Skip to content

Consumable WiFi

Saturday, March 16, 2013

GDC has an extended history of sub-par connectivity.  Which is kind of ironic when you think about it.  The games industry, particularly up here in the SF Bay Area *ought* to have the best d*mn wifi in the country.  Every bleeding edge tech company is within easy reach up here.

But every year, for as long as I can remember, the WiFi signal has been crap.  The cel signal is bad too, but that, at least, is explainable by things like concrete pilings and steel rebar.  WiFi can be/is usually handled by wireless routers within the space, and when the hall is empty you can get signal all day long.

As it fills up though, all those people, those warm saline heavy bodies start to *soak up* the signal.  The end result of this is that the hallways end up lined with clusters of WiFi users (yeah, okay, many of us take our work to GDC with us) all who are trying to find a place they can transmit from.

 

Filed in Uncategorized, Videogames | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Optical bypass

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

It looks like an early form of the “bionic eye” will be arriving in the US.

I find these bits of science-fiction-turned-fact fascinating because of how they work.  They are, in effect, a simple bypass (okay, they are not “simple” at all from a technical standpoint, but the idea is simple, like bridging a crack in a circuit-board).  Which seems like it ought *not* to work, I mean, they are using the body’s own hard- wiring to do the job it was meant to, they just bypass the bit that’s not functioning properly.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/first-bionic-eye-sees-light-130206.htm

 

Filed in Writing | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (6)

Gravity well

Saturday, February 9, 2013

This is actually a little more disturbing to me than the idea of drones in our cities, or government data mining on a grand scale.  In part because those things, well, bucking against those is a bit obvious, isn’t it?  But this kind of thing, companies mining your data to give you what they think you want.  Well that’s just pernicious.  There is already a tendency to bubble-up, to surround yourself consciously or unconsciously online with people of a like mind and of like opinions.

This idea of data comin’ to you takes your agency out of the picture.  Instead of you actively seeking like opinions, and running the “risk” of wandering into places where you might be exposed to something new, something that might change your mind, you are, in essence, going to be spoon-fed information.  The data will be mined, the numbers crunched and you will be handed just what you want, or what the algorithm *thinks* you want.

Which isn’t all bad, I mean, you’re getting what you want, right?

But think about marketers.  Think about SEO and pay-per-click advertising.  Do you really think that is going to remain an untapped resource for them?  This kind of thing is a freaking goldmine.  They can advertise directly to the interested parties.  Target individuals who might be lured from a competitor.

But, it will give you what you want.  You’ll get advertisements that are for things you might actually consider buying (or for things you already have, validating your choices).  You won’t have to put up with boobie-riddled vodka ads or discounts on Pampers (unless those are things you are into, of course).

BUT, you may tell me, you’re going to get things you don’t want as well.  Advertiser Wars, people aggressively targeting customer and fanbases of their competitors products.

Well, yes and no.  If you have to pay per click, then you want to have each of those clicks be as close to a sale as possible.  You want already interested parties to click, people who have a higher percentage of actually buying your product.  Expanding your userbase is a much more dicey proposition, in fact it’s an “investment” which means you are going to spend a ton of money without a clear and obvious return for a while.  So unless an advertiser is in the mood (or has the cash) to get expansive, they are probably going to spend their budget on people who will return a sale.

But you will still get what you want, right?

Thing is though, you are LOSING something in all of this.  You are losing the opportunity to change your mind.  You are putting yourself in the position of being easily manipulated because, by closing out opposing opinions, you will find yourself doing whatever *they* (whichever “they” you happen to consort with) tell you, simply because you are less aware of the alternatives.

http://gigaom.com/2013/02/07/the-future-of-search-is-gravitational-content-will-come-to-you/

 

 

Filed in Writing | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments (3)

I said FLYING cars, not DRIVING cars… Stupid Google…

Friday, February 8, 2013

I have a problem.  I grew up in sunny California, where nobody walks if they can possibly drive and the roads are so, so very tidy.  So for me, the idea of a self driving car is perfectly reasonable.  Even on our worst traffic day, the roads in CA won’t kill you.  Other people might.    There are always the unhappy accidents where attentiveness and physics sit down together and decide to end your days.  By and large, however these are not the fault of road conditions (okay, there is that bridge over by Sacramento that freezes over, but that’s a bit fluke-y).  So for us, the idea of a car that can help reduce those accidents, that can help drop the number of fatalities due to things like texting, early morning rush hour handjobs, a rock in the windshield, this is going to be a good thing.  Because, for us, there is never ever a question as to whether or not road conditions are safe.

But in many many places in the US (and internationally) it’s a valid question.  Can a self-driving car be safe under more adverse conditions?  Can I hop into my little green Googlecar in the middle of a blizzard and arrive safely (and you know someone will, it’s a robot, if you own a self-driving car, you’re going to be one of those who have an unquestioning faith in technology, the kind of person who will drive into a lake because Apple Maps told you too).  Can I rely on my self-driving car to avoid tornadoes?  Can my self driving car compensate if the road floods?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2013/01/30/can-you-be-trusted-with-googles-driverless-car/

Filed in Writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (5)

One Way Street?

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

I ran across this article here, about reintroducing exotic species to areas in which related/similar species have been driven out.  The idea being to help rebuild a manageable, functioning ecosystem in those areas (many of which are in the process of being reclaimed).

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/20/water-buffalo-extinct-europe-10000-years-spotted-outside-berlin?cmpid=tp-ad-outbrain-general

Which leads me to the idea of terraforming (because that’s the way my brain works).  It would be hard to argue that the rise of humanity has had anything less than a massive impact on the Earth and it’s ecosystems.  It’s what we do.  We adapt, not only ourselves, but the world around us to suit our needs.  Its what we do.

I know there is some resistance to ideas like the one postulated above.  Humans have a somewhat dodgy track record when it comes to invasive species.  Sometimes we introduce a species on purpose, sometimes on accident and then *whammo* that species does something unexpected, like over-competing, or over-breeding, or out and out changing it’s dietary habits so that it eats birds instead of snails…

The thing is though, we are going to change the planet.  We have already done so, and “footprint-minimizing” techniques can only go so far before they become crippling.  So why shouldn’t we put our big-*ss brains onto balancing those changes out.  Reclaiming territory is an excellent start.  Should we have put it in a state to be reclaimed in the first place?  Nope.  Should we be more careful to keep territory in better condition so we don’t have to reclaim it later?  Yes, but you know, sometimes you have to weigh the good against the bad.  Is it better to build a landfill to house garbage (which could be reclaimed at a later date) or is it better to ship the garbarge out and dump it into the ocean (where reclaiming is a whole different kettle of fish).

So I think this idea that we can change things for the good as well as the bad needs to be promoted a bit more, even if we aren’t putting things back exactly the way we found them, the idea that we can put things back at all, and that we need to time and space to learn how to put things back, is a very important one.

Filed in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (1)