Exoneration

Let's talk about exoneration for a minute.  Exoneration is the idea that I can do something for a period, and then quit doing it forever.  The concept is usually introduced when talking about money or fitness, but it's generally used all throughout life.

The mindset is generally this: if I can make it to X, then I won't have to do this sacrifice ever again.

The X factor is always different, based on the mental picture that has developed.  But it's all based on the concept of exoneration.  And the hard part is there is no point of exoneration.  Almost never.

Yet people reach endlessly for the exoneration point.  I'm not saying you shouldn't reach.  What I'm saying is you can't ever quit.  Because if you quit, you go back to being what you were before you started.  Dieting is generally a big exoneration subject.  The key to success with diet and exercise is a long term plan.

You are not going to fix whatever problem you have with your weight or health in three weeks.  It's just not going to happen.  You can take almost anyone and put them on an exercise plan for three weeks, and they'll lose weight.  Why?  Because they weren't putting in any effort before.  But long term, the weight loss will stop or slow down.  Then the person will quit, and regain everything they lost.

Several months later, the same person will find a new "quick fix" and proceed to quick fix and lose 20 pounds.  Then the new will wear off, and then 20 pounds will recover.  My wife found a book that was talking about clients losing over 100 pounds.  Except it was the same 20 pounds over and over again.

Most multilevel marketing plans are sold as exoneration plans.  I'm not saying they are not worth the income if you can get them to succeed.  But they are sold as quick fixes in a world that needs long term solutions.

Quit trying for exoneration.  It doesn't work.  There is never a point at which you get to quit doing what you've been doing.

Unless you don't like what you are doing.  You do like what you are doing, right?

Before work, kitchen table thoughts

I came up with an idea to teach my kids reading.  They are 5, 4, and 1.  I know I want to teach all three of them the same way.  That means I'll be repeating the same content three times.

The computer part of me says rebuilding the same content three times is ridiculous.  And it is.  So all I have to do is build the content the correct way once, and then start the next kid on their lesson.  In many ways, I think Khan Academy is revolutionary in the academic space.  I would love to see something like that for English.

The program I'm writing is based on Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Steps by Siegfried Engelmann.  It's been a pretty awesome book so far, even though I've only made it through lesson 20 with my oldest child.

So the goal is to create something like Khan Academy for English, based on Englemann.  It's going to be interesting.

Kitchen Table

It's formica, and it's my kitchen table.  At least it doesn't look like it came from 1999.  Maybe 1975.

Maybe I should spend more than 5 minutes on the background.

Or, I could go back to studying Scaling Networks.

Back to studying.

why....

Why do I go to church?

Because Jesus is there.

And if he's not, you are going to the wrong church.

Seriously.

If you don't feel the presence of Jesus at your church, there's a problem.  It's probably your church.  It might be you.  You'd best investigate.


Also....

The blue background seems to come straight out of the Matrix.   1999 called.  They want their meme back.

Circling the globe (the thoughts in my head)

I went on vacation this last week.  I didn’t spend any time working.  It was wonderful.  Now, it’s Saturday and I’m back to getting ready for work.  The mental processes are starting to grind away, and get back to what I was working on.  At the moment, I’m updating Visual Studio so I can work on the program I was writing in C#.  I know I’ve heard a lot of disparaging things about C#, but I’m not terribly concerned.  There are too many purists in the world. 

C# is a tool.  Nothing more.  If it’s not the tool you need for the job, then don’t use C#.  C++ is a tool.  Java is a tool.  Visual Basic is a tool.  They are all tools.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

Each tool out there has a specific use, and some tools are better for certain applications.  I can’t say C# is any better a tool than Java in this case, but it’s a tool I can manipulate easier.  I also spend a lot less time fighting the interface and more time working on what I’m interested in working on.  As such, the thing already reads XML files, runs threads, and generally works like I want it to.  It’s not complete by any means, but it’s on its way there. 

