Ah, Swindon, that jewel of middle England. Home-town of the great British band XTC, the Great Western Railway and, errr, hmmm… a cheap designer outlet centre.

Swindon doesn’t need to be put on the map, because there it is, next to the M4. But today Swindon has attracted attention because a new technological marvel… being able to access the Internet without a network cable. Actually I’m being facetious because many of us can do that already (you probably are reading this with no ethernet involved). The big news about Swindon is that it’s the location for a new free public wi-fi service, aptly named Signal – I wonder if that name will bite them on the backside when Swindonites can’t get a signal. Anyway, the BBC news article provides us with an explanation…

Wireless internet allows computer users to access the internet without the need for wired connection to phone lines.

Well, thank goodness they cleared up that mystery. Signal will work like this… you can sign up and then roam around the supported areas of town maintaining your Internet connection. To start with it’ll be a small area of coverage (in Highworth) but eventually they’ll deploy 1,400 access points around the city. The service will be free for registered users, although they’ll have to pay for upgrades to higher speeds.

This is a great idea – we’re living in a world of wi-fi enabled iPods, Internet tablets (like the Archos 5, and even my older 605) and netbooks. People just need fairly basic access when they’re out and about in a town centre – it doesn’t need to be high-speed, that type of Internet interaction can be done at home. Mrs A has just given a nod of approval to the idea, frustrated as she is that she can only use the wi-fi on her iPod touch inside Castle Adams (don’t comment saying “buy her an iPhone”, we’ve had that conversation).

So, Surrey Heath Borough Council… you take £260 from me ten months of the year, when is free wi-fi coming to the sprawling metropolis of Camberley?

All of this talk about tall buildings (see earlier ‘Chicago’ post) reminded me of a piece I wrote on the old dadams.co.uk site in response to Lauren’s question “what’s the tallest building in the world?”. Being quite an interesting topic (well, depending on your tastes) I thought I’d resurrect it and update it.

At the time of writing the original text, the answer was not as simple as you’d think, but we’ll come back to that. In just over a year from now the answer will be very simple… the Burj Dubai (far left in the image below) will reach 818 m (2,684 ft) at it’s highest point (i.e. the top of it’s antenna), the roof will reach 688 m (2,257 ft) and the top floor will sit at 636 m (2,087 ft). On all counts the Burj Dubai will be the tallest building, tower or structure. I say “will be”, actually it already is, but it won’t really count until it’s finished. Which brings us on to the current record holder, and this is where things get a bit more complicated…

Ignoring the Burj Dubai, the honour had gone to the Petronas Towers (in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – second from right) until Taipei 101 in Taiwan (third from left) was finished. The Petronas Towers peaked at 452 m at their highest points, but Taipei 101’s spire hits 508 m (some sources state 509 m). However, the tallest man-made structure (that’s structure, not building) on Earth was the KTHI TV-tower in Fargo, North Dakota. At 629 m there was no argument. But it’s not classed as a building as it has no accommodation for people and it’s primary use is for telecommunications – any building which takes the ‘highest building’ title must be built for residential, business, or manufacturing purposes.

So (ignoring the Burj Dubai) is that the end of the argument? Taipei 101 is the tallest building, KTHI TV-tower is the tallest structure. Well, not according to the good people of Toronto – if you go to the web site of the CN Tower (second from left) they proudly proclaim it to be “the world’s tallest building”. And standing at 553.33 m high I’d say they have a point (although not for much longer). So why doesn’t the CN Tower hold the official record? It’s all to do with the definition of the word ‘building’ – the CN Tower is, for the most part, an enormous concrete erection (snigger) with no individual floors and housing nothing but elevators. Mind you, the elevators do go up to an observation deck which can accommodate people.

