS. That's the company that not too long ago bought Ibiquity. You may already know that Ibiquity is the owner of HD Radio technology. The focus of the interview is on "hybrid radio". That's the phrase gaining traction these days when referring to integration of broadcast radio content with online-delivered content. NPR Distribution has been contributing to the hybrid radio industry effort through a service we call MetaPub.
 
When Sokola was asked to describe hybrid radio he said it is, "the connection of traditional radio with the internet. This expands the listening experience to take advantage of the best of the past, present and future capabilities that cellular connectivity, the internet, streaming and apps have added to the traditional radio experience. The basic examples start with providing album art and easy purchase capability to a radio experience, but it goes way beyond that and is only limited by our imagination."
 
With MetaPub we've started with text, graphics and links, but we assume public radio stations and producers will figure out more ways to use metadata over time. Sokola seems to be thinking the same way. "Hybrid radio is a platform for innovation that can be taken anywhere by creating the right connection between the radio, the internet, the rest of the vehicle, the auto manufacturer and the consumer. That, I think, will evolve in many ways."
 
Encouraging broadcasters to catch up Sokola said, "Radio is the only consumer medium still not fully digital. Consumers have come to expect that all their audio and video entertainment sources will have added features and digital quality. If a radio station can't offer Artist Experience visuals for album art, station logo and advertiser value-added, they are last century's medium in the eyes of today's sophisticated consumer."
 
Not noted in this article is that DTS recently purchased Arctic Palm. That company/product is one of the middleware tools some of our stations are using to interact with MetaPub.
 
For the full article go here:
 
http://www.radioworld.com/article/dts-seeks-to-immerse-you-in-the-soundfield/279674
 
 
We at NPR Distribution have been getting noticed for our MetaPub efforts. For example:
 
MetaPub participation in California Shakeout made the front page.
 
http://www.radioworld.com/article/metadata-test-is-part-of-quake-drill/280108
 

This post was originally published in March of 2017 on another platform:

One of the selling points of the NPR One app is that it follows what you listen to, then makes suggestions about other things you might also be interested in based on your tastes. It learns your tastes by noting what you listen to and what you don't listen to (skip). This pattern of recommending may sound familiar. If you've ever ordered something from Amazon you will recognize the suggested list that says something like "other people who ordered what you did have also ordered these…" Even more recently I noticed that Amazon noticed what I looked at but didn't order. After logging on I got a note that said something like "based on your recent searches you might be interested in some of these related items."
 
Here's yet another story in IEEE Spectrum of how Spotify is jumping on the curation-suggestion-individualization bandwagon:
 
http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/computing/software/the-little-hack-that-could-the-story-of-spotifys-discover-weekly-recommendation-engine
 
In this case, the idea/project was started by some engineers within Spotify. The recommendation tool at first didn't take off. One of the creators shared, "My hunch was that navigating to this page and looking at albums was too much work." The original tool required customers to go and check out the suggested content. Gradually they developed the more proactive tool. The article shares, "Their system looks at what the user is already listening to, and then finds connections between those songs and artists, and other songs and artists, crawling through user activity logs, playlists of other users, general news from around the web, and spectragrams of audio. It then filters the recommendations to eliminate music the user has already heard, and sends the individualized playlist to the user." Without telling people, they pushed out the feature to Spotify employees. Reaction was positive. As the tool become popular internally, Spotify decided to put it into the production system for customers.
 
Whether you think this sort of thing is helpful or creepy, it's clear that companies believe it adds value. I'm not sure there is a place for this particular idea in all applications, but what I find interesting is that the idea came from someone seeing a need and a solution without waiting for "management" to point them down a path. From the article, "'This wasn't a big company initiative,' Newett says, 'just a team of passionate engineers who went about solving a problem we saw with the technology we had.'"

This post was originally published in February of 2017 on another platform:

With the new year comes yet another opportunity to think about the future. Of course we should reassess often, but January is when we tend to focus more than usual on what the coming year might hold.
 
At work I've been given that opportunity in a more formal way. Many of the executives at NPR have gone through what is called a 360 review. Most of those who are VP and above have already passed through it. Seems like this year it's my turn. The first part is to select a professional coach. We have done that in my case. The coach interviews the executive; done. Then the person receiving the coaching effort, me, takes a survey. It is called a Hogan Assessment and is designed to show the coach some insights into areas in the person's psyche. I've finished that portion as well. Next the coach interviews about a dozen people in the organization. These are called 360 interviews because the intention is to talk to people I interact with at different levels; think 360 degrees. Some are those who are above me in the organization, some are peers and others report to me. The specifics of what interviewees say are anonymous, but the coach is looking for patterns. These interviews are in process right now.
 
After all that is done, the coach draws some conclusions, shares all the information with me, except who said what, and the two of us create a plan. The plan will be designed to help me find areas where I can improve, and things to try in order to make progress on the improvement goals. We'll see how it all turns out. Clearly there is a little trepidation involved since it can be difficult at times to hear where one might need to improve. Hopefully I'm able to keep an open mind and take real action on what I learn. In gospel terms the idea of openness might be equated with being humble enough to be teachable.
 
One thing in particular that struck me as I was taking the personal survey was a specific line of questions mixed into the three focus areas. These questions were similar, but slightly different. One group of questions went something like this; "I don't like people who…" What followed was some behavior that was written in a negative way, though one could argue both for and against the sort of behavior described. The answers I could pick were "True" or "False". Similar, but slightly different, were questions that said something like; "I don't like people that are…" This type of question would be completed by some character trait. Again on the surface the character trait was written in a negative form, but could be argued as either negative or positive.
 
It wasn't the ambiguity of the value judgement that I questioned. There are certainly things people do or attitudes others carry that bother me. The issue I had was with the meat of the idea, "I don't like people…" I have found a long time ago that I can be unhappy about an attitude or action without disliking the person. In gospel terms I can hate the sin, but love the sinner. Based on this logic I marked every one of those questions as "False". I'm sure the coach will find this an interesting evaluation to make. I can't wait to hear what he has to say about it when we meet again.
 
I know this sounds altruistic, and I doubt my own attitude is as pure as this sounds. Despite admitting I am human in this area like everyone else, I think it's fair to say that I really feel sadness for people struggling with poor attitudes and behaviors more than I feel judgmental. That hasn't always been the case. I was quick to negatively judge in my earlier years of life. Perhaps experience has mellowed me. Perhaps I have made enough mistakes of my own over the years to encourage a change in my attitude. The scriptures teach us that God will judge us in the same way that we judge others. As my own mistakes have piled up over the years it may be that my motivation to go easier on others is as much selfish as altruistic. I don't know for sure. I think it is fair to say that my children wonder why I'm nicer to their children then I was to them. I hear grandparents and grandchildren get along so well because they share a common enemy (that's a joke… sort of). I certainly don't really think of my children in that sense (probably), though I am sure there were times when they thought of me that way.

