Our office is reasonably thin, but quite long. It’s also broken up into three areas
Developer Room
Front office
Board room
The developer room is, obviously, where most of the action happens. It’s got an existing wireless connection, but since our office is so long, its range doesn’t quite extend to the front office. It would be nice if the people in the front office could also get access to the wireless network, since most of those people use laptops anyway. And since we’re kitting out the building, why not give the board room its own wireless access point too?
I didn’t think it would be unreasonable to assume that there existed a wireless access point that contained two “remote” APs, that weren’t actually APs at all, but simply extended the range of the main Access Point. This would mean that someone could connect in the developer room, walk the length of the building and enter the board room (where most of our meetings, both internal and external) are held, without having to disconnect and reconnect. Surely this would be a fairly common request?
Apparently not. I spoke to our supplier about this and he told me he never heard of such a solution. He said that most companies just make do with the disconnect - move - reconnect scenario.
There must be something out there like this. Has anyone heard of anything like it?
In the 18-odd hours between coming home from TechCamp and parking my bike in our building’s underground parking area and stepping out again to cycle into town, someone had managed to break into the underground parking area and run off with approximately five bikes (I’m guessing five because there were five mangled locks left where our bikes had been.)
I’m still pretty furious about the whole thing. But I can’t tell if I’m more furious at the guy (or girl!) who stole my bike, or our management company for recognising that there was a huge problem with theft and vandalism in our parking area and yet doing absolutely nothing to remedy the situation.
On Saturday, I jetted across to the Northside Civic Centre for the inaugural TechCamp. I gave a talk on “Getting Things Done” and moderated a discussion about “Using technology to improve our lives.”
So how did it go?
I thought my talk on Getting Things Done went okay, in spite of being time-limited to just giving a really brief introduction to the topic. The discussion didn’t go so well. I’d put this down to the fact that halfway through the thing, my mind started wandering down the more philosophical road of “What actually counts as an improvement, and what’s merely a convenience?” and just wouldn’t get back on-topic. Dammit.
The other talks were good. Tom Raftery’s discussion about blogs and marketing was quite interesting and eye-opening, even if I did come out with less of a clear idea of what “blogging” is all about than when I went in.
What went well?
Well, the casual, laid-back nature was nice. And it was really good to put a face (and a voice!) to many of the blogs I’d been reading. And some of the talks were really very interesting. The venue, in spite of its awkward location, was well-fitted out.
How could it have been better?
Well, one of the things that I thought that made (Foo|Bar)Camp so compelling was the participatory nature of the things. There didn’t seem to be as much of that at this one - although the talks were generally quite open and relaxed, it seemed to be pretty one way. Perhaps a communal project for the next one?
In the end, I think it was definitely worth getting up at 7.30 on a Saturday morning to cycle the 10-odd kilometers to get to. And a rollicking good start to something that I hope will continue for quite a while.
Stumbled across two articles about Steven Spielberg this morning.
The first comes from IGN, who discuss an interview he gave to the Hollywood Reporter, in which he says
A good movie will bring you inside of itself just by the sheer brilliance of the director/writer/production staff, but in the future, you will physically be inside the experience, which will surround you top, bottom, on all sides... I've invented it, but because patent is pending, I can't discuss it right now.
The second comes from the BBC, who report that Spielberg has signed a deal to work with EA on three games. From the article:
Steven Spielberg, who worked his magic with ET, is now looking do the same with games giant EA.
The acclaimed film director has agreed to develop three original games with EA’s Los Angeles studios.
Work has already started on the first of the three projects, which EA says will be a next generation game which appeals to a broad audience.
Perhaps the two are related, perhaps not. Anyway, let’s hope the results are a little more like The Dig, and a little less like The E.T. video game.
Positioning itself as a “true” marriage of narrative and interactivity, and promising a different experience each time it’s played, Fahrenheit has a lot to live up to. It’s a shame then that the game comes off something more like a “Choose Your Own Adventure” for the 21st century, except perhaps slightly clunkier.
Early on, the game seems to deliver on many of its promises. The initial flurry of interactivity appears impressive and leaves the player with high hopes for the rest of the game. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Regardless of what choices the player makes, the game remains largely unaffected. The game provides the illusion of a branching storyline where the players’ choices open new paths, but in truth there is just One True Path. This is most obviously demonstrated early on with the option to save a child who has just fallen into a frozen lake, with the police approaching. Choose to save the child and run away, the police find you - continue from last save. Save the child and run away in a different direction, and the police still find you (with the same cut-scene) - continue from last save. On my third attempt, I finally saw what the game wanted me to do. And it’s this distinction that holds the game back: it’s about what the game wants to do, not what the player wants to do.
In a recent interview, Ron Gilbert (creator of Monkey Island) condemned the idea of ‘interactive storytelling’, saying
...I don't believe stories should be interactive. I believe stories should be _participatory_... You're participating in my story, but you're not going to change it, because it's _my_ story. I have a story to tell you.
This makes a lot of sense, and Fahrenheit sits a lot better as a “participatory story.” Hackneyed script aside, it’s as immersive a game as I’ve ever played, and it’s quite capable of tearing away a few hours at a time, while comfortably providing plenty of opportunities to duck out of the game: a feature I wish more games provided.
Microsoft released ‘Microsoft: Codename Max’, a photo-organisation application, just like not at all like iPhoto or Picasa.
I haven’t had a chance to try this out properly just yet (still firmly entrenched in iPhoto territory), but my first impressions are: Wow, Microsoft are really going after the Apple dollar now. Right down to jacking their smooth gradient web style.
Although, I’ll give them this much - the transparent box icon is very cute.
johnke.me