Now, if the people of Toronto are a bit miffed by this, consider the inhabitants of Chicago. The highest point of the Sears Tower (far right) is 527 m. Hold on… that’s higher than Taipei 101, the Petronas Towers and the Shanghai World Financial Center (third from right – this nipped into second place in 2008). Indeed, but the Sears Tower is currently the official fourth highest building on Earth. Confused? Let me explain – it now comes down to the rules and regulations of the World Council on Tall Buildings. The Council put in place four criteria – absolute top, structural height, the highest occupied floor and the height at the roof – criteria #2, structural height, is the clincher. The Sears Tower is the highest only because of it’s antennae – it’s main structure rises to only (only?) 442 m. But if you look at the image here, it appears that the main structure of the Sears Tower (on the right) is higher than the main structure of the Petronas Towers. Prior to Taipei 101 being completed, the Council gave the award to the Petronas Towers because the masts are an integral part of the structure, rather than just being bolted on. Bit of a swizz if you ask me. Taipei 101’s mast is also considered ‘integral’ and it’s 449 m at it’s roof.

So there you go… the world’s tallest building, according to the rules and regulations, is currently Taipei 101. But this record won’t last much longer as the Burj Dubai will be completed in 2009. By the end of 2013, going by official height, it’s likely that Taipei 101 will be shoved down to seventh place (possibly lower) behind the Burj Dubai, the Chicago Spire (609.6 m at the roof), Abraj Al Bait Towers in Mecca (595 m at the top of it’s spire), China 117 in Tianjin, the Dohar Convention Centre Tower in Qatar, and New York’s Freedom Tower (with a roof at just 417 m but a spire height of 541.3 m). Arguments will of course continue – if you go by pinnacle height the Guangzhou TV & Sightseeing Tower in China with it’s spire reaching 610 m would sneak into second place.

However, all of these buildings could be dwarfed by the proposed Al Burj in Dubai. Plans are not yet finalised and reports of the height vary – the roof could top 820 m and the spire could reach over 1 km. There have been reports that the spire will reach 1.4 km. Any volunteers to polish the top? Whatever, Steve McQueen’s fire chief character from ‘The Towering Inferno’ wouldn’t approve.

I’m not entering into this blog post lightly. I had to create a whole new category (Tennis) and it’s not one I’m likely to use that often. As we Brits had to sit out Euro 2008 (well done Spain by the way) we really need some other sporting success to lift our spirits. We might be doing okay at cricket at the moment, I can’t really say, but as it’s about as interesting as reciting Pi to a million places it doesn’t count. What else can we rely for success? Ah yes, it’s Wimbledon fortnight… tennis… hmmm…

Basically the state of British tennis is like this… we have one good player (Andy Murray) and everyone else is ranked lower than a one-legged bloke from Western Samoa. So when commentators make superlative remarks like “Britain’s hopes rest on Andy Murray’s shoulders” they really aren’t kidding. Back in the days when they said the same thing but replaced the words “Andy Murray” with “Tim Henman” it seemed that disappointment was never far away.

Andy cruised through his opening three matches – not “cruised through” in that “wipe the floor with them” kind of way that Roger Federer does, but by British standards Andy did brush them aside and dropped only one set (and that was on a tie-break). But the problem with an extended stay (i.e. into the second week) at Wimbledon is that sooner or later some unreasonable official is going to insist that you play one of the seeded players. This was usually Henman’s downfall. And so it came to pass that Britain’s great hope had to meet the #8 seed, a French fella by the name of Richard Gasquet. That’s probably French for gasket. Do you think he’s got a ‘tete gasquet’ in the engine of his Renault Clio? Anyway, I digress, this was to be Andy’s first big test of the tournament.

After ninety-two minutes Dickie Gasket found himself two sets up and it was all looking a bit Henman. “That’s him out” commented the wife. Then something amazing happened and Andy knew it was his time. We’re British… we don’t want to see our heroes cruise through life, we want to see them hanging by their fingernails, seconds from their demise and then clawing their way back to victory. Not for us the walk in the park that wimps like Federer seem to favour.

Wasn’t it great to see a British tennis player gritting his teeth, clenching his fist, celebrating every point won, keeping his composure on points lost? A tight third set and then in the fourth set Andy came back better than Rocky ever did after he’d staggered to his feet on the count of nine. By then Dickie Gasket was on the ropes, and Andy finished him off in the fading light. Marvellous.

Okay, Andy meets Rafael Nadal in the quarter finals. Young Rafa, the #2 seed, is no slouch (even if he does have girl’s hair). It’ll be a tough match, but if Andy shows that spirit again he’ll do us proud. I may even use the ‘Tennis’ category again.