This post was originally published in November of 2016 on another platform:

This year for Thanksgiving we drove to Atlanta to visit with some of our family. From our house in Virginia, that’s a 10-hour drive on a good day. As you might guess, with the holiday traffic it took longer. That amount of time leads to good conversation, but you can’t talk the whole time, especially when your wife drifts off to sleep. The result is some quality windshield time lost in thought.
 
Part of the time I was considering what it means to be grateful. My thoughts on many topics eventually find expression in continua. It’s just the way I think about topics that are scalable or relative to some norm. Perhaps gratitude relates to two continua. One might be describing the reality of our life. The other, our perception of our life.
 
Life’s reality continuum might be bounded by extremes. On one end, everything goes perfectly. We have all we need of material goods, loving relationships, spiritual fulfillment, and intellectual stimulation. We could think of this end of the continuum as the “blessed” experience. At the other extreme, nothing goes right. No matter our efforts we are alone. All our attempts fail, and others actively hamper us. We could call this end of the continuum line “cursed.”
 
Our perception continuum could be similar. The positive end might be called “Pollyanna” and it means that we only see the good in our life. No matter how bad it is we turn a blind eye to anything that could be considered negative. The other end might be dubbed “gloom and doom.” No matter what good things go on around us we think all is lost, nobody cares, life is better off without me. Seems to me if we approach either end of this continuum we are losing touch with reality.
 
I have no proof, but I think it’s safe to assume that we all fall somewhere between both the reality extremes and the perception extremes. We all probably have challenges and struggles. We probably also have good things around us. My guess is that where we fall on the line along the blessed/cursed scale or the Pollyanna/gloom-and-doom scale will vary from day to day.
 
Regardless where we land in the reality scale our perceptions may not correlate. Perhaps our task is to try to get our perceptions to line up with reality. If we can acknowledge the bad in life we are being realistic, but if we are only noticing the bad we are also being ungrateful. If we only notice the good then we are less likely to grow. Overcoming challenges or difficulties is how we gain strength. If we ignore them then we won’t work to make things better.
 
I guess my windshield philosophical musings led me to deduce that having gratitude is simply being realistic. Acknowledging both the good and bad in life, then working to improve on the bad, is being grateful. We can be thankful for the good things that bring us joy, and we can be thankful for the bad if we use it as a tool to become better.

This post was originally published in August of 2016 on another platform:

The latest book I just started reading is The Meaning of Science; An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science by Tim Lewens. When I say I just started reading it, that's what I mean. I'm only a handful of pages into it. So far it's interesting.
 
This morning I came across an article in the June/July 2016 issue of PM Journal. The author of Philosophy of Project Management: Lessons From the Philosophy of Science attempts an interesting comparison between the disciplines of science and project management. His name is J. Davidson Frame and he frames (cough cough) scientific philosophy into the following areas:

General epistemological issues

• determining how scientists generate, store, interpret, and distribute knowledge
  

General ontological issues

• identifying whether the theories being pursued address real phenomena
  

Demarcation

• defining the boundaries of scientific effort
  

Scientific explanation

• defining approaches scientists use to explain phenomena
  

Scientific realism versus antirealism

• understanding the role of observable versus unobservable entities in explaining phenomena
  

Normal science versus scientific revolutions

• experiencing paradigm shifts that lead to scientific revolutions
  

Theory ladenness

• understanding the impossibility of scientists being fully objective
  

Under determination

• recognizing that a phenomenon can be explained by multiple explanations
  

Based on this framework the author gives a series of "philosophy of science lessons for philosophy of project management." Here's his project management version of the list:

Demarcate the discipline

• decide what is a part of project management and what is apart from project management, the same could be said for individual projects
  

Avoid excessive abstraction

• focus on the real concrete world (on time, on budget, etc.), practicality is more important than abstract generalities
  

Be open to cross-disciplinary perspectives

• this section is all about team work
  

Encourage spirited debate on profound issues of importance to the advancement of the discipline

• this discussion is less practical and more about generalizing project management ideas, but in the early stages of a project spirited debate can be very helpful as well as when talking about the discipline as a whole
  

 
Here is the full article:

science_and_pm.pdf

This post was originally published in August of 2016 on another platform:

In an article posted in IEEE Spectrum on May 27, 2016, Mark Anderson reports on a recent court case where Oracle accused Google of copyright infringement. Google has used Oracle-published Java API's in creating the Android OS and allowed developers in the Android ecosystem to create apps using the OS. Oracle says it will appeal. That remains to be seen.
 
From the article: "The jury's verdict, so long as it withstands what Oracle said on Thursday would be an appeal, arguably opens the door further for developers to enjoy protected use of other companies' APIs. And that, says one leading software copyright expert, is good news for creative software developers and for users of the millions of apps, programs, and interfaces they create."
 
As a tech user I've never been much of a Java fan. My beef was with the waves of Java updates that seemed at times to be daily. Interacting with more than one machine made it worse as each machine would give me the Java-needs-an-update message. I have noticed these messages have been fewer lately. That may be because more and more software systems are dumping Java. I don't know. Since I don't use a 'Droid phone I'm not sure how much of an issue this is, but obviously it has been an issue enough to cause the court battle.
 
Google rubbed a little salt in Oracle's wound during the closing argument by bringing up Oracle's failed attempt at creating a mobile device OS of its own: "The closing argument was one in which the lawyer for Google was able to say: 'Look, they tried to make a phone with Java, but they failed,' Samuelson says. 'We did so, but we put five years' worth of effort into developing this wonderful platform that in fact has become this huge ecosystem that Java developers all over the world have been able get more of their stuff on because of this. Essentially, [Oracle's] argument is sour grapes.'"
 
Though at my work we are no Google, we have had our own negative interactions lately with Oracle. I'm not sure what Oracle's business plan looks like, but I'm not buying stock.
 
Here is the full article:
 
oracle_v_google.pdf

This post was originally published in August of 2016 on another platform:

From the June 2016 issue of PM Network there is a short entry about Microsoft placing server farms on the seabed in California. Not necessarily a philosophic topic, but I found the idea… well… cool (cough, cough). Here is the entire text:
 
Data’s Deep Dive
 
The technology industry has a heat problem. Massive data centers help deliver videos, email and social network content to billions of people – and generate tons of heat. This leaves tech companies with massive air conditioning bills and the constant risk of crashes from overheated servers.
 
