Working Up

by Dwayne Phillips

The FAA continues to ban electronic devices on parts of commercial flights. Technical: they cannot test all devices for EMC. Political: they cannot withstand the fallout of a mistake.

The FAA continues to ban electronic devices during the takeoff and landing portions of commercial flights. This continues to exasperate just about everyone. There are two basic reasons: technical and political.

First the Technical. The FAA cannot test everything for EMC – Electro Magnetic Compatibility. EMC means that one device, like my iPad, will operate compatibly with another device, like the electronics that control the airliner. The iPad will not interfere with the airplane. The FAA could fly a plane up and down while volunteers sat in it using their iPads. Okay, one device down. Well, at least one version of one device. Every few months Apple changes something inside the iPad. Hence, the FAA would have to repeat the test with the iPad every few months. Now let’s see, how many different electronic devices are there? Maybe a couple of thousand? The FAA would have to test every single one of them every few months to be sure.

And that is the point:

The FAA would have to be 100% sure.

Why the surety requirement? Now we come to the Political reason. If the FAA allowed electronic devices during landings and one plane crashed during a landing, there would be a riot. (I use the term “riot” to describe the public outcry about the FAA allowing such a plane crash to happen.) Government agencies hate riots. They hate riots more than they hate plane crashes. Plane crashes don’t close government agencies; riots can close government agencies.

Hence, the FAA takes the least expensive and least risky path.

Just say No.

Well, that is a government bureaucracy for you.

by Dwayne Phillips

Drivers in New Orleans take all traffic laws under advisement.

I recently drove a little in the French Quarter in New Orleans. You only drive a little in the French Quarter as you park and spend the day walking about the little streets. You only need to drive a few minutes in the old section of New Orleans before you notice something about how the natives drive:

They take all traffic laws under advisement.

I was sitting behind a bus in a right turn lane. People drove past me in the left lane (there is no left lane – it is the lane for oncoming traffic) and turn right in front of us. They didn’t want to wait for the bus to load and unload passengers.

People parked their cars next to the NO PARKING signs.

People parked their cars next to the NO PARKING, LOADING AND UNLOADING ONLY signs.

Observations:

• No one obeyed the traffic laws
• No law enforcement authorities seemed to mind
• There were no traffic accidents

Perhaps the rest of the United States is a bit too concerned about these traffic laws.

by Dwayne Phillips

Companies are far more agile than governments. I hope that one day governments will accept this and work with companies instead of against them.

A few recent stories have appeared about companies moving money to countries with lower tax rates. Some people are outraged about it.

Governments will see what the companies are doing and change the laws. The companies will read the new laws and change their behavior to work around the laws. Note something about these government and company changes.

Governments take years to change laws.

Companies take days to read the laws and change their behavior.

I think this is a good thing.

In America (at least), the states, through the Constitution, created the Federal government. The writers of the Constitution created the government in a way to cause laws to be made slowly. The idea is that the law makers will think before making laws slowly.

I find it unfortunate at how law makers think very little before making laws slowly.

Anyways, people are decrying the greed in the current situation of companies moving their money to countries with lower tax rates. I agree that greed is present, but I find the greed on the part on the governments with the higher tax rates. Lower the tax rates and the companies will come to your country. You will benefit and so will the companies. Raising the tax rate and screaming when companies go to another country shows greed and envy – at least that is what it shows me.

We shall see if governments realize how they are far less agile than companies. Perhaps one day, representatives of governments will talk with leaders of companies about tax rates, banking, and locations of jobs and such. Perhaps one day, these fine persons will understand one another and apply deep thought as they make laws slowly.

by Dwayne Phillips

When writing to convey information, I use a formula that is easy for me to remember and works for me. The formula is: what, so what, now what.

Someone gave me this formula in a meeting years ago. The meeting had nothing to do with writing, but had something to do with telling people information. I guess much of writing has to do with passing information.