In the period since I started writing this (it’s been about a week) I read Seth Godin’s Small in the New Big.  It’s quite a remarkable book, and there’s a lot I’d like to say about it.  I’m really not sure what to say, though.  There truly has been a paradigm shift and in the world, and those trying to follow the old paradigm seem to be getting left behind.  It’s much easier to follow the new paradigm.

But what is the new paradigm?  I think the answer is release early, release often, and benchmark everything.  Quit trying to make something perfect, and make something you can release. 

So I think I’m going to go with that, and make something I can release.  I’ve already started working on it, but it’s neither groundbreaking nor amazing.  But it’s something. 

When you release often, you end up basically throwing a lot of stuff up, and hoping some of it sticks.  I’m not sure if that makes sense, but it does to me.  If I release something in the next month or so, then I’m doing better than I have in the last few years.  Too much thinking and trying to come up with the perfect idea.  Too little time releasing. 

I think I also realized the background for the past few months (maybe a year) has been chemistry related.  I like the picture, but this has nothing to do with chemistry.  I should probably change that.

C# this time, and Lua

Well, after a bit of digging, I'm back into C#.  I'm looking at that because of the need to examine the current status of a network.  And I had something like that built in VB.net, but i couldn't figure out threading.  So the program didn't play nice or update very well.

Well, I found a few webpages and figured that out.  This post on dailycoding.com was one of them.  That really helped get the ball rolling, so now I can run a ping function in the background and invoke updates to get things changed during program execution.  I'm guessing that I finally learned something out of that one because the code had been stripped down enough to where there wasn't a huge collection of extemporaneous junk that needed beat past.  Is it that hard to write code documentation that gives basic understanding without having to reinvent the wheel?

Which brings me to Lua.  I started using some products from Digital Loggers.  Basically the Rack Mount AC PDU.  It's a great product with a great concept, but changing from Basic on the Web Power Switch to Lua on the Rack Mount AC PDU causes havoc.  All the scripting type stuff that used to be easy with the Basic scripting language now has to be rewritten from scratch.

Did I mention you have to fight past bad Lua documentation?  I'm not necessarily saying Lua has bad documentation.  I'm saying Digital Loggers implementation of Lua is a pain.

For example...

function test_display()
    DISPLAY "\1Percent %%\v"
    DISPLAY "\2Backslash \\\v"

    DISPLAY "\1%a\v" --  current Bus A

This is an example of some code provided to change the display.  

Great.  Can someone tell me where the variable name is in that code block?   I know the -- blocks are comments.  DISPLAY is a command to show something on the display. Got that working.  Great.  

Secondly, on the script bit I know the line \1% indicates the first line, and anything afterwards is printed out.  But where is the variable?  

So if I want to put in a wait function, and then display on the screen "rebooting computer", I have to write individual reboot functions for every single device.

I could just write a wait(time in seconds, device name as string) function and call that whenever I needed.  But as is, it looks like I'm having to write inline functions.

Joy.  That defeats the entire purpose of object oriented coding and complex scripting languages.

More Programming

So.  After a bit of time away, I finally had some time to work on programming.  I’ve been working on the idea of a program that teaches speed reading.  Essentially, the goal is to present words to a sentence faster than the subject can normally read.  Sounds like a great idea, right?  Except that Java isn’t really a real time system, so getting threads to sleep for 240 milliseconds just doesn’t work.  That would equate to 250 words per minute reading pace. 

What I end up getting is entire lines of the text, in speeds that are considerably less than 250 words per minute.  Though… a little messing and reading made me realize my conversion factor was off.  It seemed like the answer should be…

(1000 milliseconds X 60 seconds) / (word per minute pace)

I revamped the equation to take a different method.  I think I was running into too many float to integer conversion errors.  Or at least that’s what I’m going to blame. 

But it looks like Java can’t do that kind of precision in waiting.  Googling lead me to a lot of the same answer.

If the speed is slow enough then the pacing works correctly.  But it looks like either 1) Java isn't capable of printing 1 piece of string at a pace of less than 300 ms, or 2) I'm not a capable enough programmer.  

So, that's that.  Perhaps it's time to go back to looking at C++.