Microsoft thinks the solution lies at the bottom of the sea. Earlier this year, the Redmond, Washington, USA-based company concluded a 105-day trial of an underwater data center project. A team plunged a server rack encapsulated in a watertight steel cylinder 30 feet (9.1 meters) underwater off the coast of California. The capsule was outfitted with more than 100 sensors to measure pressure, humidity, motion and other conditions.
 
The ocean water keeps the servers cool, eliminating expensive energy bills and reducing the risk of crashes. Subsea data centers might even be able to power themselves using tidal power or underwater turbines. The challenge is creating units that can function without regular checkups. Microsoft estimates that an undersea system may be able to go up to 20 years at a time without maintenance.
 
To alleviate environmental concerns, the project team used acoustic sensors to determine if noise from the servers would disrupt ocean wildlife – and found that any sound from the system was drowned out by the clicking of nearby shrimp. Early tests also showed that heat generated by the servers only affected water a few inches around the vessel.
 
The project’s test phase was so successful that it ran 75 days longer than planned. Researchers believe that mass-producing server capsules can slash setup time of new data centers from two years to 90 days. If that’s the case, a big new wave of data center projects could be on the way.

Kelsey O’Conner

Data Center loaded on ship
Pic from NY Times

Data Center depicted on sea bed
Pic from www.bidnessetc.com

This post was originally published in August of 2016 on another platform:

An interesting focus paper was recently published by Radio World. The topic is Audio over Internet Protocol (AoIP) and is titled Radio AoIP 2016. Each piece in the focus paper reviews some aspect of the AES67 and AES70 standards. AES is the Audio Engineering Society. The AES has created many standards for the audio industry over the years. AES67 is intended to be an interoperability standard such that if audio is shared between two pieces of equipment over an IP network, and both pieces of equipment use this standard, then the audio should transfer even if the equipment comes from different manufacturers. AES70 is a standard for monitor and control of IP networked audio equipment.
 
As it turns out, despite what this document encourages, organizations like us at NPR Distribution and public radio stations are not really able to be 100% on the AES67 standard. Why? Because not all the manufacturers of the equipment we use have adopted it. Some that have adopted it have made unique adjustments in the way they deploy the standard in their equipment. They likely take this route to encourage engineers to use their gear and not mix-and-match with other manufacturers (their competitors).
 
This seems counterproductive to me. Often the members of these standards committees within AES come from the manufacturers themselves. If they are dedicating some of the time (meaning money) of their senior engineers to create these standards then limiting full compatibility in some way would make the time and energy less helpful. Maybe they do it so they can market the fact that they have the specific AES standard available to purchasers. Maybe it's so they can get a look at how their competitors are approaching some of the same topics as they are. In either case it may be a bit of a Potemkin village if in the end only some adopt and others adopt in a slightly non-compliant way.
 
Some manufacturers claim to be fully compliant and only put their unique spin into it using optional sections of the standard. If that is true then their gear would work (and perhaps does) with other fully compliant equipment. In these cases the vendor can rightfully claim to be offering "enhancements" in their application of the standard. Perhaps they are marketing their gear as AES67 compliant knowing that other manufacturers will not adopt so they can put the blame on the others when it doesn't work. If this perspective is true, then saying gear is compliant is for marketing purposes knowing that a full system is not likely to happen unless an organization like us uses all the components from the single vendor.
 
It may be that eventually all manufacturers will become compliant and we can move from the older standards we use to the newest. At the same time it may also be that by the time all the manufacturers catch up to AES67 that a newer and better standard will come along, and the cycle would start all over again. You can see why our engineers have their work cut out for them trying to keep us up to the latest standards possible while not always having the full cooperation of the equipment manufacturers. This is just one of the many challenges to our engineers as they are planning what our system will look like during our next major roll-out beginning in FY2018.
 
Here is the full focus paper:
 
aoip.pdf

This post was originally published in August of 2016 on another platform:

There is an interesting article in June's Satellite Today. The piece is titled Generation Next: Pablo Martin, Hispasat and is focused on what attracted this person to the satellite communications industry. The text describes, "His main responsibility is to design 'performing, creative and cost-effective' connectivity solutions." Seems like we at NPR Distribution have a similar focus.
 
Martin says he is interested in satellite because it crosses boundaries and helps solve complex communications needs. He puts it this way, "These types of problems present, in some cases, one common factor: the presence of inequalities. Satellites, due to their nature, can help to provide a solution thanks to their equalizing effect. They don't distinguish political or geographical boundaries: they are reliable and they provide an immediate and effective solution."
 
One of the factors keeping us at NPR Distribution as a satellite-centric network is the diversity of locations we serve and the inequalities of terrestrial bandwidth availability. Our research has shown that although the cost of terrestrial dedicated connections is coming down, at the large scale we need, it is still more expensive than satellite. There are places in the U.S. where you can't get dedicated terrestrial bandwidth, or it is so expensive as to make it impractical. We do believe that availability and cost for terrestrial networks may someday be more appropriate for our application, but not now. Thanks to our work on the PBS proof-of-concept project, we know it is possible to have a single receiver that can work in both satellite and terrestrial networks. In fact, for our future interconnect system this will be a basic technical requirement. It's important so that whichever network topology makes the most sense down the line, we will have the technology in place that is flexible enough to serve in either scenario.
 
Towards the end of the article Martin describes a future with more ubiquitous hybrid networks using both satellite and terrestrial. We are doing that now. For example most of the national producers send live content to us over dedicated terrestrial networks and file content over the Internet. Unlike the limitation of our competition to only files and only Internet, we distribute live and file over satellite, Internet, and dedicated terrestrial networks.
 
Here is the full article:
 
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/june-2016/generation-next-pablo-martin-hispasat/

This post was originally published in August of 2016 on another platform:

I recently listened to a TED Talk. It was about how some companies had patented portions of the human genome. This sort of patenting had been going on for more than 25 years. Sadly, real people in the US Patent office somehow decided that the patent application in question had merit. The ACLU pursued a law suit that eventually went to the Supreme Court. The decision came unanimous that although a company could patent a process to isolate specific gene fragments, it could not patent portions of the genome itself. The base argument is that the human genome is a part of nature and no person is able to create it. Much like a mineral, you can do something to use it, or modify it, that is original, but you can't make it.
 