The formula:

1. What
2. So What
3. Now What

Clever how that rhymes. I guess the little rhyme helps me remember the formula. I have heard this same formula using different words, but I can’t remember those words, so I pass along the formula in these words.

Let’s expand the formula:

What: Write what happened or write your principal statement.

So what: Write the implication of the event or principal. Explain why this matters.

Now what: Write what you will do or what you recommend doing.

For example:

1. We left home late today.
2. We won’t be able to pick up the party snacks on the way.
3. We recommend that you call our friends and ask them to pick up the party snacks as they live next to the store.

and

1. I use a formula in conveying written information.
2. This formula helps me remember to provide essential information.
3. I recommend this formula to other people, often.

One more little part of the formula. Insert the word “Gut” between steps 1 and 2, steps 2 and 3, or both.

Gut: Write the feeling you have about what you have just written.

The addition of gut allows those of us who are more emotional to use such a formula. Emotional types hate formulas unless the formula allows for emotion.

by Dwayne Phillips

A new thing – retail restaurants. Actually an old thing. I welcome its return.

Something (not) new under the sun – restaurant retailers. Retailers are putting food service, a.k.a., cafe, in their stores.

Customers are shopping online. Save yourself the trouble of going to a store and all that. Stay home, sit on the couch, tap on your tablet, and the product arrives at your door. What can compete with that?

Food and drink.

Aha, make the old-fashioned, in-the-store shopping more pleasurable by catering to the whims of the customer. Serve them food and drink.

This is a return to an old – a very old – idea. In the early 1980s, I was in Pakistan shopping for a handmade rug. The store owner served tea and snacks while we chatted. In the early 1990s, I was in the Little Professor Bookshop in Reston, Virginia. They had tables and big, stuffed, comfortable chairs – AND FREE COFFEE. They catered to the in-the-store customer.

Some bookstores have gone in this direction by putting  Starbucks or other coffee shop inside or adjoining the bookstore. They charge a lot of money for the coffee. That isn’t nearly as good as free coffee, but it is something.

We go forward to the past. Make it a please to come in the store.

Now if the NFL will pay attention and make it a pleasure to come in the stadium (free refreshments served at your seat), they will solve their problem of dwindling attendance.

by Dwayne Phillips

Handheld computers sell in the millions, a.k.a., smartphones. The folks who produce the videos and the apps, however, need something else.

We’ve all see the numbers on smartphone sales – millions. I am still astounded at how many of these things sell in the U.S. and around the world. And we’ve seen the sales of the tablets as well.

A Dinosaur Computer (?)

Who in the world would buy an old-fashioned under-the-desk computer, keyboard, mouse, and monitor? There is a group of people who would and still do. They are known as:

Producers

These aren’t producers as in movie or music producers. They are producers as in people who build products. Hence, the name.

These are the people who make the videos, photoshop the photos, write the apps, and do all those old-fashioned things that require more processing power than you find in an iPad. While many producers are creative types that flit and fly about with ideas falling from their ears, many producers are the boring types of people who understand Fourier transforms, differential equations, matrix multiplication, and that ilk.

Have you done any million-point Fourier analysis on your iPhone lately? I didn’t think so.

The producers still buy those big machines with multiple monitors and they don’t even play Call of Duty on all that hardware. The Call of Duty producers use all that hardware to produce it, as do the guys who make the great Call of Duty commercials as do the guys who make the telecommunications chips that allow you to WiFi and 4G and all that stuff.

The next time you see an ad for big hardware, a.k.a., dinosaur computers, remember that someone produced that app you are using to twit a photo of the funny looking computer to the world.

by Dwayne Phillips

Those three nouns in the post title continue to come to mind lo these many years since freshman English Composition.

It was the summer of 1976 – yes, the Bicentennial summer. I was one month out of high school and taking freshman English composition. Dr. Gray taught the class.

Two things stand out about the class:

1. We wrote everyday in a journal.
2. He told us everyday that in our writing we must be precise, concrete, and specific.

