Some Blog Site

We went to a restaurant on the way home from a book sale. The lot was crowded, but there were two spots available. I saw one spot had a sign in front of it, so I took the other one.

I assumed it was a spot for take-out or pregnant women or something like that. Here is a picture of the spot:

On our way out, my wife read the sign and made a comment like “That’s not good”. In case you couldn’t read the sign in the previous photo, here is a close-up:

And my wife was right – if no employee is the best employee, that must mean that all the employees are equally bad, right?

Or maybe he was just late that day, which would make him not the best employee anymore.

Or maybe part of his perks for being awarded “Best Employee” was that he got an extra vacation day.

Or maybe he happens to live close to the restaurant so he can walk or bike to work.

It doesn’t really matter – our spot was closer to the front door anyway.

During the NHL playoffs, I heard the announcer recite a statistic that went something like this:

The team that scores the first goal in the game goes on to win the game about 80% of the time.

They then went on saying how it was important for their team to score first so they would have the advantage. They were implying that scoring the first goal improves a team’s chances of winning.

I think they were using that statistic backwards.

It’s not that scoring the goal makes you a better team; it’s that the better team usually scores the first goal.

Think about it – the better team usually wins the game. So we know that the better team usually scores more goals. If both teams have an even distribution of goals across time, then the team with more goals is more likely to score the first goal. Also the last goal.

What good is that statistic? How does it help anyone? Should teams concentrate on scoring the first goal because it will mean they’ll win more games?

I can produce a statistic that is equally helpful – the team that scores more points wins 100% of those games.

Don’t worry about scoring first. Worry about scoring more goals. Chances are good that some of those goals will be before the other team’s goals.

In summary, scoring first is not going to win you a game – being a better team is.

It’s June, the start of the summer quarter. Time for me to update the theme on this blog.

As is usual, it’s not much of a new theme – all I did was replace the images.
Anyway, here’s a slightly new look. Don’t expect tweaks this time.

Warning: Engineering / computer science discussion ahead. Proceed with caution. Actually, it’s not that bad. Non-engineers might also appreciate this post, as long as they are familiar with the 80s.

I was given the assignment at work of providing a summary of RTOS (real-time operating system) differences. We use 3 different types of embedded operating systems in our various modules, and management was looking at another one to meet customer requirements.

For this application, there is a regular RTOS and a safety (or safe) RTOS for critical equipment. (If you are unfamiliar with those options, here are search results for safe RTOS so you can get more details.)

My summary is that a normal RTOS runs the expected tasks in one common environment, whereas the safety OS runs different tasks in different threads so they are isolated from each other memory- and context-wise.

If that’s still not making sense, maybe this will:

You can task if you want to
You can leave your threads behind
Because your threads don’t task
And if they don’t task
Well they’re no threads of mine

Safety
OS

I’m hoping management wants me to present my summary at the next department meeting so I can put that on a slide.

We went to Pokagon State Park in northern Indiana. I like to mispronounce it as Pokemon State Park, hence the blog title. I had to issue a correction though, otherwise my kids would have been very disappointed when we got there and there were no Pokemon.

Weekend Recap, with Photos:

Arrival

If you hadn’t read the introduction to this blog post and you saw this photo

would you have guessed it was a state park?

I wouldn’t have.

I made a 360° panoramic photograph of the inn/lodge. Click on it for a larger photo.

Read the rest of this entry »

Normally, I do my book review post in mid July, after we have gone on vacation. That’s because I don’t normally read full-length books until summer vacation – that’s when I make time for that.

Since we had a spring-break vacation this year, I got to read a couple books earlier in the year.

First book: “Legal Fables” by Ray O. Sage.

This book doesn’t quite qualify because it is not a novel. There is no story; rather, it is a collection of short stories. Each chapter tells how someone (humorously named) has or gets into legal trouble and concludes with a moral (usually that one should consult a lawyer in that situation).

The book was amusing and somewhat educational, especially if you want to know about wills and trusts.

Next book: “I Am Half-Sick of Shadows” (a Flavia de Luce mystery) by Alan Bradley.

If you are not familiar with Flavia de Luce, stop reading this blog, go to your library, and check out the whole series.

If you don’t want the whole series, get the first book (“The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie”). I liked all of them except for the second one (“The Weed that Strings the Hangman’s Bag”).

“I Am Half-Sick of Shadows” was good. I recommend it.

Next book: “Speaking From Among the Bones” (a Flavia de Luce mystery) by Alan Bradley.

“Speaking From Among the Bones” was better than the previous book. It would have been my favorite of the whole series except for the ending. I think it’s not a spoiler to say the book ends, but the story doesn’t. In other words, the author may as well just put a giant “To Be Continued…” at the end of the last chapter of this book.

The mystery part of the story is concluded quite nicely and neatly, but the larger themes that run through the series are not concluded. In fact, they become more complicated. I assume it is being setup for a good conclusion in a later book (next book is scheduled for 2014). But it does leave a dissatisfied taste in one’s brain after finishing the book. Your alternative is to wait until the series is done before you start reading it.

Next book: “The Trials of Lance Eliot” by M.L. Brown.

I read this book last year (read my review of Lance Eliot), but I read the Kindle version. Now I finally have the paperback version.

Again, the main problem with this book is that it needs a sequel to resolve some questions. The series is supposed to be a trilogy, but the other two books are not done yet. So you can either order “The Trials of Lance Eliot” now, or wait until the trilogy is complete.

Last book: “Quitter” by Jon Acuff.

I wasn’t originally planning to read this book, but it was a gift so I didn’t want to be rude.

Why was I not going to read this book? Because I’m content. The types of people who want to read this book might call it complacency rather than contentment.

According to the book, I fall into the group of people who believe the “This job just funds my real life” myth. But it works. And I will probably be content until it doesn’t work.

I want to like the book, and I want to heartily recommend it to other people. But that’s because I have a connection with the author, not because of the book itself. The book was fine; I didn’t dislike the book. For people who are not content with where they are in life, this book should be a good help. I’m just not at a stage in my life where I appreciate the book as much as other people do. Sorry for the lackluster review, Jon.