What made this important was that companies would patent an isolated gene, then charge licensing rights to medical practitioners isolating and examining these genes in order to diagnose patient conditions to know how to treat them. Even worse, once a company had patented the isolated gene, they would sometimes stop advancing the study of the gene themselves. By charging large fees to allow others to study the gene, and by not furthering the study themselves, they were in effect stopping medical advancement related to the specific gene in question. As a result, real people went undiagnosed and untreated.
 
These companies who were attempting to profit from ownership of a human gene remind me of people or companies dubbed "patent trolls." The classic example is a person who digs into someone else's technology, modifies it slightly, files a patent, then waits for someone to use the change so they can pounce with a lawsuit. The patent troll never actually creates anything of value with their supposed idea. Their only intent is to sue and make money.
 
I experienced this once while working in Nebraska. In preparation for the conversion to digital television we had been able to modify our work flow by using some new technology then available. Our effort got some attention in the trade publications of the day, including an interview of one of our engineers. During the interview he mentioned the specific equipment models we were using. About a month later I got a legal letter in the mail ordering us to cease-and-desist all activity using one specific piece of equipment. Supposedly, the equipment in question was using technology that had been patented by the author of the letter. The manufacturer was claimed to have had no right to sell the equipment because they had not paid him a license fee. The letter also told us we even had to delete all content that had passed through this equipment and that they might consider suing us for the value of the money we received from underwriters from any programming that had passed through the equipment.
 
I was shocked. Don't get me wrong. If a manufacturer uses someone else's intellectual property, then they should pay for the value of that intellectual property. That said, even if this guy had a leg to stand on in his pursuit of the equipment manufacturer, why was he targeting us as a user of the equipment? After engaging an attorney with experience in patent law, we learned that even if we had not created the equipment, just using it made us liable. Through our respective lawyers, we agreed to not use the one specific piece of equipment anymore and he agreed not to ask for any money or rights to the content.
 
Why did he go after us? Because we immediately complained to the equipment vendor who was unwilling to defend us and had no legal opinion from a court that they could point to that supported their rights. In short, the troll chased us to get to the manufacturer. In our case it worked. Because the vendor would not defend us and only gave us a credit for the now unusable equipment after lots of complaints by us, we banned purchasing any more equipment from that manufacturer for years. That wasn't just our idea at our little organization. Remember, at the time we made our major purchases through the State of Nebraska procurement office and our primary lawyer was the state Attorney General.
 
I'm not sure if there is a specific lesson here for my current position other than to consider multiple design alternatives in case our primary plan suddenly becomes unusable for whatever reason.

This post was originally published in July of 2016 on another platform:

I was thumbing through the March 2016 edition of Via Satellite when I came across another article on the connected car. The article is titled Driving in the Fast Lane: How the Connected Car is Becoming a Must Have. Since this is a magazine focused on the satellite industry there is, of course, a section on roles for satellite bandwidth in this product market. Other than using the satellite to deliver our content (now metadata as well as audio), I'm not sure how much that portion of the article applies to my work at NPR.
 
I found one idea surprising, as it was to the author. In the portion of the write up under the heading Where the Market Goes Next, there are some assertions I have heard anecdotally a few times in the past. This section seems to put actual data behind the ideas. The author references a recent study by Accenture that surveyed 15,000 new car buyers. According to the study 39% of respondents say that in-vehicle technology is the top priority when selecting a car. Only 14% said power and speed (engine and horsepower) was most important. In fact in-vehicle technology ranked three times higher than power and handling.
 
I don't care what drives a person to buy a specific kind of car (pun intended). What jumps out in front of me (sorry about that one) is that if radio broadcasters want to lower risk in the future, and if drive-time is the most critical time for radio revenues, then broadcasters should do everything they can to attract smart-dashboard use of their content. MetaPub is one way for NPR Distribution to help that effort for public radio stations. It's a new service we are in beta test with right now. I doubt MetaPub will be a big revenue generation machine, just as I doubt the emergence of the smart-dashboard is the saving grace for radio broadcaster revenue. At the same time, like the lotto, you can't win if you don't play. If we are not supporting the new technologies, someone else will. With MetaPub, so far, we seem to be ahead of our competition. If broadcasters are not adding value in the fight for dash-screen real estate, someone else (Pandora, iTunes, Stitcher, etc.) will.
 
Here is the full article:
 
http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/via/march-2016/driving-in-the-fast-lane-how-the-connected-car-is-becoming-a-must-have/

This post was originally published in July of 2016 on another platform:

For some years I've been a member of the Society of Satellite Professionals International (SSPI). Here in the DC area they are represented by the Mid-Atlantic Chapter. I've been less active with this chapter than I was with the Southeast Chapter in Atlanta. Recently SSPI published an updated report on the workforce in the satellite industry. It's called Launch Failure? The subtitle asks the question, Can we attract and retain the talent that powers innovation? When SSPI thinks of the satellite industry in the article, they are thinking about manufacturers, operators and service providers. From that perspective, we at NPR Distribution are not specifically part of the satellite industry as customers, but perhaps a few of the ideas in the report are applicable.
 
The report laments, as the title suggests, that there is an aging of technical staff in particular. I remember when I worked for NET in Nebraska we saw the same issue in the broadcast world. Traveling around now I see a similar issue among our station customers still, maybe less so at producers. Others might have better insight about our customer base as they interact with them more directly and more often.
 
From the report: "The data suggest that this is an industry that is failing to invest in career paths that retain younger talent. At the same time, it relies heavily on older workers who know how things are done – but may not be as good at devising ways for things to be done differently and better."
 
The data may indeed suggest a difficult time retaining younger workers, but the assumption that it leads to less innovation seems questionable. It's not the first time I've heard that sort of statement, and likely you've heard similar things. We can all agree that there are likely differing opinions on this one. For example, how does one define or measure innovation? Perhaps it is true that some new workforce entrants will bring fresh ideas and some veterans are less open to change, but I doubt that all or even most of the people in those categories fit the generalization. In fact where do we draw the line between new and seasoned? What about folks that consider themselves neither of those things?
 
From the report: "Is it high attrition among younger employees that leads companies to rely on veterans, or does the reliance on veterans close off career paths for the next generation? What seems indisputable is that a healthy, growing technology industry should have a lower attrition rate for newer employees and a flatter age curve overall."
 
Perhaps there is some validity to this assertion, but I worry that it seems more theoretical than practical. In the NPR Distribution division we hire when positions become available. In our environment that doesn't happen often. Low turnover is a good thing. It brings stability. Fortunately, when we have hired recently we have been able to bring in a good mix of people at different stages in their careers.
 
