Beach Haven

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:

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:

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:

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 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:

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 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 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.

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

Some months ago one of my friends posted a link to an article on Facebook. In this case the poster is not just an "FB friend", but someone I consider an actual friend. The story was about a study conducted by someone in the world of academia. The gist of the findings was that non-religious people have a higher IQ than religious people. For whatever reason I didn't respond online. I generally like to take a breath before jumping into a fray. The pace of FB posts doesn't really allow for measured contemplation. By the time you can think something through, the topic has long been buried and forgotten. I'm sure my response here will not be read by many, if any, and it is just my opinion which is probably worth as little as I think the study is worth. My initial reaction was that the study findings sounded something like what I might have heard in the sixth grade. "Oh yeah! Well you're dumber than me!" I was waiting for the next study to have findings showing that "My dad can beat up your dad!"

As I thought it over for a few days I was reminded of the old adage that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to say.

I have not spent any time digging into the study or how thorough it was. I'm sure people could quickly point to this as a reason my response is not defensible. I would, however, like to remind us all about some basic ideas in statistics. The first is the symbol N. It is used to define a total population, or a complete set of actual or potential observations. In the case of the referenced study this could be something like all adults in the United States. Then there is the symbol n. It is used to define some smaller part of N that will represent the group as a whole without needing to consider every subject contained in N. The symbol n is specifically the subset of the population selected according to some scheme. These definitions are not mine. I took them from The Basic Principles of Statistics for Introductory Courses, published by BarCharts, Inc.

The story linked in FB said the study used two samples to come to its conclusions. The first was a sample of people chosen from among college educated adults. The second was a sample of people chosen from among adults of all sorts. The results were that those with higher education had a lower percentage of people who believed in God or considered themselves religious. Those who came from a more general population had a higher percentage of people who believed in God or considered themselves religious. There was a link made depicting those with higher degrees of education having, in general, higher IQ than those who did not.

Based on the definitions of N and n these conclusions should come as no surprise at all. It's self-fulfilling prophesy. If we accept the premise that those with higher education also have a higher IQ then it is no wonder this study drew its stated conclusions.

For one thing, those who attend institutions that tend to disagree with religious principles are more likely to adopt the perspective of the institution. If the sample of higher-educated people is limited to just that group, then it is no wonder that this group would have a higher instance of non-religious perspective. Those who do not receive academic indoctrination will be less persuaded by the arguments of academia. If the "regular Joe" population includes many other groups then the average religiosity would obviously shift upward since more perspectives are included.

The idea of linking IQ with non-religiosity is also in question.  Using much the same argument, if the "regular Joe" population has more people of lower IQ then the average would be naturally lowered. Not because as a whole these people are dumber, but because there are many more of them who have not attended institutions of higher learning. It's likely there are "dumb" people who attend college and "dumb" people who do not attend college. It is also likely that the percentage of lower IQ individuals in higher education is less than the general population. If that is true then the IQ of educated people would average higher than the general population. I'm only stating what the study argues and I'm not really sure any of these assertions are true.

Which institutions of higher learning were selected could also have much to do with these findings. For example, if the study had focused on universities that are owned or sponsored by religious organizations the sample results n might have actually shown the exact opposite. These people would likely be a population that is both highly educated and more likely to be religious.

The problem is the issue of coincidence and correlation. The study is arguing cause-and-effect. The study argument is that people are less religious because they are smarter, and that people are more religious because they are dumber. I am arguing that the supposedly smarter group is less religious because of the smaller population. Many other factors can also be associated with cause such as institutional indoctrination. I am also arguing that the supposedly dumber group is more religious because of the larger population size. More people with a wider range of IQ involved will naturally explain a lowering of the average IQ and raising of religiosity among the group simply because of the larger sample size.

I think the study would be more telling if people in the study were actually tested for IQ both within the higher-educated group and within the lesser-educated group, then religiosity could be compared based on IQ and not based on level of education.

Within the study I don't fit the mold. I have an advanced degree and am on the cusp of completing another. It would seem I'm the anomalous highly-educated dumb person who is religious because of my dumbness. If I were smarter I would have better understood the concepts shown me in my education. That greater understanding would have made me less religious. At least, so goes the argument of the study. 

Well… I'm OK considering myself a highly-educated dumb person. It fits better with an argument from the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:27. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty…"

I doubt my little quibbling would confound "the wise" or "mighty". I'm certain some person connected with the study could point to why I'm off base since as I said earlier, you can make statistics say anything you want them to.