And…

1. I write in a journal everyday.
2. I told someone those three words this week (time will tell if they heed the advice).

No generalities (unless required). Tell people (write it) precisely what you mean. Give concrete and specific examples.

• Don’t write about wildlife; write about deer.
• Don’t write about deer; write about mule deer.
• Write about mule deer bucks foraging for blackberries

This is pretty simple advice, but since it is good advice, it never grows old.

by Dwayne Phillips

I have few if any writing routines. Here is one I use: the one-hour sprint.

I recently read an excellent post on the daily routines of famous writers. I have thought about such things for years. My conclusion?

I have few if any writing routines.

I write sitting on the couch, riding in a car, sitting in an office building, in a library, in a coffee shop, in an airplane, and I don’t remember all the places where I write.

I write on all types of computers and keyboards. Once I begin writing, I don’t know the keyboard is there. I write on blank paper (not even lined paper). I write on 3×5 cards. I write in notebooks.

I write in MS Word. I write in some of these new no background, all-screen, text editors. I love to write using the vim ASCII programmer’s editor. I write a lot these days in Google Docs.

I write in quiet places, I write with music in the background (all types), I write with talk radio in the background, I write with the chatter of a restaurant in the background.

Nevertheless, I have identified one routine that I tend to use more often than not:

I write in one-hour sprints.

I sit in front of a computer keyboard and bang away for one hour – no more, no less. I usually bang out 1,500 words in that hour. I stop and walk away (always making a backup copy). If I am energetic or have the time, I will do a one-hour sprint in the morning and another one in the afternoon.

The result of a sprint is a draft. I will look at the draft after a few days pass.

This seems to work for me. I recommend you try it. If if works for you, use it. Otherwise, forget about it.

by Dwayne Phillips

I consider that evil factor that kills the vast majority of great ideas: scale.

I recently read an article about how wonderful Google Fiber is in Kansas City. The data rates are high and service people actually arrive at a set time – not during a 16-hour window. I wish the Google service was available in my neighborhood. Google may take over the entire world of Internet service providers.

There is, however, one significant factor that stands in Google’s path:

scale

Scale asks Google the questions,

You can do great in one city, but how about 10 or 100 or 1,000 cities? How about two cities?

Scale kills the vast majority of great ideas. Consider:

• You can teach ten kids to read the newspaper in six weeks, can a thousand other teachers do the same?
• You can provide free online backup storage to a thousand customers, can you do the same for a million customers?
• You can ship telephones to 100,000 customers, can you do the same for one million or 10 million customers?
• You can administer one homeless shelter and provide a dignified, safe place for 20 people to sleep every night, can you do the same for 20 thousand people in a thousand locations?

The question of scale is one of those adult questions that face us as we try to build systems that work. Great ideas may work in some locations at some times, but will they work in most locations at most times?

The answers to the scale questions are usually “no.”

So what do we do now? One possibility is to work around the problems of scale. Provide one or two homeless shelters, but don’t promise anyone the ability to scale up a thousand times. Teach six kids to read, but don’t promise your methods will work for thousands of other teachers. Provide a technical service to a small clientele and be happy with the money you earn doing it, and stop there.

by Dwayne Phillips

A tribute to the single-board computer.

The engineer looks at the growing block diagram of a yet-to-be-built system and says, “Put a computer here.”

What eventually goes there is a single-board computer. We don’t design computers from scratch as the would be wasteful. Instead, we buy an already built computer, write software, and put it in that block on the diagram.

So what? No one cares any more. Still, back in the 1980s, the idea of a drop-in computer was revolutionary.

And the single-board computer is still important and is still evolving. See this and that from Wikipedia.

And if that isn’t enough, look at the new developments:

• Raspberry Pi
• Intel New Unit of Computing
• Cubieboard
• PC-On-A-Stick

The last one in the list floors me. What could be better?

The future of the single-board computer looks bright. The next “board” may be the size of my granddaughter’s fingernail.