From the report: "Conditions in the talent market dictate that the industry needs to reduce its emphasis on competing for a stagnant and shrinking supply of ready-made talent, and to increase its focus on recruiting and training less-experienced people with the smarts, creativity and enthusiasm to power innovation. That takes patience and conscious effort. Most of all, it requires a change in mind-set from hunting for talent to farming it."
 
I'm not sure how our score card meets up to this idea. From my limited point of view, we seem to do a reasonable job at taking advantage of our experienced workers in training up external hires. I think we also do a reasonable job at listening to ideas of our newer employees to glean insights from the work environments they left to join us. Others probably have a better view point on how true this is. I hope we are all taking advantage of as many training opportunities as possible. If indeed the statements from the SSPI study apply in part to us, then collectively we need to work to manage the balance between fresh ideas and tried-and-true continuity. As the quote above says, "that takes patience and conscious effort."
 
Here's how the numbers looked in their industry as included in the SSPI report. I'm not sure how these compare in ours.

This post was originally published in July of 2016 on another platform:

I picked up a book from the give-away shelves on the fourth floor of NPR. It's called Mindful Tech by David Levy. The gist of the book is about making the best use of new communications technologies without having them come to rule our lives. The first chapter reminds the reader of the funny video that came out a few years ago when a women was walking in the mall and typing on a cell phone at the same time. Failing to notice the fountain in front of her she fell in. The whole thing was captured on mall security cameras and went viral on the Internet. Levy makes the argument that by doing both things at the same time (multi-tasking) she really did neither of them well.

The author goes on to make an argument for developing a craft for tech use. Something like the idea of creating an object of art. He argues that we should put more effort into how we use our tech and what we say with tech. He then highlights what he calls "dimensions of craftwork." The following four items are quoted from the book:

Intention
When we craft something, we set out purposefully to make or do something. We have a direction and perhaps even an outcome in mind – to construct a bookcase, to play a certain piece of music or a game of tennis. When it comes to tech, all too often do we click around aimlessly online. By clarifying our intention, and by reminding ourselves of it (or consciously changing it, when appropriate) we increase our chances of arriving successfully at our destination.

Care
When we craft something, we also care about what we are creating or performing. Care, of course, goes hand in hand with intention. We care enough to clarify our intention, and then to make sure that we are realizing it to the best of our ability.

Skill
While having a caring attitude and the best of intentions is necessary, it isn't sufficient. We also need the appropriate skills to realize our intention, including the ability to maintain and use our tools well, and to bring the best of our mind and body to the task at hand. If we pay attention to our online craft, we will be able to notice when we are proceeding skillfully, and when we're not.

Learning
Finally, if we care enough for the quality of our outcome to bring our best skills to bear, then we will want to improve those skills. This requires a commitment of time and attention to engage in an ongoing process of learning.

After giving an example or two of how this has worked for others Levy notes that we shouldn't be craft-obsessed over everything all the time. He notes that by improving our use of the four dimensions of craft "we can avoid a certain amount of mindless and stressful behavior that is now so common in our online lives."

As an example that we don't have to be intentional about everything all the time, Levy refers to a promoter of the "lean, grain-and-local-vegetable-based" diet. After noticing how people took to the diet too strictly, the diet promoter began to tell people, "Sometimes you just have to eat a Snickers bar." When it comes to our interactions with tech, Levy notes, "The challenge and the opportunity is to decide for ourselves when to engage intention and care, and when to eat the Snickers bar (and when, sometimes, to eat the Snickers bar with intention and care). And when we decide to act intentionally and carefully, we ought to feel confident that our craft skills are up to the task."

Seems like some good nuggets here we can all gain from to improve our own craft.

This post was originally published in June of 2016 on another platform:

I've become increasingly interested in how technology and society affect each other. Within the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) there is a defined community focused on this topic called the Society on Social Implications of Technology (IEEE-SSIT). The monthly periodical of the SSIT is called IEEE Technology and Society. In the December 2015 issue I found an interesting article called Information Paradox, Drowning in Information, Starving for Knowledge by Levent V. Orman
 
The ideas are interesting and can be applicable to my industry in particular. The high-level examples given by the author paint the picture:
 
"Those who eat the most food are rarely the healthiest people, and they may actually be severely deficient in some nutrients. Those who have the most Facebook friends are often the loneliest people. Those who are the busiest are not the most productive. Those who read books and watch television the most are sometimes the least knowledgeable."
 
Orman goes on to describe three causes for this paradox.
 
Information Cost
His base argument for this cause is that quality information comes at a higher cost. As a result we tend to provide and consume more information of lower quality. In this way perhaps we do better on trivia games, but are less effective at more important things. The author notes:

"Economists have known for some time that low quality drives out high quality when it is difficult to distinguish between them, called the "lemons problem." When the marketplace cannot distinguish quality easily, consumers tend to buy the cheaper alternative to reduce their risk. Those who produce high-quality expensive products then cannot compete and leave the market."
 
Obsolescence
Information causes change. As we add information it can lead to technology change. As technology and information increase in one area it can make information in another area obsolete. The "old" information is considered less useful and as such is essentially lost over time. Orman argues that as the information and technology change speeds up, changes pace, our ability to assimilate the information decreases. We lose the old information as it is de-emphasized and we don't keep up to the increased amount of new information. The result is we understand less than we did before.
 
Competition
This cause, the author argues, is essentially advocacy. Sources of information mislead or confuse by either sharing false information, or by only sharing a part of the information to gain some sort of advantage. The assumption is that in the market place of ideas all sides can put out their version. As information consumers listen to all sides they will somehow recognize the truth in the middle. The author argues that in reality almost nobody researches all angles to form their own perspective that is closest to true. The result is less complete information.
 
The other point of the author's competition argument is that people tend to seek for more immediate, short-term gains. It is possible to succeed in meeting short-term goals with partial information, but causing more harm or loss in the long run as stated this way:
 
"There is a tremendous impulse to do things cheaply in the short run and derive quick benefits. There is a great deal of simple information about the short run and it is easy to use that information to derive quick benefits, yet long-run planning requires rare high-quality information, insight, and wisdom."
 
Conclusions
 
In the article the author argues against assuming that correlation is the same as causation. I completely agree. The reasoning is that often when two things happen at the same time in some sort of linked way (correlation) proponents of a specific perspective use this as evidence that one event caused the other (causation). That is not necessarily always true. There are examples given to support the argument that correlation does not equal causation. Other explanations are given to show a different causation, but the author in a few cases uses essentially the same tool of correlation to support the alternative cause. In other words the author, in part, uses the same tool to support one perspective that happens to differ from the other perspectives using the same tool to self-justify.
 