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

A week or so ago the day was just perfect outside. I felt inspired to make another roach coach run. I even had a little cash in my pocket. For me that is highly unusual. I decided on Yummy...Yum Food. It specializes in Persian food. I had the Lamb & Koobideh Kabob. The food was good. The lamb was nice and juicy. The koobideh (beef) was a little dry. The sauce they poured onto the meat and rice was quite tasty.

It wasn't cheap. I spent slightly more than I tend to at the brick-and-mortar restaurants across the street. I had to walk across the street to find a place to sit down, but that didn't take long.

They don't seem to have a website, but the truck lists their Twitter and Facebook sites.

It was a literal mom-and-pop. "Mom" was in the back cooking and "Pop" was in the front taking orders and money.

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

Back in the mid-2000's there was a buzz about a new technology threatening radio. It was called podcasting (a mash up of the words "iPod" and "broadcasting"). The way it worked back then was a person took an iPod (or similar device) and attached it to their home computer. They would subscribe to podcasts being made available from many sources on the Internet. The device would stay attached overnight with the computer running. The next morning the listener would unplug the fully charged device. Any of the podcasts with new content would be automatically updated. Any that had been listened to in previous days would be automatically deleted. A listener really wasn't restricted to overnight, but there was a requirement for the device to be hooked up with a cable for a length of time to allow the automated downloading and updating of content. The idea was popular among some circles, but usage remained fairly low. The dedicated device seemed more popular for music than for refreshed podcast content.

Then came the rise of the smart phone. Podcast software has been made commonly available on new phones. One difference between the iPod model and the smart phone model is availability of bandwidth. Cell phone bandwidth and WiFi signal coverage has been steadily rising and costs continue to come down. Smart phones are so prevalent now that I've seen reports suggesting that in North America there are more smart phones in use than there are people. With the growth of bandwidth, for a person to get access to a podcast there is no longer a need to hook up a cable and wait. The delivery can come to the phone through the same data paths used for talk, text, email and web surfing. By using the smart phone for podcast content, listeners only have to carry one device. Before they would carry a phone for talk and text, and separately they would carry an iPod (or other audio device) for music and podcast content. The dedicated media player has not disappeared, but with the rise of the integrated smart phone device they are clearly less popular than they once were. Just stroll down the technology aisle at your local store and check out the ratio of smart phones to pocket-sized dedicated media players.

Interestingly, the title of "podcast" has not changed even though those using an actual iPod to play the content are probably small in number. Even when the original model was first in vogue there were other devices (not just iPods) that could download and play the content. Apple did a good job out-marketing the competing media players and the name stuck.

Recently a number of organizations have gone down the path of creating podcasts again. I assume this rise of podcast content is associated with the ubiquity of smart phones. Two of the leading recent examples are Serial, produced by This American Life, and Invisibilia, Produced by NPR. Both of these shows have had downloads numbering in the millions. The recent popularity of podcasts has been so good that it is beginning to get the attention of sponsors. Ads are often embedded in the content.

There is some cross over between media delivery methods. For example more than 200 NPR stations have run Invisibilia content on the broadcast radio air. This American Life agreed to dedicate one of its regular weekly radio broadcast programs to Invisibilia content.

The effect of the rebirth of podcasts remains to be seen. There are many audio podcast content sites springing up all over the Internet. All reports I've seen show radio listenership on the decline while podcast listenership is on the rise. That said, the scales of these two media mechanisms are degrees of magnitude different. Radio listenership is many times higher than podcast listenership right now.

The measurements are not apples-to-apples. Radio listeners are measured in cume (cumulative audience, total number of listeners) and AQH (average quarter-hour, the longer people listen the higher the AQH). Similar to television, if a radio is on there is no way to know how many people are listening. For example, how many people are in the car while the radio is on and are they actually listening? If the family is running errands, several may have headphones on, listening to MP4's in the back seat for example. The numbers are also extrapolated from sampled listeners through polling services such as Arbitron.

Podcasts are measured in number of downloads. Downloading a program is not the same as actually listening to the program. For example if a person downloads the Serial series, but only listens to the first program all the episodes count in the statistics.

Regardless of any statistical errors in counting, what is important is trending. Any statistician will tell you that so long as something is measured in the same way consistently then any error is also consistent. That means the trends will be valid even if the data is slightly off.

One last difference to mention about podcasts. Since these are recorded files shared on the Internet, they are not broadcast over the airwaves. This means that podcasts are not subject to the same rules that content shared over the air is subject to. In the United States, broadcast content is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I have not seen any sort of rating system for podcast content. It's not required that the content producer offer warnings about the nature of the content, though many do. Rough language and sensitive topics are not unusual in this arena. Much content may be created by people who do not follow journalistic ethical standards. Like much on the Internet, fact checking may be lacking. Some might argue that such standards are not followed on broadcast media either, but at least it is supposed to be. No such restriction exists for podcasts.