I'm not sure what we can take from all of this, but over the past year at my work we have attempted to put tools and processes in place to strike the best balance between the short and long game. Hopefully we are sifting through the large amount of information and finding the diamonds that move our organization forward. In fact hopefully we have done a reasonable job of defining what forward means at the division level. We have attempted to define some metrics to help us understand how we are doing as compared with how we have done in the past, and how we'd like to be in the future. I guess only time will tell how we've done and if our aim is correct.

Each of us should find our own ways to consider what information is truly useful and what information is just so much fluff.
 
Here is the full article if you have a mind:

information_pardox.pdf

This post was originally published in May of 2016 on another platform:

This past November the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) offered the Content and Communications World (CCW) Conference in NYC. A subset of that event included the annual SATCON show. Looking over the agenda there were a number of topics that point to the growing presence of hybrid networks. By hybrid networks I mean those that combine satellite and terrestrial links. An example of a hybrid network would be the PBS proposed v6 system that included Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) ground-based mesh connectivity The proposal would also add satellite overlay for disaster recovery (DR) and to get to sites where the MPLS is impractical. Regardless what happens with PBS, we at NPR Distribution will need to keep tabs on how the technology around hybrid networks continues to advance.

Here are some conference sessions listed that point to this growing hybrid network trend (I underlined key phrases related to hybrid networks):
 
SATCON Keynote: The Satellite Industry Today and Tomorrow, A Dialogue Between Today's Industry Leaders and the Promise of the Future
 
The satellite industry is alive and well, and it's changing dramatically. How will the emerging industry leaders take it to the next generation? Senior executives are armed with experience and knowledge, and challenged with implementing new solutions, motivating the work force, and maintaining a healthy bottom line. The opening keynote of SATCON will feature the three winners of the SSPI Promise Awards in a dialogue with our C-level executives and will provide a forum for discussing trends, technologies, challenges, and opportunities.
 
Fundamentals of Satellite Communications Systems Part 1
 
This 2-part seminar is designed for government and enterprise professionals who need an introduction to satellite communications. The seminar will provide an understanding of when to use satellites and how satellites both compete and coexist with terrestrial communications and will conclude with an overview of recent and proposed communications satellite systems. Part 1 covers satellite basics including orbits, frequencies, digital transmission techniques and ground station technology for point-to-point, point-to-multipoint and full-mesh satellite communications networks.
 
The Internet of Things: Marrying Satellite, Wireless, and Fiber in a Hybrid World
 
The Internet of Things (IoT) represents the idea that more and more items in our lives, including our bodies, will be connected to a sensor, data will then be transmitted via those sensors through various pipes, to servers which will then act upon that data, ideally to better all our lives. Yet, a huge part of that process remains undetermined and ready for input and activation. Pointedly, that would include the bandwidth necessary to carry all those digital ones and zeros. What will be the right mix of satellites, and ground-based wireless and fiber distribution that will one day make the IoT work seamlessly? Who will be the key stakeholders 5-7-10 years hence? Where will it work best? What are the major challenges and opportunities? When will it happen?
 
Fundamentals of Satellite Communications Systems Part 2
 
This 2-part seminar is designed for government and enterprise professionals who need an introduction to satellite communications. The seminar will provide an understanding of when to use satellites and how satellites both compete and coexist with terrestrial communications and will conclude with an overview of recent and proposed communications satellite systems. Part 2 covers applications for communications satellites-including mission- critical private networks, disaster recovery, rural telephony, and multicast.
 

This post was originally published in April of 2016 on another platform:

In PMI Today, Kareem Shaker gives his opinion about creativity in an article How to Cultivate Creativity. I'm not sure how true his ideas are, but they seem similar to ideas I've seen in other papers focused on this topic. He lists 5 specific ways to foster a creative environment. They include:

• Describe the path forward
• Invest in innovation
• Unleash potential
• Welcome failure and recognize success
• Create a stimulating workplace

On the surface these phrases may seem like a conglomeration of buzz words (at least they do to me), but the ideas behind each as expressed in the write up are worth considering. In each organization I've worked for it has appeared to me that we have had varying degrees of success with each of these. I'm certain there is more an organization can do. As each of us plan for our future, let's think about ways we can be creative (this is the "merely asking for it" part as noted in the article as not good enough). More importantly we (particularly the "we" in leadership roles) should be thinking of ways we can better foster an environment that would encourage each of us to actually want to be more creative.
 
Here's the full article:

creativity.pdf

This post was originally published in March of 2016 on another platform:

I don't know about you, but words like goal, objective, mission, and purpose can become intermingled in my head sometimes. The meanings can feel synonymous or at least hard to distinguish. Reading definitions from differing sources doesn't really seem to help either. Last year, in a class I attended on Executive Decision Making as part of my post-graduate work at George Washington University our professor, Dr. Ernest H. Forman, shared a concrete example after his verbal attempt to define them was not very successful either. The example helped me think of these ideas clearer. For those old enough to remember the space race (or learned about it in History class) this example will be familiar. Here's the slide from the class:

Interestingly enough, an edition of IEEE Technology and Society that came out about the same time I was in the class had an article about the Apollo missions, and how it was "sold" to the public. This article points to the mission of getting a man on the moon and safely back to earth, but emphasizes outcomes hoped for in the more narrow effort of securing public support. Public support of the program ultimately meant public support of the cost. Here is the article:

apollo.pdf

This post was originally published in February of 2016 on another platform:

Recently I had half a day in Burlington, Vermont to do some turns. Looking for something close to the city, and limited to sites that were actually open, I chose Bolton Valley. This was my first venture into east-coast skiing. Until now my experience has been confined to Utah and Colorado.
 
Vermont in February was much like the end of the season in the Rockies. The snow was icy and groomed. There really was no going off the groomed areas. Even if I had tried it the slope conditions in the open were bare of snow, under the snow making machines, or solid ice. Slipping into the trees offered a few short, well-packed trails or heavy mashed potatoes. All but two of the black diamond runs were closed. The open ones I would have rated more like a steep blue run.
 
The weather was very cold, single digit temps with a mix of overcast and sunny sky. The bottom half of the mountain was windy so all the trees had their snow blown off. The top half of the mountain was very calm so the trees were covered in frost. The site of the frozen trees at the top was beautiful.
 
There were really no lift lines, not surprising for a Thursday in the off-season. Since I had to catch a plane that afternoon I was not able to check out their night skiing.
 
The Wilderness Peak lift section was completely closed. Timberline Peak was open, but only offered two green runs and one blue. The rest was closed. I took one jaunt over to Timberline just to check it out.
 
I spent most of my time on the Vista Peak section of the mountain. The longest runs were there. The only black diamond section open in that part of the mountain was Hard Luck. It was fun but not challenging, even to an old-guy mediocre skier like me. The most fun I had was hitting a series of bumps along the side of Sherman's Pass and lower down on Deer Run. They came about every 50 feet just at the edge of the trees. I could just keep moving from one jump to the next. I wasn't getting huge air or traveling all that fast, but for an old man, six or seven foot jumps are enough fun.

I took the pic below from the lift.

This post was originally published in February of 2016 on another platform:

In an article in the IEEE Engineering Management Review about dealing with uncertainty the authors noted tension between the positive and negative effects of change. The focus of the article is specific to new product development (NPD), but the principle could apply to most anything. They note that on one hand, "Changes negatively influence internal project success." On the other hand, "Changes positively contribute to project learning."
 
Since change is inevitable with pretty much anything we humans are involved in, we ultimately have to learn how to accept some level of change. The challenge for each of us is to try to manage change in our efforts so as not to be too damaging to our plans, and to be sure to extract whatever lessons learned we can from changes in order to manage future efforts differently.
 
Good luck to us all in performing that balancing act. I would suspect that none of us do it perfectly; at least I'm confident that I don't.

If you're interested, here's the paper.

uncertainty.pdf

This post was originally published in February of 2016 on another platform:

I read the attached article a while ago and it made me chuckle. Of course things are the most funny when they ring true. That's why we laugh, to avoid crying. In this case the author was griping about how overwhelming all the technology can become today. She pines for yester-year when things were simpler.
 
Many of us have been at the center of the high-tech boom. We breathe tech. Given that, I suppose we all might sometimes feel a bit like Dr. Berman. When asked what I like to do when I get a little free time my response often goes a little like this. "My work is inside, high-tech and intellectual, so in the off hours I prefer things that are outside, low-tech and physical."
 
I would argue that too much of any good thing can become a bad thing, but so could a dearth of a good thing as well. Perhaps what Dr. Berman is really seeking isn't killing off technology, but rather some way to better discipline her use of it. Balance is an important part of life.
 
I do find it ironic that after you read her rant about too much email, and then scroll down to the description of the author on the second page, you find the statement, "She can be reached by email at [email protected]."

tech_rip.pdf

This post was originally published in February of 2016 on another platform:

At the NAB conference last year I picked up a book by this title. It was written by Andrew Dubber. It's interesting where he took this work. I had assumed he'd focus in on new technology and how it's changing what we do. He eventually gets there in later chapters. What he did instead at the beginning was to question what radio even is. On page 10 he says, "As part of a changing media environment, radio becomes a moving target." He continues, "Something is happening to radio - indeed something has happened to radio - and in order for us to understand what has changed about it and what that means, we need to stop and attempt to gain some clarity about what 'radio' was in the first place."
 
Dubber eventually describes a context to define and understand what is meant by the word radio. He proposes a list of 10 categories through which radio is defined. Here is the list:
 
Device
This is the tool used to listen to radio. It could be the traditional device in your car dashboard, on the kitchen table or the home stereo system. He also includes less traditional devices such as mobile phones, computers, and tablets.
 
Transmission
Here he includes electromagnetic radio waves that are modulated, wired internet connections, cell phone data streams and satellites. I would add audio channels on TV cable and satellite systems.
 
Text
By this Dubber means the programs offered through the medium.
 
Subtext
Here Dubber is speaking of the intentions behind the programming. What are the underlying purposes for making radio content? The motivation shapes the outcome.
 
Audience
This refers to the people who consume the content no matter how it gets to them.
 
Station
Dubber uses this term more broadly than the traditional idea of a business entity that broadcasts a radio signal over the air in a geographic location. He also includes any organization that produces texts (content).
 
Political Economy
Here he wants us to consider political and economic forces that shape the content shared and the funding mechanisms. Dubber also includes the ideas surrounding performance of some social or civic function.
 
Production Technologies
Tools used to create radio texts (content). Think hardware and software.
 
Professional Practice
In this area Dubber refers to techniques and work flows for using the technology to create and distribute the content.
 
Promotional Culture
This one relates to several of the others, but with the intention to have a specific effect on the consumer behavior of audiences.
 
Whew! So... How do YOU define RADIO? Let's see what you think. Of course that assumes anyone is actually reading this and has/shares an opinion that I'm OK leaving posted here. ;-)

This post was originally published in January of 2016 on another platform:

I was sitting in a meeting some time ago where we were discussing collaborative efforts. The graphic below was included in the slide deck that was being looked over. I'm certain it was developed internally by other staff at NPR. I thought it was helpful and decided to share it here.
 
Essentially there are four strategies depicted on a sliding scale. The scale is defined on the top line in red. At the left there is less inter-operation between organizations. As you move to the right there is ever increasing inter-operation.
 
In the meeting there was not a belief that we should always be in the collaborate category. In fact all four of these strategies make sense depending on the situation. There are times, for example, when an organization or person might take action independently and simply communicate with others about it. That would be the strategy at the left side of the continuum.
 
As human beings we will regularly employ one of these four strategies whether we do it consciously or unconsciously. As the scale implies the strategies to the left take less effort so there might be some temptation to mostly take that approach. As we interact with others perhaps we should consciously look for opportunities to use strategies to the right side as often as it makes sense to, and not be tempted to overuse those on the left because they are easier.

This post was originally published in January of 2016 on another platform:

Innovation is often defined as the introduction of new things or methods (see http://dictionary.reference.com). Another way one could think of innovation might be combining existing things or methods and using them in new ways; case in point, parking meters.
 
This is a topic I really had not thought about in a very long time, if ever. For more than twenty years we have lived in areas where there are no parking meters. On occasions when we went to visit a city where they have meters we would just park in a parking lot or tower. If we did have to use a meter on the street there was nothing novel about them. Put in your quarter and be sure to add time before the meter went red.
 
Now that I work in downtown Washington DC and have more opportunities to park in the city my experience has changed. Generally I don't park at all since most days I ride the train into the city and walk from the station to NPR. When there is a reason for me to drive to work, I usually just park in the underground parking facility at the NPR building, but sometimes there are off-campus evening events that take me out into the greater parking world. Several of those experiences caused me to get to know the more innovative approaches to street parking metering that have evolved as of late. Those experiences caused me to look around on my daily walk between Union Station and NPR. The result is a recognition that some smart innovation, in the sense of combining disparate technologies, has brought the world of street parking meters a long way from the simple coin-op days.
 