As I have experimented with podcasting I find an interesting dilemma. The podcast listening has begun to compete with audio books and radio for my commute and workout listening. I've become a microcosm of the phenomenon of media splintering.

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

After nearly a year of doing nothing with this site, and continuing to be unhappy ​with the old bhaven.org site I went back to look at this SharePoint site again and remembered why I tried it out in the first place. A static website has little appeal. At work I've heard websites referred to as a "legacy platform" meaning the old way of doing things. It maybe so. I do participate in social media (FB, Twitter, etc.) except the content there is ephemeral. There is little to no constancy. I don't think a website is much better, but at least there is no technical objection to longer form and the data stays in place for as long as you leave it there and pay the host site provider.

The idea of old media is an interesting one. Five of our children made a choice to serve as missionaries for our church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. For the girls this meant 18 months of almost no direct contact. For the boys it meant the same for 24 months. Before each of them left I asked them how they wanted me to write to them. I gave them the choice of either an email or a physical paper letter. Every one of them chose snail mail. You should understand that these kids are plugged in. They have been online their entire lives. They are digital natives in the truest sense. Yet, when they were going to be away and longing for a touch of home, they wanted something to show up in a physical mailbox. Each week my wife and I would set at a computer, type out our message from home, hit print, sign the letter, then stick it in an envelope and drop it in the mailbox for the postman.

This past week I was attending a conference for the North America Broadcasters Association in Toronto, Canada. Interestingly, in the conference bag that showed up at my hotel room I found a nice leather-bound 2015 journal. It has lined pages for writing and each page is marked at the top with an individual date, one for each day of the year.

One other experience I have related to this cross-media trend. I read books. I have lots of them I have read, and plenty yet to be perused. I also have commute time each day. Some years ago I got in the habit of downloading audio books and listening to them during my commute time. I still do. Interestingly I have generally listened to audio books that I have a physical copy of. If I don't have a physical copy, then before I finish listening I often buy a physical copy and put it on the shelf. I'm using the more modern act of listening to an MP3 or MP4 version, yet I still find myself wanting the good old fashioned version with words written on paper. I do actually read some books if they are for school or if I can't find an audio book version. In my post-graduate classes students can opt to download the digital versions of text books. Many take that option, but not all.

I'm not sure what it is that keeps us tied to older forms of media. Maybe it feels somewhat more permanent. I don't know. Much of the theme of the Toronto conference was about where the media of radio is going. We heard how online tools such as podcasts are threatening radio listenership. It's not new. Every time some new medium comes along the others feel threatened. Yet in this day of television, movies, video streams, etc. the theaters are still open on Broadway. We can stream all sorts of music, yet live concerts are still common place. Don't get me wrong. Ever-growing media options to those of us who consume it will likely mean smaller slices of the pie for each of the disparate media. It can be argued whether new media are growing the content distribution pie, or simply carving the pie into ever smaller pieces. It does seem, however, that old media stays with us in some evolved state regardless. Be it our need for the familiar, nostalgia, or a perspective of the quaintness of it, old media somehow continues to stick around.

For some years I built the Beach Haven website manually using ipower.com as a hosting site. Some years ago it got difficult with the limited tools I had at the time to keep up every time browser technology changed. I also wasn't able to separately create a mobile friendly version of the site. My solution was to use Microsoft 365, specifically the SharePoint tool. I am very familiar with SharePoint, and the small cost included a public facing site. I just pointed the bhaven.org URL to the SharePoint URL and built the site there. Problem solved, or so I thought.

I ran the site that way for several years. It was convenient, though the tools were a little limited. Then recently I got an email from Microsoft telling me that they would no longer support public facing sites in SharePoint. There was no other obvious option inside MS 365 that I could see.

Lucky for me ipower.com updated it's tool suite. So here I am rebuilding this website using "free" tools included with my ipower account. Their site hosting options are quite affordable and generous with email accounts and site storage space. Unfortunately, that means I will need to repost here the content I built on MS 365. This means for the next few weeks there will be a rush of old content. It will post here as if it was new. For context, I'll add a note in each post about when it was originally available in the MS 365 space.

I doubt anyone is really reading any of this stuff anyway. If you are, I'm sorry you are putting up with my less-than-interesting ramblings. Thanks for somehow finding at least something of value in the posts to burn your time on them. One advantage to this switch is that this tool is actually a blog tool. Unlike the other location, readers can actually comment. Knock yourself out.