The first step-up in metering technology I see looks deceivingly like the traditional coin-op parking meters. In fact they are backwards compatible (geek speak) in that they actually will take change if you so desire that payment method. What's new is that they have more apps (geek speak again) available. For instance if you don't have coins in your pocket you can swipe your credit or debit card. Additionally, set up an account on the city's metering web-app, and you can update the parking time with a simple text. No credit card required in your hand, just in the account. What I like about the texting version of payment is if you have to renew your time you don't have to leave your meeting, event, etc. to run down to the meter and add time. You just send another text with the number on the side of the meter and instantly you have averted the threat of a ticket from parking enforcement.

The electrical power to do all this is furnished through a small solar panel and the connectivity between the meter and the network is done via wireless. Just a few years ago all of these technologies would not have been available in such a small package as an average-sized parking meter. What a smart way to combine different technologies that were not developed for anything like this sort of application.

Another parking advance is even less hardware intensive. Instead of a block lined with individual parking meters, some locations have shifted to something akin to paying for a space in a parking lot. Somewhere within the city block a driver is trying to park on is a single kiosk. At that kiosk, as with individual meters, there are multiple ways to pay. The driver can park anywhere on the block, then interact with the kiosk through a touch screen or touch sensitive pressure buttons. Again the kiosk is powered by a small solar panel and interacts with the network by wireless connection.
 
I have seen two different versions of how a driver can show they have paid for their time via a kiosk. The first is what I think of as likely the earlier version. In this case the kiosk kicks out a small receipt on paper which the driver then places in the car dashboard. When the parking enforcement people come by they can read the receipt (typically with a bar-code reader) and determine if there is time remaining or if they should issue the bad kind of ticket. The negative to this version is, like the old coin-op or credit card swipe payment, a driver would have to physically go back to the kiosk and their car to pay for added parking time. On my motorcycle, the ticket is accessible to anyone walking by and another driver could adopt my ticket for their car.
 
What I consider the most advanced of all of these options is the kiosk that does not issue a receipt, rather it requests the license plate number on your car. Once entered, the parking enforcement people simply connect with the parking database and look up the license plate number to see if there is still time on the meter. Like the text option on individual meters, a text can be used to recharge this virtual parking meter saving the need to physically go to the space to recharge the time.

This new kiosk arrangement would have made Cool Hand Luke even more frustrated than he already was. You may recall the movie that starts with a Paul Newman, playing the drunken protagonist. He cuts off the heads of a bunch of parking meters. Then he sits down and waits for the police to come by and arrest him.

The remainder of the film is about his experience in prison. It is likely that the most well-known line from the movie happens when Luke is uncooperative with the prison guards. The lead guard (or maybe it was the warden, I don't remember) bellows out in a thick southern accent, "What we have here is a failure to communicate." The guard then proceeds to make Luke's life more miserable than it already is.

Drivers who park on city streets may view parking enforcement a bit like prisoners view prison guards. Unlike the prisoner and guard communication problem, these new parking technologies make for better communication between drivers and parking enforcement. Well, OK, if it's not better communication, at least it is easier communication.

This post was originally published in October of 2015 on another platform:

Most have probably heard the analogy of perspective; is the cup half-full or half-empty? We have a 2008 Chevy Malibu. We've had it for about four years. For months we had the occasional check-engine light pop up, but the car didn't seem to have any issues. For this reason the wallet was focused in other places. A little over a month ago the check-engine light took a turn for the worse. More messages associated with the light came up on the dashboard when starting the car, and would intermittently insert themselves temporarily during a drive. Then finally the biggest concern, the battery light came on. All of this happened as our deadline for getting the emissions check done for registration renewal was approaching.

My wife found a place recommended by someone we know. We took it in and, not surprisingly, when they tested the alternator it was bad. The other alarms, they said, were common when the electrical power was low. True to their word, when we got the car back everything seemed better except my wallet. Within a day the computer system reset (as planned), then some alarms came back (not as planned). We just figured it'd be some sensors to replace. Unfortunately things went downhill fast. Another day and all the old symptoms reappeared. We believed it couldn't be the alternator since that had just been replaced. A quick stop at an auto parts store proved the battery was not holding a charge, so they replaced it. Luckily that was free since the battery was still in warranty. It didn't fix the symptoms though, so back to the shop. They tested the brand-new alternator and pronounced it as bad also. A replacement was installed and we were back behind the wheel. Since this one was a replacement to the one they supplied it didn't cost us anything.

A few days after this we saw a few alarms again pop up, but they seemed unrelated. The check-engine light was intermittent. This went on for three weeks when I got an unhappy text from home. The battery light was back. Not sure we could trust the same shop, we took it to the dealer. Sure enough… the alternator was bad. They lightened my wallet by putting in a new one, but they had more things to say about the other alarms. Over the next week we fixed the problems (turned out to be several) and simultaneously lightened our bank account again. Just today, after fixing a number of issues, we got word that all the faults are gone and the emission test passed.

While all this was going on, the financial impact was timed just right in a month that we had some "extra" money come in. My initial reaction was, "Of course. We get a little extra money and instead of being able to use it for something we want to use it for we have to use it for that stupid car." That is clearly a cup-half-empty perspective. I can remember similar experiences when my reaction was more along the lines of, "How blessed we are. Just when something bad hits us we get the extra money come in that we need to cover it." That is the cup-half-full version of the exact same situation.

After thinking it over, it feels like our ability to cover our costs seems to ebb and flow fairly consistently in sync with the ebb and flow of the needs we have. That is a testimony builder for me in that it feels like we are being watched over and cared for. At the same time there are days when I wish that the revenues as compared to the liabilities would stay above the changing financial tide so that when family costs go down the margin between the two would increase even if the revenues don't. I think I would consider the positive version of this financial allegory gratitude. The negative financial wish could be some display of ingratitude.

I don't know why these sort of life experiences appear to me differently at different times. Why do I see some as half-full events in which I feel gratitude for the blessings? Why do some of them feel like half-empty events that bring me to grumbling in at least a partial spirit of ingratitude? Once I recognized this experience in context of my reaction I was quick to chide myself for not counting my blessings. It does help to understand that despite this specific occurrence of a first-world problem, our life is actually very good and we have every reason to be grateful and happy.

The effort isn't over until I get the car registration renewed and can legally drive it on the street for another year. Although all this made my wallet thinner, I wouldn't recommend the process for weight loss. On the question of half-full or half-empty, I know a former colleague who liked to say neither was true, but rather the cup was over-engineered.